>> HIV infection is the proximate cause of the changes in immune profile.
>
>So far, HIV is implicated only as a co-factor The time from infection
>to altered immune profile is far too long to support the HIV-only
>theory.
>>Actually, the Treg theory is far more predictable and reproducible
>>than the HIV theory.
>
> What is the "Treg theory" from your point of view?
My point of view is irrelevant. I have posted many articles
about Treg disease and will offer many more.
In time, I hope to offer you a better viewpoint.
>>> HIV infection is the proximate cause of the changes in immune profile.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> That doesn't appear to be true at all.
Well it IS true for many - especially those with HIV who don't get sick
at all. That suggests something else is going on - Tregs best explain that
something else.
> There are other animal models
> and viruses that can take quite a long time to manifest or that appear
> in a relapsing/remitting fashion. Zoster, for example.
Nearly everyone has herpes zoster.
Are you saying everyone has HIV?
>>> This comment is even more wrongheaded than your other dithering about
>>> ARV therapy.
>>
>>Only a shill for Pharma would say that.
>
> Wrong. Utterly, demonstrably wrong.
Well, actually, you are towing the medical establishment's Pharma party line
which is as wrong about HIV/AIDS as it was about the cause of stomach
ulcers in the 1970s being the result of "type A personalities".
Some day we'll know who is right - in the meantime, Occam's Razor
requires the simpler explanation rather the ever-changing nonsense
that goes to support the pharmaceutical junk science.
> Many people recognize the value of fluconazole.
Fluconazole is not ARV therapy.
> If the basis and strength of your other arguments is no stronger than
> this one, then you are to be dismissed as a crank and crackpot.
Keep calling people names and you will be dismissed as an apologist.
susie
GMCarter - 05 Dec 2005 11:50 GMT
>>>Actually, the Treg theory is far more predictable and reproducible
>>>than the HIV theory.
>>
>> What is the "Treg theory" from your point of view?
>
>My point of view is irrelevant.
Feh. That's your usual dodge, Frod.
Make a bold claim as if you know what you're talking about then admit
you don't know at all.
George M. Carter
Susie, age 9 - 06 Dec 2005 16:56 GMT
>>>>Actually, the Treg theory is far more predictable and reproducible
>>>>than the HIV theory.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Feh. That's your usual dodge, Frod.
Why must you continually promote yourself as Director
of your organization, FIAR (Frod's International AIDS Research)?
As to points of view, well, they ain't science, except for Public Relations
pharma contractors such as yourself and Mr. Stein.
susie
GMCarter - 05 Dec 2005 11:52 GMT
snip...
>Well, actually, you are towing the medical establishment's Pharma party line
>which is as wrong about HIV/AIDS as it was about the cause of stomach
>ulcers in the 1970s being the result of "type A personalities".
Oh, NOW who is the pharma shill? LOL....ulcers are cured by costly
DRUGS now and you KNOW it!
You are a SHILL for Pharma! It figures. The one screaming "j'accuse"
ridiculously everywhere turns out to be the biggest neo-Geisha.
George M. Carter
Susie, age 9 - 06 Dec 2005 17:00 GMT
> snip...
>>Well, actually, you are towing the medical establishment's Pharma party
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Oh, NOW who is the pharma shill?
You are, of course. And Gary Stein. And Brian Mailman etc - we know
who repeats the Pharma Talking Points here.
> LOL....ulcers are cured by costly DRUGS now and you KNOW it!
Well actually they aren't so costly anymore, and you KNOW it!
But imagine that insulin isn't a drug for diabetes. George, do you think
all diabetics are pharma shills like you are for a disease you DON'T have?
susie