 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / December 2005circus clown carter
"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > And in the world at large, HIV doesn't care if you are having anal sex > or vaginal sex or sharing syringes. Death wrote in message Back to the ole, everyone is at risk. That is bullshit. Female to male transmission is not in the same league as MSM. GMCarter asked sheepishly >LOL, who said it was? LOL, you did my circus clown >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Back to the ole, everyone is at risk. That is bullshit. >Female to male transmission is not in the same league as MSM. I didn't say it was in the statement you quote above. But clearly you understand that female-to-male transmission DOES happen. And certain risk factors may increase the likelihood, including sores on the penis, a foreskin apparently, etc. It doesn't matter to HIV. Male-to-female transmission happens more readily. Unprotected vaginal sex and anal sex and sharing syringes are all high risk activities between serodiscordant couples. It is not, as you assert, just about anal sex. Anal sex is fun! Perhaps for a victorian queen like you, it is not. That's fine! But darling, really, you are far more of a twisted perverted mess when you say you JW Gacy is your hero. Perhaps this little explanation will help you understand through the thick mists of your hate and bigotry. But I rather doubt it. Perhaps one day you will find you can jettison all that emotional baggage and live free of it? Wouldn't that be kind of cool? George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I didn't say it was in the statement you quote above. clearly you state and want to worm away from: And in the world at large, HIV doesn't care if you are: A) having anal sex B) or female to male sex C) sharing syringes. > But clearly you understand that female-to-male transmission DOES > happen. It happens, as I said : Female to male transmission is not in the same league as msm. You lie for no reason other than, habit. snip >It happens, as I said : Female to male transmission is not in the same league as msm. It happens as I said. Your statement, further, is vague. Female-to-male transmission, one might say, is not in the same league as male-to-female transmission. You try to make a point you cannot make because you know it is a lie. >You lie for no reason other than, habit. Not in the slightest. You're the one lying about anal sex. Anal sex is fun! It is not AIDS. HIV transmission via unprotected anal sex can cause AIDS. Absolutely. HIV causes AIDS. Not anal sex. Now, dearest, please do find a psychotherapist to treat your sociopathic hatred of gay people and get in touch with your inner queer. It's a much nicer way to live free than to live with all that bottled up hate that is destroying your fragile small mind. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > snip > >It happens, as I said : Female to male transmission is not in the same league as msm. > > It happens as I said. sh.t happens, but it doesn't cause aids. faggot sex does. > Your statement, further, is vague. Yeah, right. > Female-to-male transmission, one > might say, is not in the same league as male-to-female transmission. One does say that, me. Bi-faggot males infect women in far greater numbers than women infect humans. > You try to make a point you cannot make because you know it is a lie. Trot the lie out and lets see it, in toto. > >You lie for no reason other than, habit. As proven. >sh.t happens, but it doesn't cause aids. faggot sex does. "Faggot sex." That's exactly the kind of conflicted hatred that causes gay bashing and killing. Not to mention your continued agony of your sad, twisted little mind, churning out more hate, anger and garbage. Sex doesn't cause AIDS. HIV does. That's the lie you wrap yourself in to justify your bigotry, like some fundamentalist religious nut job trying to justify killing his neighbors. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > Sex doesn't cause AIDS. Where does that come from? I ass-ure you I never said that. But then you don't play well with reality, my monkey. >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message >> >> Sex doesn't cause AIDS. >> >Where does that come from? > I ass-ure you I never said that. LOL. Liar. Sex is sex whether between same or opposite gender. Maybe you define sex differently? Undoubtedly, my dear child. "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > LOL. Liar. You get (another) chance to point out the lie you claim I told. Step up and be a man. >Step up and be a man. Hee-hee. You don't know what a man is, dear. "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >Step up and be a man. > > Hee-hee. I see you passed, what a surprise. Oh, and you didn't reproduce the lie you claim I told. what a silly clown >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I see you passed, what a surprise. >Oh, and you didn't reproduce the lie you claim I told. I don't have to. Your posts reveal the lie of your existence every day. You hate gays and yet you hang out here in a place with lots of us. You think about gay sex every single day. You are obsessed. Every day, it's "faggot sex" this, dicks n sh.t that. Do all your het male friends obsess like this? Gosh...I'll bet they're too busy looking for pussy, aren't they? Kinda makes ya wonder, don't it? George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >> >Step up and be a man. > >> > >I see you passed, what a surprise. > >Oh, and you didn't reproduce the lie you claim I told. > > I don't have to. ... You can't faggot, how could you possibly step up like a man? Did you ever ask your girlfriend Frank to explain faggot sex to you? >You can't faggot, how could you possibly step up like a man? LOL. You have a very skewed notion of what a man is. As you hide anonymously, cowardly at your keyboard! Talk about silly clowns. "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >You can't faggot, how could you possibly step up like a man? > > As you hide anonymously, explain that >>You can't faggot, how could you possibly step up like a man? > > LOL. You have a very skewed notion of what a man is. > > As you hide anonymously, Many different ways, too. B/ "Brian Mailman" <bmailman@sfo.invalid> wrote in message > >>You can't faggot, how could you possibly step up like a man? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Many different ways, too. Yep, I am also Paul and Gary Stein, you caught me. Can't pull nothing over on you, you're way tooooo smart. Ah, Mr. Carter, there is evidence in the scientific literature that unprotected sex is no more risky than protected sex- ?The constant per-contact infectivity for male-to-female transmission was estimated to be 0.0009 (95% CI 0.0005-0.001)...We observed no seroconversions after entry into the study...No transmission occurred among the 25% of couples who did not use their condoms consistently, nor among the 47 couples who intermittently practiced unsafe sex during the entire duration of follow-up. This evidence argues for low infectivity in the absence of either needle sharing and/or other cofactors ? Padian NS et al. Heterosexual Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) in Northern California: Results from a Ten-Year Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1997 Aug;146(4):350-7. From the January 17, 2002 Journal of Infectious Disease: ?The study?of 17 women who remained uninfected, despite a history of heavy exposure to HIV through repeated, unprotected sexual contact with an infected partner, and 12 of their regular, male HIV-positive partners.? Well, what about male to male? An April 1996 study in Nature Medicine focused on 24 hetero- and homosexual men who?ve remained HIV negative despite ?histories of multiple high-risk sexual exposures to HIV-1,? including ?sex with multiple HIV-1-infected partners,? or ?long-term relationships involving unprotected sexual intercourse over many years [with] predominantly a single HIV-infected partner.? ?All subjects were HIV-1 negative,? even though ?several [of their] partners succumbed to AIDS.? (Nature Medicine. 1996 2(4)) What about longer studies? ?At Kenyatta National Hospital [Kenya] ?out of 31 couples tested, 23 were discordant [one positive, one negative]. Some of them have stayed in a sexual relationship with the infected partner for more than six years without the infected one passing the virus to the other. And when these discordant couples brought their children for testing, all of them were free of the virus?? (Horizon Magazine, December 18, 2003) What about larger studies? ?[W]e studied 50 sexually active couples with discordant antibody results [one positive, one negative]...seronegative partners continued to have negative results in all tests for a mean follow-up period of 17 months despite ongoing sexual relations with their seropositive partners?.approximately one-half of each group reported some instances of unprotected intercourse?intercourse with outside partners was uncommon in both groups, as was current illicit drug use. (Clin Infectious Disease. July, 1995;211) " We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake" Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction. Ah, George, you might want to rethink that -sharing-needles-thing too. What are we to think when there are studies like this in the medical literature? High rates of HIV infection among injection drug users participating in needle exchange programs in Montreal: results of a cohort study. Bruneau J, Lamothe F, Franco E, Lachance N, Desy M, Soto J, Vincelette J. Department of Psychiatry, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Needle exchange programs (NEPs) are designed to prevent human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission among injection drug users. Although most studies report beneficial effects in terms of behavior modification, a direct assessment of the effectiveness of NEPs in preventing HIV infection has been lacking. A cohort study was conducted to assess the association between risk behaviors and HIV seroprevalence and seroincidence among injection drug users in Montreal, Canada. The association between NEP use and HIV infection was examined in three risk assessment scenarios using intensive covariate adjustment for empirical confounders: a cross-sectional analysis of NEP use at entry as a determinant of seroprevalence, a cohort analysis of NEP use at entry as a predictor of subsequent seroconversion, and a nested case-control analysis of NEP participation during follow-up as a predictor of seroconversion. From September 1988 to January 1995, 1,599 subjects were enrolled with a baseline seroprevalence of 10.7%. The mean follow-up period was 21.7 months. The adjusted odds ratio for HIV seroprevalence in injection drug users reporting recent NEP use was 2.2 (95% confidence interval 1.5-3.2). In the cohort study, there were 89 incident cases of HIV infection with a cumulative probability of HIV seroconversion of 33% for NEP users and 13% for nonusers (p < 0.0001). In the nested case-control study, consistent NEP use was associated with HIV seroconversion during follow-up (odds ratio = 10.5, 95% confidence interval 2.7-41.0). Risk elevations for HIV infection associated with NEP attendance were substantial and consistent in all three risk assessment scenarios in our cohort of injection drug users, despite extensive adjustment for confounders. In summary, in Montreal, NEP users appear to have higher seroconversion rates then NEP nonusers. PMID: 9420522 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Sincerely, Michael Kilduff " We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake" Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction. > Ah, Mr. Carter, there is evidence in the scientific literature that > unprotected sex is no more risky than protected sex- What is the probability that you have read the scientific literature instead of just simply pasting quotes from Liam Scheff articles. > An April 1996 study in Nature Medicine focused on 24 hetero- and > homosexual men who've remained HIV negative despite "histories of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > though "several [of their] partners succumbed to AIDS." (Nature > Medicine. 1996 2(4)) Have you read this article? What are its conclusions? Why does it talk about a highly selected cohort? Were these cases normal or so uncommon that they warranted a specific study? If you read a story in a newspaper about a man that survives a jump from an aeroplane without a parachute do you then think that this is really common and that all these stories about parachutes saving lifes are just propaganda from parachute manufacturers? Chris Noble Mr. Noble, once again you evade my questions. You would rather talk about gravity and the burning of books than actually answer my questions. Answer this please sir. If HIV is such a contagious virus, why is it that there are studies in the medical literature that suggest it is not a sexually transmitted virus? If HIV was such a contagious and sexually transmitted virus then it would be transmitted in lengthy studies in at least SOME of the subjects...wouldn't it????? " We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake" Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction. > Mr. Noble, once again you evade my questions. You would rather talk > about gravity and the burning of books than actually answer my > questions. Did you answer any of my questions? Have you read this article? What are its conclusions? Why does it talk about a highly selected cohort? Were these cases normal or so uncommon that they warranted a specific study? > Answer this please sir. If HIV is such a contagious virus, why is it > that there are studies in the medical literature that suggest it is not > a sexually transmitted virus? One of your premises is false. HIV is not a highly contagious virus. The only time you hear that it is in a strawman argument from dissidents. The medical literature that you refere to and have not you yourself read suggests that there are some individuals that are resistant to HIV infection. They found some of these individuals and looked at the ability of HIV to infect their CD4 cells in vitro. > If HIV was such a contagious and sexually transmitted virus then it > would be transmitted in lengthy studies in at least SOME of the > subjects...wouldn't it????? Once again you insist that HIV is highly contagious. It is not. This does not mean that it is not sexually transmitted. There are many studies in the literature that provide evidence that HIV is sexually transmitted. Try reading this one. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=15809897&query_hl=11 Note the dependence of transmission risk upon infection stage. The risk of transmitting HIV to a second person else is much higher in the period immediately after you yourself are infected. Note that genetic sequencing was done to confirm the transmission pathway. Chris Noble >"HIV transmission within pairs was confirmed by sequence analysis." So they sequenced some genetic material or other. What the hell did they compare it with? Some piece of RNA or DNA they declared: "This be from HIV"? It couldn't be the real thing, because nobody really has anything that can be proven to be HIV. Earlier in the abstract there is a sentence with the key word "retrospectively". That smacks again of "reverse statistics" (Look at the result first, then select the data that get you there). I have a thesis that I have not published anywhere before: THE QUALITY OF A SCIENTIFIC PAPER IS INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO THE NUMBER OF AUTHORS And remember: You heard it here first. > >"HIV transmission within pairs was confirmed by sequence analysis." > > So they sequenced some genetic material or other. What the hell did they > compare it with? Some piece of RNA or DNA they declared: "This be from > HIV"? You could find out by reading the paper. What a novel idea. "At the time of the retrospective analysis reported here, archival serum samples were available from both partners in 46 (64%) of 72 couples with seroconversion, which permitted the assessment of molecular linkage between the index partner's and the seroconverting partner's HIV-1 strains. Viral sequence data from the gag and gp41 regions [14] were compared in both partners on the basis of sequence distance and phylogenetic inferences, by use of bootstrap methods [8, 1416]." > It couldn't be the real thing, because nobody really has anything that can > be proven to be HIV. Sure. Evidence? > Earlier in the abstract there is a sentence with the key word > "retrospectively". That smacks again of "reverse statistics" (Look at the > result first, then select the data that get you there). You could read the paper. > I have a thesis that I have not published anywhere before: > > THE QUALITY OF A SCIENTIFIC PAPER IS INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO THE NUMBER > OF AUTHORS > > And remember: You heard it here first. Brilliant. You don't even have to read the abstract. You can just dismiss a paper based on the number of authors. My only question is whether that applies to dissident papers too. All of your ad hoc excuses for ignoring evidence that conflicts with your views can be applied to dissident papers aswell. Chris Noble >"You could find out by reading the paper. What a novel idea." I do read papers, even if they've been written by 13 authors. But I read them critically, which you don't seem to be able to. >"Viral sequence data from the gag and gp41 regions [14] were compared in both partners... yadda yadda yadda..." How the hell do they know these sequences are viral? Right, because they have sequences where they have declared from the pulpit: "These be from HIV" And I should believe that? <groann!> Even worse: You have the nerve to ask ME for evidence? How about some excuse why you think these sequences are viral? And about the "reverse statistics": I *know* they had all these data lying around. Clinical departments have hundreds of years of data on their shelves, ready to be picked up and fitted with a explanation by anyone with an agenda. Let me explain the scientific method once more to you: When you have a theory, you can use it to make predictions. THEN you do the necessary experiments, to see if the predictions come true. And you use statistical methods to test the significance of the outcome. In HIV-land they do the opposite: They gather some old data, find a way how to explain them with the theory they wanted to prove in the first place, and add some extra quirks to the theory if the original version of the theory doesn't fit the data. Finally, they use statistical methods to get probabilities and CI's for numbers that were already known with certainty before they started. THIS SUCKS. But then, most clinicians make lousy researchers anyway. So they hide in the masses (13 authors or so), to protect their reputation if their paper turns out to be a dud. >"Brilliant. You don't even have to read the abstract. You can just dismiss a paper based on the number of authors." >"My only question is whether that applies to dissident papers too." Not a bad idea. I think I'll make that a guideline. That will save me a lot of time (and aggravation). But yes, it also applies to dissident papers. So pay extra attention when there is a single author (such as Peter Duesberg), or two (Brian Ellison and Peter Duesberg). >>"You could find out by reading the paper. What a novel idea." > >I do read papers, even if they've been written by 13 authors. But I read >them critically, which you don't seem to be able to. You don't evince much evidence of doing so in the slightest. > >"You could find out by reading the paper. What a novel idea." > > I do read papers, even if they've been written by 13 authors. But I read > them critically, which you don't seem to be able to. The comments you made above were made without reading the paper in question. You are bullshitting. > >"Viral sequence data from the gag and gp41 regions [14] were compared in > both partners... yadda yadda yadda..." [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > there is a single author (such as Peter Duesberg), or two (Brian Ellison > and Peter Duesberg). Duesberg does no experimental work to support his views on HIV/AIDS. His opinions have all the experimental validity of his armchair. Of course he can write single author papers. I doubt he could find many other people that would be willing to put their names on one of his papers. Chris Noble >"Duesberg does no experimental work to support his views on HIV/AIDS." Natch, his funding has been cut off years ago, because the orthodoxy is scared stiff that real scientists will bring their house of cards down. (They're right; that's indeed what I intend to do). You still don't get it, eh? HIV-scientists flock together, so they won't be singled out when the axe will finally fall on their deceit. > >"Duesberg does no experimental work to support his views on HIV/AIDS." > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You still don't get it, eh? HIV-scientists flock together, so they won't > be singled out when the axe will finally fall on their deceit. My opinion is that none of Duesberg's proposals were of merit and did not deserve funding Can you produce any of Duesberg's research proposals that would distinguish between your wild fantasies and my not-so-wild guesses. Duesberg gets funding from private donors such as Robert Leppo. Leppo can fund the production of propaganda films and the purchase of medical marijuana dispensaries. Why can't some of his money be used to test Duesberg's ideas? Chris Noble >"Can you produce any of Duesberg's research proposals that would distinguish between your wild fantasies and my not-so-wild guesses." No, but then I haven't seen Duesberg's research proposals. But I wonder what my "wild fantasies" could possibly be. I'm the one with both feet on the ground, and I don't believe in any of the wild fantasies the HIV jockeys have come up with. I have not presented any theories; I only keep pointing out that all the observations can be explained much better by rejecting the idea that there is a virus involved. >"Duesberg gets funding from private donors such as Robert Leppo. Leppo can fund the production of propaganda films and the purchase of medical marijuana dispensaries. Why can't some of his money be used to test Duesberg's ideas? That's just the point. Private donors have their own agenda. They only fund what they believe in. The government should be different, because it's the government of all the American people. They should not have an agenda when it comes to spending on science. They spend hundreds of billions on HIV research. Why not spend $50,000 on one of Duesberg's alternate ideas? > >"Can you produce any of Duesberg's research proposals that would > distinguish between your wild fantasies and my not-so-wild guesses." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pointing out that all the observations can be explained much better by > rejecting the idea that there is a virus involved. No. You keep on asserting that all the observations can be explained better with a non-virus model. You have neither provided a coherent model nor shown how it better explains all the observations. > >"Duesberg gets funding from private donors such as Robert Leppo. Leppo > can fund the production of propaganda films and the purchase of medical [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's just the point. Private donors have their own agenda. They only > fund what they believe in. Leppo is a HIV-rethinker/denialist. Why doesn't he fund Duesberg to do experimental research on HIV or recreational drugs? Duesberg's armchair has cost Leppo thousands of dollars. > The government should be different, because it's the government of all the > American people. They should not have an agenda when it comes to spending > on science. They spend hundreds of billions on HIV research. Why not > spend $50,000 on one of Duesberg's alternate ideas? There are many alternate ideas. Should they all be funded? What about phlogiston science should that be funded too? Is there an anti-phlogiston political agenda? Without seeing Duesberg's research proposals that he allegedly submitted it is impossible to say whether they should or should not have been funded. Chris Noble >"No. You keep on asserting that all the observations can be explained better with a non-virus model. You have neither provided a coherent model nor shown how it better explains all the observations." What? Do I have to come up with a coherent model explaining why people get sick and die? Nobody has been able to do that for millennia. Why should I succeed? What I can do, and have done for many years, is to point out the flaws in the virus model. It just doesn't fit the observations. A depressed level of lymphocytes is just not an infectious syndrome, and certainly not a sexually transmittable one. So, after 20 years of searching in vain, abandoning the virus model is long overdue. We should look in other directions. The virologists had their chance and failed. Now give the job to others: immunologists, toxicologists, pharmacologists, for example. >"Leppo is a HIV-rethinker/denialist. Why doesn't he fund Duesberg to do experimental research on HIV or recreational drugs? Duesberg's armchair has cost Leppo thousands of dollars." There's a simple answer for that: Duesberg's expertise lies in virology. And that's exactly the field where we should NOT look for answers, after 20 years of failure. Duesberg actually disqualified himself. The job (and the funding) should be given to someone like Tim Hand, who is a pharmacologist. "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl> wrote in message > A depressed level of lymphocytes is just not an infectious syndrome, and certainly not a > sexually transmittable one. There are more than 2.5 million cases of HPV among faggots annually in the US. The a.shole infection rate in faggots are the highest. Infection occurs through skin-to-skin contact ( sex ) including areas not covered by con-dumbs and warts need not be present for transmission to occur. Most infections are transient and are cleared by the immune system. Of the 40 or so types of HPV that infect the a.shole, those that cause genital warts are deemed "low-risk" whereas those linked to cancer of the a.shole are termed "high risk" >>"No. You keep on asserting that all the observations can be explained >better with a non-virus model. You have neither provided a coherent model >nor shown how it better explains all the observations." > >What? Do I have to come up with a coherent model explaining why people >get sick and die? LOL. That wasn't the question and you either know it wasn't amd are bluffing or you're even more of an idiot than you have thus far shown yourself to be. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bluffing or you're even more of an idiot than you have thus far shown > yourself to be. bluffing ?, he has more moves than a worm > >"No. You keep on asserting that all the observations can be explained > better with a non-virus model. You have neither provided a coherent model [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > get sick and die? Nobody has been able to do that for millennia. Why > should I succeed? Nobody is asking you to do that. I am asking for an explanation for the progressive loss of CD4 cells and subsequent opportunistic infections that occurs in patients with the presence of particular antibodies, antigens, RNA and DNA sequences. Please present a coherent and axplanatory hypothesis that better explains all the observations. > What I can do, and have done for many years, is to point out the flaws in > the virus model. It just doesn't fit the observations. There are physics kooks that say the same thing about relativity. There are religious fundamentalists that say the same thing about evolution. They are very proficient at finding "paradoxes". What they cannot do is provide a coherent hypothesis of their own to explain thel observations. It is one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience. Chris Noble Noble wrote- 'Nobody is asking you to do that. I am asking for an explanation for the progressive loss of CD4 cells and subsequent opportunistic infections that occurs in patients with the presence of particular antibodies, antigens, RNA and DNA sequences. Please present a coherent and axplanatory hypothesis that better explains all the observations.' Circa 2002 and 2003 the CDC published datas that told of about 18,000 deaths from AIDS in a pool of about 1.1 million people that were deemed HIV positive. Why is it that these people are experiencing a much lower death rate in 2002-3 than those of the 1980's who also exhibited the very same progressive loss of CD-4's, the same particular antibodies, antigens, RNA and DNA sequences? " We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake" Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction. > Noble wrote- > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > progressive loss of CD-4's, the same particular antibodies, antigens, > RNA and DNA sequences? Nothing you wrote addresses my request. I take it that you cannot present a coherent and explanatory hypothesis that better explains all the observations. You have provided absolutely zero contribution of any value so far. You have produced no evidence and have made no positive statements. Chris Noble > Noble wrote- > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > antigens, RNA and DNA sequences. Please present a coherent and > axplanatory hypothesis that better explains all the observations.' Tregs - HIV is merely an artifact - do the research. susie "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message > Tregs - HIV is merely an artifact - do the research. It's your statement, present the research. > "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message >> >> Tregs - HIV is merely an artifact - do the research. >> > It's your statement, present the research. Why are you suddenly so concerned about the realities and impact of AIDS? I thought you HATED homosexuals and were repulsed by anything having to do with AIDS. But now, you are seemingly interested in something you have pretended to loathe so. How revealing! susie "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message > I thought you HATED homosexuals and were repulsed > by anything having to do with AIDS. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > How revealing! I see you passed on the research. LOL How revealing! > "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > How revealing! Duck ... Death ... ohhhh! susie >Circa 2002 and 2003 the CDC published datas that told of about 18,000 >deaths from AIDS in a pool of about 1.1 million people that were deemed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >progressive loss of CD-4's, the same particular antibodies, antigens, >RNA and DNA sequences? Here's a related question. Why is it that about 50,000 Americans with AIDS died in 1995 and, a mere 2 years later, only about 20,000 died in 1997? http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/graphics/images/L207/L207-1.htm  SignatureDavid Canzi "Each of these arguments by itself is invalid, but taken collectively they constitute an impressive body of evidence." (Skeptical Inquirer, Jul-Aug, 2005) > In article <hnulf.83$4H6.2157@news.uswest.net>, > Here's a related question. Why is it that about 50,000 Americans > with AIDS died in 1995 and, a mere 2 years later, only about > 20,000 died in 1997? > > http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/graphics/images/L207/L207-1.htm It has to do with the plunge in infections due to safe sex approximately 12 years earlier - in 1983-84. susie David- I would bet that it is because AZT dosage/usage was decreased. " We know that to err is human, but the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is one hell of a mistake" Dr. Kary Mullis, Nobel Laureate and inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction. I would bet too that 3TC (an antioxidant), decreases the cellular amount of AZT, and replenishes the glutathion amount > David- > > I would bet that it is because AZT dosage/usage was decreased. That too... of course, I was mererly answering CanziPants with the CDC answer in response to his CDC question. susie >>"Duesberg does no experimental work to support his views on HIV/AIDS." > >Natch, his funding has been cut off years ago, Bullshit. Unsupported lie. "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > Bullshit. Unsupported lie. bullshit, unsupported lie > >"Duesberg does no experimental work to support his views on HIV/AIDS." > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You still don't get it, eh? HIV-scientists flock together, so they won't > be singled out when the axe will finally fall on their deceit. LOL, sure you will, just like you have in this forum, NOT............... Gary Stein >"LOL, sure you will, just like you have in this forum, NOT..............." Oh, I threw some punches all right. Some were right on target. But Mr. Stein, you didn't really think my goal was to convince you or any of your co-perps, did you? But there are also open-minded people reading this forum... You guys are sitting ducks, you can't get out of the corner where the blows are landing. That's the position you maneuvered yourself into. Sorry, but it's your life, and it was up to you to screw it up as you see fit. On the other hand, I'm free to get in and out of a discussion >>"LOL, sure you will, just like you have in this forum, >NOT..............." > >Oh, I threw some punches all right. Some were right on target. But generally the on-target ones gave you the black eye...punching yourself is generally deemed an error. > >"HIV transmission within pairs was confirmed by sequence analysis." > > So they sequenced some genetic material or other. What the hell did they > compare it with? Some piece of RNA or DNA they declared: "This be from > HIV"? If HIV had never been isolated Claster then the odds of as you claim "some random piece of RNA or DNA" producing the same genetic sequence in two different patients would be astronomically high. Yet that is what is found in the real world how do you explain that simple fact? > It couldn't be the real thing, because nobody really has anything that can > be proven to be HIV. > Earlier in the abstract there is a sentence with the key word > "retrospectively". That smacks again of "reverse statistics" (Look at the > result first, then select the data that get you there). You show your ignorance yet again Claster. Do you even know what a retrospective study is? A retrospective study looks at the medical history of patients over a period of years prior to the current date at the time the study is initiated. Retrospective studies are by there nature very precise and accurate in that they do not attempt to or need to forecast future outcomes in that they know the medical history of the patient currently and are looking at past medical records to see what lead up to that condition. Gary Stein >"If HIV had never been isolated Claster then the odds of as you claim "some random piece of RNA or DNA" producing the same genetic sequence in two different patients would be astronomically high. Yet that is what is found" That is NOT what has been found. The sequences found vary all over the map. That's why the "Viral Load" method, which is based on PCR, doesn't give valid results. And no, HIV has never been isolated. If you can prove it has, here's your chance! >"You show your ignorance yet again Claster. Do you even know what a retrospective study is?" Yes, I know. I've given a long rant about it somewhere on this forum. Clinicians produce lots of data. That doesn't mean it's good scientific practice to dig in these mountains of data to look for those that support your pet theory. I'm not going to repeat all that. >>"If HIV had never been isolated Claster then the odds of as you claim >"some random piece of RNA or DNA" producing the same genetic sequence in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >That is NOT what has been found. The sequences found vary all over the >map. Liar. Another outright unsupported bit of bullshit. "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > Liar. Another outright unsupported bit of bullshit. Liar, more unsupported bullshit. >Ah, Mr. Carter, there is evidence in the scientific literature that >unprotected sex is no more risky than protected sex- As Chris points out, this is the incompetent Liam Scheff's complete misinterpretation of Padian's original data. In short, it's a whopping lie. Liam Scheff is as incompetent, stupid and useless as a journalist as Gina Kolata is. George M. Carter |
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.