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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On 5/22/2012 4:51 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:36:51 -0300, James Warren wrote: You doubt it because you don't have a clue about either HIV or AIDS. The AIDS definition is different in Canada than the U.S. There's also the Banqui definition, used mostly in Africa. You could be AIDS-free in the U.S., but fly to Kenya and see a doctor? All of a sudden you have AIDS. Do you know any other disease that works like that? Yep. Just about all the psychiatric diseases. *Infectious* disease is implied here! You must also think it's plausible for a supposedly infectious disease to infect almost exclusively gay men, IV drug abusers, and hemophiliacs in the U.S., Canada and Europe, but infect 10s of millions of heterosexuals in Africa, Asia, and Latin America? Yes. Wow. Can you name any other virus that is so selective? Do you know anything at all about viruses? Different lifestyles and probabilities of exposure account for it. Heterosexuals don't have sex in the U.S., Canada, and Europe? Jeez louise, I was right. There's just no there there. And that one little, mostly harmless, retrovirus, very similar to all other retroviruses, can all of a sudden cause 26 different diseases? All of which have been around for a long time before anyone ever said the word "AIDS"? Your premise is wrong. HIV is not mostly harmless. Yes, it is. Read Duesberg's book. It this your Bible? It's my favorite book regarding AIDS, yes. What's yours? Oh, I see. You've never read a book on AIDS. That figures. I could go on and on, but it seems that you are the victim of selective implausibility. Unfortunately, I don't think there's an app for that. The weight of evidence definitely favors the HIV causes AIDS argument. No, it doesn't. But the "Friends of Bob" (Gallo) currently have their finger on that scale, and they aren't about to take it off anytime soon. Yeah it does. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. No, just a gullible simpleton. Frankly, I like my team better. Nota bene: James, it's obvious that you get most of your scientific information from MSNBC, and that you don't know enough about AIDS to even ask sensible questions. Go read Duesberg's book. Then come back and discuss AIDS with me. No, I don't watch MSNBC. Frankly, you are not important enough to me to waste the time reading a book for. Sorry to disappoint you. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On 5/22/2012 4:56 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:39:53 -0300, James Warren wrote: [...] There is none so righteous as the self-righteous. "We have no words for speaking of wisdom to the stupid. He who understands the wise is wise already." -G.C. Lichtenberg Thank you. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On 5/22/2012 5:00 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:57:07 -0300, James Warren wrote: [...] I gather you are an expert in all those areas of specialization that you have denounced as frauds and unscientific. Congratulations on your expansive erudition. Why, thank you, James! I wish I could say the same of you, but, alas, I can't. I understand. If only you did. [...] I bow down to you, oh rational one. Get off your knees, plebe, and go read Duesberg's book! If ever there was a motto you should embrace, it's: "Read more, write less." Ahem! You write much more than I do. Tha's because I've already done the reading part, unlike you. What, besides Duesberg, have you read? Can you recommend something on the other side. Maybe I would read them sequentially. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On May 22, 2:56*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:36:05 -0300, James Warren wrote: [...] But all the wasted money, the needless deaths, pain and suffering, are all but forgotten. I think you are lost in paranoia. And I think you're a lazy and gullible simpleton. So there. You seem to subscribe to all the conspiracy theories. Nope, only to certain UNSCIENTIFIC theories. The ones I've studied from asshole to elbow. Well finally Dogman has said one thing that is true and we can all agree on. And that is that per his own words above, he subscribes to unscientific conspiracy theories that he's studied from AH to elbow. Actually I have some doubt about the studying part because he's unable to give any coherent backup to any of those theories beyond "Read Duesburg's book...." If he had actually absorbed some of the denialist nonsense you'd think he could do a better job of at least reciting some of it. Thanks, I hope I never escape from this rut myself! -- Dogman I don't think there is any need to worry about that. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On May 22, 3:51*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:36:51 -0300, James Warren wrote: You doubt it because you don't have a clue about either HIV or AIDS. The AIDS definition is different in Canada than the U.S. There's also the Banqui definition, used mostly in Africa. You could be AIDS-free in the U.S., but fly to Kenya and see a doctor? All of a sudden you have AIDS. I'd like to see the differences in the criteria for AIDS in the USA and Canada. Let's start with that. Provide us with a real, credible reference to each. I'll bet the differences, if any, are trivial and this is just another red herring. Do you know any other disease that works like that? Yep. Just about all the psychiatric diseases. *Infectious* disease is implied here! You must also think it's plausible for a supposedly infectious disease to infect almost exclusively gay men, IV drug abusers, and hemophiliacs in the U.S., Canada and Europe, but infect 10s of millions of heterosexuals in Africa, Asia, and Latin America? Yes. Wow. First it's a lie that it's almost exclusively a disease among gay men, iv drug users, and hemophiliacs. That you would include hemophiliacs shows how little you actually know about AIDS. Hemophiliacs were very important in PROVING that it was an infectious virus passed via blood that CAUSED the disease. But they were never a significant percentage of those with the disease. And because screening for HIV quickly eliminated that route, the tiny numbers remained tiny. Capiche? Here;s some recent statistics: http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm You have 132,000 females that acquired AIDS in the USA to date via heterosexual contact. That's 11% of the total. Certainly not your claimed "almost exclusively gay, drug users, etc. scenario." There have been studies done that show an HIV infected mother can pass HIV on to her babies. The babies, male or female that do not test positive for HIV never develop AIDS. Many of the babies that do test positive for HIV develop AIDS and about half of those are female. Now if HIV isn't the agent that causes AIDS, how the hell does that happen? Can you name any other virus that is so selective? Do you know anything at all about viruses? Different lifestyles and probabilities of exposure account for it. Heterosexuals don't have sex in the U.S., Canada, and Europe? Of course they do and that's why the AIDS cases to date among heterosexuals is 17%. If you had any familiarity with what you're talking about, you'd know that. Jeez louise, I was right. *There's just no there there. And that one little, mostly harmless, retrovirus, very similar to all other retroviruses, can all of a sudden cause 26 different diseases? All of which have been around for a long time before anyone ever said the word "AIDS"? Your premise is wrong. HIV is not mostly harmless. Yes, it is. Read Duesberg's book. It this your Bible? It's my favorite book regarding AIDS, yes. And you ignore the mountain of data, studies, etc that say Duesburg is a fool. What's yours? Oh, I see. *You've never read a book on AIDS. That figures. I could go on and on, but it seems that you are the victim of selective implausibility. Unfortunately, I don't think there's an app for that. The weight of evidence definitely favors the HIV causes AIDS argument.. No, it doesn't. But the "Friends of Bob" (Gallo) currently have their finger on that scale, and they aren't about to take it off anytime soon. Yeah it does. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. No, just a gullible simpleton. Frankly, I like my team better. Nota bene: James, it's obvious that you get most of your scientific information from MSNBC, and that you don't know enough about AIDS to even ask sensible questions. Go read Duesberg's book. Then come back and discuss AIDS with me. -- Dogman Yeah, sure. James is the one that needs to learn? About 17% of the cases of AIDS in the USA to date have been transmitted via heterosexual sex. Last year about a third of new cases were transmitted via heterosexual sex. But keep your head buried in the sand with Douchebags book like a typical denialist. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:02:28 -0300, James Warren
wrote: [...] Yeah it does. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. No, just a gullible simpleton. Frankly, I like my team better. Nota bene: James, it's obvious that you get most of your scientific information from MSNBC, and that you don't know enough about AIDS to even ask sensible questions. Go read Duesberg's book. Then come back and discuss AIDS with me. No, I don't watch MSNBC. Frankly, you are not important enough to me to waste the time reading a book for. Sorry to disappoint you. It doesn't dissapoint me, nor does it surprise me. What it does, is to reinforce my belief that you are both incurious and lazy. C'est la vie. -- 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 |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:09:14 -0300, James Warren
wrote: [...] I bow down to you, oh rational one. Get off your knees, plebe, and go read Duesberg's book! If ever there was a motto you should embrace, it's: "Read more, write less." Ahem! You write much more than I do. Tha's because I've already done the reading part, unlike you. What, besides Duesberg, have you read? Pretty much everything there is. I even gave you a list of some of the books. Can you recommend something on the other side. No. You said I wasn't "important enough" to do that. So do your own work. With your vast scientific background, I'm sure you know how to do that, right? Maybe I would read them sequentially. You know when you'll read Duesberg's book? When one day, say, while applying for a new life insurance policy, you're asked to take a blood test, and then it comes back HIV+. Then you'll read the book. -- 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 |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:03:26 -0300, James Warren
wrote: [...] There is none so righteous as the self-righteous. "We have no words for speaking of wisdom to the stupid. He who understands the wise is wise already." -G.C. Lichtenberg Thank you. Have you used up your annual allotment of smilies yet? You are to smilies what Bayer is to aspirin. -- 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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:32:14 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] You seem to subscribe to all the conspiracy theories. Nope, only to certain UNSCIENTIFIC theories. The ones I've studied from asshole to elbow. Well finally Dogman has said one thing that is true and we can all agree on. And that is that per his own words above, he subscribes to unscientific conspiracy theories that he's studied from AH to elbow. That's straw man #2376 by my count. You must be trying to use them up before they expire, eh? I study unscientific theories, not conspiracies. Let's see...why would someone always need to misrepresent his opponent's position? Hmmmm. -- 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 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.
On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:13:03 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] The AIDS definition is different in Canada than the U.S. There's also the Banqui definition, used mostly in Africa. You could be AIDS-free in the U.S., but fly to Kenya and see a doctor? All of a sudden you have AIDS. I'd like to see the differences in the criteria for AIDS in the USA and Canada. Let's start with that. Provide us with a real, credible reference to each. [...] I did that. But you ignored it, as usual. I'm not going to do it again. It's easy enough to check out. There's this thing called "the internet." Give it a go. -- 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Eating slowly | jjrb230 via WeightAdviser.com | General Discussion | 4 | August 21st, 2006 06:30 PM |
Slowly, slowly | Alan | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 13 | October 26th, 2005 02:49 PM |
Shrinking slowly! | sandy | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | October 9th, 2004 08:00 PM |
Is low-carbing successful if you go slowly?? | wilson | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 14 | March 9th, 2004 12:49 AM |
changing slowly | Susan Jones-Anderson | General Discussion | 16 | October 3rd, 2003 01:01 AM |