A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 05:19 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 150
Default The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

On 8/2/2012 12:56 PM, wrote:
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.


Q.E.D.

  #152  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 07:47 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:14:05 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Jul 31, 1:30*pm, Dogman wrote:

Then they
should feel free to keep that a secret,


But why would they do that??? *WTF?


They would do it because they listen to nuts like
you who say HIV is harmless. If it's harmless, then
there is no reason to disclose it or take precautions
from infecting someone else. Are you that stupid
that you can't see the logical consequences of
believing that HIV is harmless?


The consequences are simple: You get to remain healthy and alive.

For example, the results of this on-going TAMU study should be
interesting:

http://hlknweb.tamu.edu/articles/hiv_no_meds

not disclose
it to sexual partners, for example, because, it's just
harmless.


But it *is* harmless!


And again, this is why you and the other denialists are
more dangerous than holocaust deniers. Listening to you
is encouragement to have unprotected sex, to not
disclose that you are HIV infected, because according
to you, HIV is harmless.


I have unprotected sex all the time. Because I have no fear of HIV.

And I have ZERO chance of ever getting AIDS, because I don't abuse
drugs, I eat properly, I don't drink heavily, I get a good amount of
sleep, I don't get tested for HIV, I don't have sex with other men, I
don't take AIDS drugs (AIDS by prescription!), etc., in other words, I
don't burn the candle at both ends.

On the other hand, I don't tell others how they should live their
lives. If someone wants to live his life fearful of a harmless
retrovirus that couldn't possibly cause 30 different diseases(!),
that's for him to decide.

It's the *drugs* that aren't harmless, you dip****.


Yes, so harmful that today patients on AIDS drugs
are living long lives instead of dying in a year like they
were when there were no AIDS drugs.


Yes, because today they're giving them less than 50% the dosage of the
80s and early 90s, and to perfectly healthy people. But they still
die, just more slowly that in the past.

We had 30% of babies born to mothers infected with
HIV being infected. Today, using AIDS drugs prior to
birth, that infection rate has dropped to just a few percent.
Powerful proof, except to a denialist.


Q3: If Azt is so toxic, how is it that the incidence of infected
children has decreased from 25% to 8% (in Italy and in France) in
babies born to mothers who had been treated with Azt during pregnancy?

A3: Treatment of HIV-positive, pregnant women with the DNA chain
terminators has reduced the incidence of HIV in their babies from 25%
to 8% in France and Italy as well as in the US. This is to be expected
from a drug that was designed to kill cells including those in which
HIV replicates. AZT was developed over 30 years ago to kill cells for
cancer chemotherapy.

The first problem with this hypothetical triumph of anti-HIV treatment
is that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. The second more serious problem
that AZT induces abortion, and generates birth defects in humans and
causes cancer in animals born to AZT-treated mothers. For example, a
study published in 1994 found that among 104 AZT treated HIV positive
women, 8 aborted spontaneously, 8 had to be aborted "therapeutically",
and 8 had babies with birth defects such as cavities in the chest,
heart defects, extra fingers, misplaced ears, triangular faces,
misformed spine, and albinism (Kumar et al., J. AIDS, vol. 7, p1034
(1994), cited in IAV).

http://www.duesberg.com/faq.html

I'd sure like to see a long-term, follow-up study regarding the health
of those poor babies...

It's the lifestyle that isn't harmless.


Some lifestyles certainly lead to becoming infected
with HIV and developing AIDS. In other cases,
like the soccer mom infected from a husband or
a baby born to an HIV infected mother, their lifestyle
had nothing to do with it.


Easy to explain:

http://rethinkingaids.com/quotes/tes...-positive.html

Not to mention the FACT that HIV antibodies can be tranmitted from
mother to fetus, etc.

The fact that you can't figure this stuff out by yourself, well, it's
priceless.

In probably 99.999% of AIDS cases, the actual virus is never even
looked for, much less found. *Only the *antibodies* are found!


Again, the phoney strawman is raised.


That's not a straw man. That's a fact. You can look it up.

Following that denialst crap, then hepatitis, syphilis, tuberculosis,
lyme,
pick your disease are not caused by the underlying virus or
bacteria either, because exactly the same types of tests are used.


Now that is a straw man! And the same type of tests are NOT used.

hepititis what?
syphillis = scrapings
tuberculosis = fluorescence microscopy (auramine-rhodamine staining)
lyme = antibodies are tested for, but not relied upon for a diagnosis
because:

"Antibodies, however, can be false indicators of disease, since they
can persist for years after the disease is cured."

http://www.medicinenet.com/lyme_disease/page3.htm

Read that sentence to yourself about a dozen times, maybe it'll
eventually sink in.

Nah, you still won't get it.

There's just no there, there.

--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman
  #153  
Old August 2nd, 2012, 08:03 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:19:03 -0300, James Warren
wrote:

[...]
And dumb as a bag of marbles.


As must be 99.99% of the AIDS researchers, doctors, etc
in the world. Because they agree that HIV is the cause of
AIDS. Now, let me see, which group would I rather be in?
That group or in the group with you, which consists of a
bunch of denialists with no qualifications, supported by
a couple of "scientists" who are not even AIDS researchers,
don't actually treat patients, etc, but some of whom
do write of talking to glowing alien raccoons?


First, "99.99" of AIDS researchers don't agree that HIV is the cause
of AIDS. Second, there are THOUSANDS of scientists and doctors who
disagree with the theory that HIV causes AIDS. Third, at one time,
99.99% of the world's scientists claimed that the world was flat, that
pellagra was caused by eating corn, that scurvy was caused by eating
tainted meat, and on and on. I don't wish to part of a group like
that.

I want to be part of this group:

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

Exactly what you AIDS/HIV denialists do when you
come up with one bogus explanation after another to
explain away AIDS/HIV deaths in blood transfusion
recipients, hemophiliacs, soccer moms, Africans,
etc.

But there's nothing bogus about them. You're just too dumb to
understand how to reason for yourself. You're forced to parrot the
"conventional wisdom" because you're incapable of thinking for
yourself.



Let's look at just a couple of your denialist claims


Okay. Let's do just that:

Peter Duesberg's web site
http://www.duesberg.com/
Rethinking AIDS web site
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/
Virus Myth web site
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/
Alberta Reappraising AIDS Society web site
http://aras.ab.ca/
AIDS is Over web site
http://aidsisover.com/
AIDS Wiki
http://www.reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Main_Page
David Rasnick web site
http://www.davidrasnick.com/Home.html
The Perth Group web site
http://www.theperthgroup.com/
Bookshelf
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/books.htm



--
Dogman

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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Frankenfoods are Winning Cubit Low Carbohydrate Diets 10 December 12th, 2007 04:49 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 08:58 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 06:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.