Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / October 2005
Syphilis is not infectious!
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Chris Noble - 12 Oct 2005 01:24 GMT Duesberg's Law states:
"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
In 2003 the male-to-female ratios for HIV and syphilis diagnoses were:
HIV 2.7 Syphilis 5.2
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/PUBS/Facts/At-A-Glance.htm 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 infectious diseases we can eradicate with dissident logic alone.
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
copi - 12 Oct 2005 14:02 GMT >Duesberg's Law states: "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."
Rethinking Aids would be fine. our dissidents are really crazy on this subject. hey dissidents! Are you politically too correct?
Chris Noble - 14 Oct 2005 02:35 GMT I am a syphilis rethinker. I had a rethink and conclusively proved that orthodox science is completely wrong about syphilis.
Syphilis is not infectious.
Lets repeat that again just to make it more true.
Syphilis is not infectious.
And once more to make it really really true.
Syphilis is not infectious
It is obviously caused by something else other than a spirochete.
My guess is that it's the drugs. Salvarsan is a highly toxic drug. It causes exactly the same symptoms that were blamed on syphilis. Salvarsan causes syphilis.
It could also be oxidative stress. The original people who were diagnosed with syphilis were all exposed to highly oxidative compounds like - oxygen.
I can't say for sure what causes syphilis but that isn't my responsibility. It is the responsibility of the rest of the world to prove to me personally that a spirochete causes syphilis. But I know already that this is imposiible because syphilis is not infectious. Duesberg's law conclusively proves this.
Chris Noble
wilyretrovirus - 14 Oct 2005 03:11 GMT <Yawn>
Why are you so hung up on Duesberg?
It might make sense for you to constantly attack Duesberg if one of "us" was constantly saying how "right" he is.
Who's the big Duesberg fan here? He gets referred to once in a while, but I don't see any of us mentioning him as much as you do.
Why are you beating a dead horse? Wasn't Duesberg supposedly "discredited" years ago? Your often mentioning of Duesberg's got me wondering.
Death - 14 Oct 2005 03:25 GMT Oct 13, 10:06 PM EDT Four Children in Minnesota Contract Polio
By MARTIGA LOHN Associated Press Writer
ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) -- Four children in an Amish community in Minnesota have contracted the polio virus - the first known infections in the U.S. in five years, state health officials said Thursday.
Dr. Harry Hull, the state epidemiologist, said the cases do not pose a threat to the general public because most people have been vaccinated against polio and are unlikely to have contact with Amish people. But he said he expects to find more infections within the Amish community because some of its members refuse immunizations on religious grounds.
None of the children have shown any symptoms of the paralyzing disease. About one in 200 people who contract the polio virus suffer paralysis because of it; others typically rid themselves the virus after weeks or months.
None of the four children had been vaccinated. Three are siblings; the fourth is a baby from another family.
The infection came to light when the baby was hospitalized for various health problems and underwent tests. Authorities then began testing other members of the community for the virus.
Officials would not identify the Amish community but said it consisted of 100 to 200 people.
Hull said the infections were traced to an oral vaccine that was administered in another country, probably within the past three years.
The use of oral polio vaccine containing the live virus was stopped in the United States in 2000. The live-virus vaccine caused an average of eight cases of polio a year in the United States. The U.S. and Canada now use an injected vaccine made from the killed virus.
State and federal officials are investigating how an infection from a vaccine given in another country reached Minnesota. Stool or saliva from an infected person can transmit the virus.
Health officials said they are working with the Amish community to determine who may have been exposed to the virus, and to encourage immunizations.
"We have been going house to house, talking with them about the risk, offering the vaccine and attempting to collect specimens to see if the virus has been spreading," Hull said. "Some families have said, `No, thank you, we do not want to interact with you at all.' Other families have said, `Sure, we'll get vaccinated. We'll provide specimens.'"
Without the community's cooperation, Hull said, there is a chance of an outbreak similar to one that occurred in 1979 in Amish communities in Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri and Pennsylvania. Ten people were left paralyzed by the disease, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The last naturally occurring case of polio in the United States was in 1979, and health officials consider the disease eliminated in the Western Hemisphere. It persists in other parts of the world, with the vast majority of cases concentrated in India, Nigeria and Pakistan, according to the World Health Organization.
According to the CDC, more than 95 percent of U.S. children are vaccinated against polio by the time they enter school.
Chris Noble - 14 Oct 2005 04:47 GMT > <Yawn> > > Why are you so hung up on Duesberg? Why do dissidents revere Duesberg as an authority and reject the thousands of scientists that disagree with him?
> It might make sense for you to constantly attack Duesberg if one of "us" > was constantly saying how "right" he is. Are you saying that Paulee has never cited Duesberg as an authority?
> Who's the big Duesberg fan here? He gets referred to once in a while, but > I don't see any of us mentioning him as much as you do. > > Why are you beating a dead horse? Wasn't Duesberg supposedly > "discredited" years ago? Your often mentioning of Duesberg's got me > wondering. Duesberg's views on AIDS were discredited years ago. Nevertheless he has maintained his appeal to lay people that prefer to believe against all evidence that HIV does not exist and/or that it does not cause AIDS.
I also noticed that you completely ignored the issue here and chose to question my character and motives.
My point is simple. The arguments that Duesberg uses to "prove" that HIV does not cause AIDS are bogus. He frequently makes categorical statements that are false. The exact same arguments can be used against other pathogens - something he never does.
If you are not a Duesberg fan then please refer me to a scientific document that supports your beliefs. Or don't you have any beliefs that you are prepared to defend?
Chris Noble
Fondoo - 14 Oct 2005 06:00 GMT Scientific documents are not above corruption and a great many have been found fraudulent in a court of law. The problem with the dissident community not going away is the number of us is growing. We have found that HIV drugs were more harmful than a positive test and even my AIDS diagnoses. I am not advocating thinking a positive test means nothing but what I want to spread around is that western medicine is corrupt, rotten at the core and we need to be in charge of our own health. A doctor should be an advisor only. A gentleman joined our dissident talk group and wanted advice on starting a support group for folks declining AIDS drugs. Pretty funny because he is in AA and got a positive test shortly after getting sober feeling very scared his sponsor told him to talk to another AA friend of his because he has lived over 15 years without AIDS drugs and that guys sponsor is 20+ without AIDS drugs. Can you see how we can look on these studies as having more of a financial agenda than you would like to think? We have our stories and our bodies you on the other hand have a stack of papers
Gary Stein - 15 Oct 2005 00:25 GMT > Scientific documents are not above corruption and a great many have been > found fraudulent in a court of law. You think a court of law is a place devoted to finding the truth? God damn do I have a bridge you might want to buy.
> The problem with the dissident community not going away is the number of > us is growing. Growing? Not in anyway that is apparent. The ideas haven't changed in a decade they have never published anything backing up there opinions nor are the arguments even logical.
GAry Stein
wilyretrovirus - 14 Oct 2005 15:12 GMT >Are you saying that Paulee has never cited Duesberg as an authority? Did you *read* what I said? "He gets referred to once in a while, but I don't see any of us mentioning him as much as you do."
>Duesberg's views on AIDS were discredited years ago. Did you *read* what I said? "Why are you beating a dead horse? Wasn't Duesberg supposedly "discredited" years ago?"
It looks like you've got a fixation of sorts on Duesberg. And as far as Paul seeing Duesberg as an authority, you'll have to ask him if that's so. He very well may see Duesberg as such, but Duesberg's not perfect, or right all the time.
Oddly enough, you boys *love* to mention Duesberg when it's "convenient", i.e., the man who's tried to claim the "Continuum" prize. Lookin' a bit two-faced there, boys.
GMCarter - 14 Oct 2005 15:56 GMT snip
>Oddly enough, you boys *love* to mention Duesberg when it's "convenient", >i.e., the man who's tried to claim the "Continuum" prize. Lookin' a bit >two-faced there, boys. LOL....you're such a giddy troll...
wilyretrovirus - 14 Oct 2005 16:59 GMT "If you are not a Duesberg fan then please refer me to a scientific document that supports your beliefs. Or don't you have any beliefs that you are prepared to defend?"
A scientific document that supports my beliefs? My views come from a variety of sources. The biggest and most important of those is personal experience.
Personal experience is by far the most powerful mode of understanding a subject, ask Fondoo or Paul. Oh, wait, you'll have to discount their experiences out of hand, because you can see into the future with your data.
Even though Paul's five years into a "positive" diagnosis, and has utterly oridinary health, your data conclusively proves he will die of AIDS, um, sometime. So, Paul's personal experience MUST be denied (for the sake of your data).
Fondoo says he's doing better without the drugs, correct? Oh, what a fool he is though. You can see into the future with your "mountains of evidence" and predict his death from "AIDS", no? So, his personal experience is meaningless compared to your data.
What about the LTNPs? Poor souls. Don't they know that they're REALLY Long-term-slow-progressors? Damn! Just when some people out there felt a shred of hope, the folks that bring us AIDS are there to tell them to,in effect, discount their experience of NOT being critically ill. Their time will surely come, according to those seven people in the study that George showed us.
What about Christine Maggiore? Supposedly HIV-positive, right? I know you all haven't come out and said whether she's actually positive or negative, though. Maybe you're waiting for the politically opportune moment to do so. But, if she supposedly tested positive 13 years ago, and she doesn't take meds, shouldn't she be sick or dead by now? Or is "AIDS" taking more than 13 years to manifest past diagnosis these days?
Well, you've got your "overwhelming evidence", and it says otherwise. How long will it take these people to finally relent to your data...15, 20, 25 years? Of course, the "scientific facts" will change to accomodate that, should it take longer and longer for people to die from "AIDS".
"AIDS", so amazingly pliable.
GMCarter - 14 Oct 2005 12:19 GMT ><Yawn> > >Why are you so hung up on Duesberg? So you think Duesberg is an idiot and to be dismissed?
Well, I suppose that's a good start!
Iconoclaster - 16 Oct 2005 02:03 GMT >"My guess is that it's the drugs. Salvarsan is a highly toxic drug. It causes exactly the same symptoms that were blamed on syphilis. Salvarsan causes syphilis."
You're slightly improving, Mr. Noble. Only the last 3 words are wrong. The previous sentence is correct. The same type of sick minds that came up with a drug like Salvarsan are still round today. Now they develop drugs such as Zidovudine.
Could we apply the same brand of sophistry to AIDS then? Afraid not. True, AZT does not cause AIDS; it does cause some of the same symptoms, and it will finish you off once you're already sick. And another little difference: HIV does not exist.
And the skewed ratios between men and women you quote for AIDS and Syphillus: Could it just be that the tests and diagnoses have been a little skewed to begin with?
Gary Stein - 17 Oct 2005 00:57 GMT > >"My guess is that it's the drugs. Salvarsan is a highly toxic drug. It > causes exactly the same symptoms that were blamed on syphilis. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > True, AZT does not cause AIDS; it does cause some of the same symptoms, > and it will finish you off once you're already sick. Well I was very sick when I started taking AZT and have been doing so for 90% of the time since 1996 to the present. Yet here I am alive and relatively healthy how do you explain those simple facts?
Gary Stein
Iconoclaster - 21 Oct 2005 01:41 GMT >"Well I was very sick when I started taking AZT and have been doing so for 90% of the time since 1996 to the present. Yet here I am alive and relatively healthy how do you explain those simple facts?"
Facts are never simple where the human body is concerned. In another post you wrote that you refused AZT monotherapy at first. So I assume that you started in 1996, when HAART was introduced. If you were sick then, you made a remarkable recovery. That proves you have a sturdy constitution, capable of withstanding 600 mg of AZT daily. It seems more likely that you got well in spite of the drugs, not thanks to the drugs. If you just read up on what these drugs do to your body, it's really unlikely that they would also have abeneficial action.
|
|
|