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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 10:09 PM |
Dangers of a low carb diet | Wendy J. | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 9 | January 9th, 2004 02:25 AM |