About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks

On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:10:02 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Actually, all you need to do is to read Duesberg's book. But you
won't do that, of course. Because you're mostly a troll.


Does Duesberg show experiments that exclude HIV as a cause of AIDS?

Read his book.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:22:31 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
I don't see anyone "here" agreeing with you excapt for James Warren, a
person who may be even stupider than you are. But I'm not sure that's
even possible.

You two deserve each other.

The definition of stupidity seems to be: disagreeing with Dogman. Precious!

No, Jimmy. Stupidity is refusing to, or being unable to, understand
what the scientific method actually is. And what it isn't.

If you knew what is was, you'd never have bought into the HIV=AIDS BS.

You keep clamoring for "proof," but when it's right there in front of
you, you turn the other way.

Read his book.


--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On May 16, 11:31*am, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 08:06:30 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

Montagnier's own words, *2009*:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4&NR=1

Of course the obvious problem for you is that the
video doesn't show Montagnier denying that
HIV causes AIDS.

He said that it is not required,

He never said any such thing.



and that it can be cured/prevented
through lifestyle and nutritionary changes.

He said nutrion and lifestyle changes could help
in getting the infection rates in Africa down to levels seen
in western countries. That isn't a cure and it says
NOTHING about HIV not being the cause. In fact
by using the term infection rates, it clearly shows that
he in fact does believe HIV causes AIDS. He
even talks about work on a vaccine and that the
diet, hygiene etc aspects are not going to be
as spectacular in result as a vaccine or drugs.

We also have a whole pile of
early AIDS patients who died without any treatment for
HIV. I guess we're supposed to believe that just
didn't eat right. And plenty of dead AIDS denialists who
chose to listen the the denialist crap and try to treat
themselves with diet.

The one thing he did say that was bizarre was that
he "would think" people once infected with HIV could
eliminate it from their system. Of course the interviewer
didn't bother to ask for any more clarification or what
that opinion was based on. And it's clear why. The
guy wasn't interested in the truth, just some juicy
snippets to take and twist out of context.




And that HIV isn't necessary for AIDS.

What he's saying is that people that have
adequate diets, are overall healthy, etc may have a better
chance at avoiding becoming infected with HIV and getting
AIDS.

Exactly! Which is exactly what Duesberg has always said.

Which sadly has nothing to do with your claim that
HIV isn't the infectious virus that causes AIDS. Following
that logic, anyone who says that you're more likely to
avoid getting the flu if you eat well, get enough
rest, etc is saying that flu isn't caused by a virus.




That's true of most infections. *If you're healthy
you're probably less likely to get measles too. *That
doesn't mean that the virus that causes measles is not
the infectious agent that is responsible.

Yes, it virtually does.

So now measles is not caused by the measles virus?
What other nonsense you want to add to your ever
growing list?




He implies that doing drugs intraveneously,
abusing other rec. drugs, taking antibiotics prohylatically, getting
STD after STD, inhaling amyl nitrates, exchanging bodily fluids with
hundreds of men per month, getting no sleep, eating poorly, drinking
dirty water, etc. will destroy your immune ststem. HIV isn't needed.

Good grief. All those things had been going on for decades
prior to 1982. Yet suddenly starting in 1982 we have young
gay men getting AIDS. Hemophiliacs, same scenario.
Blood transfusion recipients, same scenario. People in
Africa, mostly heterosexual, same scenario.
And they were all dying of the same thing, a total destruction
of Tcells, that left them open to common infections.
Now, if it's not a new infectious agent, HIV that is responsible,
why did it suddenly start and spread at that point in time?
And why if it's just diet or drugs, once those things are
reversed, the patients just die anyway?
And why is it that as soon as HIV was identified and a
test was available to screen blood, hemophiliacs and
blood transfusion as a path ceased? Hmmm?
And why is it that now that we have an HIV drug cocktail
that specifically targets the HIV virus, those infected
and on those drugs are leading long lives again?
And why is it that we've had plenty of cases of
say women who were perfectly healthy, eating well,
etc but who got infected with HIV from one sexual
partner and acquired aids?

Those are just some of the excellent questions that
clowns like Duesburg have had no explanation for.
Actually, that's not entirely fair. They have some
crazy stew of explanations that has to change to
fit the facts:

Gays are dying from too much sex
IV Drug users from drug abuse
Africans from poor diet and no sleep
Hemophiliacs, well they were all just dying all along.
The woman who got it from one sexual partner,
well she must be abusing drugs that we don't
know about.....

What a sad, sad sack of total crap.






The sad thing here is that Montagnier lets this interviewer
who clearly has an agenda and no interest in the truth,
run the interview to get the snippets that the AIDS denialists
want.

You just keep thinking along those lines; it proves that you're
stupid.

[...]

You are the one who has claimed:

HIV is not the cause of AIDS

Because it's not.

AIDS is caused by lack of sleep and recreational drug use.

That's the short list, but true.

HPV is not a cause of ovarian cancer

That's because it's not.

No virus can cause cancer because viruses only kill cells.

That's because it's true.

And don't forget Hep C, FeLV, FIV too.

You see anyone here agreeing with any of that
nonsense?

I don't see anyone "here" agreeing with you excapt for James Warren, a
person who may be even stupider than you are. But I'm not sure that's
even possible.

You two deserve each other.


Given what you believe, folks can decide for themselves
who's really stupid here.

On May 16, 11:39*am, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 08:15:47 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

One question, though. Do you have AIDS? IMO, you're taking this
subject a bit too personally for someone who doesn't. Anyway, if you
do, or know someone who does, it's probably not too late to save
someone's life.
If I'm taking this too personally because I'm posting,

Not just because you are posting, but HOW you are posting.

You're taking things much too personally. The venom is unbecoming.

Do you have AIDS?

what exactly does it say about you?

It says that I care about the truth.

Oh, I see. When you post and constantly call me
stupid, it's because you care about
the truth. When I post, it must be because I have AIDS.
You really are an amazing bigot and can't stand the
truth. But I think your real agenda is beginning to
show.

And what are you still doing here. You told us
several posts ago you were done.

On Wed, 16 May 2012 09:54:52 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Montagnier's own words, *2009*:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4&NR=1

Of course the obvious problem for you is that the
video doesn't show Montagnier denying that
HIV causes AIDS.

He said that it is not required,

He never said any such thing.

What part of "HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause AIDS"
do you not understand?

This is why it's impossible to explain anything to a stupid person.

There's no there, there.

Now please stop, Trader. This stuff is obviously way over your head,
and you just keep asking the same old questions I've already answered
several times over. It's time to go back to talking low-carb, which
(surprisingly!) you do seem to understand.

And if, by some miracle, you wake up one morning with a sudden thirst
to actually learn more about HIV and AIDS, read Duesberg's book.

And spend some time he
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/
http://aras.ab.ca/
http://www.davidrasnick.com/Home.html
http://duesberg.com/
http://www.theperthgroup.com/

It won't make you any smarter (you can't cure stupid!), but you'll be
less ignorant.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On Wed, 16 May 2012 09:58:52 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
Do you have AIDS?

what exactly does it say about you?

It says that I care about the truth.

Oh, I see. When you post and constantly call me
stupid, it's because you care about
the truth.

No, I call you stupid because you are, and because of all your earlier
ad hominems.

You reap what you sow.

When I post, it must be because I have AIDS.

When you take it as personally as you have, I think there's a good
chance that you do. 50/50.

And that's okay.

You really are an amazing bigot

I don't hate anyone. Not even stupid people.

Stupid people can't do anything about being stupid, but ignorant
people can do something about their ignorance.

And what are you still doing here. You told us
several posts ago you were done.

I am done discussing AIDS.

I'm not done calling you stupid, if you persist in making these silly,
antagonizing posts.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On May 16, 1:13*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 09:54:52 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Montagnier's own words, *2009*:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4&NR=1

Of course the obvious problem for you is that the
video doesn't show Montagnier denying that
HIV causes AIDS.

He said that it is not required,

He never said any such thing.

What part of "HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause AIDS"
do you not understand?


Those words are NOT in the Youtube video. What part
of that don't you understand?

An example of what is in the video:

"I think this is one way to decrease the rate of transmission."

The one way being the nutrional, anti-oxidants, hygiene etc approach
that Montagnier recommends as PART of a plan to deal with AIDS
in Africa.
Now, Dogman, tell us why Montagnier uses the term "transmission"
repeatedly if an infectious agent, ie HIV is not the cause of AIDS?
Why
does he talk about a vaccine as the spectacular solution and that
his other methods are not anywhere near as effective?
What would be the purpose of a vaccine be if HIV isn't the cause?
If he believes HIV isn't the cause of AIDS, why the hell aren't
those words anywhere in the propaganda video?




This is why it's impossible to explain anything to a stupid person.

There's no there, there.

Now please stop, Trader. This stuff is obviously way over your head,
and you just keep asking the same old questions I've already answered
several times over. It's time to go back to talking low-carb, which
(surprisingly!) you do seem to understand.

This from the clown that claims:

HPV isn't a cause of ovarian cancer
HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
No virus can cause cancer.
And recently added:

The fact that people with poor diets, not enough sleep, etc
are more likely to get measles virtually proves that
measles isn't caused by the measles virus.

What a crapload of junk science. Your credibility regarding
anything you have to say is zero at this point.
As for just going away, you've announced that several times
yet here you are back for some more.





And if, by some miracle, you wake up one morning with a sudden thirst
to actually learn more about HIV and AIDS, read Duesberg's book.

And spend some time hehttp://www.virusmyth.com/aids/http:/...erthgroup.com/

It won't make you any smarter (you can't cure stupid!), but you'll be
less ignorant.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On Wed, 16 May 2012 10:52:58 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On May 16, 1:13*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 09:54:52 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Montagnier's own words, *2009*:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4&NR=1

Of course the obvious problem for you is that the
video doesn't show Montagnier denying that
HIV causes AIDS.

He said that it is not required,

He never said any such thing.

What part of "HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause AIDS"
do you not understand?
[...]

Look, you claimed "he never said any such thing." Well, he did, and I
gave you the citation. Never means never, eh?

This is what I mean when I say you're too stupid to understand any of
this stuff.

Now please stop? Okay? You're boring me to death.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On 5/16/2012 1:28 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:10:02 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Actually, all you need to do is to read Duesberg's book. But you
won't do that, of course. Because you're mostly a troll.


Does Duesberg show experiments that exclude HIV as a cause of AIDS?

Read his book.

A yes or no answer was expected.

On 5/16/2012 1:35 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:22:31 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
I don't see anyone "here" agreeing with you excapt for James Warren, a
person who may be even stupider than you are. But I'm not sure that's
even possible.

You two deserve each other.

The definition of stupidity seems to be: disagreeing with Dogman. Precious!

No, Jimmy. Stupidity is refusing to, or being unable to, understand
what the scientific method actually is. And what it isn't.

If you knew what is was, you'd never have bought into the HIV=AIDS BS.

You keep clamoring for "proof," but when it's right there in front of
you, you turn the other way.

Read his book.

That would be insufficient. I would also need to read opposing
viewpoints since I am not an expert in this area.