The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 05:40:17 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
One cohort gets treated with AIDS drugs, which will eventually kill
them, the other cohort gets traditional treatment for those particular
diseases and generally survive, if their illness is treatable.

You claim to believe in "the scientific method". So, show us
the peer reviewed study that shows the above. Of course
it won't be forthcoming because it does not exist.

I've given you links to cites, web sites, books, etc.

Not doing it again.

If you knew anything about HIV and AIDS you would know
how it began. There were patients, mostly young gay men
showing up at major hospitals in NY, LA with mysterious infections,
like PCP pneumonia.

It was seen only in gay men, that's why it was initially called GRID
(Gay-Related Immune Deficiency).

And every single one of them were heavy IV drug abusers, inhaled amyl
nitrates, took antibiotics prophylatically, drank heavily, got no
sleep, and had hundreds of partners a month.

This pneumonia is never seen in
people with normal immune systems, because it's a common
fungus that any functioning immune system simply eliminates
with out us even getting sick.

Exactly. But the original cohort had anything but normal immune
systems. Their's were virtually nonexistent (see above). Until then,
PCP was generally only seen in cancer patients who had undergone
extensive chemotherapy.

Yet you had 20 year
olds coming down with it and other opportunistic infections
that those with normal immune systems would never get.

But they didn't have normal immune systems, they virtually had no
immune systems!

Read Michael Gottlieb's observations of the original GRID cohort.

Or you can read Duesberg's book.

The point here is there were no AIDS/HIV drugs back when
this was occuring, in 1982.

No, there weren't. But every single one of the original GRID cohort
were heavy IV drug abusers, inhaled amyl nitrates, took antibiotics
prophylatically, drank heavily, had hundreds of partners a month, got
no sleep, etc. And this lifestyle destroyed their immune systems.

For the first 5 years or so, all they did was treat these
patients with conventional drugs, eg antibiotics, that they
would use to treat anyone suffering from PCP pneumonia
or the other infections they had. They started with the most
basic antibiotics and when those did not work, they moved
on to the next. And despite heroic efforts, those patients ALL
died within months or a few years. None recovered. So
it's just nonsense to claim that those treated for the particular
opportunistic infection survive. They died. End of story.

They died, but it was just the beginning of the story. And there
weren't 26-30 diseases that were considered "AIDS-related" in those
days.

Avoid destroying your immune system in ways that this original cohort
had, and you'll likely recover from any of those individual diseases
through normal treament, just like those who haven't tested positive
for HIV will.

But start taking AIDS drugs? You'll die.

AZT was originally developed to treat cancer patients, but it was
deemed far too toxic for human use, so it was shelved. So what did
they do? They started giving it to AIDS patients. And they died.
Quickly. Typical cancer drugs are designed to kill cells, all cells,
in the hopes that the drug will kill enough of the cancer cells before
it kills the host. And they're typically given for short periods of
time. AZT was to be taken forever. Well, forever wasn't very long
back in those days, was it?

[...]
Today we have effective HIV drugs and patients are
living for decades.

That's because they have reduced the dosage of AZT, and introduced
newer drugs, that kill them nonetheless, but do it far more $lowly.

We can measure the amount of HIV
virus in these patients.

No, we casn't. That's why we have to resort to things like PCR
(polymerase chain reaction), which the inventor of that technique Kary
Mullis) says cannot be used to quantify HIV.

Then we had the scenario with hemophiliacs being
infected with HIV from blood products. They came
down with the same opportunisitc infections, again
T cells gone, no immune system.

They had no immune system because of taking unpure clotting factors
for years and years.

Once we had a
test for HIV and used it to screen blood, that scenario
stopped. Hemophiliacs are no longer acquiring HIV/AIDS.
Dogman's answer: Hemophiliacs don't live long anyway.

No, they don't, and never have.

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/featu...5191-1645a.pdf

Also, it's curious that Dogman lists hemophiliacs as
if they were a major component of the AIDS epidemic.

They're part of it. But a small part.

We also had people who went in for routine surgery
and had blood transfusions. They got infected with
HIV, came down with AIDS and died. Arthur Ash,

Ashe died from a congenital heart condition.

Isaac Assimov are examples.

Assimov died from heart and kidney failure, and taking AIDS drugs
(particularly AZT).

Following good public health policy will not prevent you from possibly
testing positive for HIV antibodies (sometimes they do it without even
telling you). And then you will be put on AIDS drugs which will
eventually kill you. Slowly, but ever so surely.

The lie repeated. The rest of us know that exactly the
opposite is true. In the 80s we had AIDS patients dying right
and left. Now with effective drugs, they are living.

They are living longer, because the drugs are being given in weaker
dosages. But they all die eventually.

But there are thousands of people who have tested HIV positive who
have lived for up to 26 years now, and have never takenn an AIDS drug.

There are approximately 90 known conditions that can cause a person to
test positive on an HIV test, even pregnancy, which might be the only
condition that you, as a man, are not able to experience.

The current tests for HIV are recognized as among the most
accurate tests there are.

There are no accurate drug tests for HIV.

~ 90 conditions can cause you to test positive, including pregnancy.

Asshole.

I review my kill file and ask myself if it is time to add Dogman to it.

A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.

At this point I could trade him for someone else and reduce the noise.

Feel free to trade me for two Mickey Mantles and a Sandy Koufax!

I'm worth at least that much.

Then I check the total amount of traffic that would be left if I did
that. *It's close. *I ask that you read your own posts and decide to not
play the abuse game. *Don't be a troll by reacting. *It's a process that
gets worse and worse over time.

It might get worse, yes, but that's mostly up to Trader.

I'm not the one that's started several totally new and unrelated
threads where you attack me with the very first post.

You haven't stopped attacking me, or insulting me, from the moment I
first mentioned HIV. You're totally incapable of having a civil
discussion on this topic, preferring instead to repetitively copy &
paste your way through one.

So, yes, you're an 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 Jun 5, 11:51*am, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 05:40:17 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

One cohort gets treated with AIDS drugs, which will eventually kill
them, the other cohort gets traditional treatment for those particular
diseases and generally survive, if their illness is treatable.

You claim to believe in "the scientific method". *So, show us
the peer reviewed study that shows the above. * Of course
it won't be forthcoming because it does not exist.

I've given you links to cites, web sites, books, etc.

Not doing it again.

Sure, because there is no such study period.




If you knew anything about HIV and AIDS you would know
how it began. *There were patients, mostly young gay men
showing up at major hospitals in NY, LA with mysterious infections,
like PCP pneumonia.

It was seen only in gay men, that's why it was initially called GRID
(Gay-Related Immune Deficiency).

And every single one of them were heavy IV drug abusers, inhaled amyl
nitrates, took antibiotics prophylatically, drank heavily, got no
sleep, and had hundreds of partners a month.

Another lie. And even if that were true for say the first 200
patients, it still fits perfectly with the fact that HIV causes AIDS.
IV drug use and sex are the known transmission paths. Now,
if you can show us a cohort that acquired AIDS via just
drinking heavily, taking antibiotics, not sleeping, etc, then
you indeed would have something. Where is that study?

Crickets.....




This pneumonia is never seen in
people with normal immune systems, because it's a common
fungus that any functioning immune system simply eliminates
with out us even getting sick.

Exactly. But the original cohort had anything but normal immune
systems. Their's were virtually nonexistent (see above).

Of course their immune systems were totally non-existent,
FROM AIDS from HIV infection. Good grief.




Until then,
PCP was generally only seen in cancer patients who had undergone
extensive chemotherapy.

Yet you had 20 year
olds coming down with it and other opportunistic infections
that those with normal immune systems would never get.

But they didn't have normal immune systems, they virtually had no
immune systems!

Yes, from AIDS caused by HIV infection. Do you even spend
1 minute THINKING of how silly what you've come up with is?
We're to believe that suddenly, in 1982, lack of sleep, IV drug abuse,
antibiotics, too much drinking, lead to AIDS? Not in 1950, 1960,
1970, 1975? Now, why exactly would that be? And why are
there similar groups today that don't have AIDS? Find a drunk
that's an IV drug abuser and if they are not infected with HIV,
they don't get AIDS.



Read Michael Gottlieb's observations of the original GRID cohort.

Or you can read Duesberg's book.

The world has moved on since 1982 when HIV was unknown.
Unfortunately the fool Duesberg has not.




The point here is there were no AIDS/HIV drugs back when
this was occuring, in 1982.

No, there weren't. But every single one of the original GRID cohort
were heavy IV drug abusers, inhaled amyl nitrates, took antibiotics
prophylatically, drank heavily, had hundreds of partners a month, got
no sleep, etc. And this lifestyle destroyed their immune systems.

Yes, it didn't destroy immune systems in 1965, 1975 etc. It just
started to destroy them in 1982. And I guess hemophiliac Ryan
White became a member of that group too, right? Arthur Ash?
Isaac Asimov? Heterosexuals that are not IV drug abusers are
now one third of new diagnosis of AIDS. What about them?
Oh, they must be secretly staying up all night and drinking, right?






For the first 5 years or so, all they did was treat these
patients with conventional drugs, eg antibiotics, that they
would use to treat anyone suffering from PCP pneumonia
or the other infections they had. *They started with the most
basic antibiotics and when those did not work, they moved
on to the next. * And despite heroic efforts, those patients ALL
died within months or a few years. *None recovered. *So
it's just nonsense to claim that those treated for the particular
opportunistic infection survive. * They died. *End of story.

They died, but it was just the beginning of the story. And there
weren't 26-30 diseases that were considered "AIDS-related" in those
days.


Now, why would they die? You've told us that they die from
AIDS drugs. They took no AIDS drugs and they died despite
every effort to save them. THEY ALL DIED. The
death rate began to slowly decline when the first HIV drugs
became available. Today, with very effective ones, these
patients are no longer dying and most are otherwise healthy.


Avoid destroying your immune system in ways that this original cohort
had, and you'll likely recover from any of those individual diseases
through normal treament, just like those who haven't tested positive
for HIV will.

But start taking AIDS drugs? You'll die.

The lie repeated.





AZT was originally developed to treat cancer patients, but it was
deemed far too toxic for human use, so it was shelved. So what did
they do? *They started giving it to AIDS patients. And they died.
Quickly. Typical cancer drugs are designed to kill cells, all cells,
in the hopes that the drug will kill enough of the cancer cells before
it kills the host. And they're typically given for short periods of
time. AZT was to be taken forever. *Well, forever wasn't very long
back in those days, was it?

What would you expect with a new virus? That there is already
a miracle drug that will cure it? They found that HIV was responsible
and found what drugs were available that had any effectiveness
at all.
And AZT worked. The patients did live longer, but the virus was
able to mutate so that the AZT no longer was effective. Now,
to real scientists, the fact that AZT did work, the virus was shown
to mutate to overcome AZT, etc is just more proof that HIV is
responsible.




[...]

Today we have effective HIV drugs and patients are
living for decades.

That's because they have reduced the dosage of AZT, and introduced
newer drugs, that kill them nonetheless, but do it far more $lowly.

Sure. What pure lunacy.





We can measure the amount of HIV
virus in these patients.

No, we casn't. That's why we have to resort to things like PCR
(polymerase chain reaction), which the inventor of that technique Kary
Mullis) says cannot be used to quantify HIV.

Well, duh. Of course you can't drain their blood
and count the virus under a microscope. There are a
number of tests for viral load:

http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/viral-load-measurement

The viral load is measured using one of three different types of
tests:
Reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test
Branched DNA (bDNA) test
Nucleic acid sequence-based amplification (NASBA) test"


And the overwhelming scientific community accepts them
as reliable.

And Mullis? You want to bring him up?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis

"Mullis's 1998 autobiography Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, gives
his account of the commercial development of PCR, as well as providing
insights into his opinions and experiences. In the book, Mullis
chronicles his romantic relationships, use of LSD, synthesis and self-
testing of novel psychoactive substances, belief in astrology and an
encounter with an extraterrestrial in the form of a fluorescent
raccoon.

Mullis writes of having once spoken to a glowing green raccoon. Mullis
arrived at his cabin in the woods of northern California around
midnight one night in 1985, and, having turned on the lights and left
sacks of groceries on the floor, set off for the outhouse with a
flashlight. "On the way, he saw something glowing under a fir tree.
Shining the flashlight on this glow, it seemed to be a raccoon with
little black eyes. The raccoon spoke, saying, ‘Good evening, doctor,’
and he replied with a hello." Mullis later speculated that the raccoon
‘was some sort of holographic projection and … that multidimensional
physics on a macroscopic scale may be responsible’. Mullis denies LSD
having anything at all to do with this.[31]"





Then we had the scenario with hemophiliacs being
infected with HIV from blood products. *They came
down with the same opportunisitc infections, again
T cells gone, no immune system.

They had no immune system because of taking unpure clotting factors
for years and years.

Sure they did. Yet for years and years, no AIDS. And just
as quickly as they started coming down with AIDS, it
stopped once blood products were screened for HIV.



Once we had a
test for HIV and used it to screen blood, that scenario
stopped. *Hemophiliacs are no longer acquiring HIV/AIDS.
Dogman's answer: Hemophiliacs don't live long anyway.

No, they don't, and never have.

More bizarre denialist reasoning.




We also had people who went in for routine surgery
and had blood transfusions. *They got infected with
HIV, came down with AIDS and died. * Arthur Ash,

Ashe died from a congenital heart condition.

Another denialist lie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ashe

"In 1983, Ashe underwent a second round of heart surgery to correct
the bypass surgery he received back in 1979. In 1988, Ashe fell ill
and discovered he had contracted HIV during the blood transfusions he
had received during his second heart surgery, which ultimately led to
his death. He and his wife kept his illness private until April 8,
1992, when reports that the newspaper USA Today was about to publish a
story about his health condition because of his increasingly gaunt
physical appearance forced him to make a public announcement that he
had the disease.[9] In the last year of his life, Ashe did much to
call attention to AIDS sufferers worldwide. Ashe died from AIDS-
related pneumonia on February 6, 1993.[10




Isaac Assimov are examples.

Assimov died from heart and kidney failure, and taking AIDS drugs
(particularly AZT).

Another denialist lie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov
"Asimov suffered a heart attack in 1977, and had triple bypass surgery
in December 1983. When he died in New York City on April 6, 1992, his
brother Stanley reported heart and kidney failure as the cause of
death.[33] He was survived by his second wife, Janet, and his children
from his first marriage. Ten years after his death, Janet Asimov's
edition of Asimov's autobiography, It's Been a Good Life, revealed
that the myocardial and renal complications were the result of an
infection by HIV, which he had contracted from a blood transfusion
received during his bypass operation.[34] Janet Asimov wrote in the
epilogue of It's Been a Good Life that Asimov's doctors advised him
against going public, warning that the anti-AIDS prejudice would
likely extend to his family members. Asimov's family considered
disclosing his condition after his death, but the controversy that
erupted when Arthur Ashe announced his own HIV infection (also
contracted from a blood transfusion during heart surgery) convinced
them otherwise. Ten years later, after most of Asimov's doctors had
died, Janet and Robyn Asimov agreed that the HIV story should be made
public.[35]"


But part of that sad story we have people like you responsible for.
Those that claim anyone with AIDS must be a IV drug using, drunk,
sleepless, promiscous gay man lead to Asimov dying in shame.





Following good public health policy will not prevent you from possibly
testing positive for HIV antibodies (sometimes they do it without even
telling you). And then you will be put on AIDS drugs which will
eventually kill you. Slowly, but ever so surely.

The lie repeated. * The rest of us know that exactly the
opposite is true. *In the 80s we had AIDS patients dying right
and left. *Now with effective drugs, they are living.

They are living longer, because the drugs are being given in weaker
dosages. *But they all die eventually.

But there are thousands of people who have tested HIV positive who
have lived for up to 26 years now, and have never takenn an AIDS drug.

Sure thousands out of tens of millions. And that is supposed to
prove what? We all know that AIDS takes a variable length of
time from infection to disease. Some small segment may never
come down with full blown AIDS. It's no different than the
scenario with many diseases, hepatitis being an example.





There are approximately 90 known conditions that can cause a person to
test positive on an HIV test, even pregnancy, which might be the only
condition that you, as a man, are not able to experience.

The current tests for HIV are recognized as among the most
accurate tests there are.

There are no accurate drug tests for HIV.

Sure, in the world of the glowing racoon kooks.

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 06:36:05 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
I've given you links to cites, web sites, books, etc.

Not doing it again.

Sure, because there is no such study period.

Of course there was.

If you knew anything about HIV and AIDS you would know
how it began. *There were patients, mostly young gay men
showing up at major hospitals in NY, LA with mysterious infections,
like PCP pneumonia.

It was seen only in gay men, that's why it was initially called GRID
(Gay-Related Immune Deficiency).

And every single one of them were heavy IV drug abusers, inhaled amyl
nitrates, took antibiotics prophylatically, drank heavily, got no
sleep, and had hundreds of partners a month.

Another lie.

It's 100% true, and is easy to look up for yourself. See: GRID. and
Michael Gottlieb research.

And even if that were true for say the first 200
patients, it still fits perfectly with the fact that HIV causes AIDS.

There was no test for HIV antibodies then.

Exactly. But the original cohort had anything but normal immune
systems. Their's were virtually nonexistent (see above).

Of course their immune systems were totally non-existent,
FROM AIDS from HIV infection. Good grief.

There was no test for HIV antibodies then.

Until then,
PCP was generally only seen in cancer patients who had undergone
extensive chemotherapy.

Yet you had 20 year
olds coming down with it and other opportunistic infections
that those with normal immune systems would never get.

But they didn't have normal immune systems, they virtually had no
immune systems!

Yes, from AIDS caused by HIV infection.

No, from IV drug and other recreational drug abuse, prophylactic
antiobiotic abuse, multiple STDS, inhaling amyl nitrates, hundreds of
sex partners a month, drinking heavily, lack of sleep, etc.

You can look it up.

Read Michael Gottlieb's observations of the original GRID cohort.

Or you can read Duesberg's book.

The world has moved on since 1982 when HIV was unknown.
Unfortunately the fool Duesberg has not.

The point here is there were no AIDS/HIV drugs back when
this was occuring, in 1982.

No, only the scientifically illiterate have moved on.

No, there weren't. But every single one of the original GRID cohort
were heavy IV drug abusers, inhaled amyl nitrates, took antibiotics
prophylatically, drank heavily, had hundreds of partners a month, got
no sleep, etc. And this lifestyle destroyed their immune systems.

Yes, it didn't destroy immune systems in 1965, 1975 etc.

Exactly. See: Stonewall Riots.

[...]
They died, but it was just the beginning of the story. And there
weren't 26-30 diseases that were considered "AIDS-related" in those
days.


Now, why would they die? You've told us that they die from
AIDS drugs.

No, from IV drug and other recreational drug abuse, prophylactic
antiobiotic abuse, multiple STDS, inhaling amyl nitrates, hundreds of
sex partners a month, drinking heavily, lack of sleep, etc.

You can look it up.

Avoid destroying your immune system in ways that this original cohort
had, and you'll likely recover from any of those individual diseases
through normal treament, just like those who haven't tested positive
for HIV will.

But start taking AIDS drugs? You'll die.

The lie repeated.

Try it, and see for yourself.

AZT was originally developed to treat cancer patients, but it was
deemed far too toxic for human use, so it was shelved. So what did
they do? *They started giving it to AIDS patients. And they died.
Quickly. Typical cancer drugs are designed to kill cells, all cells,
in the hopes that the drug will kill enough of the cancer cells before
it kills the host. And they're typically given for short periods of
time. AZT was to be taken forever. *Well, forever wasn't very long
back in those days, was it?

What would you expect with a new virus?

There's zero evidence that HIV is a new virus. It's most likely
always been with us.

And AZT worked.

If killing your patients is the goal, then yes, it "worked."

Today we have effective HIV drugs and patients are
living for decades.

That's because they have reduced the dosage of AZT, and introduced
newer drugs, that kill them nonetheless, but do it far more $lowly.

Sure. What pure lunacy.

It's true. Compare the dosage of AZT then with the dosage of AZT
today.

We can measure the amount of HIV
virus in these patients.

No, we casn't. That's why we have to resort to things like PCR
(polymerase chain reaction), which the inventor of that technique Kary
Mullis) says cannot be used to quantify HIV.

Well, duh. Of course you can't drain their blood
and count the virus under a microscope. There are a
number of tests for viral load:

No, there aren't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis

Apparently using LSD helped him develop PCR too, and you don't mind
that, right?

Then we had the scenario with hemophiliacs being
infected with HIV from blood products. *They came
down with the same opportunisitc infections, again
T cells gone, no immune system.

They had no immune system because of taking unpure clotting factors
for years and years.

Sure they did. Yet for years and years, no AIDS.

Because there was no test for the antibodies to HIV then.

Once we had a
test for HIV and used it to screen blood, that scenario
stopped. *Hemophiliacs are no longer acquiring HIV/AIDS.
Dogman's answer: Hemophiliacs don't live long anyway.

No, they don't, and never have.

More bizarre denialist reasoning.

That's easy for you to check out. Just look up the history of
hemophilia.

We also had people who went in for routine surgery
and had blood transfusions. *They got infected with
HIV, came down with AIDS and died. * Arthur Ash,

Ashe died from a congenital heart condition.

Another denialist lie:

No, it's not.

"Unfortunately, his tennis career ended in the late 70's due to
congenital heart problems."
http://gloucestertownship.patch.com/...he-confederacy

And AIDS drugs.

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

Isaac Assimov are examples.

Assimov died from heart and kidney failure, and taking AIDS drugs
(particularly AZT).

Another denialist lie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov
"Asimov suffered a heart attack in 1977, and had triple bypass surgery
in December 1983. When he died in New York City on April 6, 1992, his
brother Stanley reported heart and kidney failure as the cause of
death.[33] He was survived by his second wife, Janet, and his children
from his first marriage. Ten years after his death, Janet Asimov's
edition of Asimov's autobiography, It's Been a Good Life, revealed
that the myocardial and renal complications were the result of an
infection by HIV, which he had contracted from a blood transfusion
received during his bypass operation.

Yep, that's exactly what I said. Thanks for repeating it!

He died from heart and kidney failure, and thern was poisoned with
AIDS drugs to boot.

[...]
But there are thousands of people who have tested HIV positive who
have lived for up to 26 years now, and have never takenn an AIDS drug.

Sure thousands out of tens of millions.

Those "tens of millions" are mostly in Africa and Asia, where they
usually can't afford (and don't take anyway) AIDS drugs. So they may
actually luck out by being poor, and get to live long lives.

In case you haven't noticed, the populations of countries in Africa
and Asis continue to grow.

Some "pandemic," eh?

There are approximately 90 known conditions that can cause a person to
test positive on an HIV test, even pregnancy, which might be the only
condition that you, as a man, are not able to experience.

The current tests for HIV are recognized as among the most
accurate tests there are.

There are no accurate drug tests for HIV.

Sure, in the world of the glowing racoon kooks.

And in the world of stupid and ignorant assholes.


--
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 Thu, 7 Jun 2012 06:59:39 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
Sure, because there is no such study period.

Of course there was.

The lie repeated. Easy to prove too.

Yes, all you have to do is follow the links I provided.

Fetch!

And even if that were true for say the first 200
patients, it still fits perfectly with the fact that HIV causes AIDS.

There was no test for HIV antibodies then.

We know that. So what?

If there was no test, there was no way to know what they had, whether
they were HIV positive or not HIV positive.

Exactly. But the original cohort had anything but normal immune
systems. Their's were virtually nonexistent (see above).

Of course their immune systems were totally non-existent,
FROM AIDS from HIV infection. *Good grief.

There was no test for HIV antibodies then.

So what? There is now.

But you were talking about the original cohort, weren't you?

[...]
Yes, from AIDS caused by HIV infection.

No, from IV drug and other recreational drug abuse, prophylactic
antiobiotic abuse, multiple STDS, inhaling amyl nitrates, hundreds of
sex partners a month, drinking heavily, lack of sleep, etc.

You can look it up.

That was Arthur Ash? Ryan White? Isaac Asimov?

No, they died from diseases (like congenital heart disease, etc.) I've
already listed for you, you were even able to find them for yourself,
plus AUDS DRUGS.

Read Michael Gottlieb's observations of the original GRID cohort.

Or you can read Duesberg's book.

The world has moved on since 1982 when HIV was unknown.
Unfortunately the fool Duesberg has not.
The point here is there were no AIDS/HIV drugs back when
this was occuring, in 1982.

No, only the scientifically illiterate have moved on.

Yes, nice, that's a classic. 99.9% of the medical
community is illiterate and you instead believe those
that write about talking to glowing raccoons.

I don't know exactly what percentage of the medical community is
scientifically illiterate, but it's a large number.

And I really don't care how many glowing raccons they see, provided
they comply with The Scientific Method, and do great work when they're
not seeing glowing raccoons.

Sigmund Freud was addicted to cocaine, Francis Crick (discoverer of
DNA) experimented with LSD, Thomas Edison took cocaine, Steve Jobs
took LSD (you may have heard of him?), Bill Gates took LSD (you may
have heard of him, too?), Richard Feynman (my personal favorite) took
LSD, smoked marijuana and ketamine, and Carl Sagan smoked marijuana.

So Mullis is in some pretty good company, don't you think?

Hey, maybe we should just discard DNA, since Crick was a druggie?

No, there weren't. But every single one of the original GRID cohort
were heavy IV drug abusers, inhaled amyl nitrates, took antibiotics
prophylatically, drank heavily, had hundreds of partners a month, got
no sleep, etc. And this lifestyle destroyed their immune systems.

Yes, it didn't destroy immune systems in 1965, 1975 etc.

Exactly. *See: Stonewall Riots.

Exactly what?

Check it out and you'll see. It answers your question.

They died, but it was just the beginning of the story. And there
weren't 26-30 diseases that were considered "AIDS-related" in those
days.

Now, why would they die? *You've told us that they die from
AIDS drugs.

No, from IV drug and other recreational drug abuse, prophylactic
antiobiotic abuse, multiple STDS, inhaling amyl nitrates, hundreds of
sex partners a month, drinking heavily, lack of sleep, etc.

You can look it up.

Maybe you should do some looking.

I have been, for ~ 28 years now.

http://www.bluebell.de/englisch

Avoid destroying your immune system in ways that this original cohort
had, and you'll likely recover from any of those individual diseases
through normal treament, just like those who haven't tested positive
for HIV will.

But start taking AIDS drugs? You'll die.

The lie repeated.

Try it, and see for yourself.

See the long list of denialists who tried what you and they
belive. They're almost all dead now. But sadly new
buffoons like you have taken their place.

Yes, some are dead, but they died from other diseases, and from taking
AIDS DRUGS.

That's because they have reduced the dosage of AZT, and introduced
newer drugs, that kill them nonetheless, but do it far more $lowly.

Sure. *What pure lunacy.

It's true. Compare the dosage of AZT then with the dosage of AZT
today.

The dosage is less today because we now have a combination
of several drugs and together they are finally able to reduce
the HIV infection to near zero.

The dosage is less today because the previous two attempts at reducing
the dosage killed everyone within months. Now they kill them more
slowly.

Plus, there never has been much HIV "infection" because the mostly
harmless HIV is quickly dealt with by a healthy immune system, leaving
behind only antibodies, just like with the flu.

We can measure the amount of HIV
virus in these patients.

No, we casn't. That's why we have to resort to things like PCR
(polymerase chain reaction), which the inventor of that technique Kary
Mullis) says cannot be used to quantify HIV.

Well, duh. *Of course you can't drain their blood
and count the virus under a microscope. * There are a
number of tests for viral load:

No, there aren't.

The lie repeated is still a lie.

No, there aren't:

http://www.rethinkingaids.com/gallor...-Gallo-45.html

They had no immune system because of taking unpure clotting factors
for years and years.

Sure they did. *Yet for years and years, no AIDS.

Because there was no test for the antibodies to HIV then.

You are such a complete imbecile.

And you're a stupid asshole.

You had doctors
treating patients like Ryan White, a hemophiliac. He
was doing fine, living a normal life.

No hemophiliac leads a "normal" life, moron.

Then some of
them suddenly
came down with strange opportunistic infections that
were life threatening.

Yes, eventually the cumulative effect of taking so much impure
clotting factor eventually totally destroyed his immune system, just
like it did with so many other hemophiliacs before Factor VIII was
developed.

Then he was poisoned by AZT ("AIDS by prescription").

http://rethinkingaids.com/reference/...gg-17Jul08.pdf

Once we had a
test for HIV and used it to screen blood, that scenario
stopped. Hemophiliacs are no longer acquiring HIV/AIDS.
Dogman's answer: Hemophiliacs don't live long anyway.

No, they don't, and never have.
More bizarre denialist reasoning.

That's easy for you to check out. *Just look up the history of
hemophilia.

The history of hemohilia is not the issue and
you know it.

Are you nuts? Until you know the history of hemophilia, you can't
possibly know what happened to, for example, Ryan White, and to other
hemophiliacs.

We also had people who went in for routine surgery
and had blood transfusions. They got infected with
HIV, came down with AIDS and died. Arthur Ash,

Ashe died from a congenital heart condition.

Another denialist lie:

No, it's not.

"Unfortunately, his tennis career ended in the late 70's due to
congenital heart problems."http://gloucestertownship.patch.com/blog_posts/arthur-ashe-and-the-co...

Yet more denialist nonsense. Sure, he had heart problems.

Bingo!

He wasn't "infected" with HIV, he tested positive for HIV antibodies.

And then they killed him with AIDS drugs.

[...]
Isaac Assimov are examples.

Assimov died from heart and kidney failure, and taking AIDS drugs
(particularly AZT).

Another denialist lie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov
"Asimov suffered a heart attack in 1977, and had triple bypass surgery
in December 1983. When he died in New York City on April 6, 1992, his
brother Stanley reported heart and kidney failure as the cause of
death.[33] He was survived by his second wife, Janet, and his children
from his first marriage. Ten years after his death, Janet Asimov's
edition of Asimov's autobiography, It's Been a Good Life, revealed
that the myocardial and renal complications were the result of an
infection by HIV, which he had contracted from a blood transfusion
received during his bypass operation.

Yep, that's exactly what I said. Thanks for repeating it!

He died from heart and kidney failure, and thern was poisoned with
AIDS drugs to boot.

Sure, in your glowing raccoon world

No, in your own words, actually, but apparently you don't even read
your own copy and pastes.

Tsk tsk tsk.

But there are thousands of people who have tested HIV positive who
have lived for up to 26 years now, and have never takenn an AIDS drug.

Sure thousands out of tens of millions.

Those "tens of millions" are mostly in Africa and Asia, where they
usually can't afford (and don't take anyway) AIDS drugs. So they may
actually luck out by being poor, and get to live long lives.

In case you haven't noticed, the populations of countries in Africa
and Asis continue to grow.

Some "pandemic," eh?

1.3 million adults and children die from AIDS in
Africa each year.

If AIDS was a "new disease," there shouldn't be the same growth in
populations. But it's not a new disease, it's just a new name for old
diseases that have been killing Africans for centuries.

15 million children are orphans
due to AIDS.

But not due to AIDS. Due to TRADITIONAL diseases!
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/Conten...1/Default.aspx

There are approximately 90 known conditions that can cause a person to
test positive on an HIV test, even pregnancy, which might be the only
condition that you, as a man, are not able to experience.

The current tests for HIV are recognized as among the most
accurate tests there are.

There are no accurate drug tests for HIV.

Sure, in the world of the glowing racoon kooks.

And in the world of stupid and ignorant assholes.

--
Dogman


That I'm stupid is your personal opinion.

And the evidence.

Damn, there's just soooooo much evidence.

--
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 Jun 7, 8:06*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 16:30:05 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

Yes, all you have to do is follow the links I provided.

As expected, no study because it doesn't exist.

They're in the same place I said they were.


Which is the place we call non-existence.




If there was no test, there was no way to know what they had, whether
they were HIV positive or not HIV positive.

I see, first we have no test.

No, that's used to explain why you can't say those individuals were
HIV+. *See the difference?

No test, no HIV, no AIDS.


You conveniently snipped the part where I explained
that blood from many of those earliest AIDS patients was
saved and still available when the tests for HIV
became available. That was just a few years later.
You don't think the CDC would just throw away samples
from patients with a new disease, would you?
The blood from those patients was tested and
shown to be HIV positive.

Again, very strong scientific proof.




That was Arthur Ash? *Ryan White? *Isaac Asimov?

No, they died from diseases (like congenital heart disease, etc.) I've
already listed for you, you were even able to find them for yourself,
plus AIDS DRUGS.

More pure denialist lies.

Look, moron, your own snippets proved it.


The fundemental problem here is that you start from
a preconceived conclusion and then try to cherry-pick
and twist to force anything you can find into supporting
your position. In pursuit of that, you use comments
made by scientists about AIDS from 25 years ago,
ignoring all that has been learned since. You deny
that the denialists that refuse HIV drugs die of AIDS.
You need to explain away the many deaths of public
figures that we saw wasting away and we all know
died of AIDS as occuring
from something else. You need to diminish the
magnitude of the AIDS epidemic in Africa and
marginalize it by claiming the population is still
growing so there is no AIDS epidemic.
You turn to denialist propaganda videos that
are nothing more than a sad group of HIV positive
denialists spouting off with nothing of scientific relevance.

At the same time, you ignore the powerful proof:

1 - Hemophiliac scenario
2 - Transfusion scenario

Both of those stopped just as soon as a test for
HIV was available and blood was screened.
Hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients that are not
HIV positive, do not get AIDS

3 - HIV/AIDS transmission to babies from their
mothers. That has been drastically reduced now that
we have both an HIV test and HIV drugs to give to
the mother and child before and shortly after birth.
Without HIV drugs the transmission rate was 25%.
With HIV drugs, the transmission rate is 2%.
And babies that are not HIV infected never develop
AIDS. Those that are HIV infected, if untreated,
develop into AIDS.

4 - Those infected with HIV are now living, not
dying provided they take the HIV drugs. Those that
don't take drugs, eg third world countries or denialists,
die. Here's a list of some of the prominent denialists
who claim HIV doesn't cause AIDS, choosing instead
to treat it with moonbeams and diet, that are now
dead from AIDS:

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

Ken Anderlini
Fela Anikulapo-Kuti
Michael Bellefountaine
Sophie Brassard
Ronnie Burk
Jerry Colinard
Sylvie Cousseau
Boyd Ed Graves
Mark Griffiths
Robert Johnston
John Kirkham
Kelly John Landis
Sandi Lenfestey
Raphael Lombardo
Peter Mokaba
Christine Maggiore
Marietta Ndziba
David Pasquarelli
Casper Schidt
Kari Stokely
Tony Tompsett
Huw Christie Williams
Jody Wells
Scott Zanetti


Let's look at one of those closer, since he directly
followed the advice of Duesburg:

Raphael Lombardo was a gay man who believed Peter Duesberg's claims
that HIV was harmless. Lombardo wrote to Duesberg on May 30, 1995,
noting that he had never used any recreational drugs or
pharmaceuticals and was not sick, despite testing HIV positive (the
letter was titled "Life without AZT !"). Duesberg published the entire
letter in his book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" and wrote of Lombardo:
"His letter proves that true science does not depend on institutional
authority." (The letter is posted at http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdazt.htm.)

Raphael Lombardo died of AIDS a little over a year later, on June 11,
1996. When asked about Lombardo's death, Duesberg wrote: "In
hindsight, I think his letter was almost too good to be true. I am
afraid now, he described the man he wanted to be [e.g. that he did not
use recreational drugs] and his Italian family expected him to be, but
not the one he really was. I think he died from Kaposi's."

Recognize the tactics? First, use what you can as
phony proof for kook claims. Put him in as proof
in your book. Then, when it blows up
in your face, twist and turn, do whatever it takes to try
to explain it away. What's next? That babies born
with HIV are drug abusing homosexuals too?

Now sound science would be to show a study where
AIDS is found in drug abusers that are not HIV
infected. OF course that study doesn't exist. Not
from Duesburg, not from you, not from the other
denialists, not from anyone.


5 - Those that refuse the drugs are still dying, just
like the initial AIDS patients in 1982.

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

6 - Lab workers accidentally infected with HIV, test
positive for HIV, develop AIDS.




http://www.bluebell.de/englisch

This is a great example of the problem here.

There's no problem here either.

It's real-life stories of people who have unfortunately tested
positive for HIV but you have decided to not take deadly AIDS drugs,
and who are all doing fine, just like thousands of others.

Sure they are. That's why in the video none of
them are named and identified. Because if they
were, then it would be easy to see how they do
over the next 5 or 10 years. I can show you
videos, books, etc from similar denialists from
10 years ago that are dead now from AIDS.
In another 5 or 10 years, most of the denialists
in that propaganda video
will be dead. But by then, the denialists will have
moved on to a new set of buffoons who have
nothing of relevance to say, except that they
claim HIV doesn't cause AIDS and won't take
the HIV drugs. You call that video some kind of proof?
And YOU claim to understand and use the
"scientific method"? I ask for a study and you give us
propaganda videos.





Yes, some are dead, but they died from other diseases, and from taking
AIDS DRUGS.

Not some. *Most of those that refused to take HIV
medication are dead. *And they died of AIDS.

No, they didn't. *Because people who are unfortunate enough to test
positive for HIV are never allowed to die from anything but
"complications from AIDS," even if they're hit by a car, die in a
plane crash, or have massive heart attacks.


Now that's special. YOU and the other denialsts are
the ones inventing any reason other than AIDS for
the deaths, one after the other. The statistical odds
of so many young people dying without AIDS are
1 in a trillion.






The dosage is less today because we now have a combination
of several drugs and together they are finally able to reduce
the HIV infection to near zero.

The dosage is less today because the previous two attempts at reducing
the dosage killed everyone within months. Now they kill them more
slowly.

Plus, there never has been much HIV "infection" because the mostly
harmless HIV is quickly dealt with by a healthy immune system, leaving
behind only antibodies, just like with the flu.

The lie repeated.

It's not a lie, and I can't repeat it often enough, in my opinion.

And I have you to thank for allowing me to do that!

I'm sure the fools that believe you and Duesburg and
wind up dead will thank you from the after-life.



. You had doctors
treating patients like Ryan White, a hemophiliac. *He
was doing fine, living a normal life.

No hemophiliac leads a "normal" life, moron.

He was attending school and otherwise healthy.

No hemophiliac is ever "healthy" either.

You can look it up.

Go ahead, marginalize hemophiliacs in a pathetic
attempt to make them fit your kook theories.



Yes, eventually the cumulative effect of taking so much impure
clotting factor eventually totally destroyed his immune system, just
like it did with so many other hemophiliacs before Factor VIII was
developed.

Show us the study that shows this.

I have. Several, in fact. But you apparently chose to ignore them.

The lie repeated.




I can play this game longer than you can, moron.

You told us a week ago that you were done. Yet here
you are posting again.... Haven't you embarrassed
yourself and destroyed your credibility enough?




Are you nuts? *Until you know the history of hemophilia, you can't
possibly know what happened to, for example, Ryan White, and to other
hemophiliacs.

You only need to know that these hemophiliacs were
not coming down with AIDS before the 1980s.

1. there was no test for HIV then (and they should feel lucky about
that!)

And you think this helps your case? One of your key
arguments is that AIDS drugs cause AIDS. Yet
we have hemophiliacs suddenly presenting with
AIDS before HIV was even known. Sure there was
no test. There were no AIDS drugs either. Yet
the earliest patients all died.

And again, if you knew anything at all about science
you'd know that blood samples from Ryan White
and other hemophiliacs were saved and tested
positive for HIV when the test became available.
Here is an excellent article from Science Magazine
that outlines the real science and the pathetic claims
of Duesburg regarding hemophiliacs. Many studies
are referenced, all say Duesburg's science is junk:

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/featu...5191-1645a.pdf

They even address in a sidebar the issue of blood
transfusions as a route of infection and how, like I
said, it stopped once an HIV test was available.
Duesburg explains that away by saying that what the
people who received the blood had, ie AIDS, was
caused not by HIV but by whatever caused AIDS
in the blood doner.

Now, that's really, really special. Among the denialist
claims are that poor diet and lack of sleep causes AIDS.
So, we're to believe that diet and lack of sleep in a blood donor
results in AIDS in the recipient? Where's the study for
that? Another is that drug abuse causes AIDS. Where
is the study that shows blood, not infected with HIV,
from drug abusers cause AIDS?
Of course those studies don't exist, but it doesn't stop
the denialists.




2. so there was no reason to give them deadly AIDS drugs.

Thus, they weren't "coming down with AIDS" then.

Cute. Early AIDS patients were just dying, but it was
not from AIDS. AIDS patients in third world countries
are dying today without AIDS drugs, but it's not AIDS.
The only way it can be AIDS is if they are given AIDS
drugs. Go figure.






It'll sink in one day.

He wasn't "infected" with HIV, he tested positive for HIV antibodies.

And then they killed him with AIDS drugs.

The lie repeated.

It's common knowledge that Ashe retired from playing tennis because of
congenital heart problems, and long before anyone had ever heard of
AIDS or HIV.

And when he did test positive for HIV, they killed him with AIDS
drugs.

You can look it up.

The lie repeated.



No, in your own words, actually, but apparently you don't even read
your own copy and pastes.

The lie repeated.

If so, then you're lying to yourself now, because that was your own
copy and paste.

In case you haven't noticed, the populations of countries in Africa
and Asis continue to grow.

Some "pandemic," eh?

1.3 million adults and children die from AIDS in
Africa each year.

If AIDS was a "new disease," there shouldn't be the same growth in ...
Unbelievable nonsense.

Simple mathematics and demographics, moron.



Simple denialist crap. Arguing about population growth when
we have 1.3 million deaths a year in Africa. Why, no, it can't
be AIDS because the population growth isn't X. And of
course if it were X, why then you'd be here arguing that
IS the proof that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

The 10 ft elephant in the room is that we have study after
study that shows we have people in various groups
that share one common
disease. A disease caused by HIV that wipes out
their immune system.
That effect can be directly measured in their immune
system blood counts and has been since 1982.
We have a virus that is transmitted
via bodily fluids. Consequently, it shows up in EXACTLY
the groups you would expect:

hemophiliac patients receiving blood products made
from the blood on many people

blood transfusion patients receiving blood from someone
who is infected with HIV

IV drug abusers who share needles

gay men with many sexual partners

women who have sex with HIV infected men

prostitutes

heterosexuals in Africa with many sexual partners

babies infected at birth from HIV positive mothers.

lab and healthcare workers accidentally infected

Now, HIV and how it's been shown to be transmitted
exactly fits the above vectors. On the other hand,
to believe the denialists you'd have to believe it's
something else and mostly different for each of
those groups. And that the coorelation between
HIV infection and AIDS in the above groups that is
one for one is just
a coincidence. You'd have to explain away AIDS
deaths that don't fit by just claiming they must have
died of something else. The twists and turns are
so insurmountable at this point, that the only way
you can be a denialist is to totally ignore the truth,
because you've reached a conclusion regardless of
the facts.

On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:30:13 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

They're in the same place I said they were.

Which is the place we call non-existence.

And which I call Existence.

If there was no test, there was no way to know what they had, whether
they were HIV positive or not HIV positive.

I see, first we have no test.

No, that's used to explain why you can't say those individuals were
HIV+. *See the difference?

No test, no HIV, no AIDS.

You conveniently snipped the part where I explained
that blood from many of those earliest AIDS patients

Because it's irrelevant. Some who died in '83 & '84 were tested and
found to be HIV+, and some were not.

That was Arthur Ash? *Ryan White? *Isaac Asimov?

No, they died from diseases (like congenital heart disease, etc.) I've
already listed for you, you were even able to find them for yourself,
plus AIDS DRUGS.

More pure denialist lies.

Look, moron, your own snippets proved it.

The fundemental problem here is that you start from
a preconceived conclusion

That conclusion is that you're a moron.

You deny
that the denialists that refuse HIV drugs die of AIDS.

That's because thousands are doing just fine without drugs, some up to
26 years!), so you're the one doing the denying!

At the same time, you ignore the powerful proof:

1 - Hemophiliac scenario
2 - Transfusion scenario

Both of those stopped just as soon as a test for
HIV was available and blood was screened.

Yes! No more HIV+ donors, no more need to kill hemophiliacs with
deadly AIDS drugs.

Plus, today, synthetic factor avoids even the risk of testing positive
for HIV.

Hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients that are not
HIV positive, do not get AIDS

No one who doesn't test positive for HIV gets treated with deadly AIDS
drugs, moron.

3 - HIV/AIDS transmission to babies from their
mothers.

What you really mean is that HIV *antibodies* are transmitted. Babies
are protected immediately after being born by the *antibodies* their
mothers pass on to them, for example chicken pox, flu, etc.

Look up: "colostrum"

4 - Those infected with HIV are now living, not
dying provided they take the HIV drugs.

They're still dying, just dying more slowly.

And thousands of people who tested positive (for up to 26 years!) are
thriving today because they refused to take AIDS drugs.

5 - Those that refuse the drugs are still dying, just
like the initial AIDS patients in 1982.

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

6 - Lab workers accidentally infected with HIV, test
positive for HIV, develop AIDS.

No, only those lab workers who abuse IV drugs, other recreational
drugs, take antibiotics prophylactically, are men promiscuously having
sex with other men, drinking heavily, inhale amyl nitrates, and/or
take AIDS drugs, ever get AIDS.

http://www.bluebell.de/englisch

This is a great example of the problem here.

There's no problem here either.

It's real-life stories of people who have unfortunately tested
positive for HIV but you have decided to not take deadly AIDS drugs,
and who are all doing fine, just like thousands of others.

Sure they are. That's why in the video none of
them are named and identified.

It's just a trailer. Watch the entire documentary.

Yes, some are dead, but they died from other diseases, and from taking
AIDS DRUGS.

Not some. *Most of those that refused to take HIV
medication are dead. *And they died of AIDS.

No, they didn't. *Because people who are unfortunate enough to test
positive for HIV are never allowed to die from anything but
"complications from AIDS," even if they're hit by a car, die in a
plane crash, or have massive heart attacks.

Now that's special. YOU and the other denialsts are
the ones inventing any reason other than AIDS for
the deaths, one after the other.

No one had to "invent" Ashe's or Azimov's congenital heart and renal
problems, they're well documented in the mainstream media.

It's not a lie, and I can't repeat it often enough, in my opinion.

And I have you to thank for allowing me to do that!

I'm sure the fools that believe you and Duesburg and
wind up dead will thank you from the after-life.

And I can't wait to see what kind of greeting those who have been
killed by bad science and AIDS drugs will give to Gallo, Montagnier,
Fauci, Ho, et al., and their enablers (yes, that means you, Trader
Boy!), from the after-life.

No hemophiliac leads a "normal" life, moron.

He was attending school and otherwise healthy.

No hemophiliac is ever "healthy" either.

You can look it up.

Go ahead, marginalize hemophiliacs in a pathetic
attempt to make them fit your kook theories.

Pointing out that someone who has a life-long, serious, often
debilitating disease, dependent on Factor VIII, etc., isn't exactly
"healthy," isn't marginalizing them, it's called being honest.

Yes, eventually the cumulative effect of taking so much impure
clotting factor eventually totally destroyed his immune system, just
like it did with so many other hemophiliacs before Factor VIII was
developed.

Show us the study that shows this.

I have. Several, in fact. But you apparently chose to ignore them.

The lie repeated.

It's not a lie, and I'm only repeating it because you won't stop
gnawing on my ankles.

I can play this game longer than you can, moron.

You told us a week ago that you were done.

I'm done discussing it with you. I'm not done defending against the
many lies, distortions, and general ignorance you espouse on a daily
basis.

Are you nuts? *Until you know the history of hemophilia, you can't
possibly know what happened to, for example, Ryan White, and to other
hemophiliacs.

You only need to know that these hemophiliacs were
not coming down with AIDS before the 1980s.

1. there was no test for HIV then (and they should feel lucky about
that!)

And you think this helps your case? One of your key
arguments is that AIDS drugs cause AIDS. Yet
we have hemophiliacs suddenly presenting with
AIDS before HIV was even known.

So it did with hundreds of humans who were IV drugs abusers,
recreational drug abusers, men having sex with hundreds of male sex
partners a month, inhaling amyl nitrates, drinking heavily, etc!

Sheesh. How stupid can you get?

It's common knowledge that Ashe retired from playing tennis because of
congenital heart problems, and long before anyone had ever heard of
AIDS or HIV.

And when he did test positive for HIV, they killed him with AIDS
drugs.

You can look it up.

The lie repeated.

It's the truth, and even a moron like you can look it up.

If AIDS was a "new disease," there shouldn't be the same growth in ...
Unbelievable nonsense.

Simple mathematics and demographics, moron.

Simple denialist crap. Arguing about population growth when
we have 1.3 million deaths a year in Africa. Why, no, it can't
be AIDS because the population growth isn't X. And of
course if it were X, why then you'd be here arguing that
IS the proof that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

It's not *the* proof, it's just more EVIDENCE that the people who are
supposedly dying from "AIDS" in Africa, are only dying from the same
diseases they've always died of. TB, malaria, wasting, lack of clean
water, nutrition, and poor hygiene.

AIDS is supposed to be a NEW disease, but it ain't. It's just old
diseases with a new name.

You'll eventually figure it out.

Nah, you won't.

There's just no there, there.

--
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 Jun 8, 1:14*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 08:30:13 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
They're in the same place I said they were.
Which is the place we call non-existence.

And which I call Existence.

If there was no test, there was no way to know what they had, whether
they were HIV positive or not HIV positive.

I see, first we have no test.

No, that's used to explain why you can't say those individuals were
HIV+. *See the difference?

No test, no HIV, no AIDS.
You conveniently snipped the part where I explained
that blood from many of those earliest AIDS patients

Because it's irrelevant. Some who died in '83 & '84 were tested and
found to be HIV+, and some were not.

Show us the data on that one. I'd like to see where there was
not virtually a 1 to 1 correspondence between those that died from
AIDS in 1983 and 1984, ie the earliest patients and their blood
testing positive for HIV. That blood having been saved and later
tested when an HIV test was developed.

crickets.....

You know what's another good one here? Montagnier and Gallo who
aref the discoverer's of the HIV virus, where exactly did they find
the virus? In moon rocks? The rainforest? In healthy people?
No, they found it in tissue samples from dying AIDS patients. Kind of
makes
sense, no? Yet now we're supposed to believe that it's just a
coincidence?





That was Arthur Ash? *Ryan White? *Isaac Asimov?

No, they died from diseases (like congenital heart disease, etc.) I've
already listed for you, you were even able to find them for yourself,
plus AIDS DRUGS.

More pure denialist lies.

Look, moron, your own snippets proved it.
The fundemental problem here is that you start from
a preconceived conclusion

That conclusion is that you're a moron.

You deny
that the denialists that refuse HIV drugs die of AIDS.

That's because thousands are doing just fine without drugs, some up to
26 years!), so you're the one doing the denying!

Thousands out of tens of millions and of this you're bragging?
We all know that AIDS takes a variable length of time from HIV
infection until full blown AIDS. So, it's to be expected that out
of tens of millions infected, you'd have thousands "doing just fine,
without drugs". Geez





At the same time, you ignore the powerful proof:

1 - Hemophiliac scenario
2 - Transfusion scenario

Both of those stopped just as soon as a test for
HIV was available and blood was screened.

Yes! No more HIV+ donors, no more need to kill hemophiliacs with
deadly AIDS drugs.

The lie repeated. Again, the earliest AIDS patients received no
AIDS drugs. They died. That's what called attention to the disease
in the first place. The denialists, a long sad list which I
provided, who
refused AIDS drugs, have pretty much all died too. They are just
replaced by the next generation of fools.




Plus, today, synthetic factor avoids even the risk of testing positive
for HIV.

Hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients that are not
HIV positive, do not get AIDS

No one who doesn't test positive for HIV gets treated with deadly AIDS
drugs, moron.

We have people who are untreated, like your denialst friends,
dying of AIDS. We have people untreated in third world countries,
dying of AIDS. And then we have millions of people on AIDS drugs
living long lives, viral counts near zero. The truth is there for
anyone willing to look.





3 - HIV/AIDS transmission to babies from their
mothers.

What you really mean is that HIV *antibodies* are transmitted. Babies
are protected immediately after being born by the *antibodies* their
mothers pass on to them, for example chicken pox, flu, etc.

No, again you're lying. The actual virus is transmitted. It's
been shown to be transmitted. Today we just use the HIV antibodies
test because it's been proven to be reliable. No different than the
tests used for most diseases. Yet the denialist claim the test
is no good.

And if it's only antibodies being passed along, then why were
AIDS babies dying one after the other? Hmmm? Are they all
homosexual drug abusers? The obvious truth is that the HIV virus
is being transmitted from mother to baby. And that path of
infection has been reduced by an order of magnitude by giving
HIV drugs to the mother and child at time of birth. Again, we
had babies dying. We still have babies dying of AIDS in third
world countires where the mothers don't have access to the
HIV drugs. In countries where they do have the drugs, the
chance of the baby being infected has been cut from 25% to
just a few percent. Those babies don't test positive for HIV
and are not dying of AIDS. Powerful proof for anyone with
an open mind.





4 - Those infected with HIV are now living, not
dying provided they take the HIV drugs.

They're still dying, just dying more slowly.

The lie repeated.





And thousands of people who tested positive (for up to 26 years!) are
thriving today because they refused to take AIDS drugs.

Thousand living, tens of millions dead without AIDS drugs.
And of this you're bragging?




5 - Those that refuse the drugs are still dying, just
like the initial AIDS patients in 1982.

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

6 - Lab workers accidentally infected with HIV, test
positive for HIV, develop AIDS.

No, only those lab workers who abuse IV drugs, other recreational
drugs, take antibiotics prophylactically, are men promiscuously having
sex with other men, drinking heavily, inhale amyl nitrates, and/or
take AIDS drugs, ever get AIDS.


A denialist classic. Pervert and force fit the irrefutable data
in a pathetic attempt to make a case. We have lab workers who
were working with concentrated HIV. Through accidents they
were known to be exposed to HIV. So, they now test positive
for HIV, develop AIDS, die, etc and it has to be because they
were drug abusing homosexual drunks, etc. This is really insulting
and
offensive.





http://www.bluebell.de/englisch

This is a great example of the problem here.

There's no problem here either.

It's real-life stories of people who have unfortunately tested
positive for HIV but you have decided to not take deadly AIDS drugs,
and who are all doing fine, just like thousands of others.

Sure they are. *That's why in the video none of
them are named and identified.

It's just a trailer. *Watch the entire documentary.

With that 12 minute pile of denialist crap, no need for
any rational person to do that.





Yes, some are dead, but they died from other diseases, and from taking
AIDS DRUGS.

Not some. *Most of those that refused to take HIV
medication are dead. *And they died of AIDS.

No, they didn't. *Because people who are unfortunate enough to test
positive for HIV are never allowed to die from anything but
"complications from AIDS," even if they're hit by a car, die in a
plane crash, or have massive heart attacks.
Now that's special. *YOU and the other denialsts are
the ones inventing any reason other than AIDS for
the deaths, one after the other.

No one had to "invent" Ashe's or Azimov's congenital heart and renal
problems, they're well documented in the mainstream media.

It's also well documented that they died of AIDS contracted
from blood transfusions. That vector still occurs from time to
time in third world countries with inadequate blood screening
for HIV. And the blood gets tracked back to a donor infected
with HIV. Powerful evidence.



No hemophiliac leads a "normal" life, moron.

He was attending school and otherwise healthy.

No hemophiliac is ever "healthy" either.

You can look it up.

Go ahead, marginalize hemophiliacs in a pathetic
attempt to make them fit your kook theories.

Pointing out that someone who has a life-long, serious, often
debilitating disease, dependent on Factor VIII, etc., isn't exactly
"healthy," isn't marginalizing them, it's called being honest.


It's marginalizing them when you claim they just don't live
long anyway. The point is not how long they live. It's that
with unscreened blood we had hemophiliacs suddenly
contracting AIDS. The same disease that IV drug abusers
contract via infected blood through dirty needles. The same
disease men and women acquired through unprotected sex.
The same disease babies acquired from their mothers at
birth.

One disease, the same symptoms across groups that are
exactly where you'd expect a virus that's contracted via
body fluids to show up. If we're to believe the denialists,
we have to come up with bizarre and different explanation
for each of those groups. And force people into some
group because otherwise there is no explanation.

Lab worker working with HIV has an accident, gets infected,
dies of AIDS. Real scientists see this as powerful evidence
Denialists claim the death can't be fro HIV, and it must
be that the lab worker was having promiscous sex, IV
drug use, whatever, even though there is nothing in their
background to suggest that. Totally vile and disgusting.




Yes, eventually the cumulative effect of taking so much impure
clotting factor eventually totally destroyed his immune system, just
like it did with so many other hemophiliacs before Factor VIII was
developed.

Show us the study that shows this.

I have. Several, in fact. But you apparently chose to ignore them.

The lie repeated.

It's not a lie, and I'm only repeating it because you won't stop
gnawing on my ankles.


The lie repeated. No studies, just claims that they exist.




I can play this game longer than you can, moron.

You told us a week ago that you were done.

I'm done discussing it with you. I'm not done defending against the
many lies, distortions, and general ignorance you espouse on a daily
basis.


LOL


Are you nuts? *Until you know the history of hemophilia, you can't
possibly know what happened to, for example, Ryan White, and to other
hemophiliacs.

You only need to know that these hemophiliacs were
not coming down with AIDS before the 1980s.

1. there was no test for HIV then (and they should feel lucky about
that!)

And you think this helps your case? *One of your key
arguments is that AIDS drugs cause AIDS. *Yet
we have hemophiliacs suddenly presenting with
AIDS before HIV was even known.

So it did with hundreds of humans who were IV drugs abusers,
recreational drug abusers, men having sex with hundreds of male sex
partners a month, inhaling amyl nitrates, drinking heavily, etc!

Sheesh. *How stupid can you get?

IV drug abusers contract HIV via dirty needles, exactly a path
of infection to be expected from all that we know about HIV

Men having promiscous unprotected sex with many sex partners, exactly
a path to be expected

There have been studies that show members of the above groups
that are not HIV positive, don't get AIDS. Only those that are HIV
infected do.

Now, as for inhaling amyl nitrates, there is no study, no evidence
at all to corelate it with AIDS. There was only SPECULATION that
it MIGHT be linked and that was 30 years ago, before HIV was
found and shown to be the actual cause. The world has moved
on since then.

As for drinking, show us a study showing drinking to cause AIDS.
Geez, alcoholics have been around forever. Only alcoholics who have
HIV acquire AIDS. Really simple stuff here.

And what's unbelievable is that we're supposed to believe that
in one patient, it's amyl nitrite that caused AIDS. In another,
it's drug abuse. In another it's poor diet and lack of sleep.
IT would be one hell of a thing for all those and the other crap
on your list to produce the same exact disease in all kinds of
people. And if it was, why is it that we didn't have AIDS cases
all over the place in 1950, 1960, 1970, etc? Everyone suddenly
stop sleeping? And with amyl nitrate, it was around for decades
as a medication for heart patients. Why didn't they get AIDS
in 1940? 1950? Hmmmm?







It's common knowledge that Ashe retired from playing tennis because of
congenital heart problems, and long before anyone had ever heard of
AIDS or HIV.

And when he did test positive for HIV, they killed him with AIDS
drugs.

You can look it up.

The lie repeated.

It's the truth, and even a moron like you can look it up.

If AIDS was a "new disease," there shouldn't be the same growth in ....
Unbelievable nonsense.

Simple mathematics and demographics, moron.
Simple denialist crap. *Arguing about population growth when
we have 1.3 million deaths a year in Africa. *Why, no, it can't
be AIDS because the population growth isn't X. *And of
course if it were X, why then you'd be here arguing that
IS the proof that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

It's not *the* proof, it's just more EVIDENCE that the people who are
supposedly dying from "AIDS" in Africa, are only dying from the same
diseases they've always died of. TB, malaria, wasting, lack of clean
water, nutrition, and poor hygiene.

Show us the study that explains how any of the above results in
the destruction of their immune systems. Show us where someone
dying from malaria or lack of clean water can be tested and shown
to have immune cell counts near zero. Near zero, just like AIDS
patients around the world, whether they acquired the virus from
a drug needle, sex, or from mother to child at birth.

Crickets again, because no such study exists. Sure some people
are starving to death in Africa. But they don't have immune cell
counts near zero, unless they have HIV. And they also quickly
improve and live if you just give them food, uness they have HIV.
Show us the AIDS patients that recovered when given food.





AIDS is supposed to be a NEW disease, but it ain't. It's just old
diseases with a new name.



And then you get ****ed off when I say you're a denialist.
Go figure.,

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 08:04:42 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
Because it's irrelevant. Some who died in '83 & '84 were tested and
found to be HIV+, and some were not.

Show us the data on that one.

Practice what you preach, Trader Boy!

[...]
That's because thousands are doing just fine without drugs, some up to
26 years!), so you're the one doing the denying!

Thousands out of tens of millions and of this you're bragging?

But tens of millions aren't taking drugs, especially in places like
Africa, Asia, etc.

We all know that AIDS takes a variable length of time from HIV
infection until full blown AIDS.

Yes, it used to take months, now it takes years.

Because of far lower doses of AIDS drugs today, and of a lot of people
finally waking up and avoiding certain risky behaviors.

At the same time, you ignore the powerful proof:

1 - Hemophiliac scenario
2 - Transfusion scenario

Both of those stopped just as soon as a test for
HIV was available and blood was screened.

Yes! No more HIV+ donors, no more need to kill hemophiliacs with
deadly AIDS drugs.

The lie repeated. Again, the earliest AIDS patients received no
AIDS drugs. They died.

Every single one of the original cohort were heavy IV drugs abusers,
heavy recreational drugs abusers, heavy drinkers, inhaled nitrates,
had numerous STDs, were men having sex with hundreds of men per month,
took prophylactic antibiotics, got virtually no sleep, ate poorly,
etc.

That's why they died.

See: Michael Gottlieb's observations.

Hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients that are not
HIV positive, do not get AIDS

No one who doesn't test positive for HIV gets treated with deadly AIDS
drugs, moron.

We have people who are untreated, like your denialst friends,
dying of AIDS.

And there are thousands who choose not to be treated who are alive
today, some of them up to 26 years.

We have people untreated in third world countries,
dying of AIDS.

And they are dying from the same diseases they've always died from,
TB, malaria, wasting, poor nutrition, a lack of hygiene, etc., but
under a new name, "AIDS."

And their country's populations are still growing.

3 - HIV/AIDS transmission to babies from their
mothers.

What you really mean is that HIV *antibodies* are transmitted. Babies
are protected immediately after being born by the *antibodies* their
mothers pass on to them, for example chicken pox, flu, etc.

No, again you're lying. The actual virus is transmitted.

Then prove I'm wrong.

It's been shown to be transmitted. Today we just use the HIV antibodies
test because it's been proven to be reliable.

Quite the contrary. The results have proven to be virtually
worthless, and ~90 known conditions can trigger a positive result for
HIV, including merely being pregnant.

And if it's only antibodies being passed along, then why were
AIDS babies dying one after the other?

Here, say this along with me:

"It's the AIDS drugs, stupid!"

4 - Those infected with HIV are now living, not
dying provided they take the HIV drugs.

They're still dying, just dying more slowly.

The lie repeated.

QED.

And thousands of people who tested positive (for up to 26 years!) are
thriving today because they refused to take AIDS drugs.

Thousand living, tens of millions dead without AIDS drugs.
And of this you're bragging?

Another way to say that is: millions dead from taking AIDs drugs!

And of this you're bragging?

5 - Those that refuse the drugs are still dying, just
like the initial AIDS patients in 1982.

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

6 - Lab workers accidentally infected with HIV, test
positive for HIV, develop AIDS.

No, only those lab workers who abuse IV drugs, other recreational
drugs, take antibiotics prophylactically, are men promiscuously having
sex with other men, drinking heavily, inhale amyl nitrates, and/or
take AIDS drugs, ever get AIDS.

A denialist classic.

The truth is always a classic.

Pervert and force fit the irrefutable data
in a pathetic attempt to make a case.

Find Gottlieb's observations of the original cohort (when it was still
called GRID), and subsequent studies, and see who's perverting the
data.

Or you could buy Duesberg's book.

Sure they are. *That's why in the video none of
them are named and identified.

It's just a trailer. *Watch the entire documentary.

With that 12 minute pile of denialist crap, no need for
any rational person to do that.

Unless he wants to become INFORMED.

No one had to "invent" Ashe's or Azimov's congenital heart and renal
problems, they're well documented in the mainstream media.

It's also well documented that they died of AIDS contracted
from blood transfusions.

No, they contracted AIDS from taking AIDS drugs, after testing
positive for HIV ANTIBODIES.

Do you currently have mononucleosis? Have you ever had mononucleosis?
Well, up to 95% of the population tests positive for EBV (Epstein-Barr
virus) ANTIBODIES. Which means it's almost certain that *you* will
test positive for EBV ANTIBODIES. But only a small percentage of the
population ever gets mono.

What does that suggest to you?

Pointing out that someone who has a life-long, serious, often
debilitating disease, dependent on Factor VIII, etc., isn't exactly
"healthy," isn't marginalizing them, it's called being honest.


It's marginalizing them when you claim they just don't live
long anyway.

And it's lying to them to claim that they lead "healthy" and/or
"normal" lives.

But that doesn't seem to bother you.

I have. Several, in fact. But you apparently chose to ignore them.

The lie repeated.

It's not a lie, and I'm only repeating it because you won't stop
gnawing on my ankles.


The lie repeated. No studies, just claims that they exist.

Practice what you preach!

And you think this helps your case? *One of your key
arguments is that AIDS drugs cause AIDS. *Yet
we have hemophiliacs suddenly presenting with
AIDS before HIV was even known.

So it did with hundreds of humans who were IV drugs abusers,
recreational drug abusers, men having sex with hundreds of male sex
partners a month, inhaling amyl nitrates, drinking heavily, etc!

Sheesh. *How stupid can you get?

IV drug abusers contract HIV via dirty needles, exactly a path
of infection to be expected from all that we know about HIV

No, they contract AIDS from destroying their immune systems, which may
or may not also make them test positive for HIV antibodies.

And then they're given AIDS drugs, which is kind of like pouring
gasoline on a fire.

Now, as for inhaling amyl nitrates, there is no study, no evidence
at all to corelate it with AIDS.

That's because you can't read, and because you can't understand what
you read.

http://rethinkingaids.com/portals/0/TheCD/M-O/newe3.pdf

http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/POPBOOK.HTM

As for drinking, show us a study showing drinking to cause AIDS.

Drinking, of and by itself, doesn't cause AIDS. But heavy drinking
suppresses the immune system (who da thunk it?), and when done in
addition to using IV and other recreational drugs, poor nutrition, not
getting enough sleep, inhaling poppers, etc., can be the "straw that
breaks the camel's back."

You would already know this, of course, if you would spend more time
reading and less time writing.

It's not *the* proof, it's just more EVIDENCE that the people who are
supposedly dying from "AIDS" in Africa, are only dying from the same
diseases they've always died of. TB, malaria, wasting, lack of clean
water, nutrition, and poor hygiene.

Show us the study that explains how any of the above results in
the destruction of their immune systems.

Practice what you preach!

AIDS is supposed to be a NEW disease, but it ain't. It's just old
diseases with a new name.

And then you get ****ed off when I say you're a denialist.
Go figure.,

I don't get ****ed off because of that, since it illustrates that you
are a very stupid person; and the more often you say it, the more
stupid you likely are, because even stupid people can learn things.
Except for you.

For the umpteenth time, I am a skeptic (which everyone should be, but
isn't), not a denialist. I don't deny that untold numbers of people
are being killed by the heavy use of IV and other recreational drugs,
inhalation of amyl nitrates, prophylactic use of antibiotics, poor
nutrition, poor hygiene, lack of clean drinking water, heavy drinking
(and all the other things that can eventually destroy one's immune
system), including taking AIDS drugs.

Period.

--
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 Jun 10, 2:21*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 08:04:42 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

Because it's irrelevant. Some who died in '83 & '84 were tested and
found to be HIV+, and some were not.

Show us the data on that one.

Practice what you preach, Trader Boy!

Everyone can see that I've provided links to numerous
studies. You can't come up with a single one. Here's a
powerful summary of the overwhelming evidence from NIH:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

HIV/AIDS
The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS

Within that summary are references to dozens of studies
to back it up.



[...]

That's because thousands are doing just fine without drugs, some up to
26 years!), so you're the one doing the denying!

Thousands out of tens of millions and of this you're bragging?

But tens of millions aren't taking drugs, especially in places like
Africa, Asia, etc.

That's precisely the point. You claimed thousands are doing
fine without drugs. I accept that. The tens of millions are the
ones that have died from AIDS. So you have thousands doing
fine, and tens of millions dead. Including the long sad list of
AIDS denialists who refused to take HIV drugs:

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

If HIV is harmless, and only HIV drugs cause AIDS, then
why are all the denialists dead? I know, they all just died
at 30 from something else. Typical denialist nonsense.



We all know that AIDS takes a variable length of time from HIV
infection until full blown AIDS.

Yes, it used to take months, now it takes years.

It was never shown to take just months in most people.
And those that are living for decades now are the ones
on HIV drugs. Those that are dying are the denialists
and those without access to the HIV drugs.



Every single one of the original cohort were heavy IV drugs abusers,
heavy recreational drugs abusers, heavy drinkers, inhaled nitrates,
had numerous STDs, were men having sex with hundreds of men per month,
took prophylactic antibiotics, got virtually no sleep, ate poorly,
etc.

That's why they died.

And it's been shown time after time, in numerous studies
that absent HIV infection, people in any of those groups do
not develop AIDS. Really, really simple stuff here.

Also, those earliest patients were NOT treated with HIV
drugs, which you claim cause AIDS. Yet they had AIDS
and died of AIDS.
We have all these people in various groups, people having
frequent unprotected sex, IV drug abusers, hemophiliacs,
newborn babies..... And they all suddenly start coming down
with a disease characterised by a total decline in their immune
systems that can be measured.

So we have two possible scenarios. The denialists
say somehow this disease managed to manifest itself
in all these different groups at the same point in time.
In IV drug abusers, it's supposed to be the IV drug abuse
that caused it because those abusing the same drugs,
but not via IV are not getting AIDS. In those having unprotected
sex, it's too much sex. What caused it in the babies?
Yet all these groups suddenly have the same symptoms
and also they are infected with HIV.

The other scenario is that HIV causes AIDS and it's
transmission via bodily fluids exactly fits with it
showing up in those groups. It explains everyone of
those paths, including the babies. Now, which one is
the logical one and fits the facts?




See: Michael Gottlieb's observations.

Hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients that are not
HIV positive, do not get AIDS

No one who doesn't test positive for HIV gets treated with deadly AIDS
drugs, moron.

We have people who are untreated, like your denialst friends,
dying of AIDS.

And there are thousands who choose not to be treated who are alive
today, some of them up to 26 years.

Again, thousands out of tens of millions. The tens of millions
are dead. Exactly what one would expect with a disease that
takes a variable length of time to go from infection to the full
blown disease.


We have people untreated in third world countries,
dying of AIDS.

And they are dying from the same diseases they've always died from,
TB, malaria, wasting, poor nutrition, a lack of hygiene, etc., but
under a new name, "AIDS."

Another outrageous lie. These patients have been shown to
have HIV and immune systems that have been destroyed by it.

The specific immunologic profile that typifies AIDS - a persistently
low CD4+ T-cell count - is extraordinarily rare in the absence of HIV
infection or other known cause of immunosuppression.

For example, in the NIAID-supported Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study
(MACS), 22,643 CD4+ T-cell determinations in 2,713 HIV-seronegative
homosexual and bisexual men revealed only one individual with a CD4+ T-
cell count persistently lower than 300 cells/mm3 of blood, and this
individual was receiving immunosuppressive therapy. Similar results
have been reported from other studies (Vermund et al. NEJM
1993;328:442; NIAID, 1995).





And their country's populations are still growing.

3 - HIV/AIDS transmission to babies from their
mothers.

What you really mean is that HIV *antibodies* are transmitted. Babies
are protected immediately after being born by the *antibodies* their
mothers pass on to them, for example chicken pox, flu, etc.

No, again you're lying. *The actual virus is transmitted.

Then prove I'm wrong.


That's easy and I've already done it numerous times.
Here are some excerpts again, complete with real studies.
Where are YOUR studies? Where are Duesburg's studies?
crickets


Newborn infants have no behavioral risk factors for AIDS, yet many
children born to HIV-infected mothers have developed AIDS and died.

Only newborns who become HIV-infected before or during birth, during
breastfeeding, or (rarely) following exposure to HIV-tainted blood or
blood products after birth, go on to develop the profound
immunosuppression that leads to AIDS. Babies who are not HIV-infected
do not develop AIDS. In the United States, 8,718 cases of AIDS among
children younger than age 13 had been reported to the CDC as of
December 31, 1999. Cumulative U.S. AIDS deaths among individuals
younger than age 15 numbered 5,044 through December 31, 1999.
Globally, UNAIDS estimates that 480,000 child deaths due to AIDS
occurred in 1999 alone (CDC. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:
1; UNAIDS. AIDS epidemic update: June 2000).



The HIV-infected twin develops AIDS while the uninfected twin does
not.

Because twins share an in utero environment and genetic relationships,
similarities and differences between them can provide important
insight into infectious diseases, including AIDS (Goedert. Acta
Paediatr Supp 1997;421:56). Researchers have documented cases of HIV-
infected mothers who have given birth to twins, one of whom is HIV-
infected and the other not. The HIV-infected children developed AIDS,
while the other children remained clinically and immunologically
normal (Park et al. J Clin Microbiol 1987;25:1119; Menez-Bautista et
al. Am J Dis Child 1986;140:678; Thomas et al. Pediatrics 1990;86:774;
Young et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1990;9:454; Barlow and Mok. Arch Dis
Child 1993;68:507; Guerrero Vazquez et al. An Esp Pediatr
1993;39:445).

For example, a majority of the HIV-infected, pregnant women enrolled
in the European Collaborative Study are current or former injection
drug users. In this ongoing study, mothers and their babies are
followed from birth in 10 centers in Europe. In a paper in Lancet,
study investigators reported that none of 343 HIV-seronegative
children born to HIV-seropositive mothers had developed AIDS or
persistent immune deficiency. In contrast, among 64 seropositive
children, 30 percent presented with AIDS within 6 months of age or
with oral candidiasis followed rapidly by the onset of AIDS. By their
first birthday, 17 percent died of HIV-related diseases (European
Collaborative Study. Lancet 1991;337:253).






It's been shown to be transmitted. *Today we just use the HIV antibodies
test because it's been proven to be reliable.

Quite the contrary. *The results have proven to be virtually
worthless, and ~90 known conditions can trigger a positive result for
HIV, including merely being pregnant.

OF course 99.99% of the scientific and medical community say
you're wrong. And the proof is in the studies. For example, again,
the IV drug abusers. We have studies that use the HIV test that
show only those that test positive for HIV go on to develop AIDS.
Now, that demolishes two of the denialist theories. One is that the
IV drug use is the cause. The second is that the test is inaccurate.
If it were, the test results would be muddled. Yet we have study
after study that shows only those that test positive for HIV go on
to develop AIDS.





And if it's only antibodies being passed along, then why were
AIDS babies dying one after the other?

Here, say this along with me:

"It's the AIDS drugs, stupid!"

The denialsit lie repeated. Babies born to mothers who
take HIV drugs prior to delivery have a 3% chance of being
infected. Without the mothers taking drugs, the percentage
is 25%. So, babies here are living and not on drugs.
Babies in third world countries who have no access to
such drugs are the ones dying.



Thousand living, tens of millions dead without AIDS drugs.
And of this you're bragging?

Another way to say that is: millions dead from taking AIDs drugs!

No, just tens of millions dead from AIDS caused by HIV





And of this you're bragging?

5 - Those that refuse the drugs are still dying, just
like the initial AIDS patients in 1982.

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

6 - Lab workers accidentally infected with HIV, test
positive for HIV, develop AIDS.

No, only those lab workers who abuse IV drugs, other recreational
drugs, take antibiotics prophylactically, are men promiscuously having
sex with other men, drinking heavily, inhale amyl nitrates, and/or
take AIDS drugs, ever get AIDS.
A denialist classic.

The truth is always a classic.

Pervert and force fit the irrefutable data
in a pathetic attempt to make a case.

Find Gottlieb's observations of the original cohort (when it was still
called GRID), and subsequent studies, and see who's perverting the
data.

I've given you the subsequent studies right here in this
thread. YOUR the one who likes to harken back to 1982
when we didn't know that HIV causes AIDS. It's that
point in time when Duesburg's arguments were plausible.
But just barely plausible. Even in the early 80's it was
hard to believe all these patients, presenting with immune
systems that were suddenly shot, were due to lack of sleep,
drug abuse, sex, etc not to a new infectious agent. Within
a few years HIV was isolated from these patients. And
today we have overwhelming proof that HIV is the cause.
It's just the Douchebag is stuck in a timetrap of his own
creation and unable to recognize that he's wrong.





Or you could buy Duesberg's book.

Sure they are. *That's why in the video none of
them are named and identified.

It's just a trailer. *Watch the entire documentary.

With that 12 minute pile of denialist crap, no need for
any rational person to do that.

Unless he wants to become INFORMED.

See, there's your problem. You give us a video of
denialist sitting around spouting nothing of significance.
Just their unfounded beliefs. And you call that becoming
informed? I give you NIH with an overwhelming proof
that HIV causes AIDS complete with references to
study after study. You give us a propaganda video of
a few denialist civilians.



No one had to "invent" Ashe's or Azimov's congenital heart and renal
problems, they're well documented in the mainstream media.

It's also well documented that they died of AIDS contracted
from blood transfusions.

No, they contracted AIDS from taking AIDS drugs, after testing
positive for HIV ANTIBODIES.

The lie repeated. What a disease that AIDS. RAtional people
see cases like Asimov and Arthur Ash, where their HIV infection
is traced back to contaminated blood. In many cases sufficent
data exists to track that blood
back to the person who donated it and they
are found to have AIDS, or died from AIDS, etc. But no,
according to the denialists, Asimov died from AIDS drugs.
And the fact that the donor had AIDS, was infected with
HIV, etc is just one hell of a coincidence.




Do you currently have mononucleosis? Have you ever had mononucleosis?
Well, up to 95% of the population tests positive for EBV (Epstein-Barr
virus) ANTIBODIES. Which means it's almost certain that *you* will
test positive for EBV ANTIBODIES. But only a small percentage of the
population ever gets mono.

What does that suggest to you?

That you're confused again. The fact that
one virus has mild or non-existent symptoms has nothing
to do with a totally different virus.

Now, let's look at the real data. None of those that are not
HIV positive ever get AIDS. There are probably a handful
of unexplained cases, but the corelation is 99.99%.
Of those infected with HIV, if untreated, the vast majority
go on to develop AIDS. Studies have shown that those
that test postivie for HIV have drastically shorter life
expectancy. Now, if HIV is harmless, how the hell is
that? Again, powerful evidence.

Here's just a few of the actual studies. Plenty more are
at the NIH website:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

In studies conducted in both developing and developed countries, death
rates are markedly higher among HIV-seropositive individuals than
among HIV-seronegative individuals.

For example, Nunn and colleagues (BMJ 1997;315:767) assessed the
impact of HIV infection over five years in a rural population in the
Masaka District of Uganda. Among 8,833 individuals of all ages who had
an unambiguous result on testing for HIV-antibodies (either 2 or 3
different test kits were used for blood samples from each individual),
HIV-seropositive people were 16 times more likely to die over 5 years
than HIV-seronegative people (see table). Among individuals ages 25 to
34, HIV-seropositive people were 27 times more likely to die than HIV-
seronegative people.

In another study in Uganda, 19,983 adults in the rural Rakai District
were followed for 10 to 30 months (Sewankambo et al. AIDS
2000;14:2391). In this cohort, HIV-seropositive people were 20 times
more likely to die than HIV-seronegative people during 31,432 person-
years of observation.





Pointing out that someone who has a life-long, serious, often
debilitating disease, dependent on Factor VIII, etc., isn't exactly
"healthy," isn't marginalizing them, it's called being honest.

It's marginalizing them when you claim they just don't live
long anyway.

And it's lying to them to claim that they lead "healthy" and/or
"normal" lives.

But that doesn't seem to bother you.

What bothers me is you trying to explain away every case
of AIDS by force fitting it into something else. And, yes
when you claim hemophiliacs just die anyway, that's offensive.
Ryan White was leading a relatively normal life until he
was infected with HIV from blood products.




IV drug abusers contract HIV via dirty needles, exactly a path
of infection to be expected from all that we know about HIV

No, they contract AIDS from destroying their immune systems, which may
or may not also make them test positive for HIV antibodies.

Show us the study. I've shown you exactly the opposite. At NIH:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

Many studies agree that only a single factor, HIV, predicts whether a
person will develop AIDS.

Other viral infections, bacterial infections, sexual behavior patterns
and drug abuse patterns do not predict who develops AIDS. Individuals
from diverse backgrounds, including heterosexual men and women,
homosexual men and women, hemophiliacs, sexual partners of
hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients, injection-drug users and
infants have all developed AIDS, with the only common denominator
being their infection with HIV (NIAID, 1995).
Similar data have emerged from the Multicenter Hemophilia Cohort
Study. Among 1,028 hemophiliacs followed for a median of 10.3 years,
HIV-infected individuals (n=321) were 11 times more likely to die than
HIV-negative subjects (n=707), with the dose of Factor VIII having no
effect on survival in either group (Goedert. Lancet 1995;346:1425).

In the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS), a 16-year study of 5,622
homosexual and bisexual men, 1,668 of 2,761 HIV-seropositive men have
died (60 percent), 1,547 after a diagnosis of AIDS. In contrast, among
2,861 HIV-seronegative participants, only 66 men (2.3 percent) have
died (A. Munoz, MACS, personal communication).





And then they're given AIDS drugs, which is kind of like pouring
gasoline on a fire.

Now, as for inhaling amyl nitrates, there is no study, no evidence
at all to corelate it with AIDS.

That's because you can't read, and because you can't understand what
you read.

http://rethinkingaids.com/portals/0/TheCD/M-O/newe3.pdf


Again, you're very confused and desperate here. That paper
concludes that inhallant nitrite use among homosexuals MAY be
involved in Kaposi's Sarcoma developing in AIDS patients.
AIDS patients that they acknowledge are infected with HIV.
So, there goes your HIV doesn't cause AIDS theory.

And it also a nice tactic that whoever dug up this paper
from God knows where doesn't show a date on it.
Clearly it's from the early 80s, again when little was known
about the disease. The rest of the world has seen the
mountains of new evidence. But the denialists like to
go back to 1982, forever frozen in time.





http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/POPBOOK.HTM

That's not a study. It's a piece based on speculation
that inhalants MIGHT be involved in causing AIDS.
And it's also from the dark ages, 1985. They don't
even use the term HIV.

Question for you and them: Did hemophiliac Ryan White
use inhalants? Isaac Asimov? The tens of millions with
AIDS in Africa? The overwhelming percentage of new
AIDS cases in the USA last year? The new born babies?

Geez, how pathetic.





As for drinking, show us a study showing drinking to *cause AIDS.

Drinking, of and by itself, doesn't cause AIDS. But heavy drinking
suppresses the immune system (who da thunk it?), and when done in
addition to using IV and other recreational drugs, poor nutrition, not
getting enough sleep, inhaling poppers, etc., can be the "straw that
breaks the camel's back."

Show us the study that says this "straw that breaks the camel's back
exists." That won't be coming, because it's a lie. If you are not
infected with HIV, you can do the stuff on your list. Sure, it
will have some effect on the immune system. But show us the
study that shows that you then wind up with an immunse system
where the cell counts can be measured, continue to decline,
and you die of AIDS whether you stop the stuff on your list or not.






You would already know this, of course, if you would spend more time
reading and less time writing.

It's not *the* proof, it's just more EVIDENCE that the people who are
supposedly dying from "AIDS" in Africa, are only dying from the same
diseases they've always died of. TB, malaria, wasting, lack of clean
water, nutrition, and poor hygiene.

Show us the study that explains how any of the above results in
the destruction of their immune systems.

Practice what you preach!

I have.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx


We're waiting for yours....

crickets.





For the umpteenth time, I am a skeptic (which everyone should be, but
isn't), not a denialist. I don't deny that untold numbers of people
are being killed by the heavy use of IV and other recreational drugs,
inhalation of amyl nitrates, prophylactic use of antibiotics, poor
nutrition, poor hygiene, lack of clean drinking water, heavy drinking
(and all the other things that can eventually destroy one's immune
system), including taking AIDS drugs.

Period.


You're a lying AIDS denialist. Period.

On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:52:46 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Because it's irrelevant. Some who died in '83 & '84 were tested and
found to be HIV+, and some were not.

Show us the data on that one.

Practice what you preach, Trader Boy!

Everyone can see that I've provided links to numerous
studies. You can't come up with a single one. Here's a
powerful summary of the overwhelming evidence from NIH:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx

And I've given you dozens of links to studies, papers, books, and
videos, that refute the HIV = AIDS hypothesis.

But tens of millions aren't taking drugs, especially in places like
Africa, Asia, etc.

That's precisely the point. You claimed thousands are doing
fine without drugs. I accept that. The tens of millions are the
ones that have died from AIDS.

But tens of millions haven't died from AIDS.

We all know that AIDS takes a variable length of time from HIV
infection until full blown AIDS.

Yes, it used to take months, now it takes years.

It was never shown to take just months in most people.

It took only months after taking AIDS drugs.

Every single one of the original cohort were heavy IV drugs abusers,
heavy recreational drugs abusers, heavy drinkers, inhaled nitrates,
had numerous STDs, were men having sex with hundreds of men per month,
took prophylactic antibiotics, got virtually no sleep, ate poorly,
etc.

That's why they died.

And it's been shown time after time, in numerous studies
that absent HIV infection, people in any of those groups do
not develop AIDS.

Sure they do.

People *without* HIV infection die from the very same diseases that
kill "AIDS" patients.

Tens of millions of them. Every single year.

Also, those earliest patients were NOT treated with HIV
drugs, which you claim cause AIDS.

AIDS drugs are "AIDS by prescription," and kill people in the same
ways that IV and other recreational drug abuse, inhaling amyl
nitrates, taking antibiotics prophylactically, men having promiscous
sex with hundrededs of male partners per month, drinking heavily,
getting no sleep, eating poorly, practicing poor hygiene, etc. KILL,
by suppressing, then destroying, the immune system.

No immune system, no life.

See: Michael Gottlieb's observations.

Hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients that are not
HIV positive, do not get AIDS

No one who doesn't test positive for HIV gets treated with deadly AIDS
drugs, moron.

We have people who are untreated, like your denialst friends,
dying of AIDS.

And there are thousands who choose not to be treated who are alive
today, some of them up to 26 years.

Again, thousands out of tens of millions.

But tens of millions don't have AIDS.

We have people untreated in third world countries,
dying of AIDS.

And they are dying from the same diseases they've always died from,
TB, malaria, wasting, poor nutrition, a lack of hygiene, etc., but
under a new name, "AIDS."

Another outrageous lie. These patients have been shown to
have HIV and immune systems that have been destroyed by it.

No, it's never been shown that these people have HIV.

Just certain antibodies!

And their country's populations are still growing.

3 - HIV/AIDS transmission to babies from their
mothers.

What you really mean is that HIV *antibodies* are transmitted. Babies
are protected immediately after being born by the *antibodies* their
mothers pass on to them, for example chicken pox, flu, etc.

No, again you're lying. *The actual virus is transmitted.

Then prove I'm wrong.

That's easy and I've already done it numerous times.

You haven't done it one time, much less numerous times.

In fact, you even claimed that *antibodies* couldn't be
transmitted(!).

You're just a very, very stupid man.

It's been shown to be transmitted. *Today we just use the HIV antibodies
test because it's been proven to be reliable.

Quite the contrary. *The results have proven to be virtually
worthless, and ~90 known conditions can trigger a positive result for
HIV, including merely being pregnant.

OF course 99.99% of the scientific and medical community say
you're wrong.

If 100% of them said I was wrong, it wouldn't matter, because science
is based on The Scientific Method, not polls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

And if it's only antibodies being passed along, then why were
AIDS babies dying one after the other?

Here, say this along with me:

"It's the AIDS drugs, stupid!"

The denialsit lie repeated. Babies born to mothers who
take HIV drugs prior to delivery have a 3% chance of being
infected. Without the mothers taking drugs, the percentage
is 25%.

You should take a few weeks off and study ANTIBODIES, and finally
learn what they are, and what they aren't. And how they are
transmitted from mother to child. And how the presence of antibodies
doesn't mean that you have a disease, only that you were once exposed
to it. E.g. EBV, even though you've never had mono.

Unfortunately, these poor babies who have been unfortunate enough to
test positive for a mostly harmless virus are then KILLED with AIDS
drugs ("AIDS by prescription").

Thousand living, tens of millions dead without AIDS drugs.
And of this you're bragging?

Another way to say that is: millions dead from taking AIDs drugs!

No, just tens of millions dead from AIDS caused by HIV

No, tens of millions haven't died from AIDS, they've died from the
same old diseases they have died from for centuries, e.g. malaria,
wasting, TB, etc.

http://www.rollbackmalaria.org/cmc_u...nfosheet_3.htm

Find Gottlieb's observations of the original cohort (when it was still
called GRID), and subsequent studies, and see who's perverting the
data.

I've given you the subsequent studies right here in this
thread. YOUR the one who likes to harken back to 1982
when we didn't know that HIV causes AIDS. It's that
point in time when Duesburg's arguments were plausible.

Duesberg's arguments are TIMELESS, because they adhere to The
Scientific Method.

Or you could buy Duesberg's book.

Sure they are. *That's why in the video none of
them are named and identified.

It's just a trailer. *Watch the entire documentary.

With that 12 minute pile of denialist crap, no need for
any rational person to do that.

Unless he wants to become INFORMED.

See, there's your problem. You give us a video of
denialist sitting around spouting nothing of significance.

They are visual proof of HIV+ people living long, healthy lives and
not taking AIDS drugs.

No one had to "invent" Ashe's or Azimov's congenital heart and renal
problems, they're well documented in the mainstream media.

It's also well documented that they died of AIDS contracted
from blood transfusions.

No, they contracted AIDS from taking AIDS drugs, after testing
positive for HIV ANTIBODIES.

The lie repeated. What a disease that AIDS. RAtional people
see cases like Asimov and Arthur Ash, where their HIV infection
is traced back to contaminated blood.

No, IGNORANT people, not rational people.

People who, just like you, don't understand what antibodies are, and
what they aren't.

Do you currently have mononucleosis? Have you ever had mononucleosis?
Well, up to 95% of the population tests positive for EBV (Epstein-Barr
virus) ANTIBODIES. Which means it's almost certain that *you* will
test positive for EBV ANTIBODIES. But only a small percentage of the
population ever gets mono.

What does that suggest to you?

That you're confused again. The fact that
one virus has mild or non-existent symptoms has nothing
to do with a totally different virus.

You missed the point entirely, which isn't surprising at this point.

The only thing you appear capable of is copying and pasting irrelevant
data and propaganda.

Again, I beg of you, do some research on antibodies, because you will
never understand any of this until you understand what antibodies are,
and what they aren't.

Pointing out that someone who has a life-long, serious, often
debilitating disease, dependent on Factor VIII, etc., isn't exactly
"healthy," isn't marginalizing them, it's called being honest.

It's marginalizing them when you claim they just don't live
long anyway.

And it's lying to them to claim that they lead "healthy" and/or
"normal" lives.

But that doesn't seem to bother you.

What bothers me is you trying to explain away every case
of AIDS by force fitting it into something else.

Just the opposite. I'm not having to "force fit" anything, like you
and AIDS, Inc. are. I'm trying to explain to you that AIDS is merely
a compilation of diseases that humans have always died from,
especially when their immune systems are impaired or destroyed, and
the many ways that that can be done, and without blaming it on a
mostly harmless retrovirus.

And, yes
when you claim hemophiliacs just die anyway, that's offensive.

If that was what I said, I'd agree with you. But that's not what I
said, it's just another of your many straw men.

And then they're given AIDS drugs, which is kind of like pouring
gasoline on a fire.

Now, as for inhaling amyl nitrates, there is no study, no evidence
at all to corelate it with AIDS.

That's because you can't read, and because you can't understand what
you read.

http://rethinkingaids.com/portals/0/TheCD/M-O/newe3.pdf

Again, you're very confused and desperate here. That paper
concludes that inhallant nitrite use among homosexuals MAY be
involved in Kaposi's Sarcoma developing in AIDS patients.

Which included this:

• 96-100% of the gay men with AIDS used poppers, usually quite
heavily. These men were also heavy users of many other “recreational”
drugs, including amphetamines (“speed”), cocaine, heroin, quaaludes
(“ludes”), LSD, barbiturates (“downers”), and ethyl chloride.
(Friedman-Kien 1982, Haverkos 1982/1985, Jaffe 1983

AIDS patients that they acknowledge are infected with HIV.
So, there goes your HIV doesn't cause AIDS theory.

Actually, it virtually proves that Duesberg is right, because it
clearly illustrates that the same people using poppers are the same
people abusing recreational drugs and destroying their immune systems!

http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/POPBOOK.HTM

That's not a study.

No, it's a reference to many studies, all of which show that poppers
can cause "AIDS."

Question for you and them: Did hemophiliac Ryan White
use inhalants?

No, he was poisoned by AIDS drugs.

Isaac Asimov?

No, he was poisoned by AIDS drugs.

The tens of millions with
AIDS in Africa?

There aren't tens of million of Africans with AIDS.

The overwhelming percentage of new
AIDS cases in the USA last year?

Probably currently being poisoned by AIDS drugs.

The new born babies?

Probably currently being poisoned by AIDS drugs.

Geez, how pathetic.

Yes, it sure is.

Tragic, too.

As for drinking, show us a study showing drinking to *cause AIDS.

Drinking, of and by itself, doesn't cause AIDS. But heavy drinking
suppresses the immune system (who da thunk it?), and when done in
addition to using IV and other recreational drugs, poor nutrition, not
getting enough sleep, inhaling poppers, etc., can be the "straw that
breaks the camel's back."

Show us the study that says this "straw that breaks the camel's back
exists."

Practice what you preach, Pusherman!

And if you don't even know that heavy drinking can suppress the immune
system, you really do need to finally get your GED.

That won't be coming, because it's a lie. If you are not
infected with HIV, you can do the stuff on your list.

No, you can't.

Just try it and see for yourself.

See: Darwin.

For the umpteenth time, I am a skeptic (which everyone should be, but
isn't), not a denialist. I don't deny that untold numbers of people
are being killed by the heavy use of IV and other recreational drugs,
inhalation of amyl nitrates, prophylactic use of antibiotics, poor
nutrition, poor hygiene, lack of clean drinking water, heavy drinking
(and all the other things that can eventually destroy one's immune
system), including taking AIDS drugs.

Period.


You're a lying AIDS denialist. Period.

No, you're just The Pusherman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-9iNVoeghI

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