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

More about the importance of diet, and the dangers of resortingto drugs.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 3rd, 2012, 05:24 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default More about the importance of diet, and the dangers of resortingto drugs.

On Aug 3, 11:02*am, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 07:11:46 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

Mostly, yes. Which is why it's almost impossible to find the *actual*
virus in any person with AIDS.


A good example of a huge big denialist lie.


In probably 99.999% of AIDS cases, the actual virus is never even
looked for, much less found. Only the *antibodies* are found!


Yes indeed. *Just like in 99.999% of hepatitis cases the
actual virus is never looked for.


Nor is it ever found. Very similar to HIV, HCV is probably a
"passenger" virus, that rears it's ugly head only after a certain
amount of damage has been done to the liver, from abusing drugs,
alcohol, etc.

http://www.healtoronto.com/hepc.html


As usual, more crap from a kook AIDS denialist website.
As if they are a credible source on hepatitis.
And who said it had to be hep C? Is hep B not a real
disease too because antibody tests are used for
diagnosis and the actual virus is not isolated in
every patient? Pick any of the other diseases out
there today where antibody testing is used for
diagnosis. Google "antibody disease test" and
every testing lab has them and they are routinely
used.

Why do you continue to make a fool of yourself?




As for looking for the actual virus, in the case of AIDS,
we do have tests that measure the actual amount of
virus in the patients body.


No, we do not. But most importantly, they're extremely rarely used
anyway, relying instead on antibody tests and clinical observations.


That's another lie. The viral load is being measured on
most, if not all the patients on current AIDS drug therapy.





AIDS is caused by poor diet, not enough sleep,
recreational drug use, or too much sex
This is something that anyone can test on him/herself.


Any takers?

That exact experiment has been performed for 30
years and continues to be performed today.


Yes, people continue to live the drug-abusive lifestyle, have
promiscuous male sex with hundreds of partners a month, take AIDS
drugs, etc., and they continue to die. *Some "experiment," eh?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting different results.

We have study after study of recreational drug users,
prostitutes, gay men, hemophiliacs, blood
transfusion recipients. *And all say exactly the
same thing. *Absent HIV infection people in those
groups do not get AIDS despite having exactly
the same set of risk factors.


The vast majority of smokers never get lung cancer. Thus, some people
who live this lifestyle can survive longer than others can. But if
they live it long enough, burning the candle at both ends, etc., they
will eventually destroy their immune systems -- and die. *Either from
their lifestyle, lack of nutrition, or from being given AIDS drugs.


Which has nothing whatever to do with the fact that
people in any of these groups, absent HIV infection,
never get AIDS. Why do you lie? Surely you must
understand this most basic concept. We look at
say recreational drug users and find that only those
that use IV drugs get AIDS. We further find that
of these, only those that are HIV+ go on to develop
AIDS. We see that those IV drug abusers that
are HIV+ have many times the mortality rate of
identical IV drug abusers who are HIV-. This has
been studied again and again around the world
by independent AIDS researchers. You know,
the kind that actual research AIDS instead of
just writing denialist opinion pieces and talking
to glowing alien raccoons.

The exact same thing has been studied and studied
and studied in prostitutes, gay men, blood
transfusion recipients, hemophiliacs, soccer
moms. Pick any group and it's been studied.
The conclusion is always the same. Absent
HIV infection they don't develop AIDS. With
HIV infection the vast majority do and that
group has an astonishing mortality rate compared
to the control group.

Why must you lie? Oh, I know, it's because
you're really just a bigot with an agenda.




You abuse your immune system at your own risk.

--



We're still waiting for that study that shows it's possible
to produce what characterizes AIDS by "abusing your
immune system". Show us the study that shows there
are patients who have CD4 counts near zero while
abusing their immune systems. Show us where they
continue to have CD4 counts near zero and all the
symptoms of AIDS, despite no longer abusing their
immune system. Show us the study where they die
at 30..... You can't because it doesn't exist.

On the other hand real studies have shown over and
over that HIV infection produces exactly that, CD4
near zero and AIDS, no "abuse" required.

  #2  
Old August 3rd, 2012, 05:48 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default More about the importance of diet, and the dangers of resorting to drugs.

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 09:24:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


In probably 99.999% of AIDS cases, the actual virus is never even
looked for, much less found. Only the *antibodies* are found!


Yes indeed. *Just like in 99.999% of hepatitis cases the
actual virus is never looked for.


Nor is it ever found. Very similar to HIV, HCV is probably a
"passenger" virus, that rears it's ugly head only after a certain
amount of damage has been done to the liver, from abusing drugs,
alcohol, etc.

http://www.healtoronto.com/hepc.html


As usual, more crap from a kook AIDS denialist website.


Yeah, more "crap" from the very people most affected by the disease.

As if they are a credible source on hepatitis.
And who said it had to be hep C?


I did.

As for looking for the actual virus, in the case of AIDS,
we do have tests that measure the actual amount of
virus in the patients body.


No, we do not. But most importantly, they're extremely rarely used
anyway, relying instead on antibody tests and clinical observations.


That's another lie. The viral load is being measured on
most, if not all the patients on current AIDS drug therapy.


The viral load test is pure fantasy, so says the inventor of PCR
himself. Plus:

"Thus the data point in the same direction as the Drug-AIDS
hypothesis, and are compatible with this hypothesis and with the
hypothesis that HIV itself is not a cause of diseases and does not
affect T-cell longevity, namely "reduced survival (half life)".
Figures in support of the results are shown in a table p. 86. However,
overall this table is subject to many questions as to the meaning of
terms used and possible statistical and scientific bias. For instance,
the data concern the three groups: ‘Normal controls", "HIV+(viremic)",
and "HAART (12 weeks)". The "normal controls" are "healthy". The
"viremic" is supposed to refer to "viral load", but no HIV virus is
ever directly measured in patients. What is measured is something
which is then interpreted as a virus which engages somehow in a deadly
battle with the immune system. In any case, the use made of the
HIV+(viremic) group in the table as far as one can tell is based on
the same circularity as the CDC definition of AIDS, with its
assumption of HIV pathogenesis and causality, which prevents an
unbiased evaluation whether it is HIV or another factor (e.g. drugs)
which cause sickness."

http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/case2.html

Got that? "no HIV virus is ever directly measured in patients"

Not then, not now, and not ever. Because HIV (the actual virus) can
almost never be found in HIV+ patients. Why? Because it's already
been neutralized by the immune system.

You have perhaps thousands of various kinds of antibodies in your
body, but you're not sick, are you? Why do you think that is?

The vast majority of smokers never get lung cancer. Thus, some people
who live this lifestyle can survive longer than others can. But if
they live it long enough, burning the candle at both ends, etc., they
will eventually destroy their immune systems -- and die. *Either from
their lifestyle, lack of nutrition, or from being given AIDS drugs.


Which has nothing whatever to do with the fact that
people in any of these groups, absent HIV infection,
never get AIDS.


Millions of people who are HIV negative get the very same diseases
that HIV positive people get.

The biggest difference between these two groups is: the HIV negative
people aren't given AIDS drugs. Then they die.

You abuse your immune system at your own risk.


We're still waiting for that study that shows it's possible
to produce what characterizes AIDS by "abusing your
immune system".


A study really isn't needed (you're starting to sound like James
Warren), just some common sense, and a little deductive reasoning.

Look up each of those behaviors in the literature and learn what
effects they have on the immune system individually. Then start adding
them all up (cumulatively), and extend those behaviors and effects
over many years. See what your tiny little brain tells you will
probably happen next.

Or better yet, see what happens to *you.*

Good luck with that!

--
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
  #3  
Old August 3rd, 2012, 07:33 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 150
Default More about the importance of diet, and the dangers of resortingto drugs.

On 8/3/2012 1:48 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 09:24:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


In probably 99.999% of AIDS cases, the actual virus is never even
looked for, much less found. Only the *antibodies* are found!

Yes indeed. Just like in 99.999% of hepatitis cases the
actual virus is never looked for.

Nor is it ever found. Very similar to HIV, HCV is probably a
"passenger" virus, that rears it's ugly head only after a certain
amount of damage has been done to the liver, from abusing drugs,
alcohol, etc.

http://www.healtoronto.com/hepc.html


As usual, more crap from a kook AIDS denialist website.


Yeah, more "crap" from the very people most affected by the disease.

As if they are a credible source on hepatitis.
And who said it had to be hep C?


I did.

As for looking for the actual virus, in the case of AIDS,
we do have tests that measure the actual amount of
virus in the patients body.

No, we do not. But most importantly, they're extremely rarely used
anyway, relying instead on antibody tests and clinical observations.


That's another lie. The viral load is being measured on
most, if not all the patients on current AIDS drug therapy.


The viral load test is pure fantasy, so says the inventor of PCR
himself. Plus:

"Thus the data point in the same direction as the Drug-AIDS
hypothesis, and are compatible with this hypothesis and with the
hypothesis that HIV itself is not a cause of diseases and does not
affect T-cell longevity, namely "reduced survival (half life)".
Figures in support of the results are shown in a table p. 86. However,
overall this table is subject to many questions as to the meaning of
terms used and possible statistical and scientific bias. For instance,
the data concern the three groups: ‘Normal controls", "HIV+(viremic)",
and "HAART (12 weeks)". The "normal controls" are "healthy". The
"viremic" is supposed to refer to "viral load", but no HIV virus is
ever directly measured in patients. What is measured is something
which is then interpreted as a virus which engages somehow in a deadly
battle with the immune system. In any case, the use made of the
HIV+(viremic) group in the table as far as one can tell is based on
the same circularity as the CDC definition of AIDS, with its
assumption of HIV pathogenesis and causality, which prevents an
unbiased evaluation whether it is HIV or another factor (e.g. drugs)
which cause sickness."

http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/case2.html

Got that? "no HIV virus is ever directly measured in patients"

Not then, not now, and not ever. Because HIV (the actual virus) can
almost never be found in HIV+ patients. Why? Because it's already
been neutralized by the immune system.

You have perhaps thousands of various kinds of antibodies in your
body, but you're not sick, are you? Why do you think that is?

The vast majority of smokers never get lung cancer. Thus, some people
who live this lifestyle can survive longer than others can. But if
they live it long enough, burning the candle at both ends, etc., they
will eventually destroy their immune systems -- and die. Either from
their lifestyle, lack of nutrition, or from being given AIDS drugs.


Which has nothing whatever to do with the fact that
people in any of these groups, absent HIV infection,
never get AIDS.


Millions of people who are HIV negative get the very same diseases
that HIV positive people get.

The biggest difference between these two groups is: the HIV negative
people aren't given AIDS drugs. Then they die.

You abuse your immune system at your own risk.


We're still waiting for that study that shows it's possible
to produce what characterizes AIDS by "abusing your
immune system".


A study really isn't needed (you're starting to sound like James
Warren), just some common sense, and a little deductive reasoning.


A plausibility argument needs to be confirmed by experiment. The HRT
case illustrates this well.


Look up each of those behaviors in the literature and learn what
effects they have on the immune system individually. Then start adding
them all up (cumulatively), and extend those behaviors and effects
over many years. See what your tiny little brain tells you will
probably happen next.

Or better yet, see what happens to *you.*

Good luck with that!


  #4  
Old August 4th, 2012, 01:17 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default More about the importance of diet, and the dangers of resortingto drugs.

On Aug 3, 2:33*pm, James Warren wrote:
On 8/3/2012 1:48 PM, Dogman wrote:





On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 09:24:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


In probably 99.999% of AIDS cases, the actual virus is never even
looked for, much less found. Only the *antibodies* are found!


Yes indeed. *Just like in 99.999% of hepatitis cases the
actual virus is never looked for.


Nor is it ever found. Very similar to HIV, HCV is probably a
"passenger" virus, that rears it's ugly head only after a certain
amount of damage has been done to the liver, from abusing drugs,
alcohol, etc.


http://www.healtoronto.com/hepc.html


As usual, more crap from a kook AIDS denialist website.


Yeah, more "crap" from the very people most affected by the disease.


As if they are a credible source on hepatitis.
And who said it had to be hep C?


I did.


As for looking for the actual virus, in the case of AIDS,
we do have tests that measure the actual amount of
virus in the patients body.


No, we do not. But most importantly, they're extremely rarely used
anyway, relying instead on antibody tests and clinical observations.


That's another lie. *The viral load is being measured on
most, if not all the patients on current AIDS drug therapy.


The viral load test is pure fantasy, so says the inventor of PCR
himself. Plus:


"Thus the data point in the same direction as the Drug-AIDS
hypothesis, and are compatible with this hypothesis and with the
hypothesis that HIV itself is not a cause of diseases and does not
affect T-cell longevity, namely "reduced survival (half life)".
Figures in support of the results are shown in a table p. 86. However,
overall this table is subject to many questions as to the meaning of
terms used and possible statistical and scientific bias. For instance,
the data concern the three groups: Normal controls", "HIV+(viremic)",
and "HAART (12 weeks)". The "normal controls" are "healthy". The
"viremic" is supposed to refer to "viral load", but no HIV virus is
ever directly measured in patients. What is measured is something
which is then interpreted as a virus which engages somehow in a deadly
battle with the immune system. In any case, the use made of the
HIV+(viremic) group in the table as far as one can tell is based on
the same circularity as the CDC definition of AIDS, with its
assumption of HIV pathogenesis and causality, which prevents an
unbiased evaluation whether it is HIV or another factor (e.g. drugs)
which cause sickness."


http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/case2.html


Got that? "no HIV virus is ever directly measured in patients"


Not then, not now, and not ever. Because HIV (the actual virus) can
almost never be found in HIV+ patients. Why? *Because it's already
been neutralized by the immune system.


You have perhaps thousands of various kinds of antibodies in your
body, but you're not sick, are you? Why do you think that is?


The vast majority of smokers never get lung cancer. Thus, some people
who live this lifestyle can survive longer than others can. But if
they live it long enough, burning the candle at both ends, etc., they
will eventually destroy their immune systems -- and die. *Either from
their lifestyle, lack of nutrition, or from being given AIDS drugs.


Which has nothing whatever to do with the fact that
people in any of these groups, absent HIV infection,
never get AIDS.


Millions of people who are HIV negative get the very same diseases
that HIV positive people get.


The biggest difference between these two groups is: the HIV negative
people aren't given AIDS drugs. Then they die.


You abuse your immune system at your own risk.


We're still waiting for that study that shows it's possible
to produce what characterizes AIDS by "abusing your
immune system".


A study really isn't needed (you're starting to sound like James
Warren), just some common sense, and a little deductive reasoning.


A plausibility argument needs to be confirmed by experiment. The HRT
case illustrates this well.


Not in Doggie's world. He just shoots from the hip,
gets it wrong, and then proceeds to dig his hole
ever deeper. Along the way he eschews world class
scientists, respected by their peers and instead
turns to fringe ones that write of speaking with
glowing alien raccoons.... Consequently

Doggie believes that:

AIDS isn't caused by HIV
HIV is harmless
AIDS is caused by lack of sleep
No virus can cause cancer
HPV isnt' a cause of cervical cancer.

Anything you want to add to your list of
ignorance today Doggie?
  #5  
Old August 4th, 2012, 04:52 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default More about the importance of diet, and the dangers of resortingto drugs.

On 03/08/2012 9:17 PM, wrote:
On Aug 3, 2:33 pm, James wrote:
On 8/3/2012 1:48 PM, Dogman wrote:





On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 09:24:48 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


In probably 99.999% of AIDS cases, the actual virus is never even
looked for, much less found. Only the *antibodies* are found!


Yes indeed. Just like in 99.999% of hepatitis cases the
actual virus is never looked for.


Nor is it ever found. Very similar to HIV, HCV is probably a
"passenger" virus, that rears it's ugly head only after a certain
amount of damage has been done to the liver, from abusing drugs,
alcohol, etc.


http://www.healtoronto.com/hepc.html

As usual, more crap from a kook AIDS denialist website.


Yeah, more "crap" from the very people most affected by the disease.


As if they are a credible source on hepatitis.
And who said it had to be hep C?


I did.


As for looking for the actual virus, in the case of AIDS,
we do have tests that measure the actual amount of
virus in the patients body.


No, we do not. But most importantly, they're extremely rarely used
anyway, relying instead on antibody tests and clinical observations.


That's another lie. The viral load is being measured on
most, if not all the patients on current AIDS drug therapy.


The viral load test is pure fantasy, so says the inventor of PCR
himself. Plus:


"Thus the data point in the same direction as the Drug-AIDS
hypothesis, and are compatible with this hypothesis and with the
hypothesis that HIV itself is not a cause of diseases and does not
affect T-cell longevity, namely "reduced survival (half life)".
Figures in support of the results are shown in a table p. 86. However,
overall this table is subject to many questions as to the meaning of
terms used and possible statistical and scientific bias. For instance,
the data concern the three groups: Normal controls", "HIV+(viremic)",
and "HAART (12 weeks)". The "normal controls" are "healthy". The
"viremic" is supposed to refer to "viral load", but no HIV virus is
ever directly measured in patients. What is measured is something
which is then interpreted as a virus which engages somehow in a deadly
battle with the immune system. In any case, the use made of the
HIV+(viremic) group in the table as far as one can tell is based on
the same circularity as the CDC definition of AIDS, with its
assumption of HIV pathogenesis and causality, which prevents an
unbiased evaluation whether it is HIV or another factor (e.g. drugs)
which cause sickness."


http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/case2.html


Got that? "no HIV virus is ever directly measured in patients"


Not then, not now, and not ever. Because HIV (the actual virus) can
almost never be found in HIV+ patients. Why? Because it's already
been neutralized by the immune system.


You have perhaps thousands of various kinds of antibodies in your
body, but you're not sick, are you? Why do you think that is?


The vast majority of smokers never get lung cancer. Thus, some people
who live this lifestyle can survive longer than others can. But if
they live it long enough, burning the candle at both ends, etc., they
will eventually destroy their immune systems -- and die. Either from
their lifestyle, lack of nutrition, or from being given AIDS drugs.


Which has nothing whatever to do with the fact that
people in any of these groups, absent HIV infection,
never get AIDS.


Millions of people who are HIV negative get the very same diseases
that HIV positive people get.


The biggest difference between these two groups is: the HIV negative
people aren't given AIDS drugs. Then they die.


You abuse your immune system at your own risk.


We're still waiting for that study that shows it's possible
to produce what characterizes AIDS by "abusing your
immune system".


A study really isn't needed (you're starting to sound like James
Warren), just some common sense, and a little deductive reasoning.


A plausibility argument needs to be confirmed by experiment. The HRT
case illustrates this well.


Not in Doggie's world. He just shoots from the hip,
gets it wrong, and then proceeds to dig his hole
ever deeper. Along the way he eschews world class
scientists, respected by their peers and instead
turns to fringe ones that write of speaking with
glowing alien raccoons.... Consequently


So I've noticed. He is amusing though.


Doggie believes that:

AIDS isn't caused by HIV
HIV is harmless
AIDS is caused by lack of sleep
No virus can cause cancer
HPV isnt' a cause of cervical cancer.

Anything you want to add to your list of
ignorance today Doggie?



--
-jw
 




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
More about the importance of diet, and the dangers of resorting to drugs. Dogman Low Carbohydrate Diets 5 August 3rd, 2012 04:02 PM
The importance of Diet medianext05 Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 August 6th, 2006 06:52 PM
The Importance of Diet for longivity medianext05 General Discussion 0 August 6th, 2006 06:51 PM
Clenbuterol Diet Dangers [email protected] General Discussion 2 January 9th, 2006 11:09 PM
Dangers of a low carb diet Wendy J. Low Carbohydrate Diets 9 January 9th, 2004 03:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:40 PM.


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