 |
 | 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 2005I spread AIDS on purpose !!!
I'm a serial killer and by f.cking women, I infect them with AIDS, thus killing them in the long term. My body count is currently up to 76. Will I be the best serial killer of all time ??? Assuming that what you are saying is accurate, it is impossible to spread a clincial syndrome, especially one as artificially constructed as "HIV/AIDS." You could infect someone with a retrovirus, but that is a very low probability possibility, and retroviruses are totally harmless, with rare exceptions cooked up in labs with genetically similar animals (bred that way). Your lifestyle and that of the women would be interesting, in that I'm sure there would be plenty of cellular stressors involved. If you'd like, feel free to document what you have done to your body, your medical history, etc., here. > Assuming that what you are saying is accurate, it is impossible to > spread a clincial syndrome, especially one as artificially constructed [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > cellular stressors involved. If you'd like, feel free to document what > you have done to your body, your medical history, etc., here. Actually, what the poster proposes would be the perfect crime, that is, no clear motive against any specific victim and in every case, the victim's cause of death is ANYTHING BUT identical. susie Gerard Mindstep wrote... > I'm a serial killer and by f.cking women, I infect them with AIDS, thus > killing them in the long term. > > My body count is currently up to 76. Will I be the best serial killer > of all time ??? No, because the government has defined deliberate transmission of HIV as a civil right and not murder. Interesting, because just this morning I used deliberate HIV infection as an example twice in two separate threads (i.e. the government is so worried about the missing explosives in New Mexico but if it had been a big barrel full of HIV that had been stolen they would have a parade to celebrate). I think I then ranted on about how a typical HIV patient manages to kill more people than all those who died on 9/11, yet the amount of hysteria the media devotes to it is zero. "Seamore Tush" <stush@a.ses.fire.net> wrote in message > > ...HIV patient manages to kill more people than all those who died on 9/11, > yet the amount of hysteria the media devotes to it is zero. Look at all the Bush crying here. A thousand volunteers in the service has been killed in Iraq. Millions have died from aids, yet the faggots are mute. Ramrod is on a church kick lately. I wonder if the church killed millions in the Salem witch hunt. > "Seamore Tush" <stush@a.ses.fire.net> wrote in message > >> ...HIV patient manages to kill more people than all those who died on [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Ramrod is on a church kick lately. > I wonder if the church killed millions in the Salem witch hunt. You seem to get your numbers all mucked up (on purpose??) First of all are we talking the world here where the numbers of HIV/AIDS people (The quoted number of around 40 million of late) are mainly heterosexual. If so you cannot blame it on the Gays. http://www.unaids.org/Epi2005/doc/EPIupdate2005_html_en/epi05_02_en.htm Now if you are talking in the USA where there have been an estimated less than 1,200,000 up to the year 2003, of that there were for the same period an estimated 524,060 deaths, and not all were affected by Gays, a far cry from your quoted 'millions'. While on numbers, I see that there are a total (estimated) of AIDS case of 19,846 (MSM + MSM drug inj.) of infection by male to male sex in the year of 2003, while in the same period there are a total cases of heterosexuals infected of 23,266. Again Heterosexuals 23,266 MSM +Drugs = 19,846 See http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure Considering that this disease was unknown, and when it arrived in the USA it hit the Gays badly there before the method of transmission was known, there was a huge base for it to be transmitted from, no wonder the Gays have such a high infection rate. I expect it is the same in Africa and other countries where there is a high proportion of cases the base there was mainly heterosexual, hence the cases there are mainly heterosexual. As for the Church 'kick' the Holy Inquisition did not do a bad job of killing people, in fact it seems it was quite expert at it, and in particularly nasty ways........................... <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message > > we talking the world here where the numbers of HIV/AIDS people (The quoted > number of around 40 million of late) Does that say millons, kewl, close enough to my figure of millions. RamRod Sword of Baal wrote... > You seem to get your numbers all mucked up (on purpose??) First of all are > we talking the world here where the numbers of HIV/AIDS people (The quoted [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of 2003, while in the same period there are a total cases of heterosexuals > infected of 23,266. While you're on numbers, trying distinguishing between "HIV" and "AIDS." I don't care about AIDS, I am only concerned with how many people are infected with the HIV virus. With the new drugs, the number of HIV cases progressing to "AIDS deaths" has dropped dramatically, but that does not mean carrying the virus is any more desirable. As for the USA, well please post a link to your country's official statistics, but I can already tell you that MSMs make up the vast majority of HIV/AIDS cases in Australia too. Same for Western Europe. Why it is so prevalent among heterosexuals in Africa is unknown, and I don't care. As for Asia, rampant prostitution and IV drug use does make it common among heterosexuals, but I don't know what percentage are MSM (I expect it to still be grossly disproportionate), and of course official statistics in those countries are probably distorted (e.g. prostitution and homosexuality are symptoms of decadent capitalist culture, therefore do not exist in glorious workers' paradise of Vietnam!). > Again > > Heterosexuals 23,266 > MSM +Drugs = 19,846 Yes, and breaking the numbers down further (which I have previously posted) you discover that the majority of the "heterosexual" cases are among blacks. Once again, something about Africans, they seem to be more susceptible to the virus or something, and of course remember Haiti was one of the original countries to experience the epidemic. Break down the numbers further and most of the heterosexuals are women, typically infected by MSM partners. Then you are left with roughly half of the cases being MSMs, when their actual percentage of the population likely doesn't exceed 10%. > RamRod Sword of Baal wrote... >> You seem to get your numbers all mucked up (on purpose??) First of all [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > progressing to "AIDS deaths" has dropped dramatically, but that does not > mean carrying the virus is any more desirable. I did distinguish between the two, and what I quoted was clearly marked and is what was on the CDC site that I quoted. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#exposure If you wish other facts, I suggest you search for them yourself. > As for the USA, well please post a link to your country's official > statistics, > but I can already tell you that MSMs make up the vast majority of HIV/AIDS > cases in Australia too. Same for Western Europe. Seems you have broken fingers, can't you use Google.................. > Why it is so prevalent > among heterosexuals in Africa is unknown, and I don't care. As for Asia, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > decadent capitalist culture, therefore do not exist in glorious workers' > paradise of Vietnam!). I posted URLs to support what I quoted, I suggest you do the same, rather than just post your opinions. BTW, FYI Vietnam, has .4 % infection rate, Australia .1 % and the USA .6% courtesy of the CIA fact book >> Again >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > further and most of the heterosexuals are women, typically infected by MSM > partners. More suppositions, post some facts backed up by URLs please. > Then you are left with roughly half of the cases being MSMs, > when their actual percentage of the population likely doesn't exceed 10%. In one breath you say that MSM part of the population does not exceed 10% and then you also state that the women who get infected are infected by MSM, none of which is supported by anything except what you think, what is your expertise in this matter? Seems all you wish to is shift any 'blame' for transmitting this virus from WASPs............................. <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message > > In one breath you say that MSM part of the population does not exceed 10% > and then you also state that the women who get infected are infected by MSM, > none of which is supported by anything except what you think, what is your > expertise in this matter? How many times does the same articles have to be posted over and over. You've had hundreds posted here this year alone. That you choose to call them right wing articles and dis-miss them doesn't mean they are not true. > <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That you choose to call them right wing articles and dis-miss them > doesn't mean they are not true. No nor does it mean they are true. It has been seen over and over that the Bigot Brigade's propaganda machine has, let us be kind, 'bent the truth' on many occasions, one only has to look at the writings of Paul Cameron to see that. <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message > > No nor does it mean they are true. > > It has been seen over and over that the Bigot Brigade's propaganda machine > has, let us be kind, 'bent the truth' on many occasions, one only has to > look at the writings of Paul Cameron to see that. I'd rather look at the millions dead and the millions dying of HIV/AIDS to determine what is true or not. Weather a virus is the cause or not, weather the meds cause a deadly illness or not, or even if the immune system has been suppressed or not is irrelevant so long as the faggots die as a result of their behavior. Heck, I don't even care if a faggot considers itself hetero or not, the proof is in its melting. > Weather a virus is the cause or not, weather the meds cause a deadly > illness [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Heck, I don't even care if a faggot considers itself hetero or not, > the proof is in its melting. So Deathish places itself in the latter category, a melting gay hetero. susie "Susie, with the mind of a 9yo a.s wart" <nomail@noway.com> > " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Heck, I don't even care if a faggot considers itself hetero or not, > > the proof is in its melting. > "Susie, with the mind of a 9yo genius" <nomail@noway.com> > >> > Heck, I don't even care if a faggot considers itself hetero or not, >> > the proof is in its melting. What's the matter, Deathish, too much Holiday cheer? Didn't they save your place this year on the Mormon Tabernacle Choir despite the smell of alcohol on your rancid breath? susie > > "Susie, with the mind of a 9yo a.s wart" <nomail@noway.com> >> > "Susie, with the mind of a 9yo a.s wart" <nomail@noway.com> Only Deathish would equate the mind with an anal wart - the poor creature has been gibbering out his a.s for entirely too long. susie > <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > irrelevant > so long as the faggots die as a result of their behaviour. So that it seems is Death's Christmas wish. I on the other hand wish that a quick and cheap cure can be found for ALL who suffer from this terrible disease, no matter of what sexual persuasion they are. <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message > " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > who suffer from this terrible disease, no matter of what sexual persuasion > they are. Aids can be cured, it is a matter of behavior. Have a safe holiday- Death > <RamRod Sword of Baal> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Have a safe holiday- Death I know a couple of people who are infected, I am sure they would love to know how they can be cured, so enlighen us all. You wrote "I am only concerned with how many people are infected with the HIV virus. With the new drugs, the number of HIV cases progressing to "AIDS deaths" has dropped dramatically, but that does not mean carrying the virus is any more desirable." Just what makes you think there is a "HIV"?? And just how are you ascertaining that people have such a 'virus'? No, new drugs have nothing to do with mortality rates declining. AZT is the same old drug that is was 50 years ago. A killer of a drug at that. The reason people deemed "HIV" positive are living longer is because there are more of them NOT taking the ARV's. As AZT use has declined, so has the mortality rate. In 2003 the CDC estimated that there were 1.185 million in the US that were "HIV positive". Only 18,000 people died out of that pool. And the leading cause of death? Liver failure....which is directly attributed to the toxic ARV's. And only about 200,000 or so of those HIV positives were even using the ARV's. So if 'HIV' is so deadly, why aren't the non HAART users dying off in droves?????????? And I bet that other causes of death, such as heart failure, were up pretty high on that list too. HF due to ARV's. And....some states, like Massachusettes, register all HIV positives that die as AIDS related deaths. Even ones that die in car crashes. The CDC has over the years recommended delaying HAART in regards to he decline of CD-4's and recommended lower doses. The result? Longer lifespans. It is no better in Africa either. Recently, Nelson Mandela's son died when undergoing gall bladder surgery. Since he was deemed HIV positive, his death was registered as "AIDS" induced. " 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. SuperSport wrote... > You wrote > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Just what makes you think there is a "HIV"?? And just how are you > ascertaining that people have such a 'virus'? Hee hee, you're funny! I won't even bother arguing with you about the existence of HIV, but I would like to know if you would be willing to inject yourself with blood from an AIDS patient to show that no pathogen is present... > No, new drugs have nothing to do with mortality rates declining. AZT is > the same old drug that is was 50 years ago. A killer of a drug at that. > > The reason people deemed "HIV" positive are living longer is because > there are more of them NOT taking the ARV's. As AZT use has declined, so > has the mortality rate. I'm aware that AZT is now considered harmful, when I talk about ARVs I am referring to the new class of protease inhibitors and other drugs used in the "cocktail" treatments. As for ARVs shortening life, I need only to look at my HIV+ brother who was VERY sick around 1994 and began experimental treatment with the new cocktail drugs. He is not (very) sick anymore, I don't think anyone with HIV is ever truly "healthy," but he also is not rotting away like a pound of hamburger left in the sun like he was before. > In 2003 the CDC estimated that there were 1.185 million in the US that > were "HIV positive". Only 18,000 people died out of that pool. And the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So if 'HIV' is so deadly, why aren't the non HAART users dying off in > droves?????????? Um, because of the incubation period? HIV+ does not mean the disease has progressed to the fatal AIDS stage, even if the patient receives no treatment at all it might still take over 5 years (from the time he tests HIV+) to die. -------------------------------------------------------------- "There is no truth. You just pick the lie you like best. As long as you know everything's a lie, you can't hurt yourself." -- Marilyn Manson -------------------------------------------------------------- > You wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > there are more of them NOT taking the ARV's. As AZT use has declined, so > has the mortality rate. The last statistics on ARV use I saw showed AZT as the single most widely prescribed ARV in use at the time. You are completely wrong in your statement above claiming AZT use has declined. Yes the doses used therapeutically are now much lower then when AZT was the only available ARV, but orders of magnitude more people are taking AZT today then were taking it in the early 1990's. Gary Stein > The last statistics on ARV use I saw showed AZT as the single most widely > prescribed ARV in use at the time. You are completely wrong in your > statement above claiming AZT use has declined. Yes the doses used > therapeutically are now much lower then when AZT was the only available > ARV, but orders of magnitude more people are taking AZT today then were > taking it in the early 1990's. Proof? susie Gary Stein wrote- "The last statistics on ARV use I saw showed AZT as the single most widely prescribed ARV in use at the time. You are completely wrong in your statement above claiming AZT use has declined. Yes the doses used therapeutically are now much lower then when AZT was the only available ARV, but orders of magnitude more people are taking AZT today then were taking it in the early 1990's." One question Mr. Stein. Yes or no please sir. Are drug side effects dose related? Yes or no, there is no 'maybe' here. Mr. Stein, you are completely wrong. In the west there are more 'drug holidays ' than ever before, and physicians are reporting that delayed treatment or non treatment works better than anything else. Wasn't the attitude of the 1990's "hit it hard, hit it early" the prevailing mantra of AIDS treatment Mr. Stein? Was AZT not part of that protocol? By usage I am talking about what is prescribed by physicians in the US for American AIDS patients. We are not talking about the blackmarket trade. 1.2 HIV positives in the US Mr. Stein. 18,000 AIDS deaths-with the biggest killer being liver failure from drug treatment. Like I always say: AIDS-the non epidemic. " 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. >Are drug side effects dose related? Yes or no, there is no 'maybe' here. Yes, there is a "maybe" here. Which only underscores again how incredibly stupid most of you loud-mouthed, full of sh.t denialists are. To a certain extent, toxicity is dose dependent. AZT at 1200 mg could likely kill a person. At 600 mg, much less likely to be fatal but still toxic. 300 mg works fine. This is true of most drugs. Too much WATER can kill you. But there are other ways people may have sensitivities to drugs. Genetic and gender differences can have effects on the way a drug is metabolized in the liver or kidneys. Cytochrome P450 systems vary between people; acetylation rates vary. So drug side effects have differing impacts on people. Pharmacogenomics is a new field they MAY provide some better tailoring in the way drugs are prescribed. George M. Carter Yes George ...I am a loud mouth aren't I? As time goes on I find myself yelling louder and louder as the voice of reason to outshout you full of sh.t HIV Goons. In your hasty response you must have assumed that I am talking about a group of people receiving the same dose of a drug.....and I was not. All drugs cause side effects. If a person-as an individual-experiences side effects at say 600 MG then the same person would experience more severe side effects at a higher dose. And the same person would experience less severe side effects at a lower dose. That is a fact. It is also a fact that HIV-positives are consuming LESS AZT than ever before since it was introduced as a treatment option. It is no mere coincidence that as a group HIV positives are living longer than ever. No one survives chemotherapy. No one. 1.2 million deemed HIV positive George......only 18,000 deaths. Like I said earlier....HIV?AIDS-the non epidemic. " 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. >Yes George ...I am a loud mouth aren't I? Yes...loud, noxious and stupid. Your point? My point? Pretty simple really.....but an HIV Goon like you is rather thick in the skull so I will write it again. Drugs are toxic. The more toxic a drug is the more severe the side effects as dosage is increased. Speaking of side effects....George, why is it bottles of AZT sport an image of a skull and crossbones?? 18,000 deaths annually from a pool of 1.2 million HIV positives....... Haven't you heard the latest?? HIV/AIDS is a non epidemic!! " 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. >My point? Your point was wrong. The dose of most nukes has not changed in over 15 years. AZT, for example, has been recommended at 600 mg/day for around 15 years. Whether that is sensible or not is another question. But ARV therapy does not cause AIDS. The majority of infected individuals never see ARV, develop AIDS and die early. Like Pasquarelli. Most that DO access ARV have already developed AIDS. Not the other way around. So--again. Your point is demonstrably wrong. You remain an idiot. George M. Carter George wrote this- "But ARV therapy does not cause AIDS. The majority of infected individuals never see ARV, develop AIDS and die early. Like Pasquarelli. Most that DO access ARV have already developed AIDS." Really? AIDS is supposedly a loss of cd-4 cells with a positive HIV antibody test in the west. Are you saying that AZT does not kill lymphocytes George? Are you saying that AZT is not given prophalactically to people possibly infected via needlesticks, 'unsafe' sex, and even in some before engaging in sex? " 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. >George wrote this- > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Really? AIDS is supposedly a loss of cd-4 cells with a positive HIV >antibody test in the west. Yes. >Are you saying that AZT does not kill lymphocytes George? No. AZT CAN (but does not always) cause neutropenia. Neutrophils are not the same as CD4+ T cells. But then--you're too f.cking stupid to understand that. I say that in all sincerity since this has been brought to your attention before. >Are you saying that AZT is not given prophalactically to people possibly >infected via needlesticks, 'unsafe' sex, and even in some before >engaging in sex? LOL. Very damn few people. Hardly enough to be the cause of AIDS. Indeed, these are the very folks who should die of AIDS if the drugs were the cause. They don't. Unless they have HIV. Nor do HIV-negative people given COCKTAILS of drugs in clinical studies. None of this is news. It's been discussed here previously. George M. Carter >>Are you saying that AZT does not kill lymphocytes George? > > No. AZT CAN (but does not always) cause neutropenia. Neutrophils are > not the same as CD4+ T cells. But then--you're too f.cking stupid to > understand that. I say that in all sincerity since this has been > brought to your attention before. With which incarnation/sock? B/ > George wrote this- > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Really? AIDS is supposedly a loss of cd-4 cells with a positive HIV > antibody test in the west. Yes really due to many factors around 20% of the patients diagnosed with AIDS each year in the US get that diagnosis immediately following there first positive HIV test and 'PRIOR' to ever have taken a single dose of AZT or any other ARV medication. Your contention that AZT causes AIDS completely ignores the tens of thousands who died of AIDS here in the US prior to the first use of AZT as an anti-viral medication. > Are you saying that AZT does not kill lymphocytes George? > > Are you saying that AZT is not given prophalactically to people possibly > infected via needlesticks, 'unsafe' sex, and even in some before > engaging in sex? AZT is not one of the anti-virals on the US federal treatment guidelines for the treatment of needle stick or other HIV exposures. Look it up yourself, you don't seem to believe anything anyone tells you here on MHA but it is published and on the web for all to read. Gary Stein > My point? Pretty simple really.....but an HIV Goon like you is rather > thick in the skull so I will write it again. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Speaking of side effects....George, why is it bottles of AZT sport an > image of a skull and crossbones?? They don't what gives you the idea they do? I've been taking AZT twice a day since 1996 and have never seen a skull and crossbones on a single bottle. Gary Stein Mr. Stein, Please view www.whatisaids.com/azt.htm Click on AZT where it is highlighted towards the top of the article. A picture of an azt label with skull and crossbones is there. " 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. Stein, > > Please view www.whatisaids.com/azt.htm > > Click on AZT where it is highlighted towards the top of the article. A > picture of an azt label with skull and crossbones is there. Well that link doesn't work for me, but most likely it is a photo of a bottle of pure powedered AZT for lab use only. Show me a bottle of AZT purchased from a US pharmacy and you will not see a skull and crossbones on the lable or on the package insert. Gary Stein Gary Stein wrote- "Well that link doesn't work for me, but most likely it is a photo of a bottle of pure powedered AZT for lab use only. Show me a bottle of AZT purchased from a US pharmacy and you will not see a skull and crossbones on the lable or on the package insert." Yeah, no kidding!! Lab workers know the stuff is poison, so revealing a skull and crossbones to them would be old hat. But if the average HIV positive Joe were to see such an image on a bottle he was going to ingest, he might start asking some serious questions. Like-"is this stuff going to help me or kill me??" And the HIV Goons can't have the average HIV positive Joe's thinking for themselves, now can they? " 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. > Gary Stein wrote- > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Are drug side effects dose related? Yes or no, there is no 'maybe' here. There is a maybe when your talking about therapeutic doses, side effects are both patient and dose related when at therpeutic levels. Yes if you give some one a massive dose of just about anything on this planet inculding water or oxygen it will produce fatel side effects however that has nothing to do with the discussion of side effects as related to prescribed and approved medications. There are patients who even at the current doseing levels of AZT experience side effects strong enough to cause them to discontinue the use of AZT. Just as there were patients in the early days of AZT use who tolarated those large doses with out problems, though I will agree they were a very small minority. > Mr. Stein, you are completely wrong. In the west there are more 'drug > holidays ' than ever before, and physicians are reporting that delayed > treatment or non treatment works better than anything else. Your babbling again I have no idea what you are trying to say above. The data is still not clear on treatment interruptions that is why they are still in experimental use only. As to delayed treatment the best time to start ARV has been widely understood by HIV specialists both in the US and EU since about 1997. Yes there is a range spread that is not a single number but that is mainly a function of how conservative the Clinician and the Patient are. You can search on my name in Google Groups and you will see that I have consistently said that optimum ARV treatment start is before CD4 counts drop bellow 200 and that Doctors and national health agencies set the start point at between 350 and 200 CD4 cells depending on the judgment of the patient and clinician. > Wasn't the attitude of the 1990's "hit it hard, hit it early" the > prevailing mantra of AIDS treatment Mr. Stein? It's was Ho's and it got some traction in the Press but in major university infectious disease clinics and among HIV specialists with large numbers of HIV patients it never was accepted. > Was AZT not part of that protocol? Yes it still is. > By usage I am talking about what is prescribed by physicians in the US > for American AIDS patients. We are not talking about the blackmarket > trade. > > 1.2 HIV positives in the US Mr. Stein. 18,000 AIDS deaths-with the > biggest killer being liver failure from drug treatment. You have no evidence for that statement, yes liver failure is occurring but there are multiple factors at play, such as co-infection with hepatitis, the aging of those who are HIV infected due to ARV prolonging there lives, and yes ARV toxicity. Gary Stein Mr. Stein, Please view the CDC page about AIDS and their statistics in 2003. Out of an estimated 1.185 million HIV positives there were 18,000 deaths from "AIDS". " 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. Stein, > >Please view the CDC page about AIDS and their statistics in 2003. Out of >an estimated 1.185 million HIV positives there were 18,000 deaths from >"AIDS". In the United States--where people with HIV have much more access to ARV and to treatment for opportunistic infections. Which are lacking for many in places like Russia, Ukraine, Nepal, Malawi, Nigeria, Uganda, Tanzania, etc. George M. Carter > Mr. Stein, > > Please view the CDC page about AIDS and their statistics in 2003. Out of > an estimated 1.185 million HIV positives there were 18,000 deaths from > "AIDS". Why? I fully agree people are dieing from AIDS in the US today. Gary Stein > Millions have died from aids, yet the faggots are mute. Except for faggot Deathish and his size 10 poop chute. susie "Seamore Tush" <stush@a.ses.fire.net> wrote in message > No, because the government has defined deliberate transmission of HIV > as a civil right and not murder. 2 Bird Flu Patients Who Died Were Resistant To Tamiflu Health Experts Call Development Alarming POSTED: 5:18 pm EST December 21, 2005 In a development health experts are calling alarming, two bird flu patients in Vietnam died after developing resistance to Tamiflu, the key drug that governments are stockpiling in case of a large-scale outbreak. The experts said the deaths were disturbing because the two girls had received early and aggressive treatment with Tamiflu and had gotten the recommended doses. The new report suggests that the doses doctors now consider ideal may be too little. Previous reports of resistance involved people who had taken the drug in low doses; inadequate doses of medicine are known to promote resistance by allowing viruses or bacteria to mutate and make a resurgence. Dr. Anne Moscona, a flu expert at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York City, called the deaths frightening and said they demonstrate the dangers of hoarding drugs. "People who stockpile will naturally share or take drugs at the wrong dose, and that's really a bad idea," said Moscona, who wrote an accompanying commentary in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine. Since 2003, avian flu has killed about 70 people, mostly in Vietnam and Thailand, and nearly all involved close contact with infected birds. Health experts fear the virus could morph into a form that spreads easily between people. http://www.wsoctv.com/health/5601143/detail.html Yeah, I don't suppose the 2 girls could have died from the Tamiflu though could they? 70 people have died in the South East from alleged bird flu. Gee, I don't suppose poor living conditions and malnutrition could have anything to do with this at all, eh? " 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. "SuperSport" <supersport28405@hotmail.com> wrote in message > Yeah, I don't suppose the 2 girls could have died from the Tamiflu > though could they? " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote in message > 2 Bird Flu Patients Who Died Were Resistant To Tamiflu > > In a development health experts are calling alarming, two bird flu patients in Vietnam died > after developing resistance to Tamiflu, those 2 girls died of starvation while feeding the flocks just to confuse you. >"those 2 girls died of starvation while feeding the flocks just to confuse you." Oh?? I never would have guessed. For me, the most LOGICAL explanation would be that they simply died of Tamiflu. > >"those 2 girls died of starvation while feeding the flocks just to confuse > you." > > Oh?? I never would have guessed. For me, the most LOGICAL explanation > would be that they simply died of Tamiflu. " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote in message > > 2 Bird Flu Patients Who Died Were Resistant To Tamiflu > > Since 2003, avian flu has killed about 70 people, mostly in Vietnam and Thailand, and nearly > all involved close contact with infected birds. > > http://www.wsoctv.com/health/5601143/detail.html I looked at the reference you provided, Death, and what struck me immediately was the paragraph: "The experts said the deaths were disturbing because the two girls had received early and aggressive treatment with Tamiflu and had gotten the recommended doses." Eeeyipes!! "early and agressive treatment". So they poisoned the two girls with Tamiflu, and then claimed that the virus had become resistent and killed the patients... Yeah. That's the kind of story you hear during murder trials in a court of law. The jury usually doesn't buy it. Neither do I. > >"those 2 girls died of starvation while feeding the flocks just to > >confuse > you." > > Oh?? I never would have guessed. For me, the most LOGICAL explanation > would be that they simply died of Tamiflu. Actually, the Pharma Talking Points are that these people are dying because they don't get ENOUGH Tamiflu!!! Sounds familiar, doesn't it? susie hi,let me introduce myself ,my name is albert i am 17 years old,and i want to tell you something .you have not the right to affect women by aids and you are not permetted to kil themm because human life is sacred becase it is given by our lord . > I'm a serial killer and by f.cking women, I infect them with AIDS, thus > killing them in the long term. > > My body count is currently up to 76. Will I be the best serial killer > of all time ??? hi,let me introduce myself ,my name is albert i am 17 years old,and i want to tell you something .you have not the right to affect women by aids and you are not permetted to kil themm because human life is sacred becase it is given by our lord . > I'm a serial killer and by f.cking women, I infect them with AIDS, thus > killing them in the long term. > > My body count is currently up to 76. Will I be the best serial killer > of all time ??? > hi,let me introduce myself ,my name is albert i am 17 years old,and i > want to tell you something .you have not the right to affect women by > aids and you are not permetted to kil themm because human life is > sacred becase it is given by our lord . You go, Mo! susie >"you are not permetted to kil themm because human life is sacred because it is given by our lord." You're absolutely right, Mohamed. But don't worry; the virus does not exist. And even if it would exist, it would belong to a harmless class of virues. But I'd wish those criminals who kill people with toxic antiretroviral drugs, and pretend that they're performing "therapy" would listen to you.
|
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.