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 |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Jun 28, 3:38*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 10:02:18 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [same old bull caca snipped] Since all that Trader Boy is going to do now is to repeatedly repost the same old PR releases and propaganda from AIDS, Inc. It's not PR. It's the overwhelming proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS as outlined by National Insitutes of Health. And it contains references to the dozens of peer reviewed studies by real scientists over decades that prove the case. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...owhivcausesaid... The denialists? Where are their studies? crickets.... Yes a fascinating collection of quotes, little snippets from here and there, undated as always. * Not from AIDS researchers or viral disease experts, You've got to get over this pseudo-religion you practice, where only certain, approved researchers ("high priests") are allowed to express opinions, or review the data. Sorry, but around here we call that evaluating the sources of information. No, what it means is that unless *your* high priest says it's so, it ain't. And vice versa. You would have made a great follower of Jim Jones! Time to look in the mirror. I don't have one high priest or even a few. I have hundreds of thousands of real scientists, qualified in the fields in question, ie virology, infectious diseases and medicine who all agree that HIV causes AIDS. I have every major health institution worldwide. You are the one hanging your hat on a few characters on the margins of science, most of whom are NOT trained experts in the fields they are pontificating about. One of them, for example, apparently has written a book where he talks about meeting glowing alien squirrels and not when he's on LSD either. You still lack even the first clue as to what The Scientific Method is all about. What a shame. HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS. No, it can't. Only ANTIBODIES to HIV can be detected. Another big lie repeated. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx "Progress in testing methodology has also enabled detection of viral genetic material, antigens and the virus itself in body fluids and cells. While not widely used for routine testing due to high cost and requirements in laboratory equipment, these direct testing techniques have confirmed the validity of the antibody tests (Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16; Busch et al. NEJM 1991;325:1; Silvester et al. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1995;8:411; Urassa et al. J Clin Virol 1999;14:25; Nkengasong et al. AIDS 1999;13:109; Samdal et al. Clin Diagn Virol 1996;7:55." HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS. Recently developed sensitive testing methods, including the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and improved culture techniques, have enabled researchers to find HIV in patients with AIDS with few exceptions. HIV has been repeatedly isolated from the blood, semen and vaginal secretions of patients with AIDS, findings consistent with the epidemiologic data demonstrating AIDS transmission via sexual activity and contact with infected blood (Hammer et al. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31:2557; Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16)." Numerous studies say you're a liar. Where are YOUR studies? crickets..... As to all the different diseases, no mystery there to anyone with even a basic understanding of AIDS. *HIV destroys the immune system, leaving the person open to all kinds of opportunistic infections. *The particular ones any given AIDS patient will develop is dependent on where they live, what diseases they are exposed to, etc. As usual, you have it totally backwards. AFTER your immune system has been heavily weakened or destroyed by AIDS drugs, the long-term abuse of IV and other recreational drugs, heavy drinking, lack of sleep, inhaling poppers, having receptive anal sex with 100s of male partners per month, getting infected with numerous STDs and other parasites, taking antibiotics prophylactically, eating poorly, practicing poor hygiene, etc., you have an excellent chance of getting "AIDS." If that theory were true, then it should be easy to show a study that shows that absent HIV infection, people in the above groups have immune systems totally depleted of CD4 cells. And that those immune systems can't recover even if they return to a healthy lifestyle. Of course you have no such study because the above is another lie. And the actual scenario conforms perfectly to HIV causing AIDS. 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). In cohort studies, severe immunosuppression and AIDS-defining illnesses occur almost exclusively in individuals who are HIV- infected. For example, analysis of data from more than 8,000 participants in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) and the Women's Interagency HIV Study (WIHS) demonstrated that participants who were HIV-seropositive were 1,100 times more likely to develop an AIDS-associated illness than those who were HIV-seronegative. These overwhelming odds provide a clarity of association that is unusual in medical research. In a Canadian cohort, investigators followed 715 homosexual men for a median of 8.6 years. Every case of AIDS in this cohort occurred in individuals who were HIV-seropositive. No AIDS-defining illnesses occurred in men who remained negative for HIV antibodies, despite the fact that these individuals had appreciable patterns of illicit drug use and receptive anal intercourse (Schechter et al. Lancet 1993;341:658)." Where are YOUR studies? crickets.... The vast majority of those said to have "AIDS" today have never even been tested for HIV antibodies, much less the actual HIV virus. That's yet another lie. In fact, even in Africa, HIV testing is widely available today: http://www.avert.org/aidssouthafrica.htm HIV testing is vitally important in order to access treatment, and knowledge of one’s positive status can lead to behaviours to protect other people from infection. The 2007-2011 National Strategic Plan aimed for one quarter of all people to take a test every year by 2011, with the proportion of those ever taking a test rising to 70 percent. 76 The latest National Strategic Plan has set out more ambitious targets, aiming to ensure that everyone in South Africa is voluntarily tested every year.77 There is evidence that testing levels have improved as the 2009 National Communications Survey found 60 percent of all men and women studied had been tested in the last 12 months, an increase of 36 percent since 2006.78 An HIV rapid test kit used in voluntary counselling and testing in rural South Africa According to UNAIDS, almost 7 million South Africans aged 15 years and over (or one quarter of the adult population) received HIV testing and counselling in 2009.79 80 Moreover, the launch of the national HIV counselling and testing (HTC) campaign in April 2010 resulted in a remarkable increase in the number of people accessing testing. In his 2011 health budget policy speech, health minister Motsoaledi announced that 11.9 million people now test for HIV each year." And in the end, this has nothing to do with proving HIV causes AIDS. The burdens the denialist erect and require for proof are ones that never could be met by any disease. And even if they are, you just lie. The classic is denying that HIV has ever been isolated from an AIDS patient. If you lie and deny that most basic fact, then there is NOTHING that could prove anything to you. Denialists are not looking at science, at studies. They have a predetermined conclusion and nothing will change it. Then they wonder why colleages, indeeds anyone with a brain thinks they are nuts..... Usually brought on by long-term recreational drug abuse, burning the candle at both ends for years, malnutrition, not getting any sleep, inhaling poppers, drinking heavily, eating poorly, and taking AIDS drugs (AZT, etc.). The lie repeated. *Where is the study that supports the above? For this nonsense to have ANY validity, you'd have to start with the simple study that shows it's possible for a person to totally destroy their immune system, via lack of sleep, diet, drinking, or recreational drugs. That "study" is currently going on in Africa and parts of Asia. Of course you say that because you have no studies. Here one more time are the studies that say you're a liar: 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). In cohort studies, severe immunosuppression and AIDS-defining illnesses occur almost exclusively in individuals who are HIV- infected. For example, analysis of data from more than 8,000 participants in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) and the Women's Interagency HIV Study (WIHS) demonstrated that participants who were HIV-seropositive were 1,100 times more likely to develop an AIDS-associated illness than those who were HIV-seronegative. These overwhelming odds provide a clarity of association that is unusual in medical research. In a Canadian cohort, investigators followed 715 homosexual men for a median of 8.6 years. Every case of AIDS in this cohort occurred in individuals who were HIV-seropositive. No AIDS-defining illnesses occurred in men who remained negative for HIV antibodies, despite the fact that these individuals had appreciable patterns of illicit drug use and receptive anal intercourse (Schechter et al. Lancet 1993;341:658). On the other hand, we do have the studies that show in all the groups you listed above, absent HIV infection the people never get AIDS. No, they get EXACTLY the same old diseases they've died from for thousands of years. Another big lie repeated. We all know that gay men for example, were not coming down with PCP pneumonia or Kaposi's Sarcoma prior to 1980. We also know that absent HIV infection, gay men with exactly the same behaviors never get AIDS unless they are infected with HIV. Same scenario for IV drug abusers. And note the distinction there too. You can abuse drugs all you want and you never get AIDS as long as you're not an IV drug abuser. See how that works? HIV is transmitted via blood, ergo if you snort heroin, you can't contract it. Share a dirty needle and you can. As for Africa, it's a lie there as well. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx "In developing countries, patterns of both rare and endemic diseases have changed dramatically as HIV has spread, with a far greater toll now being exacted among the young and middle-aged, including well- educated members of the middle class. In developing countries, the emergence of the HIV epidemic has dramatically changed patterns of disease in affected communities. As in developed countries, previously rare, "opportunistic" diseases such as PCP and certain forms of meningitis have become more commonplace. In addition, as HIV seroprevalence rates have risen, there have been significant increases in the burden of endemic conditions such as tuberculosis (TB), particularly among young people. For example, as HIV seroprevalence increased sharply in Blantyre, Malawi from 1986 to 1995, tuberculosis admissions at the city's main hospital rose more than 400 percent, with the largest increase in cases among children and young adults. In the rural Hlabisa District of South Africa, admissions to tuberculosis wards increased 360 percent from 1992 to 1998, concomitant with a steep rise in HIV seroprevalence. High rates of mortality due to endemic conditions such as TB, diarrheal diseases and wasting syndromes, formerly confined to the elderly and malnourished, are now common among HIV-infected young and middle-aged people in many developing countries (UNAIDS, 2000; Harries et al. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 1997;1:346; Floyd et al. JAMA 1999;282:1087)." Where are the denialist studies? crickets. TB, malaria, wasting, slim disease, etc. But today we call it "AIDS." You can be a drug abusing hooker that doesn't sleep and unless you are HIV+ you do not get AIDS and die. And that's because they're treated with AIDS drugs! What a remarkabe disease. It manifested itself in all kinds of groups, producing the exact same thing, ie destruction of CD4 immune cells, something never seen before 1980 or so. Yet we're supposed to believe that it's caused by: too much sex in one group not enough sleep and diet in another recreational drug abuse in another AIDS drugs in another hemophiliacs just dying anyway soccer moms, who knows? Of course to anyone other than a denialist kook, the real cause, HIV and how it presents itself in all those groups is the only case that makes any sense. And key proof is that in all those groups, absent HIV infection, they never get AIDS. It'll sink in some day, but it probably won't be anytime soon. And in case anyone would like to see what would happen to you if you were to practice a similar lifestyle, give it a try yourself. See what happens. It won't take long at all. A person who abuses drugs or doesn't get enough sleep may have health problems. Don't just limit it to those two behaviors, it's the entire panoply of destructive behaviors I've been describing that ultimately destroys a person's immune system OVER TIME. Currently a third of new AIDS cases in the USA are NOT gay men, IV drug abusers, or in any high risk group. Included in that group are soccer moms and grandmas who got infected with HIV from a male sex partner. We find the partner and sure enough they are infected with HIV. Of course the denialists have to turn them into prostitutes abusing IV drugs to try to make their pathetic case. And that is a lie and offensive. That's not true, because Africans, for the most part, are never tested for HIV antibodies. They usually go by the Bangui definition of "AIDS." Sure all Africans are not tested. But millions upon millions have been to confirm any doubts. The denialists just put up hurdles that no infectious disease could satisfy. We routinely use antibody testing for many infectious diseases today. Yet denialists want to try to make something out of it, claiming that HIV hasn't been isolated from every person dying of AIDS in Africa. Using the same nonsense you could deny that the hepatitis virus is the cause of hepatitis, because we dont' isolate the actual virus in every patient. And of course, if we did isolate in every patient, why then THAT would be used by the denialists and twisted into some kind of "proof". It's classic behavior for conspiracy and similar nuts. Whatever you have, it's not right. Like the 911 denialists who claim a plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon because the hole in the building isn't the right size. The fact is the hole could never be the right size. Whatever size it was, it would be wrong, because they have already arrived at a nutty conclusion which says a plane wasn't there. Why would anyone need to have their immune system "treated" if HIV is harmless? Because having a compromised immune system isn't! Again, if HIV is harmless, why is the immune system compromised in these people to begin with? We have study after study in group after group that shows the same thing. For example, a group of drug abusers, absent HIV infection, never get AIDS, despite the fact that they have exactly the same risk factors and lifestyle, except they are HIV-. I've given you the studies above. Powerful proof. Your studies.... crickets. Out of 10 HIV+ patients in a control group (no attempts made to treat their immune systems), 1 developed ARC, and two more went on to die from AIDS. Exactly what's to be expected Exactly! Bravo! Yes, when you don't treat HIV infection, people die. No surprise. People die from those same diseases every single day, and in far greater numbers, yet are HIV negative. That lie is demolished above by the NIH complete with study after study. It shows that the disease profile of what people are dying of in for example Africa has changed radically with the arrival of AIDS. Just like in the USA, people are coming down with opportunistic infections which were previously rare. And while the denialists want to paint Africa with a broad, almost racist brush, claiming everyone is just starving and it's nothing new, nothing could be further from the truth. AIDS has taken a huge toll on the middle class in Africa, ie people who are NOT starving or living in poor conditions are dying at 25. They do all have one thing in common. They are all infected with HIV. Of course you won't accept that because we haven't sent Gallo to each body to isolate the actual virus. And if we did, why you'd have some lame excuse to get out of that one too.... |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Jun 30, 11:33*am, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 08:06:47 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [same old bull caca snipped] It's not PR. It's the overwhelming proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS as outlined by National Insitutes of Health. And it contains references to the dozens of peer reviewed studies by real scientists over decades that prove the case. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...owhivcausesaid... The denialists? Where are their studies? crickets.... It's the opinion of the writers. You call it "faulty logic," while others would call it being truthful. You've driven yourself so mad that now you're not responding to my last post. You're responding to OLD posts all over again as if they were new. You've got to get over this pseudo-religion you practice, where only certain, approved researchers ("high priests") are allowed to express opinions, or review the data. Again, replying to an old post as if it were current. That's because they can read, and they know it's impossible for a mostly harmless retrovirus (that can't even be found in the vast majority of AIDS patients, even full-blown AIDS patients!) couldn't possibly cause almost 30 different diseases, but that drugs (and other lifestyles that can weaken, even destroy, the immune system) can. Again, from an old post, not current. But worth demolishing anyway because it's such an outrageous lie. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...ausesaids.aspx "HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS. Recently developed sensitive testing methods, including the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and improved culture techniques, have enabled researchers to find HIV in patients with AIDS with few exceptions. HIV has been repeatedly isolated from the blood, semen and vaginal secretions of patients with AIDS, findings consistent with the epidemiologic data demonstrating AIDS transmission via sexual activity and contact with infected blood (Hammer et al. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31:2557; Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16). Numerous studies of HIV-infected people have shown that high levels of infectious HIV, viral antigens, and HIV nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) in the body predict immune system deterioration and an increased risk for developing AIDS. Conversely, patients with low levels of virus have a much lower risk of developing AIDS. For example, in an anlysis of 1,604 HIV-infected men in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS), the risk of a patient developing AIDS with six years was strongly associated with levels of HIV RNA in the plasma as measured by a sensitive test known as the branched-DNA signal-amplification assay (bDNA):" And your studies to support your lie? crickets They like to invent every alternate explanation. *A different one for hemophiliacs, a different one for IV drug abusers, a different one for soccer moms, a different one for AIDS in Africa. Actually, the reason is precisely the same for each of them. Immune destruction. Usually brought on by long-term recreational drug abuse, burning the candle at both ends for years, malnutrition, not getting any sleep, inhaling poppers, drinking heavily, eating poorly, and taking AIDS drugs (AZT, etc.). At least you got the first part right, which is that the reason is precisely the same for all of them. And that is the destruction of their immune systems. Yet earlier when it suits you, you try to make something mysterious or sinister out of the fact that these patients then come down with a whole host of "bewildering" opportunistic infections. The rest of course is the denialist lie repeated, trying to claim that AIDS is caused by recreational drug use or burning the candle at both ends. It's been shown in study after study, that absent HIV infection people in all the groups you listed, NEVER DEVELOP AIDS. To believe otherwise is to ignore 3 decades of sound science, which of course is exactly what denialists do. Here again is just a part of that sound science that says you're a liar: 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). In cohort studies, severe immunosuppression and AIDS-defining illnesses occur almost exclusively in individuals who are HIV- infected. For example, analysis of data from more than 8,000 participants in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) and the Women's Interagency HIV Study (WIHS) demonstrated that participants who were HIV-seropositive were 1,100 times more likely to develop an AIDS-associated illness than those who were HIV-seronegative. These overwhelming odds provide a clarity of association that is unusual in medical research. In a Canadian cohort, investigators followed 715 homosexual men for a median of 8.6 years. Every case of AIDS in this cohort occurred in individuals who were HIV-seropositive. No AIDS-defining illnesses occurred in men who remained negative for HIV antibodies, despite the fact that these individuals had appreciable patterns of illicit drug use and receptive anal intercourse (Schechter et al. Lancet 1993;341:658)." Where are your studies? crickets. Where is ANY study that shows that a person can totally destroy their immune system by abusing drugs or burning the candle at both ends? That is the very core of this nonsensical argument, yet we have not a single study that says the possibility even exists. Destroy the immune system specifically so that CD4 cells are nearczero and that despite stopping the behavior that you allege causes it, their immune systems never recover. Of course that study does not exist because it's a lie. On the other hand we have study after study that shows HIV infection causes exactly that. And in case anyone would like to see what would happen to you if you were to practice a similar lifestyle, give it a try yourself. See what happens. It won't take long at all. But make sure your Last Will & Testament is current first! That advice is really appropriate to the denialist nuts that believe what you do, which is that HIV is harmless. They refuse to take AIDS drugs and they are dead now. At least the ones from a decade or more ago are almost all dead. Exactly as we'd expect, knowing that HIV causes AIDS. They've been replaced by a new crop of fools, making new denialist videos. Instead those video makers should visit the graves of their predecessors. Here's a couple dozen dead ones for you. Now, if HIV is just harmless and AIDS drugs cause AIDS, why are these HIV+ people, who are not taking drugs, dropping dead at 35? http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/dead_denialists Let's just end with the most basic denialist lie of yours. And that is your claim that HIV has never been isolated from an AIDS patient. That alone is enough to define your level of science and what you really are. Where do you think Gallo and Montagnier found HIV? In moon rocks, in a cabbage patch? |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Jul 4, 12:14*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 07:16:18 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [same old bull caca snipped] Since all that Trader Boy is going to do now is to repeatedly repost the same old PR releases and propaganda from AIDS, Inc. It's not PR. It's the overwhelming proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS as outlined by National Insitutes of Health. And it contains references to the dozens of peer reviewed studies by real scientists over decades that prove the case. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...owhivcausesaid... The denialists? Where are their studies? crickets.... The Yin and Yang of HIV By Valendar Turner & Andrew McIntyre Published over three issue of NEXUS Magazine beginning January 1999 Of course NEXUS is not a peer reviewed forum. Gee, I wonder why they published their article there? SUMMARY The notion that HIV/AIDS is infectious and sexually transmitted is based on a relationship between antibodies claimed specifically induced by a retrovirus HIV and particular diseases in certain risk groups. And right there folks, in the first sentence, we're off to denialist lala land. Set up a false strawman and then argue against it. The fact that HIV is the cause of AIDS is based only PARTLY on the above evidence. We have a whole host of ADDITIONAL proof. We have the actual HIV virus isolated from AIDS patients over and over again by researchers. Of course the denialists will claim that isn't good enough or better still that it can't be done at all, because the virus doesn't even exist. We have the virus in AIDS patients DNA matched back to the identical virus in a person that is suspected of having infected the patient. And of course, that person too turns out to have AIDS. We've shown the existence of HIV and how it infects immune cells in the lab. We've shown that several lab workers, who were accidentally exposed to HIV, became infected and developed AIDS. We've shown how HIV is transmitted from mother to child at birth. And we've shown how that infection rate was 25%, but now with HIV drugs, it's been reduced to just 3%. Powerful proof. However, the HIV theory has been challenged for well over a decade in many scientific publications, principally by Peter Duesberg from the USA and Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her colleagues in Australia. There are some people who still believe Elvis is alive, that airplanes did not hit the WTC on 911 and that the holocaust is a myth too. Should we all take them seriously? Of course not, because like the AIDS denialists, their story is a house of cards. Failure of HIV/AIDS to spread beyond the original risk groups, and particularly to Western heterosexuals, especially non-drug using prostitutes, signals that the HIV theory of AIDS is in need of urgent reappraisal. It's not 1999, it's 2012. Today about 1/3 of new AIDS cases in the USA are in people who are NOT gay or bisexual men or drug abusers. That number has been growing year by year. Of course this denialist paper is from 13 years ago, because denialists like to play in the past. Demolished! NExt! This has serious implications for both the way science has been conducted and public health policy and planning. The HIV theory has cost billions of dollars and locked in enormous amount of energy in research by thousands of scientists worldwide. So far, it has yet to save a single life. Which was an outrageous lie even in 1999 and should tell any reasonable person what a crock this is. At that point, for 15+ years we knew HIV caused AIDS. And while we could not cure it, knowing that saved millions of lives because knowing how it's caused, many people shifted their behavior to avoid getting infected. Many gay men and prostitutes started using condoms. MAny IV drug abusers stopped sharing needles. We screened blood donations during that period. And just as soon as a test for HIV in blood was available, hemophiliacs and blood transfusion recipients stopped getting infected with HIV and stopped dying. Powerful evidence, except to denialists. You'd have to be quite the imbecile to claim that knowing HIV is the cause of AIDS has not saved a single life. Either that or an AIDS denialist with an agenda. There is an urgent need to establish a truly independent, and distinguished international committee to review the current theories and those that challenge them. There needs to be a co-operative but urgent reassessment of AIDS. Those independent and distinguished research committees have already taken place in independent forums around the world. And the irrefutable conclusion reached is that HIV causes AIDS. The problem is the denialists, many of whom deny even the existence of HIV, will never accept the scientifically sound conclusion. A BRIEF HISTORY A Nobel Laureate stirs the waters In 1988 Dr. Kary Mullis, the 1993 Nobel prize winner for Chemistry was employed by the US National Institutes for Health (NIH) to set up analyses for HIV testing. When preparing his report he asked a virologist colleague for a reference that HIV is "the probable cause of AIDS". He was told he did not need one. Mullis was surprised.(1) * * "I disagreed. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual who had discovered the cause of a deadly and as-yet-uncured disease would not be continually referenced in the scientific papers until that disease was cured and forgotten… There had to be a published paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS". Otherwise, as Mullis was forced to conclude, "The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as the twentieth-century Black Death was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense". Back to this again? Mullis was tasked by his employer to work on a test for HIV. He demanded proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS and is told he doesn't need one, but he disagree. Sounds like his superiors at NIH were right. He was a chemist and they were employing him to help with a test for HIV. They had every right to tell him that proving HIV causes AIDS is out of his bailywick and to just do his job. A decade later Mullis was to write, "I finally understood why I was having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren’t any".(2) Indeed, an interested non-specialist observer, armed with a few contacts and a good library, merely has to scratch the surface to realise that the HIV theory of AIDS begs many more questions than it answers.(1-63 *) This from the guy who in his book apparently writes about talking to glowing alien raccoons..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis "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.[32]" The beginnings of AIDS The few years leading up to the AIDS era and the discovery of HIV are illuminating. It was a time when a promiscuous minority of young, "liberated", gay men in a few large American cities were increasingly developing previously uncommon diseases such as fatal forms of the malignancy Kaposis' sarcoma and a fungal pneumonia known as PCP. And about the same time, hemophiliacs also suddenly started to develop AIDS and many of the same opportunistic infections. So did some blood transfusion recipients. And IV drug abusers. So, there goes the theory of pointing the finger at gay liberation. Except of course to the denialis loons. Knowing that HIV causes AIDS real science can explain why it shows up in every one of those groups. And just as soon as a test for HIV was available, AIDS in hemophiliacs and blood transfusion recipients stopped, just as suddenly as it had started. And we know from study after study today, conducted not just here but by researchers all around the world, that absent HIV infection, people in all those risk groups never develop AIDS. More denialist nonsense smashed. Next! At the time, whilst it was reasonable to implicate an infectious microbe transmitted by rampant, indiscriminant sexual practices interspersed with needle sharing drug taking, the fact that immune suppression had multiple causes was also known in 1981. Some considered the diseases resulted from multiple assaults to bodily functions caused by the many and varied diseases, toxins and treatments that accompanied the gay and drug taking lifestyle that had evolved during the late 1970s. Oh the longing for the good old days. Back to 1981. Even then, the theory that one can totally destroy their immune system with drugs, sex, or lack of sleep sounded very far fetched. For example, drug abuse of all kinds has been around for centuries. So, why had we not seen AIDS before? And soon thereafter, more proof came in. It was only IV drug abusers who came down with AIDS. You can abuse the same drugs, ingest all the drugs you want and while you may die of a drug overdose, you won't die of AIDS unless you share a dirty needle. Today we have study after study that shows absent HIV infection, people in any of the risk groups NEVER DEVELOP AIDS. Very powerful proof. And then to top it off, we have this idea that a person can just totally destroy their immune system with lack of sleep or drug abuse so that it can't recover even when the alleged cause is reversed. Where is the study that shows this is possible or exists? It's central to this denialist argument. Of course the study doesn't exist because it's just another lie. Demolished! NExt! Just how extensive these multiple assaults were was indicated by the English journalist Neville Hodgkinson documenting the range of infections of just one homosexual, the late Michael Callen in his book "AIDS The failure of contemporary science: How a virus that never was deceived the world".(29) "Non-specific urethritis, hepatitis A, more NSU and gonorrhoea, amoebas [intestinal parasites]-and hepatitis B, more NSU and gonorrhoea, more amoebas, shigella, non-A, non-B hepatitis, giardia, anal fissures, syphilis, more gonorrhoea [penile, anal and oral], gonorrhoea, shigella twice, more amoebas, herpes simplex types I and II; venereal warts, salmonella; chlamydia; cytomegalovirus (CMV); Epstein-Barr virus (EBV); mononucleosis and cryptosporidiosis", ("a disease of cattle!"). Indeed, an early US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study confirmed that the first 100 men with AIDS had a median lifetime number of 1120 sex partners.(30) As Callen himself put it, "I got some combination of venereal diseases EACH AND EVERY TIME I had sex". Not surprisingly, given the widespread belief of a causal relationship between immunity and the maintenance of health, in 1981 the "new" disease became known as Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID). In fact none of the diseases was new. Some were known to occur in drug addicts and haemophiliacs long before the AIDS era. What was "new" was their exponentially escalating prevalence in gay men. Again, we have study after study that shows in gay men, absent HIV infection, they never develop AIDS, despite having the same risky behavior and exposure to all the same veneral diseases, etc. Only when they are infected with HIV do they develop AIDS. Demolished! NExt! Technology and Virology Coincidental with the beginning of the AIDS era a technique was developed to classify and count the different types of lymphocyte white blood cells. It was noticed that some AIDS patients had diminished numbers of the so called T4 "helper" cell subtype and, despite lack of proof, the cells were assumed to be dying at the behest of an agent selectively targeting them. This became the "hallmark" of AIDS as well as forming a measure of the amount of immune deficiency. In turn, this "immune deficiency", (the "AID" in AIDS) caused the diseases (the "S" in AIDS) that constitute the clinical syndrome. The perceptions that T4 cells were dying and AIDS was infectious led to the theory that AIDS is caused by a microbial organism. Five years prior to the AIDS era a few laboratories around the world were drawing towards the end of a fruitless search to prove a viral cause for human cancers. Update! It's now 2012. Press Release 6 October 2008 "The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet has today decided to award The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 2008 with one half to Harald zur Hausen for his discovery of "human papilloma viruses causing cervical cancer" and the other half jointly to Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier for their discovery of "human immunodeficiency virus" Now, you gotta love that one. The same Nobel Prize was shared by the scientist who showed the HPV virus causes cancer and the scientist who discovered HIV. Must be something for the denialist nut who claims no virus can cause cancer and HIV doesn't exist. Demolished! Next! First proclamations In May 1983 Professor Luc Montagnier and his colleagues at the Pasteur Institute of Paris published a paper in Science entitled, "Isolation of a T-Lymphotrophic Retrovirus from a patient at Risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).(64) It is important to note that the first word in this paper, ‘Isolation’, serves as a signal that the researcher is claiming proof for the existence of a new virus. Gee, Dogman claims HIV has never been isolated. Yet here he is posting proof. Confused as ever. In the interests of science, on several occasions, Montagnier sent samples of his tissue cultures to the Gallo laboratory in America with the express understanding these "could be used for biomedical, biological and molecular biological studies".(65) And Gallo also isolated HIV from AIDS patient tissue. Thanks again Dogman for proving you're just a clueless denialist trapped in a web of lies. |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Jul 5, 3:52*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Thu, 5 Jul 2012 10:20:29 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [same old bull caca snipped] Since all that Trader Boy is going to do now is to repeatedly repost the same old PR releases and propaganda from AIDS, Inc. Sure, AIDS inc. Just like hepatitis inc, cancer inc... Pick your disease. Dogman obviously has big issues with not only sound science, but also capitalism. It's not PR. It's the overwhelming proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS as outlined by National Insitutes of Health. And it contains references to the dozens of peer reviewed studies by real scientists over decades that prove the case. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...owhivcausesaid... The denialists? Where are their studies? crickets.... The Yin and Yang of HIV By Valendar Turner & Andrew McIntyre Published over three issue of NEXUS Magazine beginning January 1999 SUMMARY The notion that HIV/AIDS is infectious and sexually transmitted is based on a relationship between antibodies claimed specifically induced by a retrovirus HIV and particular diseases in certain risk groups. This lie was examined and demolished several posts ago. Just for starters, the denialists set a false, phoney strawman because that's all they can argue against. It's true that the fact that HIV is the cause of AIDS is based PARTLY on the above, it's not the only proof. Of course, the denialists ignore all the other mountains of proof outlined in my previous posts. Proof like 3 lab workers get accidentally exposed to HIV and acquire AIDS. Proof like HIV has been isolated virtually every time in AIDS patients when scientists have gone looking for it, as opposed to antibodies. However, the HIV theory has been challenged for well over a decade in many scientific publications, principally by Peter Duesberg from the USA and Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her colleagues in Australia. Failure of HIV/AIDS to spread beyond the original risk groups, and particularly to Western heterosexuals, The outrageous lie repeated. Have you no shame? One third of new AIDS cases in the USA are now among people who are NOT in the original high risk groups, ie promiscous gay men, IV drug abusers. So, the disease is clearly infecting those beyone the original risk groups. You just want to ignore the soccer moms, senior citizens, etc that wind up infected with HIV and developing AIDS. Knowing that HIV causes AIDS, we can explain those cases and track them back to a partner with HIV. The denialists have to claim those patients were really secretly drug abuser, or gay men. Kind of hard to imagine a soccer mom or baby being a gay man, but that's what the denialist kooks want you to accept. A Nobel Laureate stirs the waters In 1988 Dr. Kary Mullis, the 1993 Nobel prize winner for Chemistry was employed by the US National Institutes for Health (NIH) to set up analyses for HIV testing. When preparing his report he asked a virologist colleague for a reference that HIV is "the probable cause of AIDS". He was told he did not need one. Mullis was surprised.(1) You mean this Kary Mullis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis "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.[32]" Enough said. The few years leading up to the AIDS era and the discovery of HIV are illuminating. It was a time when a promiscuous minority of young, "liberated", gay men in a few large American cities were increasingly developing previously uncommon diseases such as fatal forms of the malignancy Kaposis' sarcoma and a fungal pneumonia known as PCP. At the time, whilst it was reasonable to implicate an infectious microbe transmitted by rampant, indiscriminant sexual practices interspersed with needle sharing drug taking, the fact that immune suppression had multiple causes was also known in 1981. Some considered the diseases resulted from multiple assaults to bodily functions caused by the many and varied diseases, toxins and treatments that accompanied the gay and drug taking lifestyle that had evolved during the late 1970s. Just how extensive these multiple assaults were was indicated by the English journalist Neville Hodgkinson documenting the range of infections of just one homosexual, the late Michael Callen in his book "AIDS The failure of contemporary science: How a virus that never was deceived the world".(29) "Non-specific urethritis, hepatitis A, more NSU and gonorrhoea, amoebas [intestinal parasites]-and hepatitis B, more NSU and gonorrhoea, more amoebas, shigella, non-A, non-B hepatitis, giardia, anal fissures, syphilis, more gonorrhoea [penile, anal and oral], gonorrhoea, shigella twice, more amoebas, herpes simplex types I and II; venereal warts, salmonella; chlamydia; cytomegalovirus (CMV); Epstein-Barr virus (EBV); mononucleosis and cryptosporidiosis", ("a disease of cattle!"). Indeed, an early US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study confirmed that the first 100 men with AIDS had a median lifetime number of 1120 sex partners.(30) As Callen himself put it, "I got some combination of venereal diseases EACH AND EVERY TIME I had sex". Not surprisingly, given the widespread belief of a causal relationship between immunity and the maintenance of health, in 1981 the "new" disease became known as Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID). In fact none of the diseases was new. Some were known to occur in drug addicts and haemophiliacs long before the AIDS era. What was "new" was their exponentially escalating prevalence in gay men. Of course the denialist kooks have not one study that shows that it's possible for someone to destroy their immune systems by being exposed to excessive infections. It is ESSENTIAL to this whole BS arguement, yet the denialists are unable to provide a single study showing that it exists. Do we know that abusing drugs, poor diet, etc can lower a person's immunity and make them perhaps more susceptible from catching the flu? Sure. But that is NOT what the denialist kooks claim. They claim that it's possible, by acquiring many infections, to totally destroy one's immune system to the point that it can't recover. To the point that it can't recover despite the patient be given antibiotics and heroic treatment for the current infection. In fact, the patients usually do recover from the current infection, but later wind up with another infection and utlimately die from one. The immune system decline is specifically measured in the loss of CD4 cells approaching zero. So, where is the study that shows this immune system destruction is even possible, absent HIV? crickets as always. On the other hand, we have study after study that shows in any of the risk groups, whether it's gay men, IV drug abusers, or blood transfusion recipients, absent testing positive for HIV, they NEVER get AIDS. And we have shown how HIV destroys immune cells in the laboratory. How the progression of AIDS, the decline of CD4 cells, tracks the increase in HIV virus. Powerful proof, except to a denialist with an agenda. Five years prior to the AIDS era a few laboratories around the world were drawing towards the end of a fruitless search to prove a viral cause for human cancers. Earth to Dogman. Since then, it's been proven that viruses can cause human cancers. Not surprising, since the world with more than a few connected brain cells has known for a long time that viruses cause cancer in animals. But then Dogman denies any virus can cause cancer. What a scientific dunce. First proclamations In May 1983 Professor Luc Montagnier and his colleagues at the Pasteur Institute of Paris published a paper in Science entitled, "Isolation of a T-Lymphotrophic Retrovirus from a patient at Risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).(64) It is important to note that the first word in this paper, ‘Isolation’, serves as a signal that the researcher is claiming proof for the existence of a new virus. I love it when you prove yourself a liar. You have repeatedly denied that HIV has ever been isolated from an AIDS patient. In the interests of science, on several occasions, Montagnier sent samples of his tissue cultures to the Gallo laboratory in America with the express understanding these "could be used for biomedical, biological and molecular biological studies".(65) However, Montagnier did not claim to have proven his virus was the cause of AIDS and the French discovery lay on the table until May 1984 when Gallo and Popovic and their colleagues (66-69) published four papers also in Science. On the 23rd of April 1984, at ... Uh huh. And Gallo isolated HIV from AIDS patients. And since then, there are 3 decades of research proving HIV causes AIDS. The denialists? They like to play in the past and have to ignore all the evidence of the last 3 decades. Dogman, it really seems you're getting bent out of shape. All the easy demolishing of all your BS, something even an elementary school student could do, must be getting to you. I see more and more off topic and irrelevant posts being made by you. The LC group is now full of them. And in each and every one, you have the compulsive need to have the final post. Must be rough when you can't defend your denialist and despicable BS. |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Jul 9, 4:43*pm, Dogman wrote:
Since all that Trader Boy is going to do now is to repeatedly repost the same old PR releases and propaganda from AIDS, Inc. It's not PR. It's the overwhelming proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS as outlined by National Insitutes of Health. And it contains references to the dozens of peer reviewed studies by real scientists over decades that prove the case. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/hiva...owhivcausesaid... The denialists? Where are their studies? crickets.... The Yin and Yang of HIV By Valendar Turner & Andrew McIntyre Published over three issue of NEXUS Magazine beginning January 1999 Of course NEXUS is not a peer reviewed forum. Gee, I wonder why they published their 13 year old article there? Where are the peer reviewed papers? crickets. SUMMARY The notion that HIV/AIDS is infectious and sexually transmitted is based on a relationship between antibodies claimed specifically induced by a retrovirus HIV and particular diseases in certain risk groups. And right there folks, in the first sentence, we're off to denialist lala land. Set up a false strawman and then argue against it. The fact that HIV is the cause of AIDS is based only PARTLY on the above evidence. We have a whole host of ADDITIONAL proof. We have the actual HIV virus isolated from AIDS patients over and over again by researchers. Of course the denialists will claim that isn't good enough or better still that it can't be done at all, because the virus doesn't even exist. We have the virus in AIDS patients DNA matched back to the identical virus in a person that is suspected of having infected the patient. And of course, that person too turns out to have AIDS. We've shown the existence of HIV and how it infects immune cells in the lab. We've shown that several lab workers, who were accidentally exposed to HIV, became infected and developed AIDS. We've shown how HIV is transmitted from mother to child at birth. And we've shown how that infection rate was 25%, but now with HIV drugs, it's been reduced to just 3%. Powerful proof. However, the HIV theory has been challenged for well over a decade in many scientific publications, principally by Peter Duesberg from the USA and Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos and her colleagues in Australia. There are some people who still believe Elvis is alive, that airplanes did not hit the WTC on 911 and that the holocaust is a myth too. Should we all take them seriously? Of course not, because like the AIDS denialists, their story is a house of cards. Failure of HIV/AIDS to spread beyond the original risk groups, and particularly to Western heterosexuals, especially non-drug using prostitutes, signals that the HIV theory of AIDS is in need of urgent reappraisal. It's not 1999, it's 2012. Today about 1/3 of new AIDS cases in the USA are in people who are NOT gay or bisexual men or drug abusers. That number has been growing year by year. Of course this denialist paper is from 13 years ago, because denialists like to play in the past. Demolished! NExt! This has serious implications for both the way science has been conducted and public health policy and planning. The HIV theory has cost billions of dollars and locked in enormous amount of energy in research by thousands of scientists worldwide. So far, it has yet to save a single life. Which was an outrageous lie even in 1999 and should tell any reasonable person what a crock this is. At that point, for 15+ years we knew HIV caused AIDS. And while we could not cure it, knowing that saved millions of lives because knowing how it's caused, many people shifted their behavior to avoid getting infected. Many gay men and prostitutes started using condoms. MAny IV drug abusers stopped sharing needles. We screened blood donations during that period. And just as soon as a test for HIV in blood was available, hemophiliacs and blood transfusion recipients stopped getting infected with HIV and stopped dying. Powerful evidence, except to denialists. You'd have to be quite the imbecile to claim that knowing HIV is the cause of AIDS has not saved a single life. Either that or an AIDS denialist with an agenda. There is an urgent need to establish a truly independent, and distinguished international committee to review the current theories and those that challenge them. There needs to be a co-operative but urgent reassessment of AIDS. Those independent and distinguished research committees have already taken place in independent forums around the world. And the irrefutable conclusion reached is that HIV causes AIDS. The problem is the denialists, many of whom deny even the existence of HIV, will never accept the scientifically sound conclusion A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations. -- Stephen Hawking A BRIEF HISTORY A Nobel Laureate stirs the waters In 1988 Dr. Kary Mullis, the 1993 Nobel prize winner for Chemistry was employed by the US National Institutes for Health (NIH) to set up analyses for HIV testing. When preparing his report he asked a virologist colleague for a reference that HIV is "the probable cause of AIDS". He was told he did not need one. Mullis was surprised.(1) * * "I disagreed. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual who had discovered the cause of a deadly and as-yet-uncured disease would not be continually referenced in the scientific papers until that disease was cured and forgotten� There had to be a published paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS". Otherwise, as Mullis was forced to conclude, "The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as the twentieth-century Black Death was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense". Back to this again? Mullis was tasked by his employer to work on a test for HIV. He demanded proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS and is told he doesn't need one, but he disagree. Sounds like his superiors at NIH were right. He was a chemist and they were employing him to help with a test for HIV. They had every right to tell him that proving HIV causes AIDS is out of his bailywick and to just do his job. A decade later Mullis was to write, "I finally understood why I was having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren�t any".(2) Indeed, an interested non-specialist observer, armed with a few contacts and a good library, merely has to scratch the surface to realise that the HIV theory of AIDS begs many more questions than it answers.(1-63 *) This from the guy who in his book apparently writes about talking to glowing alien raccoons..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis "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.[32]" The beginnings of AIDS The few years leading up to the AIDS era and the discovery of HIV are illuminating. It was a time when a promiscuous minority of young, "liberated", gay men in a few large American cities were increasingly developing previously uncommon diseases such as fatal forms of the malignancy Kaposis' sarcoma and a fungal pneumonia known as PCP. And about the same time, hemophiliacs also suddenly started to develop AIDS and many of the same opportunistic infections. So did some blood transfusion recipients. And IV drug abusers. So, there goes the theory of pointing the finger at gay liberation. Except of course to the denialis loons. Knowing that HIV causes AIDS real science can explain why it shows up in every one of those groups. And just as soon as a test for HIV was available, AIDS in hemophiliacs and blood transfusion recipients stopped, just as suddenly as it had started. And we know from study after study today, conducted not just here but by researchers all around the world, that absent HIV infection, people in all those risk groups never develop AIDS. More denialist nonsense smashed. Next! At the time, whilst it was reasonable to implicate an infectious microbe transmitted by rampant, indiscriminant sexual practices interspersed with needle sharing drug taking, the fact that immune suppression had multiple causes was also known in 1981. Some considered the diseases resulted from multiple assaults to bodily functions caused by the many and varied diseases, toxins and treatments that accompanied the gay and drug taking lifestyle that had evolved during the late 1970s. Oh the longing for the good old days. Back to 1981. Even then, the theory that one can totally destroy their immune system with drugs, sex, or lack of sleep sounded very far fetched. For example, drug abuse of all kinds has been around for centuries. So, why had we not seen AIDS before? And soon thereafter, more proof came in. It was only IV drug abusers who came down with AIDS. You can abuse the same drugs, ingest all the drugs you want and while you may die of a drug overdose, you won't die of AIDS unless you share a dirty needle. Today we have study after study that shows absent HIV infection, people in any of the risk groups NEVER DEVELOP AIDS. Very powerful proof. And then to top it off, we have this idea that a person can just totally destroy their immune system with lack of sleep or drug abuse so that it can't recover even when the alleged cause is reversed. Where is the study that shows this is possible or exists? It's central to this denialist argument. Of course the study doesn't exist because it's just another lie. Demolished! NExt! Just how extensive these multiple assaults were was indicated by the English journalist Neville Hodgkinson documenting the range of infections of just one homosexual, the late Michael Callen in his book "AIDS The failure of contemporary science: How a virus that never was deceived the world".(29) "Non-specific urethritis, hepatitis A, more NSU and gonorrhoea, amoebas [intestinal parasites]-and hepatitis B, more NSU and gonorrhoea, more amoebas, shigella, non-A, non-B hepatitis, giardia, anal fissures, syphilis, more gonorrhoea [penile, anal and oral], gonorrhoea, shigella twice, more amoebas, herpes simplex types I and II; venereal warts, salmonella; chlamydia; cytomegalovirus (CMV); Epstein-Barr virus (EBV); mononucleosis and cryptosporidiosis", ("a disease of cattle!"). Indeed, an early US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study confirmed that the first 100 men with AIDS had a median lifetime number of 1120 sex partners.(30) As Callen himself put it, "I got some combination of venereal diseases EACH AND EVERY TIME I had sex". Not surprisingly, given the widespread belief of a causal relationship between immunity and the maintenance of health, in 1981 the "new" disease became known as Gay Related Immune Deficiency (GRID). In fact none of the diseases was new. Some were known to occur in drug addicts and haemophiliacs long before the AIDS era. What was "new" was their exponentially escalating prevalence in gay men. Again, we have study after study that shows in gay men, absent HIV infection, they never develop AIDS, despite having the same risky behavior and exposure to all the same veneral diseases, etc. Only when they are infected with HIV do they develop AIDS. Demolished! NExt! Technology and Virology Coincidental with the beginning of the AIDS era a technique was developed to classify and count the different types of lymphocyte white blood cells. It was noticed that some AIDS patients had diminished numbers of the so called T4 "helper" cell subtype and, despite lack of proof, the cells were assumed to be dying at the behest of an agent selectively targeting them. This became the "hallmark" of AIDS as well as forming a measure of the amount of immune deficiency. In turn, this "immune deficiency", (the "AID" in AIDS) caused the diseases (the "S" in AIDS) that constitute the clinical syndrome. The perceptions that T4 cells were dying and AIDS was infectious led to the theory that AIDS is caused by a microbial organism. Five years prior to the AIDS era a few laboratories around the world were drawing towards the end of a fruitless search to prove a viral cause for human cancers. Update! It's now 2012. Press Release 6 October 2008 "The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institutet has today decided to award The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for 2008 with one half to Harald zur Hausen for his discovery of "human papilloma viruses causing cervical cancer" and the other half jointly to Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier for their discovery of "human immunodeficiency virus" Now, you gotta love that one. The same Nobel Prize was shared by the scientist who showed the HPV virus causes cancer and the scientist who discovered HIV. Must be something for the denialist nut who claims no virus can cause cancer and HIV doesn't exist. Demolished! Next! But the above denialist nonsense is about what is to be expected from the guy who claims: HPV is not a cause of cervical cancer No virus can cause cancer HIV is harmless AIDS is caused by poor diet, not enough sleep, recreational drug use, or too much sex AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs HIV has never been isolated from an AIDS patient Prions don't cause Mad Cow disease Prions don't exist. Avoiding one stroke in 32 men every 5 years by lowering blood pressure 10 points is a "slim benefit" Blood pressure medications are dangerous and cause death. The above alone, which Dogman is proud of, is more than enough to totally discredit him. |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
[...] Blood pressure medications are dangerous and cause death. Since you enjoy using straw men, Trader Boy, here's one for you: http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2012/...proved-deadly/ I.e., proof that "BP medications are dangerous and can cause death." The above alone, which Dogman is proud of, Absolutely! And thanks again for a new opportunity to make a fool out of you! Moron. -- 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 |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Jul 20, 12:30*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:24:47 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] Dogman, it really seems you're getting bent out of shape. All the easy demolishing of all your BS, something even an elementary school student could do, must be getting to you. Yes, an elementary school student would have yet learned how to think and reason for himself, kind of like you, eh? He would be the most likely to unquestionally go along with so-called conventional wisdom, PR propaganda, and unadultered bull caca. So...what elementary school do you attend, anyway? I see more and more off topic and irrelevant posts being made by you. All of my posts here have relevance, provided one has the intellectual rigor required for recognizing the particular relevance. Which pretty much leaves you out, doesn't it? The LC group is now full of them. *And in each and every one, you have the compulsive need to have the final post. There's only one thread here that's mostly irrelevant, i.e., the one you're working overtime to keep going. *I.e., this one. Because you have taken the subject of HIV and AIDS personally (for reasons that I can only guess at). The reasons are the same as the reasons for which I'd denounce and speak out against a holocaust denier. Hint: I'm not Jewish. Same old AIDS denialist rant, without any studies to back up any of the nonsense removed..... But it's a good refresher on what your personal versions of "science" is all about: HPV is not a cause of cervical cancer No virus can cause cancer HIV is harmless AIDS is caused by poor diet, not enough sleep, recreational drug use, or too much sex AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs HIV has never been isolated from an AIDS patient Prions don't cause Mad Cow disease Prions don't exist. Avoiding one stroke in 32 men every 5 years by lowering blood pressure 10 points is a "slim benefit" Blood pressure medications are dangerous and cause death. |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Jul 28, 11:57*am, Dogman wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 05:54:07 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] There's only one thread here that's mostly irrelevant, i.e., the one you're working overtime to keep going. *I.e., this one. Because you have taken the subject of HIV and AIDS personally (for reasons that I can only guess at). The reasons are the same as the reasons for which I'd denounce and speak out against a holocaust denier. *Hint: I'm not Jewish. I can see that. Because to compare scientific dissent(!) with Holocaust denial, is about the dumbest, most outrageous, most dispicable thing a person can do, which is why I expect it from someone like you. They are the same thing in my book. The holocaust deniers say exactly the same thing, that they are just legitimate history dissenters. And just like the AIDS denialists, they ignore the moutains of solid proof and instead use any lie they can to try to fool people. The holocaust deniers claim that the Jews either didn't die or died from other causes. 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. The overwhelming truth supported by a mountain of evidence is that they died from HIV/AIDS. You have no studies, no data. When asked, the most you can do is point to an opinion piece written by a denialist kook who has no studies either. And AIDS denialism needs to be denounced for what it is because it's even more dangerous than denying the holocaust. There are some foolish enough to actually fall for this crap and refuse to treat their disease because they believe HIV is harmless. They wind up dead as these dozens of examples did: http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/dead_denialists Now, go ahead, try to explain away these deaths at 35. Then there are others that will believe the denialist lie that hiv is harmless and therefore expose themselves or others to it. Say a person infected with HIV believes your crap. Then they should feel free to keep that a secret, not disclose it to sexual partners, for example, because, it's just harmless. Then just like with holocaust deniers there is the underlying bigotry. In your case, it's obvious when you've implied several times now that I must be infected with HIV because I speak out againt your lies. Just like an anti-semitic holocaust denier accusing those that speak out the truth with being a dirty Jew. And as for the rest of your junk "science", it's exposed below for everyone to see: But it's a good refresher on what your personal versions of "science" is all about: HPV is not a cause of cervical cancer No, it is not. No virus can cause cancer There is no proof that a virus/retrovirus has ever caused cancer. HIV is harmless HIV is harmless Mostly, yes. Which is why it's almost impossible to find the *actual* virus in any person with AIDS. A good example of a huge big denialist lie. This is like the holocaust deniers claiming Auschwitz never existed. It's NOT scientific debate, it;s a lie. And clearly it's not "nearly impossible" to find the virus. The virus was actually quickly found, starting from scratch within just a couple years by Gallo and Montagnier, working independently. They isolated it from AIDS patients. Duh! Similarly the virus has been found in virtually every AIDS patient, where there was a research need to do so. So, being a denialist, you move on to the next tactic, which is to claim that because the actual virus is not extracted from every patient with the disease, something isn't right here and it proves that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. If that were true, hepatitis would not be caused by the hepatitis virus either, because we do not actually isolate the virus from every patient and instead rely on antibody tests. With hepatitis, like with most other diseases, the virus was found. It was indentified, and then scientists came up with tests to determine if a patient was infected. Those are antibody tests, exactly the same kind of tests used to diagnose HIV infection. And of course if the actual virus was isolated from every single patient, why then the denialists would be using THAT very unusual procedure as evidence of something sinister to try to support their arguments. So, sorry, but when you turn to this kind of lie, it is exactly the same thing that holocaust deniers do and it puts you squarely in their leagues. AIDS is caused by poor diet, not enough sleep, recreational drug use, or too much sex This is something that anyone can test on him/herself. Any takers? AIDS is caused by AIDS drugs Absolutely! HIV has never been isolated from an AIDS patient I've never said that. But this clearly shows how devious you can be. Prions don't cause Mad Cow disease There is no proof that "prions" cause anything. |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
On Jul 31, 1:30*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:02:00 -0700 (PDT), " I can see that. Because to compare scientific dissent(!) with Holocaust denial, is about the dumbest, most outrageous, most dispicable thing a person can do, which is why I expect it from someone like you. They are the same thing in my book. That's because you're a low-life douchebag. 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? [...] 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 and see just how totally bogus they really are. Claim #1 AIDS is caused by recreational use of drugs, not HIV The truth is that study after study has shown that absent HIV infection recreational drug users do not develop AIDS. 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). In cohort studies, severe immunosuppression and AIDS-defining illnesses occur almost exclusively in individuals who are HIV- infected. For example, analysis of data from more than 8,000 participants in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) and the Women's Interagency HIV Study (WIHS) demonstrated that participants who were HIV-seropositive were 1,100 times more likely to develop an AIDS-associated illness than those who were HIV-seronegative. These overwhelming odds provide a clarity of association that is unusual in medical research. In a Canadian cohort, investigators followed 715 homosexual men for a median of 8.6 years. Every case of AIDS in this cohort occurred in individuals who were HIV-seropositive. No AIDS-defining illnesses occurred in men who remained negative for HIV antibodies, despite the fact that these individuals had appreciable patterns of illicit drug use and receptive anal intercourse (Schechter et al. Lancet 1993;341:658)." And your studies that say recreational drug use does cause AIDS? crickets...... The best you can come up with is a 30 year old paper speculating that recreational drug use MIGHT be the cause of AIDS. That from a time when the disease was new, HIV had not been isolated, and research was just beginning. Of course, just like a holocaust denier those are the tactics you have to resort to because all the real evidence says you're a liar. The rest of the real world quickly figured out that drug use was not the cause when we say hemophiliacs and blood transfusion patients coming down with AIDS too Claim #2 - Recreational drug use, lack of sleep, poor nutrition, etc cause the total loss of immune system cells in AIDS patients. In fact, there is no evidence even one such patient exists. That is a person who has somehow managed to destroy their immune system to the point that recovery is not possible even though the alleged cause has now been removed. Show us the study. Show us the patients. Show us where a recreational drug user, not infected with HIV, has an immune system with no CD4 cells. What's the matter? Hasn't Duesberg, Montagnier, or any of the other clowns had enough time in the last 30 years to do a study and find them? On the other hand, we have study after study that shows you do see exactly this total loss of immune system cells in people infected with HIV. And we have study after study that shows absent HIV infection, people in those groups, ie drug use, poor nutrition, multiple sexual partners, blood transfusions, etc never develop AIDS. Again, a lie and methods that are in the class of those that deny the holocaust. |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)
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? 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. 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. The ones still dying? The denialists who believe HIV is harmless and refuse drugs. 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. 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. But being a bigot it's necessary to lump them all together to try to marginalize it and make it "their fault". 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. 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. But in the case of HIV/AIDS, it's far better than that. We actually do measure the levels of the virus. If you knew anything about current treatments, you would know that we have tests that measure the ACTUAL LEVEL OF VIRUS. It's used as part of the treatment protocols to know when the virus has been surpressed to low or undetectable levels. We see that the condition of the patients, ie how advanced the AIDS is, directly corelates to the level of HIV virus in the patient. Very low levels of virus, patient is doing fine and symptom free. High levels of virus, then you have low levels of CD4, patient gets opportunistic infections, wastes away, etc. Really, really simple and powerful proof. Except it's ignored by denialists, just like Auschwitz is ignored by your holocaust kin. |
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 |