 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2005Greg's friendly challenge
Hi Greg, hi everybody, Maybe I should not have started this in the first place, but I'll give it a try... Greg, your answer to my message ends with : >>>> So, in conclusion, I would say that you may want to re-examine your >>>> position regarding the likelihood that the "scientists" have got it >>>> all wrong. They've got it wrong in the past (lots), and there's no >>>> reason to believe they won't get it wrong again. <<<< I appreciate your friendly challenge but I will not accept it. In fact, to me, in the end it's more something like "everyone has got it wrong all the time and there is no reason to believe that anybody won't get it wrong again". I don't want to get into an argument about whether HIV provokes AIDS or not. I can talk to someone about my opinions and if somewhere my opinions meet the beliefs of that other person we can discuss together. If not, we might be able to silently listen to each other if we're both polite and patient, but we won't get any further. Millions of pages have been written on the topic and confirm: "HIV causes AIDS" and mountains of scientific studies tend to prove that very poisonous drugs provide the highest chances to get away with it. OK, but to me anybody dumb enough to believe this on hearsay and rejecting all opposition to his beliefs should not be disabled to get his life saving chemo therapy. Thousands of pages have been written on the topic and confirm: "HIV is not the cause of AIDS" and heaps of scientific studies tend to prove that swallowing poisonous drugs is the worst thing to do if you want to stay alive. OK, but to me anybody dumb enough to believe this on hearsay and rejecting all opposition to his beliefs should not be disturbed in his attempt to stay away from medical treatment. Anybody else, observing, listening, reading and using his own brain, should be considered wise enough to make his own decisions, if that is what he wants. Every now and then I read some messages on this forum. Not too often though: The contents of most messages hurt my eyes and often I say to myself: I'm not interested at all in what they write, especially when one or another gets nasty. But I would like to know why they write it. Somebody who does not agree with the mainstream HIV and AIDS theories, why does he have to get in a fight with someone who does? I mean, he only needs to tell his story so people who want to give it a thought know about it. So, what's on stake ? And the other way around: Someone who thinks HAART drugs etc. are life saving medicine, why does he have to get in a fight with someone who is convinced they're bad poison? What's on stake? The health of other people? But I don't want other people to take care of my health in a way that's against what I think is good for me. And above all I totally disagree with the idea of replacing caring and responsible parents by health workers. Jean, you may wish to reflect on why those of us who accept all the evidence that HIV exists and causes AIDS continue to get involved in debates like these. Sometimes it feels like both sides are battering heads against a brick wall. I don't think what I say will make someone like iconoclaster or Alex think any differently - (or vice versa) we are all entrenched in our positions. But occasionally there is someone like you who comes along and tries to see what is going on, and it is important that the dissidents don't have unfettered sway on forums like these. Most scientists do what they do best, they get on with finding treatments, doctors get on with seeing patients etc, and they cannot afford any time to actively counter dissident views by spending hours on the web each day. However, dissidents usually have only one primary goal- dissidence and the promation of its views. Hence the same few people crop up again and again disseminating their disinformation all over the web. There is a very important reason to try and counter these views. Take Maggiore as an example. There was an articulate, white heterosexual female who defied all popular concepts of what it was to be HIV positive. She uses/used her abilities to become a major activist for the dissident cause. She gave media and television interviews, wrote books, ran web sites and organisations, her husband made award winning films disputing conventional ideas about HIV. She persuaded many people to view HIV as harmless, and boasted of the numbers of HIV infected women who espoused her cause - no AZT to prevent children getting infected, OK to breast feed. She met Thabo Mbeki to persuade him that drugs were wrong. All the time it was "look at me - I've been positive for 13 years, I'm well, my kids are fine and healthy - do as I do and you'll be fine!" 40000 kids are infected with HIV each year in South Africa because Mbeki has denied mothers the chance of treatment. How many more kids (apart from her own) might be alive today if fewer people had listened to the cause this woman has actively championed? Time permitting, I will do all I can to help counter dissidence wherever I see it. > 40000 kids are infected with HIV each year in South Africa because > Mbeki has denied mothers the chance of treatment. > > How many more kids (apart from her own) might be alive today if fewer > people had listened to the cause this woman has actively championed? It takes two to tango. Clearly Maggiore must now defend her actions in court as should the clowns in her cute little fringe group who played along with her little game. Then there is Mbeki, as president who has made a decision that has led to the deaths of many many thousands and the exacerbated suffering of millions more. One hears how people are quick to blame Bush for just about everything that goes wrong just about anywhere so why do they remain quiet about this killer Mbeki? What sounds crazy about spending billions on chemotherapy and condoms and "Education"- cough- to save lives from AIDS* before* you provide the clean water and food that has been giving them AIDS defining illness throughout our history? Should all the starving children commercials we have seen be updated to sending them more AIDS drugs rather than food? How long could you live in an African village drinking there water and eating what food they have available before your AIDS diagnoses? (and we all know that the WHO has approved AIDS diagnoses that does not require any blood test right?) Should we buy everything we heard about AIDS as fact even though all research has to get funding, all funding must be approved and the funding approval process is heavily biased with pharmaceutical money? > What sounds crazy about spending billions on chemotherapy and condoms and >"Education"- cough- to save lives from AIDS* before* you provide the clean >water and food that has been giving them AIDS defining illness throughout >our history? First, a LOT of Africans with HIV/AIDS have access to food and clean water. So that is NOT why they develop AIDS. BUT--I absolutely wholeheartedly agree that assuring access to food, clean water and such is a prerequisite for millions in Africa. HIV notwithstanding--malaria and TB (two other "fantasy" diseases?) can be dramatically affected by such simple measures. One way might be to lower tarriffs in the US and European markets against African agricultural goods. Not allowing transnational corporations to rape all the gold, diamonds and oil would be great. That's ain't gonna happen. Stopping dismal unilateral trade deals like Bush perpetuates that block access to generic medication. There's a lot the west does that KEEPS Africa suffering in poverty. They aid and abet the corrupt regimes that mismanage local economies (like Mugabe and, to a lesser extent, Mbeki). There's LOTS that can be done. That MUST be done to assure that physicians and nurses, for example, WANT to stay there as pay is decent rather than fleeing once they're trained. But we'd have to lessen our dependence on oil, get rid of a LOT of corrupt politicians in the US and elsewhere, shift our worldviews to one that is more caring, help reduce population growth (like they've done in Iran), eliminate incentives for raping the environment and cutting say, mahogany and destroying all the rain forests and jungles, among other global shifts in epistemological perspective that will remain, I fear, fantasies. Frankly, AIDS? I think this species is headed for the distinction of being the first to off itself. George M. Carter And the funny thing about Africa is... People there have been dying from the diseases of poverty and malnourishment for a hell of a lot longer than "HIV" is said to have been around. Now, we are told that "HIV" actually came *from* Africa, which would logically mean that, if it's transmitted rampantly among heterosexuals on that continent, that AIDS is really a "straight disease." Yet, when it left the African continent, which population did it go into? Are heterosexuals the population where it began to spread in the rest of the world predominantly through vaginal sex? No! It "jumped" to the homosexual population and was spread predominantly through anal sex. So, here again we have the very, very basic question of how the hell is possible for this amazing disease to basically stay confined to two major populations - heterosexuals in Africa and homosexuals in the rest of the world? Where is the heterosexual pandemic of AIDS outside of the African continent? If good old fashioned heterosexual sex is what transmits "HIV" in Africa (and, presumably, not through anal sex, as is the case with the homosexual population in the rest of the world), then why has the heterosexual pandemic never happened worldwide? Are heterosexuals in the rest of the world all being good little boys and girls and never having extramarital affairs? Is everyone in the heterosexual population committing adultery always using condoms? Because the model says "HIV" is being spread rampantly throughout the heterosexual population in Africa through vaginal sex *without* a condom. I see no mention of it being spread in African heterosexuals through kinky sex (as was suggested by David with his quote "Yes - seems like the more sex one has, and the kinkier one has it, and the more genital lesions one has, the more it is likely to be transmitted") in the any of official literature. I see no warnings to Africans to *not* engage in kinky sexual behavior due to the risk of transmitting “HIV.” So, how does this big contradiction between heterosexual and homosexual transmission of "HIV" on different continents of the world occur? -Paul Whiting >And the funny thing about Africa is... > >People there have been dying from the diseases of poverty and >malnourishment for a hell of a lot longer than "HIV" is said to have been >around. Ah, yes. And still are--horribly and needlessly. But AIDS isn't just killing the poor in Africa. "But AIDS isn't just killing the poor in Africa." Okay, but how is "HIV" being spread? Is it through heterosexual vaginal sex or anal sex? And why has the heterosexual pandemic never left the continent of Africa, despite the fact that HIV is now found worldwide? >"But AIDS isn't just killing the poor in Africa." > >Okay, but how is "HIV" being spread? Is it through heterosexual vaginal >sex or anal sex? Yes. And needle use, though to a much lesser degree. More from re-using syringes in some locales than say recreational drug use. People like to have sex. That's a ubiquitous reality for our species. >And why has the heterosexual pandemic never left the continent of Africa, >despite the fact that HIV is now found worldwide? What the hell makes you think it hasn't? Friends, I wrote it before and I write it again: maybe I should never have gotten into sending a message to this forum but I'll give it another try. David, you wrote : >>> I don't think what I say will make someone like iconoclaster or Alex >>> think any differently - (or vice versa) we are all entrenched in our >>> positions. But occasionally there is someone like you who comes along >>> and tries to see what is going on, and it is important that the >>> dissidents don't have unfettered sway on forums like these.<<< What does that mean, David: "Someone like you" ? The very fact that we're discussing on this board proves quite clearly that I have learned how to read and how to write. So I think you should try to keep in mind the idea that "people like me" are not completely unread. Actually I think that I'm very well read and that neither you, nor iconoclaster, nor Alex will have an easy job pouring another way of thinking into my brain, so don't worry about that unfettered sway. But I also think that you, as well as iconoclaster and Alex, are very well read so I don't get the idea of being entrenched. It's crazy! You all give "people like me" the idea that you could drink each other’s blood! What's going on boys? Neither of you has the slightest idea of how the universe holds together or where we come from and where we go to. So how come you can't talk together peacefully and why do you think you're right and the other guy is absolutely, totally and almost criminally wrong? And how come you all have the idea that "people like me" are defenceless and have to be protected from being influenced by "the other party" ? I don't want to get into a technical discussion about viruses etc. I cannot judge the arguments of either party. But I can judge the way information is being partitioned and if it's a fact that I can read about the main stream version of hiv and aids, EVERY day in EVERY newspaper, I have NEVER read anything about the dissident's version in ANY newspaper in France. That's where the underdog feature enters the scene and it's probably the reason why I often do feel a lot of sympathy for people rowing up main stream. I think you should convince yourself it's better to let 'em talk, David. That will make you a lot more sympathetic in my eyes and if they're as wrong as you think they are, they will be digging their own graves in no time. You write: >>> Take Maggiore as an example. There was an articulate, white >>> heterosexual female who defied all popular concepts…<<< But David: Popular concepts are mostly based on fear and insecurity and one should never cease to defy them... And last but not least: I know almost nothing about Mrs. Maggiore "dissident" activities but really, the way you talk about a mother who lost her child is preposterous and very nasty and to me it's an expression very much out of place if you also pretend you want to protect people from being harmed. Regards, Joan of Arc "And how come you all have the idea that 'people like me' are defenceless and have to be protected from being influenced by "the other party'?" Jean, my dear, you've hit the nail on the head! As an "HIV-positive" person, I was *SHOCKED* to find out there were doctors and scientists *legitimately* questioning the HIV theory of AIDS for the very reason you site - I had NEVER heard about the "dissident" views in ANY media outlet. Period. Virtually everything said in every form of media supports the HIV=AIDS=DEATH paradigm. The very first site I visited in March of 2004 (I was "diagnosed" in November of 2000) was Christine Maggiore's www.aliveandwell.org and I was flabbergasted at what I found. So, the reason I am on this forum - as I have said repeatedly - is to provide an *opportunity* to those handed an "HIV-positive" diagnosis (which amounts to a death sentence according to the orthodoxy) a chance to see what other qualified professionals are saying about this twenty-year-old scientific theory. That is why the very first question I posed upon coming to this forum was: "I just wanted to pose the question as to whether anyone one thinks the HIV theory of AIDS - as a scientific theory - can ever be called into question..." And you would have thought I'd just asked a bunch of Southern Baptists if they thought that Christ was truly the Savior of all Mankind! It was like telling a convention of bishops that the Pope dresses like a girl! You have noticed one of the hallmarks of those who support the HIV theory of AIDS: they get downright *nasty* if you question their theory! And I would offer to everyone reading this debate that there is a *very, very good reason* for that. That reason is: those people are riding really big white elephant and either don't want to get off it, or they can't, because there is way, way, WAY too much at stake... Anyway, I would invite you to start reading the dissident literature. I think that you will find, just as I did, that the dissident perspective makes a *hell* of a lot more sense than what we are being fed by those who have a vested interest in continuing to uphold the HIV theory. Yours truly, -Paul Whiting >What does that mean, David: "Someone like you" ? The very fact that we're discussing on this board proves quite clearly that I have learned how to read and how to write. What I mean by "someone like you" is precisely what you mean when describibg yourself- someone who has visited these boards looking for information/discussion on the topics, and not one of the polarised infighters who have been arguing here for years banging their heads against a brick wall. I am sorry if my tone seems not conciliatory. But we are not having a debate here about whether the earth is flat, or of creationism vs darwinism. We are discussing real life and death issues, and as I explained, it is because of people like Maggiore that thousands of children in the world are needlesly infected with HIV. Others who post or did post on this forum have done their best to influence people that condoms are useless, HIV doesnt not exist or is harmless (even Iconoclaster cannot make up his mind on this one) and that treatment for HIV is lethal and never beneficial (despite hundreds of thousands of patients having ever-prolonged healthier lives as a result). I have seen people stop medications because of this propaganda and get ill and die as a result, and seen people become infected because they or their partners believed HIV was harmless. We have seen many dissidents die early and unnecessary deaths because of their views (but strangely, all these young men seem to have died from things other than AIDS - like bad prison food, or side effects of drugs.) Now EJ is dead too, and the lies just go on. You admit you know nothing about Maggiore- perhaps reading about her here and on other web sites may give you an idea of what she is and what she stands for. I have nothing but deepest sympathy for her family and their loss, but when someone has gone out on a limb to influence the choices of others, and is then found to be wrong, they must bear some of that responsibility "You admit you know nothing about Maggiore- perhaps reading about her here and on other web sites may give you an idea of what she is and what she stands for. I have nothing but deepest sympathy for her family and their loss, but when someone has gone out on a limb to influence the choices of others, and is then found to be wrong, they must bear some of that responsibility" And I would encourage you to read about Christine Maggiore in her own words and then decide for yourself what kind of person she is: http://www.aliveandwell.org/ >"I am sorry if my tone seems not conciliatory. But we are not having a debate here about whether the earth is flat, or of creationism vs darwinism. We are discussing real life and death issues" Fair enough. My tone is not conciliatory either. And I'm not even trying. We're discussing real life (people want to go on living) and death (you're trying to kill them) issues. No tearful accounts of friends who died (because they destroyed their own bodies), and cajoling to take ARVs (which will kill you), will change the relentless way in which you will be pursued until this whole AIDS-sham is over. Funny we do seem to have life and death sides here. One side wants to tell everyone how to live happy and free from fear and another wants to tell everyone what drugs to take to postpone death from AIDS, and absolutely hates any questions (except what drugs to take) Am I wrong? > Funny we do seem to have life and death sides here. One side wants to >tell everyone how to live happy and free from fear and another wants to >tell everyone what drugs to take to postpone death from AIDS, and >absolutely hates any questions (except what drugs to take) > Am I wrong? Yes. Utterly. > Funny we do seem to have life and death sides here. One side wants to > tell everyone how to live happy and free from fear and another wants to > tell everyone what drugs to take to postpone death from AIDS, and > absolutely hates any questions (except what drugs to take) > Am I wrong? Yup the denialist are serving the Kool Aid in this discussion. If you want to live in a fantasy world were HIV does not exist it is your right to do so. However do not expect anyone to not question you on the basis for your belief in that fantasy world when you are trying to convince others to drink the same Kool Aid you are drinking. Oh yes, you are wrong in that your premise implies that the denialist position is reality based, and that it is true and wise to "live happy and free from fear" if you have AIDS. While all the evidence available contradicts that statement. AIDS is not something one can take lightly, it is, and should be feared. Everything possible should be done to prevent it's transmission and find new and better methods to medically treat those who have AIDS. Gary Stein >"So how come you can't talk together peacefully and why do you think you're right and the other guy is absolutely, totally and almost criminally wrong" Because the other guy is absolutely, totally and almost criminally wrong. "And why has the heterosexual pandemic never left the continent of Africa, despite the fact that HIV is now found worldwide? What the hell makes you think it hasn't?" Show me proof, George. Show me the grim stories of how "HIV" is spreading like wildfire on every other continent besides Africa "decimating" whole towns and cities in Europe, or Asia, or Australia, or South and North America. How can it be that the only continent *ever cited* for the rampant spread of heterosexual AIDS is *still* Africa? It's been twenty years and "HIV" has not moved out of the predominantly homosexual population in the rest of the world. Why is that? What's stopping it? Good, clean moral behavior? So, what? Non-African heterosexuals don't ever get HIV? Where are the all the straight, white, middle-class cases of AIDS, since we all know that out culture is NOT known for its fidelity, no matter how puritanical we claim to be? Where, oh where, is the worldwide *heterosexual* epidemic that we were told, twenty years ago, was certain to happen? >"And why has the heterosexual pandemic never left the continent of Africa, >despite the fact that HIV is now found worldwide? > >What the hell makes you think it hasn't?" > >Show me proof, George. Good god, why should I bother? The statistics are there. Here in the United States, the heterosexual pandemic is the fastest growing one. I have many straight friends with HIV. No matter WHAT evidence I offer, you'll just cram your head back your a.s and squeal "I can't HEAR you!" Look it up yourself. In the ragged remnants of the CDC website. WHO. You're a big girl--do your own f.cking research. But you are NOT genuinely interested in the evidence. You are only interested n desperately hiding from the horror of your HIV infection. And THAT I can well understand. But you should drag others down with your terror. George M. Carter "Good god, why should I bother? The statistics are there. Here in the United States, the heterosexual pandemic is the fastest growing one." We *really* need to define the word "pandemic" then. I don't know ONE heterosexual diagnosed "HIV-positive". Still, I'm suddenly supposed to believe there's a heterosexual pandemic occurring here. Hmm. >"Good god, why should I bother? The statistics are there. Here in the >United States, the heterosexual pandemic is the fastest growing one." > >We *really* need to define the word "pandemic" then. I don't know ONE >heterosexual diagnosed "HIV-positive". I do. Quite a few. > "Good god, why should I bother? The statistics are there. Here in the > United States, the heterosexual pandemic is the fastest growing one." > > We *really* need to define the word "pandemic" then. I don't know ONE > heterosexual diagnosed "HIV-positive". I don't know any Republicans, but somehow I see enough of their effects to believe they exist. B/ >> "Good god, why should I bother? The statistics are there. Here in the >> United States, the heterosexual pandemic is the fastest growing one." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I don't know any Republicans, but somehow I see enough of their effects >to believe they exist. The term, dear, is "repugnican." Sorry to get all pedantic on ya.... I actually know a few--so they do exist. Some are less virulently f.cked up than others. >>> "Good god, why should I bother? The statistics are there. Here in the >>> United States, the heterosexual pandemic is the fastest growing one." [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I actually know a few--so they do exist. Some are less virulently > f.cked up than others. Ah. Th older ones then... but then how does one explain Dick Cheney or Richard Perle? B/ ... >> The term, dear, is "repugnican." Sorry to get all pedantic on ya.... >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Ah. Th older ones then... but then how does one explain Dick Cheney or >Richard Perle? Ewg. Who'd wanna try? Actually, I know at least 3 folks who claim to be that. One a kind of miserable, aging economist who loathes Bush. Another a black/gay/Episcopal repug with AIDS (he hates Bush). A third an Asian woman who felt Nixon was one of the people that (indirectly) helped her escape China. I think she hates bush too, but not sure. Bush is just so hateable. As are those miserable slugs, Cheney, Perle, Rumsfled, Rove, Rice, etc. ad nauseam, ad mortem. "We *really* need to define the word "pandemic" then. I don't know ONE heterosexual diagnosed "HIV-positive". I don't know any Republicans, but somehow I see enough of their effects to believe they exist." Excellent, Mr. Mailman, then you should have no problem seeing the devastating effects that "HIV" has had on the heterosexual population in America, since we all know that "HIV" doesn't discriminate between gays and straights, nor does it discriminate between Caucasians and all other ethnicities in this country. And since, "HIV" arrived in America twenty years ago - and there are bisexuals here, just like there are in Africa - then the virus should have easily made the transition from a predominantly gay disease *back* to a predominantly straight disease, since that's how it started out in Africa! I think mandatory testing of the entire heterosexual population is just around the corner, because everyone knows how promiscuous heterosexuals can be - especially after just a few beers - and the risk to this population cannot by underestimated... > we all know that "HIV" doesn't discriminate between gays > and straights, nor does it discriminate between Caucasians and all other > ethnicities in this country. Very good, farmboy. You're learning. B/ "Brian Mailman" <bmailman@sfo.invalid> wrote... >> we all know that "HIV" doesn't discriminate between gays >> and straights, nor does it discriminate between Caucasians and all other >> ethnicities in this country. > > Very good, farmboy. You're learning. I think he was being sarcastic. HIV apparently does discriminate, because gays and blacks make up the majority of U.S. cases. "Very good, farmboy. You're learning. I think he was being sarcastic. HIV apparently does discriminate, because gays and blacks make up the majority of U.S. cases." :-) -Paul Whiting > "Very good, farmboy. You're learning. > > I think he was being sarcastic. HIV apparently does discriminate, because > gays and blacks make up the majority of U.S. cases." You have stats for that? B/ "Very good, farmboy. You're learning. I think he was being sarcastic. HIV apparently does discriminate, because gays and blacks make up the majority of U.S. cases." You have stats for that?" Why are you asking me, Brian? I didn't make the statement - Mr. Slippy Fist did. I was simply quoting the conversation... -Paul "Brian Mailman" <bmailman@sfo.invalid> wrote... >> "Very good, farmboy. You're learning. >> >> I think he was being sarcastic. HIV apparently does discriminate, because >> gays and blacks make up the majority of U.S. cases." > > You have stats for that? CDC 2003, duh. There's a reason CDC publishes its HIV statistics in PDF format, to make it impossible to load into a spreadsheet, but I crunched the numbers manually and got: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasrlink.htm ------------------------------------------------- Table 9 data crunch: Estimated numbers of persons living with HIV/AIDS at the end of 2003 (for the 33 reporting regions)... Total HIV/AIDS: 351,615 100.0% Total White: 134,678 38.3% Total Black: 167,938 47.8% Total Hispanic: 43,241 12.3% Total MSM: 160,433 45.6% MSM White: 86,674 24.7% MSM Black: 50,675 14.4% MSM Hispanic: 20,498 5.8% Total Hetero Male: 34,124 9.7% Hetero White Male: 5,178 1.5% Hetero Black Male: 23,513 6.7% Hetero Hispanic Male: 4,814 1.4% ------------------------------------------------- Blacks make up 47.8% of all HIV cases, and white MSMs make up 24.7%, for a total of 72.5%. Toss in Hispanic MSMs and it rises to 78.3%. I'm sure you could try to claim that of MSMs with HIV that almost all are bisexual and not gay, therefore making my claim of "blacks and gays" untrue as the actual number would be 49.9%. Or maybe in the 17 or so non-reporting regions white heterosexual cases make up 100%. Which is it? And the Hispanic numbers are interesting, for the longest time I've heard propaganda about how it's spreading like wildfire among latinos, yet the 12.3% of total HIV cases Hispanics comprise is slightly lower than their approx. 15% of the U.S. population. Yet the black HIV figure of 47.8% is nearly 4x the approx 12-13% they make up of the U.S. population, while the white HIV figure of 38.3% is just slightly over half the approx. 72% they make up of the U.S. population. Does Treponema pallidum discriminate? http://www.cdc.gov/std/Syphilis2003/default.htm During 2002-2003, the male-to-female rate ratio increased among all racial and ethnic groups; it increased from 2.1 to 2.8 among African-Americans, from 11.0 to 14.5 among non-Hispanic whites, from 5.1 to 6.2 among Hispanics, from 7.0 to 20.0 among Asian/Pacific Islanders, and from 1.2 to 2.8 among American Indian/Alaska Natives. In 2003, 39.2% of reported cases of P&S syphilis occurred among African- Americans compared with 49.8% of cases reported in 2002. Although the rate of P&S syphilis remains higher among African-Americans than among non-Hispanic whites, the disparity in rates between the two populations has decreased because of the declining rate of P&S syphilis among African- Americans and the increasing rate of infection among non-Hispanic whites. In 2003, the rate of P&S syphilis was 5.2 times higher among African-Americans than among non-Hispanic whites compared with 7.9 times higher in 2002. Chris Noble "Does Treponema pallidum discriminate?" So, Chris, three questions for you: 1) If "HIV" actually came from the African heterosexual population how, and why, did it "jump" directly to the homosexual population in the rest of the world, once it left the African continent? 2) And if "HIV" was, in fact, able to "jump" from being transmitted predominantly by vaginal sex in Africa, to being transmitted predominanty through anal sex in the rest of the world, why has it *not* "jumped back" into being transmitted predominantly through vaginal sex in the heterosexual population outside of the African continent? 3) Where is the straight plague outside of Africa in, say, the heterosexual porn industry which is *not known* for it's use of condoms for either vaginal or anal sex? -Paul Whiting >"Does Treponema pallidum discriminate?" > >So, Chris, three questions for you: Because you don't want to deal with the answers provided already. > "Does Treponema pallidum discriminate?" > > So, Chris, three questions for you: Can you answer my question? Does Treponema pallidum discriminate? It is a very simple question. Please answer it. It also illustrates a simple point. The way that pathogens spread do not have anything to do with the the way that people like Peter Duesberg think they should. They don't care about your "common sense" or Duesberg's. The way scientists study how pathogens spread is by observation. Dissidents rely on wishful thinking and imagination. Chris Noble >Can you answer my question? > >Does Treponema pallidum discriminate? > >It is a very simple question. Please answer it. Chris, the answer to your question is *yes*, Treponema pallidum does discriminate, since each subspiecies of spirochaete bacterium causes one disease, unlike "HIV" which causes thirty previously-known diseases with previously-known causes (Oh my, what talented virus!): Treponema pallidum is a spirochaete bacterium. There are at least four known subspecies: T. pallidum pallidum, which causes syphilis; T. pallidum pertenue, which causes yaws; T. pallidum carateum, which causes pinta; and T. pallidum endemicum, which causes bejel. T. pallidum pallidum is a motile spirochaete that is generally acquired by close sexual contact, entering the host via breaches in squamous or columnar epithelium. Rarely, it may occur in medical personnel. The organism can also be transmitted to a fetus by transplacental passage during the later stages of pregnancy, giving rise to congenital syphilis. The subspecies causing yaws, pinta, and bejel are morphologically and serologically indistinguishable from T. pallidum pallidum (syphilis); however, their transmission is not venereal in nature and the course of each disease is significantly different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treponema_pallidum > >Can you answer my question? > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > disease, unlike "HIV" which causes thirty previously-known diseases with > previously-known causes (Oh my, what talented virus!): You did not answer the question. Treponema pallidum disproportionately infects blacks and gays in the US. Does Treponema pallidum discriminate? Now I am going to state once again that you are a troll. You have been told several times that nobody (apart from trolls) is claiming that HIV is the direct cause of any of the opportunistic infections. They are opportunistic infections. The fact that you persist with this stupidity is evidence that you are simply a troll. You are also abysmally ignorant. Syphilis is known as the great imitator precisely because it can manifest itself in many ways that can be confused with other diseases. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7 257350&dopt=Abstract In fact, other dissidents, such as copi who has been posting here, believe that AIDS and hence the opportunistic infections are caused by undiagnosed syphilis. He has even been posting the link to Colman Jones' website where this is detailed. http://www.colman.net/ Chris Noble >Treponema pallidum disproportionately infects blacks and gays in the >US. Does Treponema pallidum discriminate? Okay, Chris, so how does Treponema pallidum affect models in the straight porn industry? And, for that matter, how does "HIV" affect the straight porn industry? Straight porn is not known for it's use of condoms - in stark contrast to gay porn - so where is the "straight plague" in the American porn industry? I see lots of barebacking, with both vaginal *and* anal sex, in straight porn, so where's all of the straight sex workers with "HIV"? Does "HIV" descriminate between gays and straights in porn? -Paul Whiting > >Treponema pallidum disproportionately infects blacks and gays in the > >US. Does Treponema pallidum discriminate? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > -Paul Whiting Does Treponema pallidum discriminate? Simple question. Do you feel like answering it? Chris Noble >Does Treponema pallidum discriminate? > >Simple question. > >Do you feel like answering it? Yes, Treponema pallidum does discriminate. It prefers the South: Statistics STD Surveillance 2003 - Syphilis: The South accounted for 44.8% of P&S syphilis in 2003 and 45.8% in 2002. During 2002-2003, rates increased in all U.S. regions except the Midwest; rates increased 3.3% in the South (from 3.0 to 3.1 cases per 100,000 population), 23.5% in the Northeast (from 1.7 to 2.1), and 22.7% in the West (from 2.2 to 2.7); the rate decreased 23.8% in the Midwest (from 2.1 to 1.6). The 2003 rates in all regions were greater than the HP2010 target of 0.2 case per 100,000 population (Figure 28, Table 26). http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/syphilis.htm >>Does Treponema pallidum discriminate? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Yes, Treponema pallidum does discriminate. It prefers the South: Show me the ONE paper that proves Treponema pallidum EXISTS!!! > >>Does Treponema pallidum discriminate? > >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Show me the ONE paper that proves Treponema pallidum EXISTS!!! That's a Perthian argument. I'll go for the Duesbergian. "Now, if we wanted to distinguish between infectious and not, here are the hallmarks of infectious diseases versus non-infectious diseases: All infectious diseases, zero exceptions, all of them, viruses, bacteria, fungi, you name it, are equally distributed between the sexes." http://www.duesberg.com/about/pdlecture.html "During 2002-2003, the male-to-female rate ratio increased among all racial and ethnic groups; it increased from 2.1 to 2.8 among African-Americans, from 11.0 to 14.5 among non-Hispanic whites, from 5.1 to 6.2 among Hispanics, from 7.0 to 20.0 among Asian/Pacific Islanders, and from 1.2 to 2.8 among American Indian/Alaska Natives." http://www.cdc.gov/std/Syphilis2003/default.htm Using Duesberg's Law I can safely state that syphilis is not an infectious disease. It's amazing how many diseases we can disapear with dissident logic. Could one of the people here please send my name to the Nobel prize foundation. I will expect my prize any year now. Chris Noble Good god Chris is that all you got? Comparing 2 to 1 odds to 100 to 1 and calling it the same thing, ya bud keep waiting for that Nobel, yep any day now > Good god Chris is that all you got? Comparing 2 to 1 odds to 100 to 1 > and calling it the same thing, ya bud keep waiting for that Nobel, yep > any day now http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/PUBS/Facts/At-A-Glance.htm In 2003 the breakdown of HIV/AIDS diagnoses by sex is 73% Male and 27% Female. In orthodox mathematics that comes out to be a male:female ratio of 2.7:1. Perhaps with dissident mathematics you can get a ratio of 100:1 Pity there is no Nobel prize for mathematics. How does dissident science explain the male/female ratio of 14.5 for syphilis in non-hispanic males? Is Treponema pallidum wily? How does it know what sex a person is? Chris Noble > Good god Chris is that all you got? Comparing 2 to 1 odds to 100 to 1 > and calling it the same thing, ya bud keep waiting for that Nobel, yep > any day now Just to make it perfectly clear. In 2003 the male-to-female ratios for HIV and syphilis diagnoses were: HIV 2.7 Syphilis 5.2 Yes. That's right Treponema pallidum is even choosier than HIV. According to Duesberg's Law of epidemiology syphilis is not an infectious disease. "All infectious diseases, zero exceptions, all of them, viruses, bacteria, fungi, you name it, are equally distributed between the sexes." The male-to-female ratio for syphilis is 5.2 Syphilis is not equally distributed between the sexes. Syphilis is not infectious! Dissident logic is wonderful! With dissident logic alone we can eradicate all diseases from the earth! Chris Noble snip >"All infectious diseases, zero exceptions, all of them, viruses, >bacteria, fungi, you name it, are equally distributed between the >sexes." And Duesberg is still teaching?? Anything at all? Christ. What a f.cking joke. He's also the numb nut that says that generation of an antibody response means the infection is cleared! Wheee!! Duesbergia and Perthia! HIV doesn't exist and it does while not causing anything but his persecution! > Duesbergia and Perthia! HIV doesn't exist. Yeah! But you and the other spamming trolls do exist. HIV-p17p41 are in reality syphilis and borrelia proteins. they are part of the chronic Th1 deseases http://www.researchd.com/viralag/viralag.htm or http://www.bionetinc.com/pdf/bigg.pdf and HIV-p24 is a liver protein from the golgi apparatus in liver cells against toxins, part of a healthy Th2 immune response. we have 2 totally different tests in 1 HIV-test! in other words: we have drug users, with or WITHOUT a TH1 problem. this is the only solution to the contradictions from both sides (Duesberg and Gallo) here some references from the new p24 sciences: Belden, W.J., and C. Barlowe. 1996. Erv25p, a component of COPII-coated vesicles, forms a complex with Emp24p that is required for efficient endoplasmic reticulum to Golgi transport. J Biol Chem. 271:26939-26946. Belden, W.J.u.B., C. 2001. Distinct Roles for the Cytoplasmic Tail Sequences of Emp24p and Erv25p in Transport between the Endoplasmatic Reticulum and Golgi Complex. JBC. in press. Blum, R., P. Feick, M. Puype, J. Vandekerckhove, R. Klengel, W. Nastainczyk, and I. Schulz. 1996. Tmp21 and p24A, two type I proteins enriched in pancreatic microsomal membranes, are members of a protein family involved in vesicular trafficking. J Biol Chem. 271:17183-17189. Blum, R., F. Pfeiffer, P. Feick, W. Nastainczyk, B. Kohler, K.H. Schafer, and I. Schulz. 1999. Intracellular localization and in vivo trafficking of p24A and p23. J Cell Sci. 112:537-548. Denzel, A., F. Otto, A. Girod, R. Pepperkok, R. Watson, I. Rosewell, J.J. Bergeron, R.C. Solari, and M.J. Owen. 2000. The p24 family member p23 is required for early embryonic development. Curr Biol. 10:55-58. Dominguez, M., K. Dejgaard, J. Fullekrug, S. Dahan, A. Fazel, J.P. Paccaud, D.Y. Thomas, J.J. Bergeron, and T. Nilsson. 1998. gp25L/emp24/p24 protein family members of the cis-Golgi network bind both COP I and II coatomer. J Cell Biol. 140:751-65. Emery, G., Grünberg, J. und Rojo, M. 1999. The p24 family of transmembrane proteins at the interface between endoplasmatic reticulum and Golgi apparatus. Protoplasma. 207:24-30. Emery, G., M. Rojo, and J. Gruenberg. 2000. Coupled transport of p24 family members. J Cell Sci. 113:2507-2516. Fiedler, K., M. Veit, M.A. Stamnes, and J.E. Rothman. 1996. Bimodal interaction of coatomer with the p24 family of putative cargo receptors. Science. 273:1396- 9. Füllekrug, J., T. Suganuma, B.L. Tang, W. Hong, B. Storrie, and T. Nilsson. 1999. Localization and recycling of gp27 (hp24gamma3): complex formation with other p24 family members. Mol Biol Cell. 10:1939-1955. Gommel, D., L. Orci, E.M. Emig, M.J. Hannah, M. Ravazzola, W. Nickel, J.B. Helms, F.T. Wieland, and K. Sohn. 1999. p24 and p23, the major transmembrane proteins of COPI-coated transport vesicles, form heterooligomeric complexes and cycle between the organelles of the early secretory pathway. FEBS Lett. 447:179-185. Kaiser, C. 2000. Thinking about p24 proteins and how transport vesicles select their cargo. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 97:3783-3785. Kuiper, R.P., G. Bouw, K.P. Janssen, J. Rotter, F. van Herp, and G.J. Martens. 2001. Localization of p24 putative cargo receptors in the early secretory pathway depends on the biosynthetic activity of the cell. Biochem J. 360:421-9. Marzioch, M., D.C. Henthorn, J.M. Herrmann, R. Wilson, D.Y. Thomas, J.J. Bergeron, R.C. Solari, and A. Rowley. 1999. Erp1p and Erp2p, partners for Emp24p and Erv25p in a yeast p24 complex. Mol Biol Cell. 10:1923-1938. Muniz, M., C. Nuoffer, H.P. Hauri, and H. Riezman. 2000. The Emp24 complex recruits a specific cargo molecule into endoplasmic reticulum-derived vesicles. J Cell Biol. 148:925-930. Schimmoller, F., B. Singer-Kruger, S. Schroder, U. Kruger, C. Barlowe, and H. Riezman. 1995. The absence of Emp24p, a component of ER-derived COPIIcoated vesicles, causes a defect in transport of selected proteins to the Golgi. Embo J. 14:1329-1339. Springer, S., E. Chen, R. Duden, M. Marzioch, A. Rowley, S. Hamamoto, S. Merchant, and R. Schekman. 2000. The p24 proteins are not essential for vesicular transport in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 97:4034-4039. > With dissident logic alone we can eradicate all diseases from the > earth! I feel better already! B/ Brian Glaxo Spamman wrote >I feel better already! Fine! Do you know the difference between gag and p24? Or do you need more money from glaxo for this hard work? > Brian Glaxo Spamman wrote >>I feel better already! > > Fine! Do you know the difference between gag and p24? > Or do you need more money from glaxo for this hard work? You're an idiot. B/ >> Brian Glaxo Spamman wrote >>>I feel better already! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >You're an idiot. Or an apologist infiltraitor working from within to discredit the dissident movement.  SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber >>> Brian Glaxo Spamman wrote >>>>I feel better already! [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Or an apologist infiltraitor working from within to discredit the > dissident movement. I thought about that, but "idiot" was faster to type and he's not worth the energy spent on anything longer. btw, was that a typo or freudian slip? B/ >>>> Brian Glaxo Spamman wrote >>>>>I feel better already! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I thought about that, but "idiot" was faster to type and he's not worth >the energy spent on anything longer. btw, was that a typo or freudian slip? Neither. SignatureDavid Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber snip >> Show me the ONE paper that proves Treponema pallidum EXISTS!!! > >That's a Perthian argument. > >I'll go for the Duesbergian. Excuse me but in the land of Cognitive Dissonancia, these are not mutually exclusive! Thank you for PROVING MY POINT with this important post! King George III "HIV apparently does discriminate, because gays and blacks make up the majority of U.S. cases. You have stats for that?" ----------------------------------- "CDC 2003, duh. There's a reason CDC publishes its HIV statistics in PDF format, to make it impossible to load into a spreadsheet, but I crunched the numbers manually and got: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasrlink.htm ------------------------------------------------- Table 9 data crunch: Estimated numbers of persons living with HIV/AIDS at the end of 2003 (for the 33 reporting regions)... Total HIV/AIDS: 351,615 100.0% Total White: 134,678 38.3% Total Black: 167,938 47.8% Total Hispanic: 43,241 12.3% Total MSM: 160,433 45.6% MSM White: 86,674 24.7% MSM Black: 50,675 14.4% MSM Hispanic: 20,498 5.8% Total Hetero Male: 34,124 9.7% Hetero White Male: 5,178 1.5% Hetero Black Male: 23,513 6.7% Hetero Hispanic Male: 4,814 1.4% ------------------------------------------------- Blacks make up 47.8% of all HIV cases, and white MSMs make up 24.7%, for a total of 72.5%. Toss in Hispanic MSMs and it rises to 78.3%. I'm sure you could try to claim that of MSMs with HIV that almost all are bisexual and not gay, therefore making my claim of 'blacks and gays' untrue as the actual number would be 49.9%. Or maybe in the 17 or so non-reporting regions white heterosexual cases make up 100%. Which is it? And the Hispanic numbers are interesting, for the longest time I've heard propaganda about how it's spreading like wildfire among latinos, yet the 12.3% of total HIV cases Hispanics comprise is slightly lower than their approx. 15% of the U.S. population. Yet the black HIV figure of 47.8% is nearly 4x the approx 12-13% they make up of the U.S. population, while the white HIV figure of 38.3% is just slightly over half the approx. 72% they make up of the U.S. population." -------------------------------------------------- Well, wouldya look at that! My, my what a clever and *selective* virus! -Paul Whiting When you need a Billion dollar propaganda machine like mass media and a mountain of sci-fi data nobody seems to really agree on to tell you that you have a problem, you don't have problem. At least not the one that’s being sold "Good god, why should I bother? The statistics are there. Here in the United States, the heterosexual pandemic is the fastest growing one." You mean, out of all the *other pandemics* that are going around these days? So, where is the heterosexual pandemic in the United States? Why aren't heterosexuals being infected with "HIV" like the homosexual population is in this country? Why isn't "HIV" spreading like wildfire through the teenage population? Are they *all* practicing "abstinence"? If not, are they *all* using condoms? And if "HIV" can spread rampantly in Africa through heterosexual sex, why isn't that happening in the U.S., with anywhere near the ferocity as it is in the homosexual population? Why is "HIV" so *selective* about who it infects in this country after twenty years of being in the general population? Why doesn't the heterosexual spread of "HIV" in America look anything like the African one? What's keeping "HIV" from decimating straight America? Where is the "straight plague"? >"Good god, why should I bother? The statistics are there. Here in the >United States, the heterosexual pandemic is the fastest growing one." > >You mean, out of all the *other pandemics* that are going around these >days? Which diseases did you have in mind? >So, where is the heterosexual pandemic in the United States? Why aren't >heterosexuals being infected with "HIV" like the homosexual population is >in this country? http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5306a3.htm Lots more of your questions for which any evidence proferred will be ignored, dismissed and then you'll come up with some OTHER questions. Which responded to will be ignored, dismissed, etc. It's called "denial" and it ain't a river in Egypt.... George M. Carter Here is an invitation to the audience to “read between the lines” about how "HIV" is spreading among heterosexuals** in America: “During 1999--2002, approximately 64% of heterosexually acquired HIV infections reported in the United States occurred in females. The proportion of infected females was highest among persons aged 13--19 years, consistent with a previous finding (5). Survey data suggest that females in this age group engage in behaviors that place them at increased risk for acquiring HIV infections; the high proportion of infected females might be associated with sexual contact with older males, who are more likely to be infected. In addition, young females might have more opportunities for HIV testing and diagnosis (e.g., routine family planning and gynecological services) than young males.” “Persons in certain racial/ethnic populations continue to have disproportionate numbers of HIV infections. Non-Hispanic black and Hispanic populations constituted 21% of the total population of the 29 states in the study, according to the 2000 U.S. Census, yet these populations accounted for 84% of heterosexually acquired HIV infections during 1999--2002. HIV infections are concentrated in populations that traditionally have had limited access to prevention services, medical care, and effective therapies. Lack of knowledge about HIV, decreased perception of risk, use of drugs or alcohol, and different interpretations of so-called "safe sex" might contribute to the risk for HIV infection among non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics (6). In addition, because of social patterns, non-Hispanic black and Hispanic females are more likely than other females to be exposed to HIV because of a higher prevalence of infection among non-Hispanic black and Hispanic males (7).” “Diagnosis of HIV and AIDS in the same calendar month occurred with 20% of the heterosexually acquired HIV infections, reflecting HIV diagnosis late in the course of infection and suggesting late testing in the course of the disease. A previous study determined that 41% (43,089 of 104,780) of persons with reported HIV infections also received an AIDS diagnosis within 1 year, which might indicate treatment failure or late testing (8).” “The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, although AIDS is a reportable condition in the United States, during 1999--2002, name-based HIV case data were available from only 29 states, which reported an estimated 39% of all AIDS cases. Nationwide reporting of HIV diagnoses would improve data regarding the HIV-infected population. Second, cases with no identified mode of exposure were classified into exposure categories on the basis of follow-up investigation. Cases with follow-up information were assumed to constitute a representative sample of all cases initially reported with no identified exposure, and the distribution among exposure categories was assumed to be consistent during the preceding 10 years. Finally, completeness of reporting and potential duplicate reporting by states are being evaluated in accordance with CDC's performance standards for HIV/AIDS surveillance (2). Reported HIV infections are estimated to represent >85% of all HIV infections (9). CDC recommends reporting on the prevalence of HIV infection to detect patterns in HIV transmission. New testing technology that distinguishes between recent and long-term infections will allow for better characterization of HIV-transmission patterns and more rapid and targeted preventive measures (10). CDC is working in areas of high morbidity (i.e., >300 AIDS cases per year) to integrate this technology into routine HIV case surveillance.” “Racial/ethnic disparities continue among persons with HIV infections. Culturally sensitive HIV-prevention messages are needed to target those populations most affected. Prevention and education programs targeting heterosexually active teens, especially females and persons in certain racial/ethnic populations, should be developed. In addition, non-Hispanic black and Hispanic populations, which historically have less access to treatment and prevention services, are affected disproportionately by HIV. Barriers to care and prevention services for these populations should be removed.” **Notice any similarities between how "HIV" is spreading among non-Caucasian populations in America as it is in Africa? “Racial/ethnic disparities continue among persons with HIV infections. Culturally sensitive HIV-prevention messages are needed to target those populations most affected. Prevention and education programs targeting heterosexually active teens, especially females and persons in certain racial/ethnic populations, should be developed. In addition, non-Hispanic black and Hispanic populations, which historically have less access to treatment and prevention services, are affected disproportionately by HIV. Barriers to care and prevention services for these populations should be removed.” **Notice any similarities between how "HIV" is spreading among non-Caucasian populations in America as it is in Africa? What an interestingly selective microbe. Fascinating, the way it's able to slip by heterosexual, caucasian males. "In addition, non-Hispanic black and Hispanic populations, which historically have less access to treatment and prevention services, are affected disproportionately by HIV." They *sure* are. Wonder why that is? >What an interestingly selective microbe. Fascinating, the way it's able >to slip by heterosexual, caucasian males. But it hasn't. "What an interestingly selective microbe. Fascinating, the way it's able to slip by heterosexual, caucasian males. But it hasn't." --------------- "...we all know that "HIV" doesn't discriminate between gays and straights, nor does it discriminate between Caucasians and all other ethnicities in this country. Very good, farmboy. You're learning. I think he was being sarcastic. HIV apparently does discriminate, because gays and blacks make up the majority of U.S. cases." Does that answer your question, Mr. Mailman? And the funny thing about Africa is... People there have been dying from the diseases of poverty and malnourishment for a hell of a lot longer than "HIV" is said to have been around. Now, we are told that "HIV" actually came *from* Africa, which would logically mean that, if it's transmitted rampantly among heterosexuals on that continent, that AIDS is really a "straight disease." Yet, when it left the African continent, which population did it go into? Are heterosexuals the population where it began to spread in the rest of the world predominantly through vaginal sex? No! It "jumped" to the homosexual population and was spread predominantly through anal sex. So, here again we have the very, very basic question of how the hell is possible for this amazing disease to basically stay confined to two major populations - heterosexuals in Africa and homosexuals in the rest of the world? Where is the heterosexual pandemic of AIDS outside of the African continent? If good old fashioned heterosexual sex is what transmits "HIV" in Africa (and, presumably, not through anal sex, as is the case with the homosexual population in the rest of the world), then why has the heterosexual pandemic never happened worldwide? Are heterosexuals in the rest of the world all being good little boys and girls and never having extramarital affairs? Is everyone in the heterosexual population who’s committing adultery always using condoms? Because the model says "HIV" is being spread rampantly throughout the heterosexual population in Africa through vaginal sex *without* a condom. I see no mention of it being spread in African heterosexuals through kinky sex (as was suggested by David with his quote "Yes - seems like the more sex one has, and the kinkier one has it, and the more genital lesions one has, the more it is likely to be transmitted") in the any of official literature. I see no warnings to Africans to *not* engage in kinky sexual behavior due to the risk of transmitting “HIV.” So, how does this big contradiction between heterosexual and homosexual transmission of "HIV" on different continents of the world occur? -Paul Whiting I daresay that this was the best thing that I've read the whole day! George Carter actually saying something that makes sense and is CONSTRUCTIVE! Apart from one or two technicalities I actually agree with EVERYTHING. This demonstrates that there ARE some things on which AIDS "dissidents" and "others" can agree. I hope that in this vein, we can have cordial engagements in the future. George, I don't think there are ANY AIDS dissidents who think that TB and malaria are "fantasy" diseases if that is what you were implying. In fact, if anything, AIDS dissidents have always argued that these diseases should be focused on MOST heavily. And we know how to reduce the incidence of these diseases: by alleviating poverty. IF HIV is indeed involved in worsening the situation with TB, I think it is still best to go for the main cause because that is the "low hanging fruit". In other words, lets fix what is the MAIN cause. Once we've done that and TB is being caused by HIV then we solve that problem next. There always have been high levels of TB in Africa, even in the pre-AIDS era and so we know that HIV is not the MAIN cause of endemic levels of TB. In South Africa, where there is a "first world aspect" and a "thirld world aspect" it is easy to see that rural and poor urban Africans experience the "African AIDS" whereas the mostly white, affluent communities exhibit the "mainly gay AIDS" "form" of AIDS. There is not a huge AIDS problem amongst white middle class heterosexuals (it may well be still to come, but it certainly has not appeared yet). Even among South African homosexuals, the ones out the closet are mostly white, it doesn't seem that AIDS has had the same effect on the gay community as in the USA or Europe (Perhaps this is because there is less use of recreational drugs here). I know one white straight woman with "AIDS" and she was a chronic cocaine addict!So it seems that even here, within a relatively small population, HIV seems to discriminate between poor Africans and wealthier people of European descent. These issues need to be addressed by the HIV orthodoxy and not swept under the carpet. "First, a LOT of Africans with HIV/AIDS have access to food and clean water. So that is NOT why they develop AIDS." I would have to take issue with this statement too. As I mentioned above, there are people in Africa who do have access to food and clean water (eg most white people in SA). But this is exactly the point: these people are not the ones who are being affected by "HIV/AIDS"! The people who ARE suffering are the ones who DON'T have access to food and clean water! George, as a South African, it is as clear as daylight to me that AIDS has definitely exhibited here as a disease defined by race and social class! And this is the way it exhibits itself in the rest of the world! Can you candidly explain how the HIV/AIDS hypothesis accounts for these developments. Regards Greg >I daresay that this was the best thing that I've read the whole day! George >Carter actually saying something that makes sense and is CONSTRUCTIVE! >Apart from one or two technicalities I actually agree with EVERYTHING. >This demonstrates that there ARE some things on which AIDS "dissidents" >and "others" can agree. I hope that in this vein, we can have cordial >engagements in the future. I'll second that. We can certainly give it a try. >George, I don't think there are ANY AIDS dissidents who think that TB and >malaria are "fantasy" diseases if that is what you were implying. I'd rather hope not but I wouldn't be so sure. There are some in the denialist movement who reject ANY infectious disease as being independently real. >In fact, >if anything, AIDS dissidents have always argued that these diseases should >be focused on MOST heavily. Hmmmm....I think there are PLENTY of funds in the world that could be applied with greater and more significant vigor to TB, malaria, dengue, Japanese encephalitis, influenza, HIV, cancers, etc. We have LOTS of resources in the world--they're just being sucked up by the military and mascara markets. >And we know how to reduce the incidence of >these diseases: by alleviating poverty. Well--YES, alleviating poverty is a VERY DAMNED good idea. But it won't necessarily reduce the incidence of some diseases. >IF HIV is indeed involved in >worsening the situation with TB, I think it is still best to go for the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >TB in Africa, even in the pre-AIDS era and so we know that HIV is not the >MAIN cause of endemic levels of TB. HIV does NOT cause TB. However, coinfection with HIV increases disease progression and, I believe--have to look this up--may enhance susceptibility to infection by TB. >In South Africa, where there is a "first world aspect" and a "thirld world >aspect" it is easy to see that rural and poor urban Africans experience [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Europe (Perhaps this is because there is less use of recreational drugs >here). Could be. Recreational drugs do NOT cause AIDS. But booze and crack may increase the likelihood of abandoning safer sex practices. >I know one white straight woman with "AIDS" and she was a chronic >cocaine addict! I know gay men who did very few drugs and died of AIDS in their early 20s. This was some time ago. I've had friends who did LOTS of drugs. No AIDS unless HIV was present. Drugs do not cause AIDS. They can f.ck one up, health-wise, no doubt. But not resulting in PCP, etc. >So it seems that even here, within a relatively small >population, HIV seems to discriminate between poor Africans and wealthier >people of European descent. These issues need to be addressed by the HIV >orthodoxy and not swept under the carpet. Sure. Discrimination and stigma are horrific. REGARDLESS whether you think HIV causes AIDS, it is unconscionable to treat people like crap because of misperceptions about who they are or via religious intolerance or whatever other incredibly stupid ideas foster bigotry. >"First, a LOT of Africans with HIV/AIDS have access to food and clean >water. So that is NOT why they develop AIDS." I would have to take issue [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >disease defined by race and social class! And this is the way it exhibits >itself in the rest of the world! Poverty and racism are NO doubt involved in fostering a more malignant pandemic and horrible access to care. The United States is, for example, intensely racist in terms of healthcare access. This is an issue utterly integrated into the problems that need to be addressed when dealing with the crisis in healthcare, let alone the AIDS crisis. Globally. South Africa included. But that doesn't mean HIV is caused by poverty or that poor conditions cause AIDS. They don't. I've worked with rural poor in India and urban poor in Nepal who have very little access to food. They don't develop AIDS. Unless HIV is present. >Can you candidly explain how the HIV/AIDS hypothesis accounts for these >developments. I think I tried to start here. George M. Carter >"One hears how people are quick to blame Bush for just about everything that goes wrong just about anywhere so why do they remain quiet about this killer Mbeki?" Because Bush is indeed to blame for everything that goes wrong, Mr. Jordan. You've elected a monster. Mr. MBeki on the other hand, cares enough about his people to spare them the toxic genocidal drugs, in favor of good nutrition. Hi, Master David! My latest favorite target! (because you're so much like someone else I debated here) >"Most scientists do what they do best, they get on with finding treatments, doctors get on with seeing patients etc, and they cannot afford any time to actively counter dissident views by spending hours on the web each day." Sounds good. Really calculated to have an impact on innocent folks who will believe anything. It's also very hypocritical, of course. What scientists do best is to write grant proposals for the research they want to do, and then drag in some spurious connection to the 'disease of the year', in order to get it funded. Doctors do indeed keep on seeing patients (they bring in the money), and they avoid debate. Not that they wouldn't have the time (playing golf occupies time too), but debates don't yield a penny, and might reveal the fact that MDs usually don't know beans about the scientific background of their treatments. About Christine Maggiore: What she stands for is still as correct as before. HIV is harmless, and may not even exist. AZT, on its own or mixed with other poisons in HAART will kill you, and are to be avoided at any price. Pregnant women should be left in peace. Breast feeding is the most natural thing to do for any mammal, and is very beneficial to the child. That's why the apologists hate Christine. She is right and they can't stand it. >"How many more kids (apart from her own) might be alive today if fewer people had listened to the cause this woman has actively championed?" None. Too many children have been murdered with nevirapine and AZT. >"Time permitting, I will do all I can to help counter dissidence wherever I see it." You'd better look around for a hitman, Master David. Because I'll keep on hunting you down wherever your posts appear, and I'll oppose you - until you find yourself yet another identity. (but your style will give you away). >About Christine Maggiore: What she stands for is still as correct as before. HIV is harmless, and may not even exist. AZT, on its own or mixed with other poisons in HAART will kill you, and are to be avoided at any price. Pregnant women should be left in peace. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message