Slowly, ever so slowly, the worm turns.

On 5/22/2012 4:51 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:36:51 -0300, James Warren
wrote:


You doubt it because you don't have a clue about either HIV or AIDS.

The AIDS definition is different in Canada than the U.S. There's also
the Banqui definition, used mostly in Africa. You could be AIDS-free
in the U.S., but fly to Kenya and see a doctor? All of a sudden you
have AIDS.

Do you know any other disease that works like that?

Yep. Just about all the psychiatric diseases.

*Infectious* disease is implied here!

You must also think it's plausible for a supposedly infectious disease
to infect almost exclusively gay men, IV drug abusers, and
hemophiliacs in the U.S., Canada and Europe, but infect 10s of
millions of heterosexuals in Africa, Asia, and Latin America?

Yes.

Wow.

Can you name any other virus that is so selective? Do you know
anything at all about viruses?

Different lifestyles and probabilities of exposure account for it.

Heterosexuals don't have sex in the U.S., Canada, and Europe?

Jeez louise, I was right. There's just no there there.

And that one little, mostly harmless, retrovirus, very similar to all
other retroviruses, can all of a sudden cause 26 different diseases?
All of which have been around for a long time before anyone ever said
the word "AIDS"?

Your premise is wrong. HIV is not mostly harmless.

Yes, it is. Read Duesberg's book.

It this your Bible?

It's my favorite book regarding AIDS, yes.

What's yours?

Oh, I see. You've never read a book on AIDS. That figures.

I could go on and on, but it seems that you are the victim of
selective implausibility. Unfortunately, I don't think there's an app
for that.

The weight of evidence definitely favors the HIV causes AIDS argument.

No, it doesn't. But the "Friends of Bob" (Gallo) currently have their
finger on that scale, and they aren't about to take it off anytime
soon.


Yeah it does. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

No, just a gullible simpleton.

Frankly, I like my team better.

Nota bene: James, it's obvious that you get most of your scientific
information from MSNBC, and that you don't know enough about AIDS to
even ask sensible questions. Go read Duesberg's book. Then come back
and discuss AIDS with me.

No, I don't watch MSNBC. Frankly, you are not important enough to me
to waste the time reading a book for. Sorry to disappoint you.

On 5/22/2012 4:56 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:39:53 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
There is none so righteous as the self-righteous.

"We have no words for speaking of wisdom to the stupid. He who
understands the wise is wise already."
-G.C. Lichtenberg

Thank you.

On 5/22/2012 5:00 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:57:07 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
I gather you are an expert in all those areas of specialization that
you have denounced as frauds and unscientific. Congratulations on
your expansive erudition.

Why, thank you, James!

I wish I could say the same of you, but, alas, I can't.

I understand.

If only you did.

[...]
I bow down to you, oh rational one.

Get off your knees, plebe, and go read Duesberg's book!

If ever there was a motto you should embrace, it's: "Read more, write
less."

Ahem! You write much more than I do.

Tha's because I've already done the reading part, unlike you.

What, besides Duesberg, have you read? Can you recommend something
on the other side. Maybe I would read them sequentially.

On May 22, 2:56*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 15:36:05 -0300, James Warren

wrote:

[...]

But all the wasted money, the needless deaths, pain and suffering, are
all but forgotten.

I think you are lost in paranoia.

And I think you're a lazy and gullible simpleton.

So there.

You seem to subscribe to all the conspiracy theories.

Nope, only to certain UNSCIENTIFIC theories. The ones I've studied
from asshole to elbow.


Well finally Dogman has said one thing that is true
and we can all agree on.
And that is that per his own words above, he subscribes
to unscientific conspiracy
theories that he's studied from AH to elbow. Actually
I have some doubt about the studying part
because he's unable to give any coherent backup to
any of those theories beyond "Read Duesburg's book...."
If he had actually absorbed some of the denialist
nonsense you'd think he could do a better job of
at least reciting some of it.





Thanks, I hope I never escape from this rut myself!

--
Dogman


I don't think there is any need to worry about that.

On May 22, 3:51*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 16:36:51 -0300, James Warren

wrote:
You doubt it because you don't have a clue about either HIV or AIDS.

The AIDS definition is different in Canada than the U.S. There's also
the Banqui definition, used mostly in Africa. You could be AIDS-free
in the U.S., but fly to Kenya and see a doctor? All of a sudden you
have AIDS.

I'd like to see the differences in the criteria for AIDS in the
USA and Canada. Let's start with that. Provide us with a
real, credible reference to each. I'll bet the differences,
if any, are trivial and this is just another red herring.





Do you know any other disease that works like that?

Yep. Just about all the psychiatric diseases.

*Infectious* disease is implied here!

You must also think it's plausible for a supposedly infectious disease
to infect almost exclusively gay men, IV drug abusers, and
hemophiliacs in the U.S., Canada and Europe, but infect 10s of
millions of heterosexuals in Africa, Asia, and Latin America?

Yes.

Wow.

First it's a lie that it's almost exclusively a disease among gay
men, iv drug users, and hemophiliacs. That you would
include hemophiliacs shows how little you actually know about
AIDS. Hemophiliacs were very important in PROVING that it
was an infectious virus passed via blood that CAUSED the
disease. But they were never a significant percentage of
those with the disease. And because screening for HIV
quickly eliminated that route, the tiny numbers remained
tiny. Capiche?

Here;s some recent statistics:

http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm

You have 132,000 females that acquired AIDS in the USA
to date via heterosexual contact. That's 11% of the total.
Certainly not your claimed "almost exclusively gay, drug
users, etc. scenario."

There have been studies done that show an HIV infected
mother can pass HIV on to her babies. The babies, male or
female that do not test positive for HIV never develop AIDS.
Many of the babies that do test positive for HIV develop AIDS
and about half of those are female.

Now if HIV isn't the agent that causes AIDS, how the hell
does that happen?





Can you name any other virus that is so selective? Do you know
anything at all about viruses?

Different lifestyles and probabilities of exposure account for it.

Heterosexuals don't have sex in the U.S., Canada, and Europe?


Of course they do and that's why the AIDS cases to date
among heterosexuals is 17%. If you had any familiarity with
what you're talking about, you'd know that.



Jeez louise, I was right. *There's just no there there.


And that one little, mostly harmless, retrovirus, very similar to all
other retroviruses, can all of a sudden cause 26 different diseases?
All of which have been around for a long time before anyone ever said
the word "AIDS"?

Your premise is wrong. HIV is not mostly harmless.

Yes, it is. Read Duesberg's book.

It this your Bible?

It's my favorite book regarding AIDS, yes.

And you ignore the mountain of data, studies,
etc that say Duesburg is a fool.




What's yours?

Oh, I see. *You've never read a book on AIDS. That figures.

I could go on and on, but it seems that you are the victim of
selective implausibility. Unfortunately, I don't think there's an app
for that.

The weight of evidence definitely favors the HIV causes AIDS argument..

No, it doesn't. But the "Friends of Bob" (Gallo) currently have their
finger on that scale, and they aren't about to take it off anytime
soon.

Yeah it does. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

No, just a gullible simpleton.

Frankly, I like my team better.

Nota bene: James, it's obvious that you get most of your scientific
information from MSNBC, and that you don't know enough about AIDS to
even ask sensible questions. Go read Duesberg's book. Then come back
and discuss AIDS with me.

--
Dogman



Yeah, sure. James is the one that needs to learn?
About 17% of the cases of AIDS in the USA
to date have been transmitted via heterosexual sex.
Last year about a third of new cases were transmitted
via heterosexual sex.

But keep your head buried in the sand with Douchebags
book like a typical denialist.

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:02:28 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
Yeah it does. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

No, just a gullible simpleton.

Frankly, I like my team better.

Nota bene: James, it's obvious that you get most of your scientific
information from MSNBC, and that you don't know enough about AIDS to
even ask sensible questions. Go read Duesberg's book. Then come back
and discuss AIDS with me.

No, I don't watch MSNBC. Frankly, you are not important enough to me
to waste the time reading a book for. Sorry to disappoint you.

It doesn't dissapoint me, nor does it surprise me. What it does, is to
reinforce my belief that you are both incurious and lazy.

C'est la vie.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:09:14 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
I bow down to you, oh rational one.

Get off your knees, plebe, and go read Duesberg's book!

If ever there was a motto you should embrace, it's: "Read more, write
less."

Ahem! You write much more than I do.

Tha's because I've already done the reading part, unlike you.

What, besides Duesberg, have you read?

Pretty much everything there is. I even gave you a list of some of the
books.

Can you recommend something on the other side.

No. You said I wasn't "important enough" to do that.

So do your own work. With your vast scientific background, I'm sure
you know how to do that, right?

Maybe I would read them sequentially.

You know when you'll read Duesberg's book? When one day, say, while
applying for a new life insurance policy, you're asked to take a blood
test, and then it comes back HIV+. Then you'll read the book.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:03:26 -0300, James Warren
wrote:


[...]
There is none so righteous as the self-righteous.

"We have no words for speaking of wisdom to the stupid. He who
understands the wise is wise already."
-G.C. Lichtenberg

Thank you.

Have you used up your annual allotment of smilies yet?

You are to smilies what Bayer is to aspirin.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:32:14 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
You seem to subscribe to all the conspiracy theories.

Nope, only to certain UNSCIENTIFIC theories. The ones I've studied
from asshole to elbow.


Well finally Dogman has said one thing that is true
and we can all agree on.
And that is that per his own words above, he subscribes
to unscientific conspiracy
theories that he's studied from AH to elbow.

That's straw man #2376 by my count. You must be trying to use them up
before they expire, eh?

I study unscientific theories, not conspiracies.

Let's see...why would someone always need to misrepresent his
opponent's position? Hmmmm.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

On Tue, 22 May 2012 14:13:03 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
The AIDS definition is different in Canada than the U.S. There's also
the Banqui definition, used mostly in Africa. You could be AIDS-free
in the U.S., but fly to Kenya and see a doctor? All of a sudden you
have AIDS.

I'd like to see the differences in the criteria for AIDS in the
USA and Canada. Let's start with that. Provide us with a
real, credible reference to each.
[...]

I did that. But you ignored it, as usual. I'm not going to do it
again.

It's easy enough to check out.

There's this thing called "the internet." Give it a go.



--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman