About diabetic friendly supplemental drinks

On Thu, 17 May 2012 15:43:45 -0300, James Warren
wrote:


There are exceptions to every rule.

I know the rule you play by: Heads, I win; Tails, you lose.

Works for me!

--
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 17, 11:58*am, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2012 15:00:40 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger

wrote:
Dogman wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
Dogman wrote:

To disprove this theory what it takes is for a person who is otherwise
healthy but has suffered an injury to receive a transfusion of HIV
infected blood, then recover from their injuries and be healthy again
and then later become symptomatic and die of AIDS.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, why does he need to have suffered an
injury?

Who gets a transfusion when there is no need?

No one that I know of. But why is a transfusion or injury neccessary
to your example? *Why not just a syringe full of HIV+ blood?

No, I'm afraid I don't see where you're heading with that.

You might want to look up something called Koch's Postulates.

Experiments on both monkeys and chimps (our closest cousins) have done
pretty much what you describe above, and they didn't get AIDS.

There are related viruses that infect other primate species. *Various of
the resulting diseases have ranges of symptoms worse or less than AIDS.
I do not take this as good evidence.

It's just part of the story, Doug. The doctor (Wilner) was so certain
that HIV couldn't possibly cause AIDS that he was willing to be human
a guinea pig. He injected himself with the blood of HIV+ people many
times, and it's too bad that he eventually died of a heart attack.

No, it's not. Because there is no guarantee that he
actually did inject himself with HIV infected blood and
most likely it was faked. Only the
true loons would take an ALLEGED case size of one
as evidence to dispute the mountains of credible, real
scientific evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
And Wilner died a year or so after injecting himself from
a heart attack, so it prove absolutely nothing with a
disease that can take a long time to manifest itself.

One thing is for sure and that is that he had his medical
license pulled for quackery. So much for his credibility.



He
would have been hard to ignore.

No he was very easy to ignore because no sane,
credible scientists would ever be party to verifying
what he actually injected himself with. He was a
mere stage show, however he was good enough
to fool you.



*On the other hand, today we have
thousands of HIV+ people who have been positive for up to 26+ years,
and they have never gotten AIDS. Because they refuse to take AIDS
drugs.

And we have tens of millions that have died that did not
take drugs. And we have many millions more alive and
healthy today with the latest drugs that are finally highly
effective. There goes that red herring.



And a doctor in Florida injected himself with HIV and didn't get AIDS.

Some percentage of the infected people never go symptomatic.

None of them would go "symptomatic" if they avoided IV drugs,
prophylactic antibiotics, amyl nitrates, got enough sleep, ate healthy
foods, drank clean water, and avoided taking AIDS drugs.

Such total nonsense. Where is the study that supports that?
Why is it that if it's antibiotics and diet, that these AIDS patients
just started suddenly appearing, simultaneously, around 1982?
Did antibiotics suddenly just arrive? Diet change? I mean
this nonsense from the likes of Duesburg was barely plausible
in the early 80s. The theory that it's drugs, diet, not enough
sleep that suddenly in the early 80s produced these exceptional
patients. Ones with no T cells, unable to fight common
infections. And despite every attempt to treat them,
they died. It was this sudden appearance in major
hospitals that began the search for the cause. And from
early on, an infectious agent was the prime suspect.

Then HIV was isolated. A virus that attacks and kills
T cells. You have the vectors for a virus transmitted
from blood or bodily fluids showing up in exactly
the places a reasonable, thinking person would
expect: Hemophiliacs, people who received
blood transfusions, IV drug users, people with
many partners and unprotected sex. It's like
a freaking roadmap that you'd have to be blind
to not recognize.

And now with the latest drugs, we have patients
finally with actual HIV vrius counts near zero
and they are healthy and living relatively normal
lives. Since the start of blood screening,
hemophiliacs are no longer acquiring AIDS.
Nor are celebrities like Arthur Ashe or Isaac
Asimov who acquired HIV from blood transfusions.
Again, it would be one hell of a coincidence for
a disease that was spreading via those routes
to mysteriously stop just as screening of blood
for HIV went into effect. But to be a denialist
you have to just look the other way or come up
with all kinds of case by case bizarre BS
explanations instead of accept the obvious.




That's how evolution works. *Eventually the resistance genes will pervade the
population. *It's how every species has survived every plague before the
invention of vaccines.

Every human being on this planet already has these "resistance genes."

Like James and Trader, most scientists haven't read Duesberg's book.
But thousands of them have, and thousands of them agree with Duesberg,
Rasnick, Mullis, et al.

There a Scientific American interview with him a year or two ago.
That's all the study on the topic I'm likely to do.

That's too bad, because there's much more to learn.

No there isn't. Because he's a discredited hack from the 80s
with no basis for his claims. I'd like you to outline for us right
here, right now, the answers to how hemophiliacs were getting
infected with HIV, dying of AIDS and all that stopped
once blood was screened for HIV. How people who
had blood transfusions were having the exact same
thing happen, and again it stopped once blood was
screened.




Avoiding all of the
known infection vectors is my plan. *Conveniently that addresses both
the virus theory and Duesberg's advice.

That's actually a pretty good strategy. You'd think by now that more
people would adopt a similar stategy. Think about that, Doug.

Plus, if you read Duesberg's book though, which explains who the cast
of characters are, how we got in this mess in the first place, etc.,
you could even help to end this hoax.

My hunch is that Duesberg will get the last laugh(s), even if it's
posthumously.

The scientific method does eventually assure the one who's correct gets
the last laugh. *My hunch is the virus folks are the correct ones but I
do get that the science on the topic is immature and the conclusions can
still change over time.

The "virus hunters" are not only wrong, they're making a mockery of
science. Because they got away with pinning a disease (AIDS) on mere
antibodies to HIV (some of which are not even unique to HIV), not
we've got Hep C, HPV (cancer, no less!), FeLV, FIV (none of which
cause any disease), and I'm sure they'll find a way to blame heart
attacks and diabetes on some innocuous antibodies some day, all
because too many of us are incurious.

The lie repeated. HIV virus itself has been recovered from
actual patients. Where the hell do you think Gallo and Montaginer
isolated it from? Moon rocks? Today we can actually measure
THE VIRUS, not just antibodies. What a fool!

But then you also deny that HPV is a cause of ovarian cancer.
In fact, you deny that any virus can cause cancer at all.
What a shock that must be to the hundreds of thousands
of scientists in the field of oncoviruses. There's a new
word for you. Look it up and learn.



PS: Thanks for being able to discuss this topic without calling me a
"loon" or a "moron" or a "denialist."

Now that's a hoot. Given all the vile you've spread like
manure here.

On May 16, 8:34*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 17:25:33 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
[...]

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

No, you claimed he said it in the contemporary video
that you linked to.

No, I didn't.

Here is the exact sequence:

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

Dogman:
He said that it is not required,

Trader:
He never said any such thing.

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

That quote is nowhere to be found in the video.
So there you are caught in another lie.



That's why I'm not discussing HIV or AIDS with you anymore.

We've all heard that one before. Yet here you are again.
I'm still waiting for the AIDS denialist credible explanations for:

A - Hemophiliacs suddenly becoming infected with
HIV in the 80s and dying. Once HIV was indentified
as the cause, a test developed, and routine screening
of blood products begun, that all stopped. Ryan White,
the kid was an example of the above. Was he just
suffering from poor diet? Not enough sleep? A
drug abuser, when he acquired AIDS

B - People who were otherwise basicly health becoming
infected with HIV in the 80s and dying from AIDS
following routine surgical procedures where they
received blood transfusions with HIV contaminated
blood. As soon as screening for HIV in blood was
implemented, this too stopped. Arthur Ashe,
Isaac Asimov are examples.

Mighty mysterious coincidences these events.

C - Why are people still occasionally being infected
with HIV and acquiring AIDS via the above routes
in third world countries. There are incidents where
again the infected blood has been tracked back to
the source.

D - Why if HIV is just a harmless virus that people
can just shrug off with diet and sleep have many
AIDS infected denialists died following their own
loony advice?

E - Why is it that we had young people infected
with HIV wasting away and dying of pneumonia and
a whole host of opportunistic infections. Yet now
that we have a cocktail of drugs that specifically
target the HIV virus, reduce that to near zero
levels as measured in these patients, these
people are living fairly normal lives as long as
they remain on the drugs that keep HIV down?

F - Why is it that people with AIDS that don't
receive that drug treatment almost always die
as evidenced in third world countries? And
that similar people, living in similar conditions,
that are not infected with HIV don't get AIDS?




You're too stupid, and you can't read.

You claim:

HPV isn;t a cause of cancer in women
No virus can cause cancer.
Monkeys don't get AIDS

#2 is my favorite. There is a whole world of biology
out there devoted to oncoviruses. That alone is
enough proof that you don't know much at all.
Yet you want us to believe your denialist nonsense?
How much other sound science do you reject?
And no, don't ask me to read that fool
Duesburg's book. I'd just as soon read a book
from a holocaust denier.



If Doug wants to discuss it, okay. But I'm not wasting my time on you
anymore.


We've all heard that before, but here you are.
Just one more lie. Doug has made it clear that
he doesn't agree with you. Gee, why is it that you now
have 3 people here that disagree with you and
not one that agrees?

On Fri, 18 May 2012 11:12:12 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[more of the same ol' drivel snipped to spare the senses]
Doug has made it clear that
he doesn't agree with you. Gee, why is it that you now
have 3 people here that disagree with you and
not one that agrees?

And I've made it clear to you that The Scientific Method doesn't give
a hoot about who agrees or doesn't agree with a theory.

And whether Doug agrees with me or not, he's apparently taking
precautions that allow for Duesberg being right. Probably because he's
smart enough to not put all of his apples in one basket, unlike
doofuses.

Doofuses like you, 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 18/05/2012 3:12 PM, wrote:
On May 16, 8:34 pm, wrote:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 17:25:33 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
[...]

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

No, you claimed he said it in the contemporary video
that you linked to.

No, I didn't.

Here is the exact sequence:

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

Dogman:
He said that it is not required,

Trader:
He never said any such thing.

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

That quote is nowhere to be found in the video.
So there you are caught in another lie.



That's why I'm not discussing HIV or AIDS with you anymore.

We've all heard that one before. Yet here you are again.
I'm still waiting for the AIDS denialist credible explanations for:

A - Hemophiliacs suddenly becoming infected with
HIV in the 80s and dying. Once HIV was indentified
as the cause, a test developed, and routine screening
of blood products begun, that all stopped. Ryan White,
the kid was an example of the above. Was he just
suffering from poor diet? Not enough sleep? A
drug abuser, when he acquired AIDS

B - People who were otherwise basicly health becoming
infected with HIV in the 80s and dying from AIDS
following routine surgical procedures where they
received blood transfusions with HIV contaminated
blood. As soon as screening for HIV in blood was
implemented, this too stopped. Arthur Ashe,
Isaac Asimov are examples.

Mighty mysterious coincidences these events.

C - Why are people still occasionally being infected
with HIV and acquiring AIDS via the above routes
in third world countries. There are incidents where
again the infected blood has been tracked back to
the source.

D - Why if HIV is just a harmless virus that people
can just shrug off with diet and sleep have many
AIDS infected denialists died following their own
loony advice?

E - Why is it that we had young people infected
with HIV wasting away and dying of pneumonia and
a whole host of opportunistic infections. Yet now
that we have a cocktail of drugs that specifically
target the HIV virus, reduce that to near zero
levels as measured in these patients, these
people are living fairly normal lives as long as
they remain on the drugs that keep HIV down?

F - Why is it that people with AIDS that don't
receive that drug treatment almost always die
as evidenced in third world countries? And
that similar people, living in similar conditions,
that are not infected with HIV don't get AIDS?




You're too stupid, and you can't read.

You claim:

HPV isn;t a cause of cancer in women
No virus can cause cancer.
Monkeys don't get AIDS

#2 is my favorite. There is a whole world of biology
out there devoted to oncoviruses. That alone is
enough proof that you don't know much at all.
Yet you want us to believe your denialist nonsense?
How much other sound science do you reject?
And no, don't ask me to read that fool
Duesburg's book. I'd just as soon read a book
from a holocaust denier.



If Doug wants to discuss it, okay. But I'm not wasting my time on you
anymore.


We've all heard that before, but here you are.
Just one more lie. Doug has made it clear that
he doesn't agree with you. Gee, why is it that you now
have 3 people here that disagree with you and
not one that agrees?

Aw c'mon, he quotes Feynman. How can he be wrong?


--
-jw

On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:26:30 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Aw c'mon, he quotes Feynman. How can he be wrong?

I can be as wrong as anyone...but you. And Trader, of course.

No one else on earth could be that wrong.

Not even Barbra Streisand.

--
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 18/05/2012 4:32 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 18 May 2012 16:26:30 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Aw c'mon, he quotes Feynman. How can he be wrong?

I can be as wrong as anyone...but you. And Trader, of course.

No one else on earth could be that wrong.

Not even Barbra Streisand.


Why don't address Trader's remarks about hemophiliacs?

--
-jw

Dogman wrote:
" wrote:

Doug has made it clear that he doesn't agree with you ...

And I've made it clear to you that The Scientific Method doesn't give
a hoot about who agrees or doesn't agree with a theory.

Sometimes I write comments about the maturity of fields of science. In
a mature field the conclusions change very little. In the atomic theory
of chemistry we now have photographs of individual atoms. Advances in
inorganic chemistry are now in fields in battery storage. Very much
edge material compared to the common industrial processes in wide use.
No one is ever going to overturn theories about mixing dissolved salts
to produce precipitates.

Because I observe that the conclusions of climate science continue to
change decade to decade and thus we should not make large political
changes based on the predictions of thise decade as they are still
likely to change next decade, I get called a climate change denier by
some.

And whether Doug agrees with me or not, he's apparently taking
precautions that allow for Duesberg being right. Probably because he's
smart enough to not put all of his apples in one basket ...

I remember the world before AIDS appeared. I remember the time before
AIDS was correlated with HIV. I have long accepted that HIV is the
primary cause or AIDS but I do get that this theory is still young and
may be disproved. I'm not betting my farm on it. That part of the
medical field is immature. Most of medicine as a science is immature
compared with several other sciences.

I know that something like 15% of all people who are HIV infected nevre
become symptomatic with AIDS. No way am I allowing myself to be
injected hoping to become a part of that 15%. But the other causes are
stuff that should be avoided for health reasons. Duesberg's hypothesis
adds to that motivation a little even though I disagree with him on
that topic.

On Fri, 18 May 2012 17:40:52 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Why don't address Trader's remarks about hemophiliacs?

I did, but as usual, you can't read.

--
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 Fri, 18 May 2012 20:50:33 +0000 (UTC), Doug Freyburger
wrote:


Because I observe that the conclusions of climate science continue to
change decade to decade and thus we should not make large political
changes based on the predictions of thise decade as they are still
likely to change next decade, I get called a climate change denier by
some.

That's because the people who call you that are stupid. No one
disputes that the climate is changing. Probably from the precise
moment that earth even had a climate, it started to change.

And the people who call me an AIDS "denialist" are stupid too, because
no one disputes that AIDS exists.

And whether Doug agrees with me or not, he's apparently taking
precautions that allow for Duesberg being right. Probably because he's
smart enough to not put all of his apples in one basket ...

I remember the world before AIDS appeared. I remember the time before
AIDS was correlated with HIV.

And we all know that correlation does not equal causation. Well,
everyone but Trader, James, and maybe Barbra Streisand.

I have long accepted that HIV is the
primary cause or AIDS but I do get that this theory is still young and
may be disproved.

It's already been disproved, and via The Scientific Method, which
Duesberg's book clearly illustrates.

No one can possibly fully understand this topic (and Hep C, HPV, FIV,
FeLV, prions, etc.) without reading his book.

I'm not betting my farm on it. That part of the
medical field is immature. Most of medicine as a science is immature
compared with several other sciences.

Not so much immature as CORRUPT, which Duesberg's book PROVES.

I know that something like 15% of all people who are HIV infected nevre
become symptomatic with AIDS.
[...]

As long as they don't take AIDS drugs, take steps to strengthen their
immune system, and avoid the risk factors, e.g., abuse IV and other
recreational drugs, if you're a man, having promiscuous sex with other
men, inhale amyl nitrates, take antibiotics prophylactically, practice
good hygiene, eat healthy food, drink clean water, etc., they won't
get AIDS.

--
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