A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 07:47 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 06:32:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
You and the denialists should be doing that now. Doug
said that if a vaccine for HIV was developed and those
vaccinated no longer got AIDS, it would prove that HIV
causes AIDS.


Yeah, but that's never going to happen, so wish on.

The reasons it's never going to happen are this: HIV is already
harmless. Retroviruses don't kill cells (that would be like committing
suicide), or the retrovirus would die off almost immediately (it needs
the cell to survive and replicate!), with no help needed from the
immune system.

Besides, if AIDS, Inc. claimed that a vaccination had been developed,
and people maintained the same lifestyle that Duesberg describes,
and/or were given AIDS drugs, we'd be right back where we presently
are. People would still be dying of opportunistic infections and
diseases caused by having your immune system destroyed by drugs and
lifestyle, vaccination or no vaccination.

So keep on wishing for a vaccine; it ain't gonna happen.

You can write that down.

--
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
  #12  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 08:53 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

On Aug 2, 2:47*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 06:32:22 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

You and the denialists should be doing that now. *Doug
said that if a vaccine for HIV was developed and those
vaccinated no longer got AIDS, it would prove that HIV
causes AIDS.


Yeah, but that's never going to happen, so wish on.

The reasons it's never going to happen are this: HIV is already
harmless. Retroviruses don't kill cells (that would be like committing
suicide),


Another outrageous lie. It's been demonstrated both
in the lab and in patients that HIV kills T cells. Just
like holocaust deniers saying Auschwitz never existed.
It's not a legitimate debate when you refuse to accept
the most basic proven facts.


or the retrovirus would die off almost immediately (it needs
the cell to survive and replicate!), with no help needed from the
immune system.

Besides, if AIDS, Inc. claimed that a vaccination had been developed,
and people maintained the same lifestyle that Duesberg describes,
and/or were given AIDS drugs, we'd be right back where we presently
are. People would still be dying of opportunistic infections and
diseases caused by having your immune system destroyed by drugs and
lifestyle, vaccination or no vaccination.


Still waiting for the study that shows AIDS is caused
by drugs. Of course that won't be forthcoming
because all the studies show exactly the opposite.
You can be a drug user, have many sexual partners,
poor diet, hemophilia, blood transfusions, etc and
unless you are infected with HIV you don't develop
AIDS. If you are infected with HIV and go untreated
in the next decade or so you have a high probability
of developoing AIDS. Really simple science.

The fact that HIV causes AIDS is entirely consistent
with and explains the transmission of AIDS in:

gay men with many partners
IV drug users
hemophiliacs like Ryan White
blood transfusion recipients like Arthur Ashe
prostitutes
soccer moms with a partner who is HIV+
heterosexuals in Africa
babies
lab workers accidentally infected
6 patients of the FL dentist who was HIV+


We know it's HIV spread by blood and sexual contact
and from mother to child at birth.

The denialists? Well they have all kinds of different
alleged reasons and they are all different, yet sharing
one common thread in that they are pathetic and
totally unsupported by science of any kind. We're
supposed to believe that the exact same disease,
characterized by observed total destruction of CD4 cells
occurs in gay men from one reason and in babies
from an entirely different reason. And that both
of those and all the others affected by AIDS
on the list surfaced in the early 80s at the same time.
And not just in the USA, but around the world. Then
unable to come up with even pathetic attempts at
explanations anymore for some of the groups,
they proceed to just deny that some of those groups
have AIDS at all.
  #13  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 09:33 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:53:35 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
Yeah, but that's never going to happen, so wish on.

The reasons it's never going to happen are this: HIV is already
harmless. Retroviruses don't kill cells (that would be like committing
suicide),


Another outrageous lie. It's been demonstrated both
in the lab and in patients that HIV kills T cells. Just
like holocaust deniers saying Auschwitz never existed.
It's not a legitimate debate when you refuse to accept
the most basic proven facts.


"People with AIDS are indeed losing t-cells. Because these were the
cells that HIV effects, it was ASSUMED that HIV was the culprit. But
Retroviruses do not kill their hosts. Only under rare laboratory
conditions is it possible to make HIV kill its host cell. AIDS
researchers actually use t-cells to grow the virus in their reacearch
because both live together very compatibly. It was this notion that
initially made Duesberg and over 600 other scientist, including 181
that have advanced degrees question the whole thing in the first
place. Truth is, HIV is not a killer virus. Viruses that
kill a cell couldn’t cause cancer. If HIV were a killer cell then
those with AIDS indication diseases would not have some form of cancer
as some of the defining diseases do."

or the retrovirus would die off almost immediately (it needs
the cell to survive and replicate!), with no help needed from the
immune system.

Besides, if AIDS, Inc. claimed that a vaccination had been developed,
and people maintained the same lifestyle that Duesberg describes,
and/or were given AIDS drugs, we'd be right back where we presently
are. People would still be dying of opportunistic infections and
diseases caused by having your immune system destroyed by drugs and
lifestyle, vaccination or no vaccination.


Still waiting for the study that shows AIDS is caused
by drugs.


And I'm still waiting for the study that proves that HIV causes AIDS.

yawn

The fact that HIV causes AIDS is entirely consistent
with and explains the transmission of AIDS in:

gay men with many partners


because those partners are long-term drug abusers, too, etc.

See: gay liberation, Stonewall riots, etc.,

IV drug users


HIV is not necessary.

hemophiliacs like Ryan White


have taken impure Factor for years, causing their immune systems'
destruction

blood transfusion recipients like Arthur Ashe


people get *antibodies* from blood transfusions

prostitutes


only if they abuse drugs

soccer moms with a partner who is HIV+


false positives, liars, etc.

heterosexuals in Africa


Banqui definition of AIDS (but you're prabably a racist, too, and
think Africans are sex fiends)

babies


babies get antibodies passed to them from their mother

lab workers accidentally infected


only if they take AIDS drugs do they ever get AIDS

6 patients of the FL dentist who was HIV+


they didn't get AIDS until they started to take AIDS drugs

We know it's HIV spread by blood and sexual contact
and from mother to child at birth.


HIV *ANTIBODIES*!

Sheesh.

What a maroon.

Someone who obviously doesn't understand what antibodies are, and
aren't, should never try to understand HIV, AIDS, the germ theory of
disease, etc. Someone like you, Trader Boy.

--
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
  #14  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 09:54 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

Dogman wrote:
" wrote:

You and the denialists should be doing that now. Doug
said that if a vaccine for HIV was developed and those
vaccinated no longer got AIDS, it would prove that HIV
causes AIDS.


Yeah, but that's never going to happen, so wish on.


Efforts to create a vaccine have all failed so far. That's not the same
thing as a prediction that none will ever work. Time will tell.

If I understand correctly HIV is the first RNA virus where attempts have
been made to make a vaccine. A long learning curve is to be expected.
It took centuries of science for the first DNA virus vaccine to be
introduced. As someone who is not infected, who avoids infection and
also avoids the other vectors, I'm in no hurry. I personally can afford
to be in no hurry. Being in a hurry can't help anyways. Being in a
hurry does not help science.

Retroviruses don't kill cells (that would be like committing
suicide), or the retrovirus would die off almost immediately (it needs
the cell to survive and replicate!), with no help needed from the
immune system.


That's also how DNA viruses function. The successful ones do not kill
their host cells. The most successful ones get included in the cell's
genetic material.

Besides, if AIDS, Inc. claimed that a vaccination had been developed,
and people maintained the same lifestyle that Duesberg describes,
and/or were given AIDS drugs, we'd be right back where we presently
are. People would still be dying of opportunistic infections and
diseases caused by having your immune system destroyed by drugs and
lifestyle, vaccination or no vaccination.


Sure, if that happened. New people would stop being HIV positive.
Fewer not none, actually, given how herd immunity and statistically
uncertain personal immunity from vaccination works. The deaths from
currently sick people would occur. New deaths would either continue
unabated or track the new infection rate. And then there would be
certainty.

Time will tell. It's how science works. Immature science includes
discussion of concensus because concensus gives the best guess in the
absence of cetainty. Eventually science reaches such a close
approximation to certainty that opinion is irrelevant and concensus is
irrelevant. Medicine in general and AIDS treatment in specific are far
from that level. I tend to favor the concensus opinion but I know what
it means to need to poll for a concensus in the first place. It means
the issue is not yet resolved. Okay, so a large error bar then. I'm
okay with large error bars once I know they are there.
  #15  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 10:14 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 20:54:37 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:

Dogman wrote:
" wrote:

You and the denialists should be doing that now. Doug
said that if a vaccine for HIV was developed and those
vaccinated no longer got AIDS, it would prove that HIV
causes AIDS.


Yeah, but that's never going to happen, so wish on.


Efforts to create a vaccine have all failed so far. That's not the same
thing as a prediction that none will ever work. Time will tell.


My prediction that none will work is based on the idea that HIV is
already harmless. It doesn't kill cells. It's a retrovirus, and
retroviruses depend on the host cell for its very existence, so to
kill it off? That's suicide, and it (HIV) would have ceased to exist
eons ago.

If I understand correctly HIV is the first RNA virus where attempts have
been made to make a vaccine. A long learning curve is to be expected.


Well, that's certainly a good excuse. And it certainly helps to keep
the funding coming, huh?

Retroviruses don't kill cells (that would be like committing
suicide), or the retrovirus would die off almost immediately (it needs
the cell to survive and replicate!), with no help needed from the
immune system.


That's also how DNA viruses function. The successful ones do not kill
their host cells. The most successful ones get included in the cell's
genetic material.


Let's stick to retroviruses, eh?

Besides, if AIDS, Inc. claimed that a vaccination had been developed,
and people maintained the same lifestyle that Duesberg describes,
and/or were given AIDS drugs, we'd be right back where we presently
are. People would still be dying of opportunistic infections and
diseases caused by having your immune system destroyed by drugs and
lifestyle, vaccination or no vaccination.


Sure, if that happened. New people would stop being HIV positive.
Fewer not none, actually, given how herd immunity and statistically
uncertain personal immunity from vaccination works. The deaths from
currently sick people would occur.


Not necessarily, provided they immediately stopped abusing drugs,
taking AIDS drugs, made lifestyle changes, etc.

Time will tell.


Yep.

It's how science works. Immature science includes
discussion of concensus because concensus gives the best guess in the
absence of cetainty.


No, in my opinion, it doesn't. The Scientific Method provides the
best guess." There would be no HIV=AIDS is scientists followed the
scientific method.

Anyway, those are my opinions, and I'm sticking to 'em.

--
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
  #16  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 10:24 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:14:06 -0400, Dogman wrote:

[...]
No, in my opinion, it doesn't. The Scientific Method provides the
best guess." There would be no HIV=AIDS is scientists followed the
scientific method.


PS: Nor would there be a "vaccine" for cervical cancer (Gardasil), or
people who think prions exist on the basis of ZERO evidence, ditto Hep
C, catastrophic "global warming" caused by CO2 (what comes out of our
mouths when we breathe, and which plants depend on for life), etc. We
have yet to exit the Dark Ages of Science.

--
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
  #17  
Old August 3rd, 2012, 12:24 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

On Aug 2, 4:33*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:53:35 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

Yeah, but that's never going to happen, so wish on.


The reasons it's never going to happen are this: HIV is already
harmless. Retroviruses don't kill cells (that would be like committing
suicide),


Another outrageous lie. It's been demonstrated both
in the lab and in patients that HIV kills T cells. *Just
like holocaust deniers saying Auschwitz never existed.
It's not a legitimate debate when you refuse to accept
the most basic proven facts.


"People with AIDS are indeed losing t-cells. Because these were the
cells that HIV effects, it was ASSUMED that HIV was the culprit. But
Retroviruses do not kill their hosts. Only under rare laboratory
conditions is it possible to make HIV kill its host cell.


Continuing to lie doesn't make it true....


ScienceDaily (Nov. 24, 2010) — Researchers appear to have an
explanation for a longstanding question in HIV biology: how it is that
the virus kills so many CD4 T cells, despite the fact that most of
them appear to be "bystander" cells that are themselves not
productively infected. That loss of CD4 T cells marks the progression
from HIV infection to full-blown AIDS,

The HIV virus apparently does invade those T cells, but the cells
somehow block virus replication. It is the byproducts of that aborted
infection that trigger an immune response that is ultimately
responsible for killing those cells"


And note that this article from 2010 doesn't say there
was any doubt as to the fact that HIV kills CD4 cells,
only that the exact mechanism wasn't understood.
Now, apparently it is. OF course that won't be good
enough for you either.





Truth is, HIV is not a killer virus.


Truth is you're a liar. Who should we believe,
Robert Gallo and Montagnier, or you?




Besides, if AIDS, Inc. claimed that a vaccination had been developed,
and people maintained the same lifestyle that Duesberg describes,
and/or were given AIDS drugs, we'd be right back where we presently
are. People would still be dying of opportunistic infections and
diseases caused by having your immune system destroyed by drugs and
lifestyle, vaccination or no vaccination.

Still waiting for the study that shows AIDS is caused
by drugs.


And I'm still waiting for the study that proves that HIV causes AIDS.

yawn


I've given you links to study after study that proves
exactly that. Proof that is satisfactory to 99.99% of the
real AIDS researchers. Possibly even 100%, because
clowns like Duesburg are not actual AIDS/HIV researchers.

On the other hand, YOU have no studies that support
any of your lies. And note that a 30 year old paper,
back when AIDS was first gaining notice, speculating that
recreational drug use might be involved, isn't a study.
Actually now from research and real science we know
that the real link is that IV DRUG USE is a factor in
AIDS. Because one way the HIV virus is transmitted
is via blood. So, it's that path, not the drugs themselves
that account for AIDS in IV drug users.

Interesting thing that. It explains how not only IV drug
abusers can get AIDS, but also hemophiliacs like
Ryan White and recipients of blood transfusions prior
to blood being screened, like Arthur Ashe. Your denialist nonsense
requires either a conoluted, nonsensical explanation or
to simply claim that all these other people don't have
AIDS. Not only lies, but offensive as well.




The fact that HIV causes AIDS is entirely consistent
with and explains the transmission of AIDS in:


gay men with many partners


because those partners are long-term drug abusers, too, etc.


Oh, really? So now AIDS can be acquired not by
abusing drugs yourself, but simply by being gay and
having a partner who is a drug abuser?

A good example of the convoluted lies denialists
have to come up with. The truth and obvious explanation
is that if the partner is infected with HIV, then HIV
can be passed through unprotected sex.




See: gay liberation, Stonewall riots, etc.,


See world encyclopedia and realize that AIDS and
HIV exist on every continent, in every country. Were
they all at the Stonewall riots too? Was Kimberly
Bergalis, who got infected with HIV from her dentist?
The baby born to an HIV infected mother?
The bigotry and ignorance here are evident.




IV drug users


HIV is not necessary.

hemophiliacs like Ryan White


have taken impure Factor for years, causing their immune systems'
destruction


Another lie. Studies have been done that looked
specifically at that issue. They looked at hemophiliacs
that received impure factor. Those that were HIV+
had a high incidence of AIDS and death. Those that
were HIV- had no AIDS and had mortality many times
the rate of the HIV- group.

See, this is why you're like a holocaust denier. You
just keep slinging up stuff, as if it's never been studied.
It has and it completely refutes your crap. It's like
having pictures of Auschwitz, yet you and clowns like
Duesberg, drone on.



blood transfusion recipients like Arthur Ashe


people get *antibodies* from blood transfusions

prostitutes


only if they abuse drugs

soccer moms with a partner who is HIV+


false positives, liars, etc.


Again this is what is offensive. The rest of us
see a woman infected with HIV by a partner that
she didn't know had HIV. It's tragic, but we know how
it happens. You denialists have to call her
a liar or secret drug addict or prostitute. Anything
at all to try to keep your BS going. Have you no
shame or conscience?



  #18  
Old August 3rd, 2012, 03:54 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

On Aug 2, 8:14*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:24:39 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

Another outrageous lie. It's been demonstrated both
in the lab and in patients that HIV kills T cells. Just
like holocaust deniers saying Auschwitz never existed.
It's not a legitimate debate when you refuse to accept
the most basic proven facts.


"People with AIDS are indeed losing t-cells. Because these were the
cells that HIV effects, it was ASSUMED that HIV was the culprit. But
Retroviruses do not kill their hosts. Only under rare laboratory
conditions is it possible to make HIV kill its host cell.


Continuing to lie doesn't make it true....


Continuing to lie may not make it "true," but as Hitler once said: the
use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone
"could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." And asGoebbels wrote: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the

truth."


Yes, those are your tactics exactly. Claiming for example
that lack of sleep causes AIDS.


Be

And that's exactly what many "scientists" rely on. Useful idiots like
yourself. You can (well, maybe not you, but intelligent people can)
see this axiom at work every single day, expecially in the fields of
virology and climatology.

[...]

The HIV virus apparently does invade those T cells, but the cells
somehow block virus replication.It is the byproducts of that aborted
infection that trigger an immune response that is ultimately
responsible for killing those cells"


That's known in scientific circles as psychobabble. *Akin to your
"mysterious effect" *regarding bariatric surgery, etc.

Gobbledygook!


Of course just like all denialists you reject all sound
AIDS/HIV research by world class AIDS researchers
because it exposes your lies like "lack of sleep
causes AIDS".




Truth is, HIV is not a killer virus.


Truth is you're a liar.


Truth is you're a lying asshole, with the IQ of a fence post.

Who should we believe,
Robert Gallo and Montagnier, or you?


That's like saying, who should we believe, all the other scientists,
or Galileo?

I'm going with Galileo.


See, here is the essential difference.
Galileo had PROOF for what he was claiming. What he
was claiming was supported by DATA. What he claimed
could be confirmed by simple studies. Now, where
exactly is your data? I've asked 50 times now for a
study. Crickets...... Find the one that shows AIDS
is caused by sleep or too much sex.




Besides, Gallo has been convicted twice of scientific misconduct and
fraud, and Montagnier says that HIV, by itself, can't cause AIDS.


The above is yet another lie. Gallo was never convicted of
anything, nor was he even charged. He was accused of
misrepresenting the use that he made of viral material sent
to him by Montagnier. The issue was heard by a govt
scientific review panel, not a court. They decided that Gallo
had made a misrepresentation. A year later it was appealed
and the appeal found Gallo had not committed any
misconduct. That was the end of the issue. And
as always, I have the references to back it up, in
this case the NY Times:


http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/26/ma...ted=all&src=pm


Method and Madness; The Vindication of Robert Gallo
By Nicholas Wade
Published: December 26, 1993

"As a Government appeals board concluded last month: "One might
anticipate that from all this evidence, after all the sound and fury,
there would be at least a residue of palpable wrongdoing. That is not
the case."


Now as to Montagnier, lets look at the clearest thing in
evidence as to his position on what the cause of AIDS
is. Celia Farber wrote a denialist article for Harper
magazine in 2006, making many of the same arguments
that you and the rest of the denialists make.
It was promptly taken apart
by scientists one after the other as being factually
incorrect, biased and flat out wrong. Letter after
letter poured in to Harpers denouncing it and
questining why Harpers did not even do a
decent fact check on it. One of
those letters was a joint letter signed by Gallo
and Montagnier, the co-discoverers
of HIV. Here is what they said in that letter:


http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/harpers-farber#a16

"Indeed, both of us have contributed to the identification of such
factors but this does not put into question that HIV alone is the
cause of AIDS. We hope to dispel another point of confusion. It is
said that some AIDS patients are HIV negative (an argument made by
those who deny the role of HIV in AIDS). This is not the case. First,
false negative results are extremely rare nowadays when trained
personnel carry out modern diagnostic assays in properly equipped
laboratories. Second, there are other causes of severe immune
deficiency, such as extreme radiation exposure and rare genetic
diseases, just like a severe sore throat can be caused not only by
streptococcus, pneumonia not only by pneumococcus, and lung cancer not
only by smoking. However, the appearance of a new immune deficiency,
AIDS, on an unprecedented, pandemic scale was caused by the spread of
HIV within the human population."



So, if you want to hang your hat on those two guys...


You were hanging yours on Montagnier, using a video
where a denialist journalist baits him along, in English,
which isn't his native language. But there is absolutely
no doubt about his position in the above letter.
Montagnier leaves no wiggle room. He says HIV ALONE
IS THE CAUSE OF AIDS. Read it and stop lying.




because those partners are long-term drug abusers, too, etc.


Oh, really? *So now AIDS can be acquired not by
abusing drugs yourself, but simply by being gay and
having a partner who is a drug abuser?


Yes. Through anal sex, the exchange of bodily fluids (including
blood), etc.


Well, if it's not HIV that's causing AIDS, that's one
hell of an interesting concept. Tell us more?
Through what agent then does this occur? This is
about as bizarre as bizarre gets.





But it's not AIDS that is acquired, it's ANTIBODIES to HIV. Then AIDS,
Inc. kills them both with AIDS drugs. More slowly, these days, but
still ever so surely.


Sure, how dumb would one have to be to believe that?
We had the AIDS patients in the first few years dying one
after the other, despite the fact that THERE WERE NO AIDS
drugs. We have your denialist friends today refusing to
take any AIDS drugs and they are mostly dying at 30.
We have people in third world countries who have no
access to AIDS drugs dying. We saw what happened
in South Africa under Mbeki when that country refused
to provide AIDS drugs to patients. They died.

Unbelievable and again actually worse than the lies of
holocaust deniers because it will kill people today who
follow these lies.






See: gay liberation, Stonewall riots, etc.,


See world encyclopedia and realize that AIDS and
HIV exist on every continent, in every country.


What? *We're the only country that has homosexuals? The only country
that abuses drugs?


Anyone except a bigot knows that tens of millions of
people of various backgrounds have died from AIDS.
And only a bigot would try to somehow link it to gay
liberation.


Again this is what is offensive. *The rest of us
see a woman infected with HIV by a partner that
she didn't know had HIV. * It's tragic, but we know how
it happens.


Yes, it is tragic, because now they are going to start giving her AIDS
drugs, which will KILL her. And it's all unnecessary!

You denialists have to call her
a liar or secret drug addict or prostitute.


What? *People who test positive for HIV don't lie? *Just the rest of
us can be liars, right? Is that yet another "mysterious" effect of
HIV? *It makes you tell the truth?


Some of them might, sure. But denialists like you
need to make all of them out as liars in a desperate
attempt to explain AIDS absent the truth that it's
caused by HIV. And that makes you worse than a
holocaust denier and an obvious bigot.



  #19  
Old August 3rd, 2012, 05:20 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 07:54:32 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
Continuing to lie may not make it "true," but as Hitler once said: the
use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone
"could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." And asGoebbels wrote: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the

truth."


Yes, those are your tactics exactly. Claiming for example
that lack of sleep causes AIDS.


But a lack of sleep *can* contribute to a compromised immune system!

http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders...-lack-of-sleep

Really, have you never even taken one biology class?

And when combined with other things that compromise the immune system
(abusing drugs, drinking heavily, burning th e candle at both ends,
etc.), you're just asking for trouble. BIG trouble!

The HIV virus apparently does invade those T cells, but the cells
somehow block virus replication.It is the byproducts of that aborted
infection that trigger an immune response that is ultimately
responsible for killing those cells"


That's known in scientific circles as psychobabble. *Akin to your
"mysterious effect" *regarding bariatric surgery, etc.

Gobbledygook!


Of course just like all denialists you reject all sound
AIDS/HIV research by world class AIDS researchers
because it exposes your lies like "lack of sleep
causes AIDS".


When you see terms like "somehow blocks virus replication," you should
run like hell. It means the person doesn't know what he's talking
about.

Again, retroviruses depend on keeping the cell alive for their own
survival. To kill the cell is to commit suicide.

Moron.

Truth is, HIV is not a killer virus.


Truth is you're a liar.


Truth is you're a lying asshole, with the IQ of a fence post.

Who should we believe,
Robert Gallo and Montagnier, or you?


That's like saying, who should we believe, all the other scientists,
or Galileo?

I'm going with Galileo.


See, here is the essential difference.
Galileo had PROOF for what he was claiming.


No more than Duesberg, et al.

Besides, Gallo has been convicted twice of scientific misconduct and
fraud, and Montagnier says that HIV, by itself, can't cause AIDS.


The above is yet another lie. Gallo was never convicted of
anything, nor was he even charged.


I didn't mean criminally.

http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/jcgallocase.htm

Now as to Montagnier, lets look at the clearest thing in
evidence as to his position on what the cause of AIDS
is.


His own words aren't good enough for you, right?

That figures.

So, if you want to hang your hat on those two guys...


You were hanging yours on Montagnier,


I wasn't hanging any hats; I was simply repeating his own words.

because those partners are long-term drug abusers, too, etc.


Oh, really? *So now AIDS can be acquired not by
abusing drugs yourself, but simply by being gay and
having a partner who is a drug abuser?


Yes. Through anal sex, the exchange of bodily fluids (including
blood), etc.


Well, if it's not HIV that's causing AIDS, that's one
hell of an interesting concept. Tell us more?


I can keep teliing you, but it wouldn't do any good, because you're
too dumb to understand what *antibodies* are.

With antibodies to HIV come AIDS drugs. With AIDS drugs comes AIDS,
and then death.

And with the exchange of bodily fluids, comes antibodies. Antibodies
to HIV, for example.

Now take some time, have a glass of wine, turn the TV off, and see if
you can figure out how this happens.

But it's not AIDS that is acquired, it's ANTIBODIES to HIV. Then AIDS,
Inc. kills them both with AIDS drugs. More slowly, these days, but
still ever so surely.


Sure, how dumb would one have to be to believe that?


Actually, only "dumb" enough to observe and understand what's
happening right before your own eyes.

We had the AIDS patients in the first few years dying one
after the other, despite the fact that THERE WERE NO AIDS
drugs.


Correct. But they were all drug-abusing gay men, who had been burning
the candle at both ends for years. They had destroyed their immune
systems with drugs and lifestyle, No AIDS drugs were needed.

That's why AIDS was originally called GRID. Gay-Related Immune
Deficiency.

We have your denialist friends today refusing to
take any AIDS drugs and they are mostly dying at 30.


No, they are mostly living and thriving.

The ones who are dying are the ones who take AIDS drugs.

We have people in third world countries who have no
access to AIDS drugs dying.


Yes, the same people who have no access to nutritional food, clean
water, practice poor hygiene, etc. And they die from the very same
diseases they've always died from, malaria, TB, wasting, slim disease,
etc.

But they call it "AIDS" today, because that's where the $$$ is.

See: gay liberation, Stonewall riots, etc.,


See world encyclopedia and realize that AIDS and
HIV exist on every continent, in every country.


What? *We're the only country that has homosexuals? The only country
that abuses drugs?


Anyone except a bigot knows that tens of millions of
people of various backgrounds have died from AIDS.


Yes, "AIDS by prescripion," from taking AIDS drugs.

And only a bigot would try to somehow link it to gay
liberation.


Again, that's where it all started in THIS COUNTRY.

Africa is a different situation altogether. And I've previously
explained why.

Again this is what is offensive. *The rest of us
see a woman infected with HIV by a partner that
she didn't know had HIV. * It's tragic, but we know how
it happens.


Yes, it is tragic, because now they are going to start giving her AIDS
drugs, which will KILL her. And it's all unnecessary!

You denialists have to call her
a liar or secret drug addict or prostitute.


What? *People who test positive for HIV don't lie? *Just the rest of
us can be liars, right? Is that yet another "mysterious" effect of
HIV? *It makes you tell the truth?


Some of them might, sure.


How many does it take?

Sheesh.

Moron.

--
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
  #20  
Old August 3rd, 2012, 06:24 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default The detrimental role of a high carbohydrate diet, and Alzheimer's

On Aug 3, 12:20*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 07:54:32 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

Continuing to lie may not make it "true," but as Hitler once said: the
use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone
"could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." And asGoebbels wrote: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the


truth."


Yes, those are your tactics exactly. *Claiming for example
that lack of sleep causes AIDS.


But a lack of sleep *can* contribute to a compromised immune system!

http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders...ss-10/immune-s...

Really, have you never even taken one biology class?


Really, do you ever stay on topic or come up with an
actual study that supports what you claim? Did I ever
say that lack of sleep can't contribute to a lowered
immune system? OF course not. In fact I acknowledged
that many posts ago. But that isn't what you're claiming.

What you and the denialist kooks are claiming is:

lack of sleep can wipe out your immune system
totally, leaving you open to the opportunistic infections
that characterize AIDS. Study please.....

even after proper sleep is restored, the immune
system remains wiped out, patients acquire
opportunistic infections and typically
die. Study please.

lack of sleep can produce the near zero levels of
CD4 cells seen in AIDS patients. Study please....

and a study explaining why the above sleep
phenomena is only seen in people who are
HIV+ would be nice too.... Study please....

Of course there are no studies because it's a
big lie.




That's like saying, who should we believe, all the other scientists,
or Galileo?


I'm going with Galileo.


See, here is the essential difference.
Galileo had PROOF for what he was claiming.


No more than Duesberg, et al.


Another lie. Duesburg has no studies, no facts, nothing
new just old theories that no studies support. Galileo
proved his claims with a telescope.



Besides, Gallo has been convicted twice of scientific misconduct and
fraud, and Montagnier says that HIV, by itself, can't cause AIDS.


The above is yet another lie. *Gallo was never convicted of
anything, nor was he even charged.


I didn't mean criminally.


But that is what convicted means liar.
Yeah, you better backpeddle on that one, for obvious
reasons, eh?




You were hanging yours on Montagnier,


I wasn't hanging any hats; I was simply repeating his own words.


No, I gave you Montagnier's words when he clearly denounced
an AIDS denialist propaganda piece publicly in 2006.

Here, in his own words:

"Indeed, both of us have contributed to the identification of such
factors but this does not put into question that HIV alone is the
cause of AIDS. We hope to dispel another point of confusion. It is
said that some AIDS patients are HIV negative (an argument made by
those who deny the role of HIV in AIDS). This is not the case. First,
false negative results are extremely rare nowadays when trained
personnel carry out modern diagnostic assays in properly equipped
laboratories. Second, there are other causes of severe immune
deficiency, such as extreme radiation exposure and rare genetic
diseases, just like a severe sore throat can be caused not only by
streptococcus, pneumonia not only by pneumococcus, and lung cancer
not
only by smoking. However, the appearance of a new immune deficiency,
AIDS, on an unprecedented, pandemic scale was caused by the spread of
HIV within the human population."






We had the AIDS patients in the first few years dying one
after the other, despite the fact that THERE WERE NO AIDS
drugs.


Correct. *But they were all drug-abusing gay men, who had been burning
the candle at both ends for years. They had destroyed their immune
systems with drugs and lifestyle, *No AIDS drugs were needed.


Sure. We have a disease with very, very specific characteristics.
We know it manifests itself in the total destruction of CD4 cells.
No, on the one hand we have direct evidence that destruction
is caused by HIV, which 99.99% of the scientific researchers
working on AIDS agree with.

On the other hand we have the denialist nuts like you that
claim:

In the first few years of the disease, that very specific
effect on the CD4 cells was produced by drugs and too
much sex.

Then somehow, the exact same thing was subsequently
caused by AIDS drugs.

Then somehow it was caused by impure clotting factor
in hemophiliacs, despite the fact that identical hemophiliacs
who are HIV- never get AIDS.

Then in blood transfusion patients, well they all just
died of something else. But only the ones who were
HIV+ died.

And in Africa, the exact same thing is being produced
today by malnutrition. That despite the fact that middle
class people are being wiped out by AIDS in Africa too.

Now only a total fool or a bigot with an agenda would
believe that.





That's why AIDS was originally called GRID. Gay-Related Immune
Deficiency.

We have your denialist friends today refusing to
take any AIDS drugs and they are mostly dying at 30.


No, they are mostly living and thriving.


I think not. Here's a list of a few dozen prominent
dead ones. Funny thing that. Gee, what do they have
in common? Took AIDS drugs? No. Gay? No.
Starving Africans? No. The only thing they have
in common is they are infected with HIV.

http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/dead_denialists


See: gay liberation, Stonewall riots, etc.,


See world encyclopedia and realize that AIDS and
HIV exist on every continent, in every country.


What? We're the only country that has homosexuals? The only country
that abuses drugs?


Anyone except a bigot knows that tens of millions of
people of various backgrounds have died from AIDS.


Yes, "AIDS by prescripion," from taking AIDS drugs.


Bigot


And only a bigot would try to somehow link it to gay
liberation.


Again, that's where it all started in THIS COUNTRY.


Bigot


Africa is a different situation altogether. *And I've previously
explained why.


Yes, because like all denialists you have to come up
with and change the explanation for AIDS because
your crap theories make no sense. In the US it
was being gay, until it was AIDS drugs, then it
was impure clotting factor, then it was they just
died of something else, then it was lack of sleep,
then it was too much sex. In Africa it's poor nutrition
and sanitation, which is another bigotted lie
because the African middle class is being
decimated by AIDS. Those people are not
starving.

Compare that BS with the simple concept that HIV
is the cause of AIDS and it explains it in all the
above groups. Now, go ahead, spin away with
lies....







Again this is what is offensive. The rest of us
see a woman infected with HIV by a partner that
she didn't know had HIV. It's tragic, but we know how
it happens.


Yes, it is tragic, because now they are going to start giving her AIDS
drugs, which will KILL her. And it's all unnecessary!


You denialists have to call her
a liar or secret drug addict or prostitute.


What? People who test positive for HIV don't lie? Just the rest of
us can be liars, right? Is that yet another "mysterious" effect of
HIV? It makes you tell the truth?


Some of them might, sure.


How many does it take?


In your case just one. Because you are the worst liar
I've ever encountred. But it won't work here, not
today. I'm gonna expose you for the lying bigot you are.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Effect of weight loss on the postprandial response to high-fat and high-carbohydrate meals in obese women. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 February 3rd, 2007 01:27 PM
High-Carbohydrate Diet Can Increase Blood Pressure in Type 2 Patients Roger Zoul Low Carbohydrate Diets 1 November 12th, 2005 04:12 AM
High-Fat, Low-Carb Diet Could Curb Alzheimer's Irv Finkleman General Discussion 6 October 23rd, 2005 03:55 PM
High-Fat, Low-Carb Diet Could Curb Alzheimer's Irv Finkleman Low Carbohydrate Diets 6 October 23rd, 2005 03:55 PM
High Fat, Low Carbo Diet Improves Alzheimer's Disease In Mice jbuch Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 October 18th, 2005 02:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.