About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks

On May 21, 12:57*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 20 May 2012 10:26:07 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
But the other causes are
stuff that should be avoided for health reasons.

There are no OTHER causes. *Show us one peer reviewed study

Right after you show me one decent study that proves HIV causes AIDS.


You really are confused here or else a liar. More
likely both. You've repeatedly told me you're done
here. Yet you keep coming back, like a moth to be
toasted by the flame one more time. Then you said you're
only done discussing AIDS. Yet here you are, back
yet again discussing AIDS.

See, here is how it works. You don't prove YOUR case that
AIDS is caused by something other than HIV by demanding
that the rest of us show you all the studies that prove it's
caused by HIV. So, if that is how you go about proving
things, I can see why you constantly come up with loony
results:

A - AIDS is not caused by HIV

B - AIDS is caused by diet, lack of sleep, and drug abuse

C - HPV is not a cause of cancer in women

D - No virus can cause cancer.

My God dude. There is a whole branch of biology devoted
to oncoviruses. Are all those scientists wrong and part of
a conspiracy?




I'd like to see a Montagnier study.

Yes, where is that Montagnier study where he shows
he eliminated HIV in patients infected by diet, reduced
oxidative stress, sleep, whatever? Hmmm? He's
had about 20 years to do it. We do have plenty of
anecdotal cases of AIDS denialists that chose thay
route. Virtually all of them died of AIDS.




Here's a study I'd like to see, based on Koch's Postulates:

Again, you don't prove YOUR claims by demanding
others prove theirs. The case that HIV causes AIDS
has been proven with mountains of evidence to the
satisfaction of the worldwide scientific community.
The results of identifying HIV as the cause are
striking and can be seen by anyone willing to look:

Hemophiliacs were being infected with HIV,
acquiring AIDS, dying. As soon as a test for
HIV was developed and blood screening started
they were no longer being infected, no longer
acquiring AIDS. Still waiting for an explanation
from you on that one. The only thing I've heard
so far is that hemophiliacs don't live long period.
Which is a sad one, even from AIDS denialists
like you.

People who had blood transfusions during
routine surgery were infected with HIV,
acquired AIDS, died. Arthur Ashe, Isaac
Asimov. Per the above, as soon as blood
was screened for HIV, that infection route
stopped. If it's not HIV that causes AIDS,
that would be one hell of a coincidence.
Explanation?

How is it that people in the West that are
on drugs that finally work and specifically
target only the HIV virus because we
understand it are now living instead of
dying? And why are people in third
world countries that are infected with HIV
and don't get those drugs still dying of
AIDS?

Why do all the people who acquire AIDS
test positive for HIV? And those that
don't test positive never get AIDS?




Koch's postulates are as follows:

Kochs postulates were developed over a hundred years ago,
when viruses, let alone retroviruses were not even known to exist.
It's a classic denialist trick. But let's take a reasonable look.



The bacteria must be present in every case of the disease.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-and-aids.html
"POSTULATE 1: The germ must be found in every person with the disease.
In 1993, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta,
Georgia, reviewed 230,179 cases of AIDS-like illness. Only 47 people
tested HIV-negative, less than 0.025 per cent."



The bacteria must be isolated from the host with the disease and grown
in pure culture.

Again, HIV is a retrovirus, not a bacteria so it can't be grown
in culture period. You're trying to apply methods from
100 years ago applicable to common bacteria.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-and-aids.html
"HIV has been isolated according to the most rigorous standards of
modern virology. A small group of Australian scientists, the so-called
Perth Group, claims that there is no proof that HIV exists. Then
again, neither do the viruses causing influenza, smallpox, yellow
fever, measles and many others, according to their bizarre criteria."

Do you deny the measles virus causes measles, etc?
Actually, I think you did. Reaffirm it here and I'll add it
to the running list.




The specific disease must be reproduced when a pure culture of the
bacteria is inoculated into a healthy susceptible host.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-and-aids.html
"POSTULATE 3: The germ must cause the disease if given to a healthy
person. Obviously no one is going to deliberately inject someone with
HIV, but in three separate incidents, US laboratory workers
accidentally exposed to purified HIV tested positive for that specific
strain and later developed AIDS."



The bacteria must be recoverable from the experimentally infected
host.

"POSTULATE 3: The germ must cause the disease if given to a healthy
person. Obviously no one is going to deliberately inject someone with
HIV, but in three separate incidents, US laboratory workers
accidentally exposed to purified HIV tested positive for that specific
strain and later developed AIDS."




This had always been the hallmark of infectious disease verification,
both viral and bacteria, but AIDS changed everything.


Koch himself later abandoned some of his postulates for Cholera and
Typhoid Fever because they could not be met. That's because he
recognized that as we learn more, our understanding and methods
change.



So, no antibodies crap, just the virus, Koch's Postulates. Period.

Until that happens, there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

--
Dogman


From an undergraduate biology course at Colorado State:

http://www.colorado.edu/Outreach/BSI...postulates.pdf

"While Koch’s postulates have provided a solid framework for
infectious disease research for more
than a century, they are not universally applicable. Classes of
pathogens such as viruses and prions
had not even been discovered in the late 1800’s when Koch was
formulating his ideas. Many of
these more newly discovered pathogens as well as many bacterial
pathogens are not culturable
outside of a host organism. Furthermore, ethical considerations
prevent researchers from fulfilling
the third postulate in serious diseases affecting only human hosts.
Additional complications arise
from situations in which the same organism causes different diseases
under different circumstances
or diseases that may be caused by a community of microorganisms rather
than a single pathogen.
Hence, exceptions to Koch’s postulates must often be made. This is not
to say that there should
not be strict requirements for demonstrating that a pathogen is the
cause of a disease."


But somehow I think your science education ended at about
the 8th grade.

On May 22, 11:57*am, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 07:33:29 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

There are no OTHER causes. *Show us one peer reviewed study

Right after you show me one decent study that proves HIV causes AIDS.
You really are confused here or else a liar. *More
likely both. * You've repeatedly told me you're done
here. * Yet you keep coming back,

That's because I can, and you can't do a damn thing about it.

Once again, you're confused. I didn't say you couldn't
come back. YOU'RE the one who said you were done.
Yet here you are. Again.




See, here is how it works. *You don't prove YOUR case that
AIDS is caused by something other than HIV by demanding
that the rest of us show you all the studies that prove it's
caused by HIV.

No, that's not how it works. I make my own rules.

And that's what leads to your loony results.



You asked me for a
peer-reviewed study that supported my position, so I asked you to do
the same thing. Come up with with one peer-reviewed study that proves
that HIV causes AIDS. But you can't do that, because there isn't one.

Again you don't prove YOUR case by asking me to prove
mine. The fact that HIV is the cause of AIDS has been proven
with a mountain of evidence. You want studies, here is a
summary from NIH listing study after study that conclusively proved
it:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx


Now who should we all believe? The NIH and the strong
evidence we have seen with our own eyes, eg hemophiliacs,
blood transfusion paths from surgery, people infected with
HIV living here on HIV drugs, still dying in Africa without them,
etc or you?

According to you:

hemophiliacs just die anyway
it's diet, lack of sleep and sanitation that cause AIDS
it's drug abuse that causes AIDS.
HPV doesn't cause cancer in women
No virus can cause cancer.

Sorry, but you are indeed a fringe loon.









[...]

Here's a study I'd like to see, based on Koch's Postulates:

Again, you don't prove YOUR claims by demanding
others prove theirs.

Yet that is exactly what you are doing, isn't it? You're just too
stupid to realize it.

No, I asked YOU for a study. If you had one, all you
had to do was provide it. The fact is, there is no credible
study at all. And now, I gave you a long list of the proof,
complete with studies, from NIH. Sadly, we have nothing
from you except the mantra to read Duesburg's book.
As if that discredited schmuck is the oracle of all truth.





[the same repetitive questions snipped because they've already been
answered several times, to no avail]

the same repetitive questions snipped because you have
never answered them, except to say read Duesburg's book.
Either it must not contain much or you didn't absorb much
because you sure haven't put forth anything here at all in
responses to either me or James.

So, one more time:

Hemophiliacs were being infected with HIV,
acquiring AIDS, dying. As soon as a test for
HIV was developed and blood screening started
they were no longer being infected, no longer
acquiring AIDS. Still waiting for an explanation
from you on that one. The only thing I've heard
so far is that hemophiliacs don't live long period.
Which is a sad one, even from AIDS denialists
like you.


People who had blood transfusions during
routine surgery were infected with HIV,
acquired AIDS, died. Arthur Ashe, Isaac
Asimov. Per the above, as soon as blood
was screened for HIV, that infection route
stopped. If it's not HIV that causes AIDS,
that would be one hell of a coincidence.
Explanation?


How is it that people in the West that are
on drugs that finally work and specifically
target only the HIV virus because we
understand it are now living instead of
dying? And why are people in third
world countries that are infected with HIV
and don't get those drugs still dying of
AIDS?


Why do all the people who acquire AIDS
test positive for HIV? And those that
don't test positive never get AIDS?




Koch's postulates are as follows:

Kochs postulates were developed over a hundred years ago,
when viruses, let alone retroviruses were not even known to exist.
It's a classic denialist trick.

Still hanging your hat on the "denialist" meme, eh? Do you not realize
how stupid that makes you sound?

Why are you ashamed of what you are?




Koch's Postulates have been the gold standard for proving a microbe is
infectious and causes a particular disease for many years, which is
the very reason the AIDS industry has been trying so hard to replace
or discredit them. Because Koch's Postulates holds them to a standard
they can't possibly meet with mostly harmless viruses like HIV, HPV,
Hep C, FIV, FeLV, and others, including "prions" (which don't even
exist).

Oh, so now you admit that there are many other viruses
that can't meet Koch's Postulates which are 100 year old
standards for bacterial infections. That's a start.

Now, do you deny the Hepatitis C virus causes hepatitis?
Let me know so I can add it to your running list of denials:




They get to claim that a certain virus is the cause of a
certain disease without having to actually prove that it is, which
opens lots of doors.And behind those doors are boatloads of $$$.

Which of course is a lie. It has been proven using the
most advanced methods we have today. To hang your
hat on a reqt from 100 years ago that would require actually
deliberately infecting a test group of humans with HIV is
just a denialist tactic.





And then they count on useful idiots like you to fall far it, because
useful idiots are utterly incapable of deductive reasoning.


Then 99.99% of the legitimate scientific community must
also be idiots because they believe the proof that HIV
causes AIDS. I'm happy to be in that group.



[...]

Again, HIV is a retrovirus, not a bacteria so it can't be grown
in culture period.

http://www.pnas.org/content/86/3/755.full.pdf

HIV Does Not Meet Koch's Postulates

HIV Cannot Account for the Loss of T Cells and the Clinical
Course of AIDS. The causative agent of an infectious disease
is classically defined by the postulates of Robert Koch and
Jacob Henle (66, 67). They were originally formulated a priori
by Henle about 50 years before bacteria and viruses were
discovered to be pathogens (67).....

Back to Duesburg. And Duesburg from 1989 when AIDS
research was in it's infancy at that. Since then AIDS research has
moved on and a mountain of evidence is available today
that clearly says Duesburg is wrong. See the above NIH
link for a start. Unfortunately, denialist
Duesburg hasn't moved on. He could not get that
paper published today.
It's like a holocaust denier going back to papers from 1940
when people still weren't sure what was going on in Nazi
Germany to prove that the holocaust wasn't real.
But it's typical conspiracy, denialist, nonsense.
Hang your hat solely on the .001% and ignore all the
evidence in front of you.

On Tue, 22 May 2012 09:47:07 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
Right after you show me one decent study that proves HIV causes AIDS.
You really are confused here or else a liar. *More
likely both. * You've repeatedly told me you're done
here. * Yet you keep coming back,

That's because I can, and you can't do a damn thing about it.

Once again, you're confused. I didn't say you couldn't
come back. YOU'RE the one who said you were done.
Yet here you are. Again.
[...]

I didn't say that you said I couldn't come back. You know, if you
didn't have straw men to dance with you'd have no one to dance with.

You can't even understand what I mean when I say that I'm done
discussing AIDS with you, it's not hard to see why you can't
understand Duesberg.

All you can do now is to repeat ad nauseam, Rain Man-like, the
psychobabble the AIDS industry has crammed into your litte brain.

Asshole.

--
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 22, 1:06*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 09:47:07 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...] Right after you show me one decent study that proves HIV causes AIDS.
You really are confused here or else a liar. *More
likely both. * You've repeatedly told me you're done
here. * Yet you keep coming back,

That's because I can, and you can't do a damn thing about it.

Once again, you're confused. *I didn't say you couldn't
come back. *YOU'RE the one who said you were done.
Yet here you are. *Again.

[...]

I didn't say that you said I couldn't come back. You know, if you
didn't have straw men to dance with you'd have no one to dance with.

You can't even understand what I mean when I say that I'm done
discussing AIDS with you, it's not hard to see why you can't
understand Duesberg.

All you can do now is to repeat ad nauseam, Rain Man-like, the
psychobabble the AIDS industry has crammed into your litte brain.

Asshole.

--
Dogman



Typical, but to be expected from an AIDS denialist.
I asked you for a study to support your position. You have
no study, so you instead you claim there isn't a single
study that shows HIV causes AIDS. I played your little
game and gave you the link to the NIH where they go over
the overwhelming proof and cite study after study
that proves it.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

Some excerpts:

"AIDS and HIV infection are invariably linked in time, place and
population group.

Historically, the occurence of AIDS in human populations around the
world has closely followed the appearance of HIV. In the United
States, the first cases of AIDS were reported in 1981 among homosexual
men in New York and California, and retrospective examination of
frozen blood samples from a U.S. cohort of gay men showed the presence
of HIV antibodies as early as 1978, but not before then. Subsequently,
in every region, country and city where AIDS has appeared, evidence of
HIV infection has preceded AIDS by just a few years (CDC. MMWR
1981;30:250; CDC. MMWR 1981;30:305; Jaffe et al. Ann Intern Med
1985;103:210; U.S. Census Bureau; UNAIDS).

Many studies agree that only a single factor, HIV, predicts whether a
person will develop AIDS.

Other viral infections, bacterial infections, sexual behavior patterns
and drug abuse patterns do not predict who develops AIDS. Individuals
from diverse backgrounds, including heterosexual men and women,
homosexual men and women, hemophiliacs, sexual partners of
hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients, injection-drug users and
infants have all developed AIDS, with the only common denominator
being their infection with HIV (NIAID, 1995).

In studies conducted in both developing and developed countries, death
rates are markedly higher among HIV-seropositive individuals than
among HIV-seronegative individuals.

For example, Nunn and colleagues (BMJ 1997;315:767) assessed the
impact of HIV infection over five years in a rural population in the
Masaka District of Uganda. Among 8,833 individuals of all ages who had
an unambiguous result on testing for HIV-antibodies (either 2 or 3
different test kits were used for blood samples from each individual),
HIV-seropositive people were 16 times more likely to die over 5 years
than HIV-seronegative people (see table). Among individuals ages 25 to
34, HIV-seropositive people were 27 times more likely to die than HIV-
seronegative people.

In another study in Uganda, 19,983 adults in the rural Rakai District
were followed for 10 to 30 months (Sewankambo et al. AIDS
2000;14:2391). In this cohort, HIV-seropositive people were 20 times
more likely to die than HIV-seronegative people during 31,432 person-
years of observation.


HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS.

Recently developed sensitive testing methods, including the polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) and improved culture techniques, have enabled
researchers to find HIV in patients with AIDS with few exceptions. HIV
has been repeatedly isolated from the blood, semen and vaginal
secretions of patients with AIDS, findings consistent with the
epidemiologic data demonstrating AIDS transmission via sexual activity
and contact with infected blood (Hammer et al. J Clin Microbiol
1993;31:2557; Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16)."




Problem is, you can't stand the truth.
And your reponse now is reduced to just vulgarity.

On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:21:26 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Typical, but to be expected from an AIDS denialist.

Do you have an injury to your head? What else would explain the
continued use of such a non sequitur?

Oh, yeah, maybe you were just born stupid?

I asked you for a study to support your position.

I've given you beaucoup links to visit, articles to read, books to
read, and studies to peruse. Yet you totally ignore them, in lieu of
the usual conventional claptrap. And I won't repeat myself.

We might have had an interesting discussion on this topic, had you
been a decent, fair, and open-mided person, but you aren't. You're
either a shill for AIDS Inc., or you're just a garden variety asshole.

Asshole.

--
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 22, 2:48*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 11:21:26 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Typical, but to be expected from an AIDS denialist.

Do you have an injury to your head? What else would explain the
continued use of such a non sequitur?

Oh, yeah, maybe you were just born stupid?

I asked you for a study to support your position.

I've given you beaucoup links to visit, articles to read, books to
read, and studies to peruse. Yet you totally ignore them, in lieu of
the usual conventional claptrap. And I won't repeat myself.

Perhaps it's beyond your understanding, but a study
published in a peer reviewed journal is different from
a snippet from someone over 20 years ago about
HIV and AIDS. IT's different than telling us to go
read Duesburg's book. In other words, you have no
actual study that shows HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
And Montagnier doesn't have any study that shows
HIV can be eliminated from the body by oxidative
stress relief,(whatever the hell that is), diet, and
sanitation. If he does, where is it? He's had 20
years? Where are all the patients he's cured?

On the other hand I gave you a long page of proof
from NIH that makes the irrefutable case that HIV
is the cause of AIDS. And it's complete with
references to the actual studies. Studies that
explain HIV as the cause via hemophiliac proof.
Studies that explain surgery/blood transfusion
proof as the vector. Studies that show the virus
was DNA matched from a dentist in FL to 6 of
his patients that had HIV, and died of AIDSs
Studies that used lab workers that were
accidentally infected with HIV, acquired AIDS
and died. Studies that show only those in
Africa that test positive for HIV go on to develop
AIDS. A similar cohort that were not HIV
positive did not acquire the disease. That in
Africa, middle class people with adequate
diets, sanitation, etc but infected with HIV
go on to AIDS. Studies that show an HIV
infected mother can pass the HIV virus to
her babies. And if one baby is infected with
HIV, only that baby usually winds up with
AIDS. The uninfected baby never does.
It's even been demonstrated in twins.

But, I know, Duesburg says it all just ain't so.






We might have had an interesting discussion on this topic, had you
been a decent, fair, and open-mided person, but you aren't. *You're
either a shill for AIDS Inc., or you're just a garden variety asshole.

Asshole.

--
Dogman


Oh, booh hooh. I'm not being fair. Why, of course not.
I'm just using facts which have an unfortunate way of
smashing false belief systems based on nothing.
Like you claim that a virus can't cause cancer. So,
I point out that there is a whole field of biology devoted
to oncoviruses and you're obviously wrong. So, you
get upset.

The true sign of someone who's been so badly bloodied
is that all you can say is "read Duesburg's book" and hurl
vulgarity. It's also a classic sign of a denialist and
conspiracy loon to assert that those with the facts on
their side must be a shilll for "fill in the blank".

A while back you insinuated that I must have AIDS. I think
that tells a lot about you as well. As if only someone
with AIDS gives a damn about defending science and
standing up for what is right. But I think your real
objective is you'd like to believe I have AIDS because
you think those with the disease deserve it and it
allows you to try to marginalize and condemn them.
In other words, I think you're just an ignorant bigot.

On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:41:18 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
I've given you beaucoup links to visit, articles to read, books to
read, and studies to peruse. Yet you totally ignore them, in lieu of
the usual conventional claptrap. And I won't repeat myself.

Perhaps it's beyond your understanding, but a study
published in a peer reviewed journal is different from
a snippet from someone over 20 years ago about
HIV and AIDS. IT's different than telling us to go
read Duesburg's book. In other words, you have no
actual study that shows HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

Yes, I do. And I provided a link to it.

I'm not going to do it again.

On the other hand I gave you a long page of proof
from NIH that makes the irrefutable case that HIV
is the cause of AIDS.
[...]

Excuse me a second, while I throw up in my mouth.

But I think we've finally gotten to the crux of the matter. You think
an NIH public relations release is scientific proof.

I got it now.

Sigh.

What a stupid little schmuck you must be.

--
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 22, 5:53*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:41:18 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

I've given you beaucoup links to visit, articles to read, books to
read, and studies to peruse. Yet you totally ignore them, in lieu of
the usual conventional claptrap. And I won't repeat myself.

Perhaps it's beyond your understanding, but a study
published in a peer reviewed journal is different from
a snippet from someone over 20 years ago about
HIV and AIDS. *IT's different than telling us to go
read Duesburg's book. *In other words, you have no
actual study that shows HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

Yes, I do. And I provided a link to it.

I'm not going to do it again.

Of course not, because you never provided a link to begin
with because it doesn't exist.



On the other hand I gave you a long page of proof
from NIH that makes the irrefutable case that HIV
is the cause of AIDS.

[...]

Excuse me a second, while I throw up in my mouth.

Yes, sometimes the truth that contradicts your whole
little false belief system can be upsetting. Especially
when you keep being exposed as an ignoramus at
every turn:

HIV doesn't cause AIDS
HIV is harmless
HPV isn't a cause of cancer in women
No virus can cause cancer.
AIDS is virtually non-existent in the US outside gay men,
IV drug abusers and hemophiliacs.





But I think we've finally gotten to the crux of the matter. *You think
an NIH public relations release is scientific proof.

I got it now.

Sigh.

What a stupid little schmuck you must be.



It's not a NIH public relations piece. It outlines the overwhelming
case that HIV is the cause of AIDS. It includes references to
STUDY after STUDY over decades. Hemophiliacs, blood transfusion
recipients, lab workers accidentally infected, AIDS transmission in
the USA,
West, Africa, Asia. HIV transmission from mothers to infants. All
that with reference to the actual STUDIES.

Here it is again, because I have no problem offering up real
science:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx


While we're at it, here's another powerful case study to prove that
HIV causes AIDS. We had mothers passing HIV on to their babies.
But it's not passed on all the time, just some of the time. Why is it
that the babies that do not test positive for HIV never acquire AIDS?
Yet those that do test positive usually go on to develop the disease?
But that's not the best part. That was in the past. Now that we have
effective HIV drugs, those mothers and infants routinely receive
drug therapy and the transmission of HIV from mother to infant
has dropped to only 2%. Consequently we now have a huge
reduction in babies getting HIV and at the same time a
corresponding reduction in those babies later developing AIDS.
Now, if HIV is not the cause of AIDS, how the hell is that?


BTW, where is YOUR study? Where is Montagnier's study
that shows HIV can be erradicated from the body by diet
and sanitation? Hmmm? Duesburg have such a study?

But then what should we expect from a guy who told us
heterosexual AIDS is virtually non-existent in the USA?
It actually 17% of the total cases and 33% of those
diagnosed in the last year. Of course it's facts like those
that the denialist have to deny to try to prop up their
pathetic alternative scenario that HIV doesn't cause
AIDS.

On Wed, 23 May 2012 07:00:29 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Perhaps it's beyond your understanding, but a study
published in a peer reviewed journal is different from
a snippet from someone over 20 years ago about
HIV and AIDS. *IT's different than telling us to go
read Duesburg's book. *In other words, you have no
actual study that shows HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

Yes, I do. And I provided a link to it.

I'm not going to do it again.

Of course not, because you never provided a link to begin
with because it doesn't exist.

Yes, I did.

You can keep flapping your gums otherwise if you want, but I did.

And I'm not doing it again.

[...]
But I think we've finally gotten to the crux of the matter. *You think
an NIH public relations release is scientific proof.

I got it now.

Sigh.

What a stupid little schmuck you must be.

It's not a NIH public relations piece. It outlines the overwhelming
case that HIV is the cause of AIDS. It includes references to
STUDY after STUDY over decades.

Now go read those actual studies.

They don't prove anything.

Nada. Zilch. Zero.

It's a PR release.





--
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 24, 11:54*am, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2012 07:00:29 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
Perhaps it's beyond your understanding, but a study
published in a peer reviewed journal is different from
a snippet from someone over 20 years ago about
HIV and AIDS. *IT's different than telling us to go
read Duesburg's book. *In other words, you have no
actual study that shows HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

Yes, I do. And I provided a link to it.

I'm not going to do it again.

Of course not, because you never provided a link to begin
with because it doesn't exist.

Yes, I did.

You can keep flapping your gums otherwise if you want, but I did.


WHAT? Are you back here yet again? You told us a week
ago you were done. Then back you came, claiming you only
were done discussing AIDS. Yet, here you are again,
discussing AIDS. Nice how you dance on my puppet strings
for me, flopping about embarassing yourself.

And of course the study doesn't exist or you would simply
provide it. I'm proud of the studies that support the fact that
HIV causes AIDS. I'll do it again, right now:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

A beautiful summary of the overwhelming evidence, complete
with references to study after study.

Dogman:

HIV doesn't cause AIDS
HIV is harmless
AIDS is caused by poor diet, lack of sleep, and poor sanitation
HPV isn't a cause of cancer in women
No virus can cause cancer
Heterosexuals are an insignificant percentage of those diagnosed with
AIDS

What denialist nonsense would you like to add to your list today?