 |
 | 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 2005Thank You Talkabout
Reading AIDS dissident sites taught me to critically look at the mainstream HIV/AIDS studies and the media and political corruption in the science. The well read mainstream boys on talkabout are teaching me how to look at the dissident information and ideas critically. I can see that neither side is completely right and it is important not to be lulled into a possibly false sense of security about my health, and from the bottom of my heart I thank you. > Reading AIDS dissident sites taught me to critically look at the > mainstream HIV/AIDS studies and the media and political corruption in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > possibly false sense of security about my health, and from the bottom of > my heart I thank you. Wow, that's refreshing, and thank you right back. It is really a breath of fresh air to debate this with someone who is not so completely wedded to his beliefs that he can't recognize that he or she might not be completely right in those beliefs. Again here is wishing you continued success in your choices regarding your families health care and personal truth seeking. Gary Stein "Wow, that's refreshing, and thank you right back. It is really a breath of fresh air to debate this with someone who is not so completely wedded to his beliefs that he can't recognize that he or she might not be completely right in those beliefs.." Amen and hallelujah, brothers and sisters! Let's hear it for *critical thinking* on both sides of the fence! That is why I have *always* encouraged everyone reading this debate to question, question, question what the dissidents say... We *welcome* questioning. We *want you* to question us. We want you to *think* about what you’re being fed. -Paul Whiting >That is why I have *always* encouraged everyone >reading this debate to question, question, question >what the dissidents say >We *welcome* questioning. We *want you* to question us. Glad to here it. We would welcome answers to the questions we have posed to the dissidents. Simple one to start with - Can you name a drug that is not toxic? "Simple one to start with - Can you name a drug that is not toxic?" I'll bite None come to mind, why is this important? Paul would understand. He tried to separate HIV meds from other drugs by virtue of their toxicity, producing a definition of toxic along the way. Unfortunately for him, every known pharmaceutical drug fulfils his definition of toxic. As at least you realise, toxicity is universal, and drugs differ only by degree. >"As at least you realise, toxicity is universal, and drugs differ only by degree." Very true. And at the extreme end of high toxicity we find the DNA chain terminators, such as AZT. > >"As at least you realise, toxicity is universal, and drugs differ only by > degree." > > Very true. And at the extreme end of high toxicity we find the DNA chain > terminators, such as AZT. No not by a long shot there are thousands of drugs which will kill within hours of there being taken at extremely low doses in comparison to AZT. I ask you how many milligrams of AZT would you need to take to commit suicide now compare that dose with aspirin, or prescription pain killers. I have never heard of a suicide by AZT and doubt that it could be accomplished, the amount of the drug that one would need to take would most likely exceed the capacity of the normal adult stomach. Hell booze is orders of magnitude more capable of causing death quickly then is AZT. You make idiotic statements like the one you make in this post then wonder why people don't believe you have any training in science. Even your denialist buddies aren't that stupid they see you for what you are another internet troll with an ISP, some modest typing skills and that's about it. Gary Stein AZT is a cell killer plain and simple. If we come to a point where it is proven to be inapropriat for use in AIDS you may have dissidents to thank. We argue here but we are united in purpose and that is to stop people dying an AIDS death, God help us all. > AZT is a cell killer plain and simple. If we come to a point where it is > proven to be inapropriat for use in AIDS you may have dissidents to > thank. > We argue here but we are united in purpose and that is to stop people > dying an AIDS death, God help us all. Then after taking it twice a day since 1996 don't you think all my cells should be dead? Gary Stein Gary I hope all your cells live forever man >"Then after taking it twice a day since 1996 don't you think all my cells should be dead?" That's what can be expected. But fortunately, they are not. You must have been very healthy when you started taking the stuff. Anyhow, I wish you a long and productive live, Mr. Stein. > >"Then after taking it twice a day since 1996 don't you think all my cells > should be dead?" > > That's what can be expected. But fortunately, they are not. You must > have been very healthy when you started taking the stuff. > Anyhow, I wish you a long and productive live, Mr. Stein. No actually I was about a week away from death at the time I started AZT, Epiver, and Saquiniver. Gary Stein > AZT is a cell killer plain and simple. How do you think chemo for cancer works? B/ By somtimes killing the cancer before it kills the person. That about right? >"How do you think chemo for cancer works?" Deadly. It kills people. I've lost a lot of relatives and friends to cancer chemotherapy. It's possible to survive cancer, but I don't know anybody who has survived chemotherapy. Before AIDS was invented, we had a "War on Cancer". And guess what? The same AIDS celebrities were working on cancer then. And they have not achieved a damn thing then either. >"It's possible to survive cancer, but I don't know anybody who has survived chemotherapy." ROTFLMAO! What an insular existence you must have. >>"It's possible to survive cancer, but I don't know anybody who has survived > chemotherapy." > > ROTFLMAO! > > What an insular existence you must have. Aryans don't get cancer. B/ >"ROTFLMAO! what an insular existence you must have." Not really. And I don't quite understand what's there to laugh about people who died from cancer chemotherapy. There were a lot of them that I knew. My wife was diagnosed with breast cancer a few years back. It's funny that when we asked her doctors including her HIV doc why the tumor seemed to grow super fast from a small lump as soon as she had gone on a drug holiday nobody seemed to have the slightest clue. If just one doc would have said the fact she was on a drug that was developed for cancer and being a DNA chain terminator could have something to do with it. I wonder if the docs were that poorly informed or did they just feel our ignorance was bliss. >>"How do you think chemo for cancer works?" > >Deadly. It kills people. I've lost a lot of relatives and friends to >cancer chemotherapy. Radiation can be worse. A lot of cancers don't respond well to either. They're given anyway. They thus should NEVER be used. Is that your worldview? >"Radiation can be worse." You're absolutely right. >"A lot of cancers don't respond well to either. They're given anyway. They thus should NEVER be used. Is that your worldview? Yes, that's my worldview. We should not apply therapies that kill off the patient's own cells undiscriminately, on the offchance that they might kill the cancer cells first. Then the cure becomes worse that the disease. have you ever heard of the physician's creed: "First, do no harm"? Now with cancer therapy, an argument may still be made for these drastic methods. After all, cancer cells are cells. But the idea of "killing" a virus with toxic meds is so totally off-the-wall that it's downright murderous. >Now with cancer therapy, an argument may still be made for these drastic >methods. After all, cancer cells are cells. But the idea of "killing" a >virus with toxic meds is so totally off-the-wall that it's downright >murderous. Except it seems to work fairly well. Better than dying of AIDS. Mr. Stein, when will you start realizing that most ARVs are simply DNA chain terminators. So they act at the most basic level of life: They kill cells. I'll gladly believe that there are chemicals that will kill you faster than AZT. But AZT does it surer and more thorough. Amounts that won't kill you today are able to do enough damage to your body that will make sure the ill effects will be felt for a long time, even after you stop the medication. Mentioning aspirin in this context is so utterly ridiculous that it's very clear you have been brainwashed by the pharma industry. Aspirin has an impressive service record, over a period of more than 100 years. Because it's a cheap substance, the pharma industry has been badmouthing it for years, so that they could sell more effective (and more expensive) drugs... such as Vioxx. And you believe all the bad things that are said about aspirin?? Hahahahahahahaha! > Mr. Stein, when will you start realizing that most ARVs are simply DNA > chain terminators. So they act at the most basic level of life: They [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sure the ill effects will be felt for a long time, even after you stop the > medication. Well after a decade of taking AZT twice a day I'm still here it sure doesn't seem to had much of a negative effect on my body. Why would that be if it's as deadly as you claim it is? I notice you don't even attempt to back up your claim by telling us what the fatal dose of AZT would be. As to Aspirin are you honestly claiming that it is not one of the most common drugs used by suicides in the US? Gary Stein >"Well after a decade of taking AZT twice a day I'm still here it sure doesn't seem to had much of a negative effect on my body. Why would that be if it's as deadly as you claim it is?" I usually don't put much value in anecdotal evidence. I don't even know whether you're a real person, or that "AZTMurder" is right. But if what you say is true, I'm happy about it. You must be one hell of a strong individual. >"I notice you don't even attempt to back up your claim by telling us what the fatal dose of AZT would be." Correct. That would be very much like calculating the weight of a wrecking ball that would level a building with one impact. AZT is not an acute poison; it slowly wrecks you, blow for blow. >"As to Aspirin are you honestly claiming that it is not one of the most common drugs used by suicides in the US?" No, I'm not claiming that at all. It may very well be true what you're saying. It just goes to prove that suicidal people are not too bright. It takes a really high dose of aspirin to send you into a metabolic acidosis, from which you can get into a coma and die. But lower doses of aspirin are harmless. > >"Well after a decade of taking AZT twice a day I'm still here it sure > doesn't seem to had much of a negative effect on my body. Why would that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > But if what you say is true, I'm happy about it. You must be one hell of > a strong individual. Well if you do a Google search on me in the MHA newsgroup you can probably find the posts where I posted my lab results, medical records, and Medicare disability status. So doubt me if you want but I have been totally open about those records in the past. >>"I notice you don't even attempt to back up your claim by telling us what > the fatal dose of AZT would be." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > acidosis, from which you can get into a coma and die. But lower doses of > aspirin are harmless. Just as the current dosing of AZT is much easier tolerated than was the original dosing when it was used as monotherapy. You might be surprised to know that I refused AZT monotherapy because I was of the opinion at that time that it did more harm then good, and I still hold that opinion. Which is that 1500mg's of AZT as a daily monotherapy is very dangerous and not much help in prolonging the life of an AIDS patient. Gary Stein >"Well if you do a Google search on me in the MHA newsgroup you can probably find the posts where I posted my lab results, medical records, and Medicare disability status. So doubt me if you want but I have been totally open about those records in the past." Fair enough. Maybe I'm being too distrustful >"Just as the current dosing of AZT is much easier tolerated than was the original dosing when it was used as monotherapy. You might be surprised to know that I refused AZT monotherapy because I was of the opinion at that time that it did more harm then good, and I still hold that opinion. Which is that 1500mg's of AZT as a daily monotherapy is very dangerous and not much help in prolonging the life of an AIDS patient." There's nothing in these statements that I disagree with. I still have my reservations about HAART, but for your sake, I sincerely hope you'll be doing all right. "Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote in message > As to Aspirin are you honestly claiming that it is not one of the most > common drugs used by suicides in the US? I thought it was gin and tonic with a cigarette. No, there are hundreds of more toxic drugs in daily medical use. AZT is of fairly limited toxicity when judged by the standards universally applied to drugs and adverse reactions.. >"No, there are hundreds of more toxic drugs in daily medical use." Yes, and they have been since the Dark Ages. But the trouble with AZT is that they want you to take it for the rest of your life. "Fortunately" that's not all that long, on the average. >>"No, there are hundreds of more toxic drugs in daily medical use." > >Yes, and they have been since the Dark Ages. >But the trouble with AZT is that they want you to take it for the rest of >your life. "Fortunately" that's not all that long, on the average. As a so-called scientist of some sort or other, you're supposed to have some evidence to back up such a claim. No one argues that AZT can cause serious side effects and is toxic. But it does not kill people at the rate or in the way your statements imply. And you know you can't produce data because they don't exist. George M. Carter >"No one argues that AZT can cause serious side effects and is toxic. But it does not kill people at the rate or in the way your statements imply. And you know you can't produce data because they don't exist." I have a feeling we've been over this before. Anyhow, here's a paper from an unsuspected orthodox site: http://www.thebody.com/gmhc/issues/spring00/mito.html It does not report any deaths, but if you read all this horror, would you subject your body to stuff that causes all this misery? The mortality data you ask for are hard to come by, because they are being covered up. When somebody dies from ARV's, the death certificate will say: "Cause of death: AIDS-related complications". So you may be right: The data don't exist. They are being falsified. >>"No one argues that AZT can cause serious side effects and is toxic. But >it does not kill people [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >It does not report any deaths, but if you read all this horror, would you >subject your body to stuff that causes all this misery? Versus the mayhem of PCP, cryptococcal meningitis, MAC, TB, CMV retinitis, KS, etc.? If I had a low T cell count, high viral load, low CD4 percentage? Yep. But I'd continue to use or increase the use of antioxidants to protect the mitochondria of healthy cells and to reduce inflammation. >The mortality data you ask for are hard to come by, because they are being >covered up. LOL. Right. Get out the aluminum hats, boys!! The CONSPIRACY is hot.... > >"No, there are hundreds of more toxic drugs in daily medical use." > > Yes, and they have been since the Dark Ages. > But the trouble with AZT is that they want you to take it for the rest of > your life. "Fortunately" that's not all that long, on the average. Just how long do you think the average lifespan of an ARV patient is currently? Gary Stein >"Just how long do you think the average lifespan of an ARV patient is currently?" 5 years average, 10 years tops? Please educate me. >>"Just how long do you think the average lifespan of an ARV patient is >currently?" > >5 years average, 10 years tops? Please educate me. Well!! So people can live for 5-10 years on all these so toxic, fatal drugs that earlier you were implying would kill you in a few weeks? Like David Pasquarelli. 2 weeks in jail and maybe a month or two of intermittent ARV is what caused him to die of AIDS? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.