If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:14:05 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Jul 31, 1:30*pm, Dogman wrote: Then they should feel free to keep that a secret, But why would they do that??? *WTF? They would do it because they listen to nuts like you who say HIV is harmless. If it's harmless, then there is no reason to disclose it or take precautions from infecting someone else. Are you that stupid that you can't see the logical consequences of believing that HIV is harmless? The consequences are simple: You get to remain healthy and alive. For example, the results of this on-going TAMU study should be interesting: http://hlknweb.tamu.edu/articles/hiv_no_meds not disclose it to sexual partners, for example, because, it's just harmless. But it *is* harmless! And again, this is why you and the other denialists are more dangerous than holocaust deniers. Listening to you is encouragement to have unprotected sex, to not disclose that you are HIV infected, because according to you, HIV is harmless. I have unprotected sex all the time. Because I have no fear of HIV. And I have ZERO chance of ever getting AIDS, because I don't abuse drugs, I eat properly, I don't drink heavily, I get a good amount of sleep, I don't get tested for HIV, I don't have sex with other men, I don't take AIDS drugs (AIDS by prescription!), etc., in other words, I don't burn the candle at both ends. On the other hand, I don't tell others how they should live their lives. If someone wants to live his life fearful of a harmless retrovirus that couldn't possibly cause 30 different diseases(!), that's for him to decide. It's the *drugs* that aren't harmless, you dip****. Yes, so harmful that today patients on AIDS drugs are living long lives instead of dying in a year like they were when there were no AIDS drugs. Yes, because today they're giving them less than 50% the dosage of the 80s and early 90s, and to perfectly healthy people. But they still die, just more slowly that in the past. We had 30% of babies born to mothers infected with HIV being infected. Today, using AIDS drugs prior to birth, that infection rate has dropped to just a few percent. Powerful proof, except to a denialist. Q3: If Azt is so toxic, how is it that the incidence of infected children has decreased from 25% to 8% (in Italy and in France) in babies born to mothers who had been treated with Azt during pregnancy? A3: Treatment of HIV-positive, pregnant women with the DNA chain terminators has reduced the incidence of HIV in their babies from 25% to 8% in France and Italy as well as in the US. This is to be expected from a drug that was designed to kill cells including those in which HIV replicates. AZT was developed over 30 years ago to kill cells for cancer chemotherapy. The first problem with this hypothetical triumph of anti-HIV treatment is that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. The second more serious problem that AZT induces abortion, and generates birth defects in humans and causes cancer in animals born to AZT-treated mothers. For example, a study published in 1994 found that among 104 AZT treated HIV positive women, 8 aborted spontaneously, 8 had to be aborted "therapeutically", and 8 had babies with birth defects such as cavities in the chest, heart defects, extra fingers, misplaced ears, triangular faces, misformed spine, and albinism (Kumar et al., J. AIDS, vol. 7, p1034 (1994), cited in IAV). http://www.duesberg.com/faq.html I'd sure like to see a long-term, follow-up study regarding the health of those poor babies... It's the lifestyle that isn't harmless. Some lifestyles certainly lead to becoming infected with HIV and developing AIDS. In other cases, like the soccer mom infected from a husband or a baby born to an HIV infected mother, their lifestyle had nothing to do with it. Easy to explain: http://rethinkingaids.com/quotes/tes...-positive.html Not to mention the FACT that HIV antibodies can be tranmitted from mother to fetus, etc. The fact that you can't figure this stuff out by yourself, well, it's priceless. In probably 99.999% of AIDS cases, the actual virus is never even looked for, much less found. *Only the *antibodies* are found! Again, the phoney strawman is raised. That's not a straw man. That's a fact. You can look it up. Following that denialst crap, then hepatitis, syphilis, tuberculosis, lyme, pick your disease are not caused by the underlying virus or bacteria either, because exactly the same types of tests are used. Now that is a straw man! And the same type of tests are NOT used. hepititis what? syphillis = scrapings tuberculosis = fluorescence microscopy (auramine-rhodamine staining) lyme = antibodies are tested for, but not relied upon for a diagnosis because: "Antibodies, however, can be false indicators of disease, since they can persist for years after the disease is cured." http://www.medicinenet.com/lyme_disease/page3.htm Read that sentence to yourself about a dozen times, maybe it'll eventually sink in. Nah, you still won't get it. 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 |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:19:03 -0300, James Warren
wrote: [...] And dumb as a bag of marbles. As must be 99.99% of the AIDS researchers, doctors, etc in the world. Because they agree that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Now, let me see, which group would I rather be in? That group or in the group with you, which consists of a bunch of denialists with no qualifications, supported by a couple of "scientists" who are not even AIDS researchers, don't actually treat patients, etc, but some of whom do write of talking to glowing alien raccoons? First, "99.99" of AIDS researchers don't agree that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Second, there are THOUSANDS of scientists and doctors who disagree with the theory that HIV causes AIDS. Third, at one time, 99.99% of the world's scientists claimed that the world was flat, that pellagra was caused by eating corn, that scurvy was caused by eating tainted meat, and on and on. I don't wish to part of a group like that. I want to be part of this group: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0 Exactly what you AIDS/HIV denialists do when you come up with one bogus explanation after another to explain away AIDS/HIV deaths in blood transfusion recipients, hemophiliacs, soccer moms, Africans, etc. But there's nothing bogus about them. You're just too dumb to understand how to reason for yourself. You're forced to parrot the "conventional wisdom" because you're incapable of thinking for yourself. Let's look at just a couple of your denialist claims Okay. Let's do just that: Peter Duesberg's web site http://www.duesberg.com/ Rethinking AIDS web site http://www.rethinkingaids.com/ Virus Myth web site http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/ Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society web site http://aras.ab.ca/ AIDS is Over web site http://aidsisover.com/ AIDS Wiki http://www.reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Main_Page David Rasnick web site http://www.davidrasnick.com/Home.html The Perth Group web site http://www.theperthgroup.com/ Bookshelf http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/books.htm -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Frankenfoods are Winning | Cubit | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 10 | December 12th, 2007 03:49 AM |
Sweetner Court Battle | RRzVRR | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 64 | April 15th, 2007 09:20 AM |
Battle Of The Bulge: Why Losing Weight Easier Than Keeping It Off | jbuch | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | January 10th, 2006 07:58 PM |
Article; Battle of School Cafeterias | Carol Frilegh | General Discussion | 1 | October 8th, 2005 10:22 PM |
Personal battle inthe kitchen | Qilt | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 13 | November 19th, 2003 05:10 AM |