 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / April 2006HIV's 3D structure revealed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4642940.stm Do "vesicles" look like this? "Cryo EM has allowed Prof Fuller's team to take a closer look at what happens after HIV invades our cells at a resolution of about two thousandths of a millionth of a metre, enough to show the shape of the protein building blocks but not to see component atoms. Using inactivated forms of HIV that keep the same shape but can be handled safely, his team focused on the infectious stage of the viruses' life cycle to help ensure they were the same size. While the viruses were bathed in a thin layer of supercooled water, so they did not dry out, they were gradually tilted in a series of steps and separate images taken. By using a computer to combine hundreds of separate images, each taken at a different tilt, the team could examine the three- dimensional structure of each virus in detail that is usually only obtainable with X-rays. The result is a tomogram, rather than a two-dimensional image, so they were able to examine the 3D anatomy of the virus or use a computer to make a slice by slice image. "We now have determined three-dimensional structures for around 70 HIV virus particles," said Prof Fuller "The result, the first tomograms of authentic HIV, teaches us how a variable structure assembles to produce an infectious agent." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2006/01/10/ecrhiv 10.xml&sSheet=/connected/2006/01/10/ixconnrite.html > "Cryo EM has allowed Prof Fuller's team to take a closer look at what > happens after HIV invades our cells at a resolution of about two [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2006/01/10/ecrhiv 10.xml&sSheet=/connected/2006/01/10/ixconnrite.html The abstract for the scientific article is available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=16407061&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum It is worth reading. Here's a small quote:"Concentrated, high-titer (w109 infectious units per ml) preparations of HIV-1 particles with minimal contamination of cellular vesicles were obtained as described previously (Welker et al., 2000). The quality of the preparation can be judged from Figure 1A" On the website they have included a cool animation in the supplementary information where they rotate virus particles in 3D. The same group has previously published this article which is avalialble free. http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12660176 http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=152888&blobtype=pdf It has very nice cEM pictures of HIV. Indeed, I have posted links to it many, many, many times. Chris Noble From the article: "Unlike most of its fellow viruses, infectious HIV varies wildly in size over its life cycle, from just under 100 nanometres to 350 nm." WoooHaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!! My dear gullible friends: "Unlike most"? There is NO virus in existence that varies in size by a factor 3. Vesicles do. Materials that have to be transported out of a cell must do so by budding from the cell mambrane. So they take some of the membrane lipids with them as a vesicle. Of course the size of this vesicle depends on what is being transported. But a virus capsid has a fixed size, so the envelope around it should also be of one size only. From the article: "Unlike most of its fellow viruses, infectious HIV varies wildly in size over its life cycle, from just under 100 nanometres to 350 nm." >WoooHaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha!! >My dear gullible friends: "Unlike most"? There >is NO virus in existence >that varies in size by a factor 3 If we're expected to believe all the other "Alice in Wonderland" claims about "HIV", why shouldn't we believe this one as well? > From the article: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > My dear gullible friends: "Unlike most"? There is NO virus in existence > that varies in size by a factor 3. Never say never. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=14963166&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=14963166 http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=369243&blobtype=pdf "The virions showed the broad range of diameters typical of retroviruses." "cEM permits reliable measurement of virus diameter, avoiding the problems associated with viral membrane collapse when using conventional techniques (11, 17). The diameters of viruses were measured to the outer edge of the lipid bilayer. The three preparations exhibited mean particle diameters of 130 ± 18 nm (n = 150), 129 ± 18 nm (n = 150), and 141 ± 14 nm (n = 300), with virus diameter ranging between 50 and 210 nm. The mean diameter is significantly smaller than that observed after negative staining (180 nm) and similar to that observed after freeze drying (125 nm) (11). Data from preparations 1 and 2 were combined (Fig. 3) and exhibit a size distribution of a breadth similar to that of HIV-1 (2) (Fig. 3). The large range of diameters observed is typical of retrovirus preparations (2, 9, 17). In most retroviruses, the Gag protein shell assembles either at the plasma membrane or on an internal membrane and the lipid bilayer plays a significant role in the assembly process (1). Assembly of Gag protein and nucleic acid in vitro in the absence of a lipid bilayer leads to the production of particles that are more homogeneous in size (16, 18). Betaretroviridae species, in contrast, assemble their Gag protein shells in the cytoplasm. The dramatic range in diameters seen within retrovirus preparations, therefore, does not result solely from the use of the lipid bilayer as an assembly platform." Once again Iconoclaster's "textbook science" comes straight out of the wrong orifice. Chris Noble Chris, I'm curious to see what Iconoclaster has to say about this. Until then, I don't think the size of a make-believe virus ends up being terribly important. Mr. Noble, I've heard from various sources you're a con artist, but now I'm sure of it. First you cite 3 references. Two of the links don't work, and the remaining one leads to a paper pointing out that continuous poisoning with HAART drugs is much better than allowing interruptions. Then you include some text, supposedly from these references, that deals with particles that are uncritically assumed to be "HIV", and shows that these "somethings" vary in size. Well, my point was that no virus varies significantly in size. This is only claimed for that magical virus, "HIV", because otherwise they cannot explain the phenomenon of a heterogeneous collection of vesicles with varying payloads. > Mr. Noble, I've heard from various sources you're a con artist, but now I'm > sure of it. > > First you cite 3 references. Two of the links don't work, and the > remaining one leads to a paper pointing out that continuous poisoning with > HAART drugs is much better than allowing interruptions. PEBCAK. All links work perfectly well. All three links point to one single article that deals with Cryoelectron microscopy of mouse mammary tumor virus. J Virol. 2004 Mar;78(5):2606-8. One was to the abstract on Pubmed PMID: 14963166 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=14963166&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum The other two were to the full article that is available free on pubmedcentral. http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=14963166 None of them mention HAART. > Then you include some text, supposedly from these references, that deals > with particles that are uncritically assumed to be "HIV", and shows that > these "somethings" vary in size. The papers are about mouse mammary tumor virus! Did you read the titles? > Well, my point was that no virus varies significantly in size. This is > only claimed for that magical virus, "HIV", because otherwise they cannot > explain the phenomenon of a heterogeneous collection of vesicles with > varying payloads. Your point was a load of bullshit. MMTV varies significantly in size. Look at the results. Or will you simply deny the reality? Try lying more convincingly next time. Chris Noble >"All links work perfectly well." They do now. But just go back to your post of Jan.26, and click on the links. Two of them don't work, and the third is irrelevant. But let's stick with the links you give in your latest post of Jan. 31st. They do work. This paper, being from the same comic duo Briggs - Fuller, also mentions the variability in size of MMTV. Small wonder: They're the same guys of the "HIV in 3D" paper. And yes, also in this paper they mention HIV as a comparison. Never before did I see such a line of reasoning toward a preconceptual result. The comparison of the size distributions of HIV and MMTV in fig. 3 should make anybody suspicious of this work. Comparison with a virus that has never been obtained in pure form? Hm, peculiar... It is not so surpring that the size of a lipid envelope varies with the payload. If 2 cores of whatever must be accomodated, a bigger vesicle is required. A virus capsid is produced by self-assembly, according to strict geometric principles. Usually around a nucleic acid structure. But that's not absolutely necessary, as some virus preparations show empty protein capsids. So building up the core around the RNA (as the authors suggest) is not required. What the virus core drags along from the host cell when it buds from the mebrane may indeed be variable. As the authors also had "HIV" on culture, they may have handled their MMTV culture in the same sloppy way that is customary in "HIV science. No, this paper does not look convincing to me. And I doubt it will convince other colleagues. > >"All links work perfectly well." > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > No, this paper does not look convincing to me. And I doubt it will > convince other colleagues. Do you have any comments that directly address aspects of the paper. Your entire argument boils down to "it can't be HIV becasue HIV doesn't exist". Preconceptual thinking. Here is another study on MuLV again showing considerable variation in size. http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=22596&blobtype=pdf So lets recapitulate the evidence so far: Iconoclaster: Well, my point was that no virus varies significantly in size. Me: Here are three papers showing that virions of Rous sarcoma virus, mouse mammary tumor virus and murine leukemia virus all vary significantly in size. Iconoclaster: Well, my point was that no virus varies significantly in size. Simply saying "because I said so" doesn't go far in science. Do you have any papers to support your claim? Chris Noble >Simply saying "because I said so" doesn't >go far in science. Do you have any >papers to support your claim? I wouldn't hold your breath Chris... Chris; Claster is such a fool it is probably the length of your links that is causing his problems with links not working. I recommend that you include a link created by the TinyURL.com website as well as the full link in your posts then Claster will have no excuse when it comes to links not working. Just go to http://tinyurl.com/ and it will explain to you how to use the service. I find the most reliable method is to have the special TinyURL Link in the toolbar of my browser. Once this is on your toolbar, you'll be able to make a TinyURL at the click of a button. By clicking on the toolbar button, a TinyURL will be created for the page you are currently at. You can then simply copy it and post it into any document, email, or Usenet message. Gary Stein >> >"All links work perfectly well." >> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Chris Noble >"Simply saying "because I said so" doesn't go far in science. Do you have any papers to support your claim?" Sure. But they're older, and not on the web. Here's a classic: D.L.D. Caspar & A. Klug (Sir Aaron to you): Physical principles in the construction of regular viruses, Cold Spring Harbor Symp. Quant. Biol. 27, 1 (1962) And: A. Klug, W. Longley, R. Leberman: Arrangement of protein subunits and the distribution of nucleic acid in Turnip Yellow Mosaic Virus. I. X-ray diffraction studies, J. Mol. Biol. 15, 315 (1966) J.T. Finch & A. Klug: Arrangement of protein subunits and the distribution of nucleic acid in Turnip Yellow Mosaic Virus, J. Mol. Biol. 15, 344 (1966) > >"Simply saying "because I said so" doesn't go far in science. Do you have > any papers to support your claim?" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of nucleic acid in Turnip Yellow Mosaic Virus, J. Mol. Biol. 15, 344 > (1966) You appear to have some major problems with logic. You made the statement that no viruses vary significantly in size. Giving examples such as TYMV that do have regular sizes does not prove your statement. On the other hand when I give you several examples of viruses that do show significant size variations it directly falsifies your claim. To use an analogy again. You say all swans are white and produce 3 photographs of white swans. I produce 3 photographs of black swans. Is the statement "all swans are white" true or false. It is a demonstrable fact that not all viruses are as regular as TYMV. Can you get in contact with Sir Aaron Klug and ask him to confirm your claim that no virus varies significantly in size? You may want to ask why he has his name on HIV research. http://tinyurl.com/e262f Chris Noble >"On the other hand when I give you several examples of viruses that do show significant size variations it directly falsifies your claim." You did no such thing. Three of those papers were crap. Only the excellent 1976 paper came up with size distributions for 3 known retroviruses. But these distributions were by no means as broad as the factor 3 present-day virus-hacks want to sell us. Those measurements and purifications were a tour de force, by the way. It's amazing they got distributions that were relatively sharp. O have an idea: Why don't you try these same methods they used 30 years ago on HIV? I could use a good laugh. >"Can you get in contact with Sir Aaron Klug and ask him to confirm your claim that no virus varies significantly in size?" I probably could, but haven't seen him for years. >"You may want to ask why he has his name on HIV research." Cigarette money, I guess. He's the 7th author, out of 8. All this genetics sh.t is definitely not his bag. Maybe he drove the getaway car. > >"On the other hand when I give you several examples of viruses that do > show significant size variations it directly falsifies your claim." > > You did no such thing. Three of those papers were crap. Crap? Because you say so? Isn't it a bit obvious that you reject any papers that contradict your beliefs. This is the thing about Denialism. You keep following the same trajectory you are locked into you end up denying all aspects of science. > Only the > excellent 1976 paper came up with size distributions for 3 known [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I probably could, but haven't seen him for years. Well go on. Just do it. While you are at it contact the University of Leiden and see if you can arrange to do experiments on HIV there. > >"You may want to ask why he has his name on HIV research." > > Cigarette money, I guess. He's the 7th author, out of 8. All this > genetics sh.t is definitely not his bag. Maybe he drove the getaway car. Why did he sign the Durban Declaration? Is this genetics sh.t your bag? You keep on trying to convince someone, perhaps yourself, that RNA viruses don't generally mutate. Chris Noble >"You keep following the same trajectory you are locked into you end up denying all aspects of science." Well, excuse me! I didn't recognize it as science when I looked at it. >"Why did he sign the Durban Declaration?" I don't know. But he's older than I am, so... >"Is this genetics sh.t your bag? You keep on trying to convince someone, perhaps yourself, that RNA viruses don't generally mutate." Will you stop saying that? You always take it out of context anyway. And yes, I have a hangup with geneticists. Too much hot air. > >"You keep following the same trajectory you are locked into you end up > denying all aspects of science." [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Will you stop saying that? You always take it out of context anyway. And > yes, I have a hangup with geneticists. Too much hot air. I'll keep on quoting you as long as I like. The sentences that follow that one do nothing to make the statement any truer. You claim there is no evidence for Viruses mutating in vivo. I simply point to the high evolution rate in wild circulating viruses such as influenza virus and poliovirus that demonstrate that these viruses have high mutation rates. My experinece is that people have hangups with things they don't understand. You have very little understanding of genetics. Not only that you are too lazy to bother learning so you choose to call it hot air. Chris Noble >"I'll keep on quoting you as long as I like." Hey, now that I'm thinking about it, that's great! That's how one becomes a prophet - being quoted often. >"You claim there is no evidence for Viruses mutating in vivo. I simply point to the high evolution rate in wild circulating viruses such as influenza virus and poliovirus that demonstrate that these viruses have high mutation rates." I can go along with that to some extent in the case of influenza virus. These viruses have the possibility of reassortment and recombination. So we may see a different strain (or strains) every flu season. But in the case of polio, with its puny genome, it may not be just hot air, but out and out swindle. Please don't forget that the polio vaccines have been controversial since the fifties, and are mistrusted by many. And again, it's big money and big egos that are causing the suspicion. >"You have very little understanding of genetics." I'm always first in line when there is something new to learn. But I understand something about genetics that few others understand: They are overplaying their hand. And about poker, I do know. >>"I'll keep on quoting you as long as I like." > > Hey, now that I'm thinking about it, that's great! That's how one becomes > a prophet - being quoted often. Helter skelter! > >"I'll keep on quoting you as long as I like." > > Hey, now that I'm thinking about it, that's great! That's how one becomes > a prophet - being quoted often. Dan Quayle was quoted often. > >"You claim there is no evidence for Viruses mutating in vivo. I simply > point to the high evolution rate in wild circulating viruses [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > These viruses have the possibility of reassortment and recombination. So > we may see a different strain (or strains) every flu season. The new strain that is seen every year is different because of genetic drift (ie point mutations) not genetic shift. The genetic drift is up to 1% in the hemagglutin and neuraminidase genes. The circulating strains (in humans) of influenza A have been H3N2 and H1N1. The Spansish/1918 flu is not believed to have arisen through recombination but through the mutation of a non-human virus to one that is capable of virulently infecting humans. > But in the > case of polio, with its puny genome, it may not be just hot air, but out > and out swindle. Please don't forget that the polio vaccines have been > controversial since the fifties, and are mistrusted by many. And again, > it's big money and big egos that are causing the suspicion. Sure Olen Kew is just in it for the money. Sabin and Salk were just greedy. The only honest person is Iconoclutter who contributed ... what? to the world. > >"You have very little understanding of genetics." > > I'm always first in line when there is something new to learn. But I > understand something about genetics that few others understand: They are > overplaying their hand. And about poker, I do know. You have just demonstrated that you have very little understanding of the role of genetic drift and genetic shift in the epidemiology of influenza. I say you are overplaying your hand. You take a smattering of knowledge here and there from 40 years ago and then try to pretend you are an expert. You repeatedly say things that are demonstrably wrong. You repeatedly reveal your ignorance. Chris Noble "You repeatedly say things that are demonstrably wrong. You repeatedly reveal your ignorance." If Iconoclaster is so demonstrably wrong and repeatedly reveals his ignorance, why the hell are you spending so much time on him? If what you say is true, then you shouldn't be wasting so much time and energy on Iconoclaster. The fact that there are reams of posts from you, attempting to refute every little minute point or detail he brings up speaks volumes. > "You repeatedly say things that are demonstrably wrong. You repeatedly > reveal your ignorance." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The fact that there are reams of posts from you, attempting to refute > every little minute point or detail he brings up speaks volumes. You meant to say, "The fact that there are reams of posts from you, that refute every little minute point or detail he (claster) brings up speaks volumes." Yes it does speak volumes about clasters inability to absorb any new data that has been developed since his days in graduate school. Sadly his mind seems to have shut down at that point and since then been totally unable to broaden it's knowledge base. Gary Stein >"Yes it does speak volumes about clasters inability to absorb any new data that has been developed since his days in graduate school. Sadly his mind seems to have shut down at that point and since then been totally unable to broaden it's knowledge base." Oh come now, Mr. Stein! You put 29 papers on my plate once, and I did absorb them. Had to spit them out again, sorry to say, because there were lots of things wrong with them. But it's not really necessary to read up on most of this stuff. You guys make it soooo easy for us. Who needs graduate school? 9-year old Susie can kick your butts. > "You repeatedly say things that are demonstrably wrong. You repeatedly > reveal your ignorance." > > If Iconoclaster is so demonstrably wrong and repeatedly reveals his > ignorance, why the hell are you spending so much time on him? That is a very good question. Indeed most people that are far more intelligent than me do ignore people like him. I should learn something too. > If what you say is true, then you shouldn't be wasting so much time and > energy on Iconoclaster. Thank you for the advice. I will take you up on it. > The fact that there are reams of posts from you, attempting to refute > every little minute point or detail he brings up speaks volumes. Have you read "Intelligent Design" websites. You will also find comments there saying that Darwinists spend so much time attempting to discredit ID they must be afraid. This proves that the holes in "Darwinism" are now getting so big that the whole theory is about to collapse. Hell, you don't even have to be an expert in biology to see all the flaws in the theory. Iconoclaster asserts that HIV does not exist without providing any justifiable reasons for this belief. When he does provide reasons such as "viruses don't generally mutate" he is invariably wrong. You may call this a minute point but it is not. RNA viruses lack a proof reading mechanism to correct the errors inherent in all polymerase enzymes. Sometimes the wrong base is added. All RNA viruses have high mutation rates. I have provided numerous examples of viruses such as influenza and polio that have comparable mutation rates to HIV. Iconoclaster simply repeates his initial claim and provides no evidence to support his case. At this stage there will be know people with scientific training in a biological field that take him seriously. You can choose to beleive him or not. Chris Noble "Have you read "Intelligent Design" websites. You will also find comments there saying that Darwinists spend so much time attempting to discredit ID they must be afraid. This proves that the holes in "Darwinism" are now getting so big that the whole theory is about to collapse. Hell, you don't even have to be an expert in biology to see all the flaws in the theory." Chris, I've never looked at any "Intelligent Design" websites. I couldn't care less if there's some sort of debate going on between Darwinists and the Intelligent Design folks. I doubt that you're afraid of Iconoclaster, but you've really spent a good deal of time and energy debating/discussing with him. There must be a reason or two for that. "Iconoclaster asserts that HIV does not exist without providing any justifiable reasons for this belief. When he does provide reasons such as "viruses don't generally mutate" he is invariably wrong. You may call this a minute point but it is not. RNA viruses lack a proof reading mechanism to correct the errors inherent in all polymerase enzymes. Sometimes the wrong base is added. All RNA viruses have high mutation rates. I have provided numerous examples of viruses such as influenza and polio that have comparable mutation rates to HIV." "Iconoclaster simply repeates his initial claim and provides no evidence to support his case. At this stage there will be know people with scientific training in a biological field that take him seriously. You can choose to beleive him or not." You two can debate the point about mutation all you like. Whether you or Iconoclaster "wins", I doubt that I'll suddenly become convinced that HIV causes AIDS. "wilyretrovirus" <purfling@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message > You two can debate the point about mutation all you like. Whether you or > Iconoclaster "wins", I doubt that I'll suddenly become convinced that HIV > causes AIDS. There is one vote for the ham sandwich. > "Have you read "Intelligent Design" websites. You will also find comments > there saying that Darwinists spend so much time attempting to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > care less if there's some sort of debate going on between Darwinists and > the Intelligent Design folks. The point that I am making is that people that see "Intelligent Design" as a political/religous movement that has a number of negative consequences are faced with a serious dilemma. Do you ignore them? In that case IDers claim that "Darwinists" are afraid of a debate because they know that evolution is full of holes. Do you spend time dealing with the specific claims made by IDers. In that case IDers claim that this proves that "Darwinists" are afraid and that evolution is full of holes. The analogy with HIV "dissidents" is obvious. The reason I use analogies often is that they enable people to see the issue in perspective. > I doubt that you're afraid of Iconoclaster, > but you've really spent a good deal of time and energy debating/discussing > with him. There must be a reason or two for that. There are several reasons. Firstly I think it is good to respond to specific claims by people like Iconocluster. That being said people like Iconocluster rarely make any specific claims. My hope is that there are people out there who may be skeptical of "HIV science" who read what I post and then think that maybe they should also be skeptical of what the "HIV dissidents" say. Iconocluster is demonstrably wrong in many of his arguments for the non-existence of HIV. I don't expect you to take my word that there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of HIV but I also would like to think that you also apply the same skepticism to people like Iconocluster. I respect the decisions that people diagnosed with HIV infection make about their own health even if I do not think they are bcked by the available evidence. There are long term non-progressors. All ARVs have differing degrees of side-effects that can be extremely serious. None of them can clear all HIV from the body. Everybody has to make their own decision. That decision can and should change when someone's health changes. I hope that everyone keeps an open mind. What does annoy me is when people like Iconocluster who has not been diagnosed with HIV infection starts telling people to ignore their doctors and not to take ARV. I have absolutely no respect for people like that. > "Iconoclaster asserts that HIV does not exist without providing any > justifiable reasons for this belief. When he does provide reasons such [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Iconoclaster "wins", I doubt that I'll suddenly become convinced that HIV > causes AIDS. Thanks for being honest. There is probably little I could say to convince you. The scientific arguments are technical. I do understand how your personal experience has determined your opinions. I also respect your opinions although I think they are not supported by the overall evidence. I hope you also respect the opinions of people who have had different experiences to you. Some people who post to this newsgroup have been critically ill before they started taking ARVs. Since taking ARVs for many years they have been well. I hope that the people you know who are HIV+ continue to keep their health. If they have been HIV+ for 20+ years and still have high CD4+ counts then it would seem certain that they are indeed long-term non-progressors. I hope that if they do begin to progress to AIDS that they keep an open mind about treatment. They may still decide not to take ARVs and I would personally understand that decision. Chris Noble >"My hope is that there are people out there who may be skeptical of "HIV science" who read what I post and then think that maybe they should also be skeptical of what the "HIV dissidents" say." Just when I thought we would never agree on anything, you came through. Getting people to think for themselves is also my goal. I'm not looking for my own flock of disciples. I'm in complete agreement with your statement. >"What does annoy me is when people like Iconocluster who has not been diagnosed with HIV infection starts telling people to ignore their doctors and not to take ARV." I'll discourage anybody who is about to commit suicide from actually doing it. But the final decision is not mine. But why should all the information be one-sided? Somebody who is fearing for his or her life should have *all* the available information, not just the orthodox line. You say something like "well, the ARV's have some nasty side-effects, but they postpone the moment when you die of AIDS" (I hope I represented your view correctly). I, on the other hand, say: "Those nasty effects of the ARV's are not side effects, but the main effects. And dying from ARV's is more terrifying than dying from any of the AIDS diseases. Get treated for what ailment you *really* have. Forget about AIDS." Now if everybody would frame those words and hang them over his bed... >I'll discourage anybody who is about to commit suicide from actually doing >it. But the final decision is not mine. To the contrary--you will try to discourage people from using medications that will save their lives. And they wind up dead, like David Pasquarelli, if they buy your sibilant lies and your abject ignorance >"And they wind up dead, like David Pasquarelli, if they buy your sibilant lies and your abject ignorance" We've been through this before. Pasquarelli didn't die until het had decided to take the toxic drugs after all. >>"And they wind up dead, like David Pasquarelli, if they buy your sibilant > lies and your abject > ignorance" > > We've been through this before. Pasquarelli didn't die until het had > decided to take the toxic drugs after all. That guy that was killed by lightning a few weeks ago didn't get hit until he went out to play golf. Therefore, playing golf means you'll get hit by lightning. B/ > >"And they wind up dead, like David Pasquarelli, if they buy your sibilant > lies and your abject > ignorance" > > We've been through this before. Pasquarelli didn't die until het had > decided to take the toxic drugs after all. Sure, the PCP, anemia, thrush, meningitis, mycobacterium and CMV that occured before he started taking ARVs had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with his death. He could have just popped an aspirin and been better the next day. Chris Noble >"Sure, the PCP, anemia, thrush, meningitis, mycobacterium and CMV that occured before he started taking ARVs had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with his death. He could have just popped an aspirin and been better the next day." Well now, that's not exactly what I claimed. I never knew the man, but I assume that he was in bad health already. And then, at the last moment, the ARV's pushed him over the edge. He should have taken an aspirin instead. Not that I think that would have done him any good, but it still would have been better than toxic ARV's. > >"Sure, the PCP, anemia, thrush, meningitis, mycobacterium and CMV that > occured before he started taking ARVs had absolutely nothing whatsoever [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > instead. Not that I think that would have done him any good, but it still > would have been better than toxic ARV's. So the PCP, anemia, thrush, meningitis, mycobacterium and CMV were just some wild coincidence? Who exactly are you trying to delude with this nonsense? Chris Noble "So the PCP, anemia, thrush, meningitis, mycobacterium and CMV were just some wild coincidence?" Geez, Chris, is that all they could get on him? I'm sure if they tried a little harder they could have diagnosed him with a few more choices from the "AIDS" smorgasbord. I wonder how many illnesses they could pin on Christine Maggiore if they got their dirty little mitts on her? Not sorry really, if I don't think there's much, if any integrity involved when it comes to "HIV/AIDS". > "So the PCP, anemia, thrush, meningitis, mycobacterium and CMV were just > some wild coincidence?" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Not sorry really, if I don't think there's much, if any integrity involved > when it comes to "HIV/AIDS". and like the Bushistas, you say things just to say them. B/ Chris, I thought you weren't going to respond to any of Iconoclaster's posts anymore? I don't want you to stop responding, though. I knew you couldn't resist for long. > Chris, > I thought you weren't going to respond to any of Iconoclaster's posts > anymore? > > I don't want you to stop responding, though. I knew you couldn't resist > for long. You-all are like a 20-car pileup. You hate yourself for it, but you just can't stop watching. B/ >"So the PCP, anemia, thrush, meningitis, mycobacterium and CMV were just some wild coincidence?" No coincidence there. But some people, among which gay men (certainly not all of them) were engaging in a dangerous and irresponsible lifestyle. And they had a whole babyboomer generation behind them, trying to tell everybody that drugs are not bad for you. They were wrong. Drugs are bed for you. Not only heroin, cocaine, amphetamines and XRC, but also valium, prozac, and all other kinds of mindfucking drugs. And let's not forget ARV's. But this group would never admit they had been wrong and stupid (talk about denialists!) They would rather shirk their responsibility by accepting a mystery killer virus that some greedy bastard had pulled out of his hat, so they could blame their ill health on that virus, and go on taking more drugs. Just ask yourself this question: Now who's being delusional here? > >"So the PCP, anemia, thrush, meningitis, mycobacterium and CMV were just > some wild coincidence?" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > prozac, and all other kinds of mindfucking drugs. And let's not forget > ARV's. Are you trying to say that David Pasquarelli was on heroin or cocaine or amphetamines etc? Any evidence? Or are you so desperate to come up with an alternative explanation that you will make up any crap about him that you want. Do you want to email David's partner and ask him whether David was taking drugs? > But this group would never admit they had been wrong and stupid (talk > about denialists!) They would rather shirk their responsibility by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Just ask yourself this question: Now who's being delusional here? You. Chris Noble "Are you trying to say that David Pasquarelli was on heroin or cocaine or amphetamines etc? Any evidence? Or are you so desperate to come up with an alternative explanation that you will make up any crap about him that you want. Do you want to email David's partner and ask him whether David was taking drugs?" Unfortunately, David's ACTUP brethren have been very tight-lipped about what lead up to David's passing. David reached a sort of warrior/hero status amongst some dissidents. I doubt that his cohorts would be willing to come forward and let us all know what he was up to health-wise, lest he fall from his pedestal. They're not doing the rest of us any favors with their silence. I'm not worried about anybody being a "hero". I just want the madness to end. So, despite how many times Georgy-poo invokes the name of his favorite dead dissident, I'll remain unconvinced that Mr. Pasquarelli died from the effects of a pretend retrovirus. We're missing some pieces of that puzzle, and I'd be willing to bet the folks at ACTUP have those pieces. > "Are you trying to say that David Pasquarelli was on heroin or cocaine or > amphetamines etc? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > fall from his pedestal. They're not doing the rest of us any favors with > their silence. After David died an explanation of the "true" cause of his death was being promised to come out. That was almost 2 years ago. You can make up any story you want but the only people you will convince are yourself and others that don't want to consider the possibility that HIV killed David Pasquarelli. > I'm not worried about anybody being a "hero". I just want the madness to > end. So, despite how many times Georgy-poo invokes the name of his > favorite dead dissident, I'll remain unconvinced that Mr. Pasquarelli died > from the effects of a pretend retrovirus. We're missing some pieces of > that puzzle, and I'd be willing to bet the folks at ACTUP have those > pieces. Why don't you pursue the truth? You claim to be interested in the truth but there is this code of silence amongst Denialists that prevents them from asking questions about HIV+ people that die with very rare diseases like PCP and KS. Chris Noble "After David died an explanation of the "true" cause of his death was being promised to come out. That was almost 2 years ago." Yes, probably for the reason I mentioned. Don't know though as his friends remain tight-lipped. "You can make up any story you want but the only people you will convince are yourself and others that don't want to consider the possibility that HIV killed David Pasquarelli." I'm not making up any stories about what killed him. Like I said, I bet the folks at ACTUP have more than a clue about this. Yeah, I do wonder how an ordinary retrovirus (didn't you call it that?) can wreak so much profitable havoc. I wonder even more how a pretend retrovirus can do all the damage attributed to it. "Why don't you pursue the truth? You claim to be interested in the truth but there is this code of silence amongst Denialists that prevents them from asking questions about HIV+ people that die with very rare diseases like PCP and KS." Yes, I'm interested in knowing more about David Pasquarelli. I doubt I'll get very far with his friends at ACTUP. I'm sure I've stepped on some toes with my various posts about Pasquarelli here and there. Time will tell, I hope. I must have missed the meeting about the "denialist code of silence"...along with the secret handshake. >"but there is this code of silence amongst Denialists that prevents them from asking questions about HIV+ people that die with very rare diseases like PCP and KS." On the contrary. As you must have noticed, we love asking questions. Wily already asked you how you figure a retrovirus manages to destroy these immune cells and cause all those diseases. PCP and KS very rare? Hardly. KS has been convincingly linked to the use of poppers. The incidence of KS has sharply decreased with the use of poppers. PCP is not all that rare. It grabs its chance when all the bacterial pathogens have been killed off. Does prophylactive use of antibiotics ring a bell? >>"but there is this code of silence amongst Denialists that prevents them >from asking questions about HIV+ people that die with very rare diseases [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >PCP and KS very rare? Hardly. KS has been convincingly linked to the use >of poppers. Bullshit. You have no data for that. No data to support the ludicrous assertion that PCP is common. > The incidence of KS has sharply decreased with the use of >poppers. What the f.ck are you babbling about? Where did you get the idea poppers use has decreased? >PCP is not all that rare. It grabs its chance when all the >bacterial pathogens have been killed off. Does prophylactive use of >antibiotics ring a bell? WHY would anyone need prophylaxis? Unless maybe HIV infection had resulted in the CD4 count dropping below 200. Do you enjoy being SO vastly f.cking stupid and displaying it nonstop? George M. Carter >"Bullshit. You have no data for that. No data to support the ludicrous assertion that PCP is common." We've been through this before. M.D.'s are not research scientists. When they get a patient with pneumonia, they start him on antibiotics. Only when none of the antibiotics work, does it occur to them that the cause could be non-bacterial. Unfortunately, some patients have already died in the meantime. >"What the f.ck are you babbling about? Where did you get the idea poppers use has decreased?" Maybe it has not decreased in New York. I have not gotten any reports from the bathhouses there. But I just heard from someone who was in San Francisco. He wrote me that poppers/alcohol has now been largely replaced by crystal meth/alcohol. Hardly an improvement, but I think the use of poppers has decreased, at least on the West Coast. >"WHY would anyone need prophylaxis? Unless maybe HIV infection had resulted in the CD4 count dropping below 200." You're missing the point entirely, as usual. Forget "HIV infection". That doesn't exist, so that's not what I meant. A lot of people with frequent sexual contacts (both gay and straight) got into the bad habit of using antibiotics as prophylaxis, to ward off sexually transmissible diseases (I mean the real ones, that actually exist). This is pretty dumb behavior. The antibiotics may knock out the bacteria, but fungi get a better chance that way. So PCP becomes more prevalent. I know I'll never get through your thick skull, but maybe this will get the silent lurkers to start thinking. >>"Bullshit. You have no data for that. No data to support the ludicrous >assertion that PCP is common." > >We've been through this before. M.D.'s are not research scientists. Some are. This is yet another massively brain hemorrhaged stupid argument. f.ck, you are so goddamned stupid it is difficult to believe you have the gall to ever open your mouth in public. You must be a repugnican. George M. Carter > >"Bullshit. You have no data for that. No data to support the ludicrous > assertion that PCP is common." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > could be non-bacterial. Unfortunately, some patients have already died in > the meantime. George was asking for data not something that the voices in your head tell you. You may be surprised but science doesn't work by saying "because I say so". If you are going to claim that PCP is in fact common then come up with some evidence. Bullshit^n =/= data Chris Noble > >"Bullshit. You have no data for that. No data to support the ludicrous > assertion that PCP is common." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > could be non-bacterial. Unfortunately, some patients have already died in > the meantime. You can repeat this as many times as you feel the need however with out any evidence to back it up it is still just your opinion which anyone who reads your posts knows is worth about as much as the cost of posting a message to a Usenet forum Zero cents. >>"What the f.ck are you babbling about? Where did you get the idea poppers > use has decreased?" [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > behavior. The antibiotics may knock out the bacteria, but fungi get a > better chance that way. So PCP becomes more prevalent. Again where's the beef, you make a bold statement and don't back it up with any data. I challenge you to find a US physician who will prescribe antibiotics to a healthy person for prophylaxis against STD's. You of course will be unable to do so because it would be clearly outside of the 'standard of care' consensus of the American medical community and would thus expose the doctor to liability in the court system. As you are well aware in the litigious climate of the US this is something no doctor is willing to do. The knowledge that antibiotics where over used during the first few decades of there existence has been plainly understood for 20 years and it is only the growth in population that increases there sales. The Western Medical community has made successful educational efforts in discouraging doctors use of antibiotics unless there is a real need for there use. Gary Stein >"Again where's the beef, you make a bold statement and don't back it up with any data." That's what the HIV-pushers have done for more than 20 years. >"I challenge you to find a US physician who will prescribe antibiotics to a healthy person for prophylaxis against STD's." Hate to break this news to you, but there's more world outside the borders of the U.S. Ever heard of Canada? Mexico? >"The Western Medical community has made successful educational efforts in discouraging doctors use of antibiotics unless there is a real need for there use." Good! It's about time. Americans are fervent pill poppers. This overmedication must stop sometime. > >"Again where's the beef, you make a bold statement and don't back it up > with any data." [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Hate to break this news to you, but there's more world outside the borders > of the U.S. Ever heard of Canada? Mexico? Even if what you say is true (which I doubt) it says nothing about AIDS in the US which you have continuously implied is caused by the over use of antibiotics. When I showed you that this statement is patiently false you wander off and talk about Canada and Mexico..... Gary Stein >"but there is this code of silence amongst Denialists that prevents them from asking questions about HIV+ people that die with very rare diseases like PCP and KS." On the contrary. We love to ask questions. Why do you call PCP and KS very rare diseases? We've seen lots of KS when poppers were in style. And with the decrease in the use of poppers, also the incidence of KS diminished. PCP rare? Not really. Usually, a patient who is not in a "risk group for HIV" does not even get tested for it. But PCP sticks up its head whenever the bacterial pathogens have been killed off. Does prophylactic use of antibiotics ring a bell? >"Are you trying to say that David Pasquarelli was on heroin or cocaine or amphetamines etc?" I wouldn't know; I never knew him. All I know is that he got sick, fell into the hands of the HIV mafia that assumes the only ailment a gay man can ever have is AIDS. And, instead of treating whatever he really had, they finished him off with ARV's. >"Do you want to email David's partner and ask him whether David was taking drugs?" No. But maybe you want to email David's partner, to explain why you and your crowd are still gloating over David's death. I think you still don't get it. I'm not saying all gay men were taking drugs and lived an unhealthy life. It was a minority, but they were the first ones who succumbed. And a whole "epidemic" was built on just the first 5 cases by that a.shole Michael Gottlieb. I'm also not saying the straights didn't do drugs or didn't live in an irresponsible way. I've known many of them too. But the straights were not targeted for extinction, as the gays were. Without the invention of AIDS, the number of deaths would have been limited to those few who drove their bodies faster than a human body can endure. And their grieving buddies would have seen the light (well, at least most of them), and would have moderated their lifestyle. End of story. But "AIDS" changed all that. A hetero who got sick in the late eighties would get treated for the very ailment he had. Not so for a gay man. He would get tested for "HIV", and if found positive (from whatever cause), he would be put to death with high doses of AZT. And the Moronic Majority said: "Gee, a lot of people are dying from AIDS". And bingo! An epidemic that only strikes gay men and drug addicts (the hemophiliacs were just dragged in on their coattails). Now, isn't it ironic that you and the resident stooges on this forum are desperately trying to keep the HIV/AIDS scam going, while I, a complete outsider, have to stand up for a gay community that's too gullible to see that their own buddies are aiding and abetting a bunch of extremely evil people who are hellbent on eradicating them? But that's me. I'll always support the underdog. > >"Are you trying to say that David Pasquarelli was on heroin or cocaine or > amphetamines etc?" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can ever have is AIDS. And, instead of treating whatever he really had, > they finished him off with ARV's. How do you know they didn't treat the opportunistic infections? > >"Do you want to email David's partner and ask him whether David was > taking drugs?" > > No. But maybe you want to email David's partner, to explain why you and > your crowd are still gloating over David's death. Nobody is gloating over his death. I am expressing disgust for the people that told David that HIV doesn't cause AIDS and that everything will be OK. Denialists like you are the ones showing disrespect for David by making up stories about him being on drugs. Paul King made up lots of stories about David and was corrected by David's partner Steve Huggins http://tinyurl.com/r4dum ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PaulKing is wrong and has no knowledge of David's health choices. David did not die of heart failure, or liver failure (as PaulKing has posted elsewhere), and he did not take HAART for many years before he was a dissident. David died from advancing CMV (Cytomegalovirus) infection in his CNS (Central Nervous System - spine and brain). He did take Viramune and Trizivir for a few months shortly before his death. I am David's partner of seven years and participated in every aspect of his health decisions. Please feel free to email me with any questions or questionable posts you may see about him. Thanks, Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Noble >"How do you know they didn't treat the opportunistic infections?" I have no direct knowledge of that. But generally, they don't, if the patient is a gay man. Steve Huggins mentioned Dave was treated with Viramune and Trizivir for a few months. He also said Dave died of CMV infection. Well, do you think Viramune and Trizivir constitute the right treatment for CMV infections? Peter Duesberg would call this "shooting at bunny rabbits with nuclear warheads." CMV is not exactly a deadly virus feared by everybody. They just slaughtered the poor guy because they hated him. >"Denialists like you are the ones showing disrespect for David by making up stories about him being on drugs." I never made up those stories. Everybody gets sick once in a while. But David Pasquarelli could have walked into that hospital with nothing worse than a bad cold, and he wouldn't have gotten out alive. My disrespect is not aimed at him, but at the quacks who treated him. > >"How do you know they didn't treat the opportunistic infections?" > > I have no direct knowledge of that. But generally, they don't, if the > patient is a gay man. Bullshit. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5315.pdf > Steve Huggins mentioned Dave was treated with Viramune and Trizivir for a > few months. He also said Dave died of CMV infection. Well, do you think > Viramune and Trizivir constitute the right treatment for CMV infections? > Peter Duesberg would call this "shooting at bunny rabbits with nuclear > warheads." CMV is not exactly a deadly virus feared by everybody. They > just slaughtered the poor guy because they hated him. CMV is rarely serious if you are not immunosuppressed. If you are going to make claims about the doctors purposefully killing David then take them to court. You might have to find proof for your unsubstantiated claims though. > >"Denialists like you are the ones showing disrespect for David by making > up stories about him being on drugs." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > than a bad cold, and he wouldn't have gotten out alive. My disrespect is > not aimed at him, but at the quacks who treated him. You were the one who brought up the subject of heroin and cocaine when we were talking about David Pasquarelli. Chris Noble >"If you are going to make claims about the doctors purposefully killing David then take them to court." I have no legal standing. I have never even known him. >>"So the PCP, anemia, thrush, meningitis, mycobacterium and CMV were just >some wild coincidence?" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >And they had a whole babyboomer generation behind them, trying to tell >everybody that drugs are not bad for you. oh, what a COMPLETE f.cking load of crap. A LOT of gay men I know that died of AIDS didn't do drugs. And a LOT of straight people I know did LOTS of drugs. This is the most f.cking homophobic, brain dead asinine, unsupported bullshit theory to ever hit the universe. Duesberg is a f.cking quack. Look, if ANY recreational drug caused AIDS, it would be meth. Meth labs are everywhere and NOT limited to gay men by any stretch of the imagination. There is NO EVIDENCE that ANY recreational drug causes CD4 counts to decline to zero. They can definitely f.ck you up or kill you--especially drugs like alcohol and tobacco. But they don't cause AIDS. George M. Carter >"This is the most f.cking homophobic, brain dead asinine, unsupported bullshit theory to ever hit the universe." Whoa! Wait a minute! A homophobic theory? Coming from me? You must be confusing me with 'Death'. I am the guy who has been trying to tell gay men that the whole AIDS (or GRID) scam started out as a direct attack on the gay community. The greedy pharma companies only got into the act later, when Africa was dangled before their noses. Of course there are stupid people in every social group, but someone who is gay and, after 21 years of being cheated and duped, still doesn't know that the AIDS orthodoxy is up to no good, must be exceptionally stupid. And then to think that there are folks like you, Mr. Carter, who have sold out to the enemy, and continue this fraud by driving buddies into the claws of the HIV mob, and to their deaths by poisoning. >"A LOT of gay men I know that died of AIDS didn't do drugs. And a LOT of straight people I know did LOTS of drugs." Yeah, I used to know a lot of gay men who said they didn't use drugs. Also a lot of straights who used drugs, and wrecked their bodies. I mentioned people who would rather blame some occult virus for their ailments than admit it were the drugs that did them in. And YOU are exactly that type, Mr. Carter. Always blaming outside forces when you screw up. >"Look, if ANY recreational drug caused AIDS, it would be meth. Meth labs are everywhere and NOT limited to gay men by any stretch of the imagination." You're absolutely right about this. And I heard from somebody who just came back from San Francisco that crystal meth is now the most used drug in combination with alcohol there. Hardly an improvement over poppers and alcohol. >"There is NO EVIDENCE that ANY recreational drug causes CD4 counts to decline to zero." This whole CD4 counting business is a load of crap. CD4+ T-cells exist, of course, but the immunologists don't know yet what the hell's going on. There is NO EVIDENCE that CD4-levels are in any way related to any kind of disease. And you can take your CD4 cells and stick 'em... Oh well, you know where to stick things. >>"This is the most f.cking homophobic, brain dead asinine, unsupported >bullshit theory to ever hit the universe." > >Whoa! Wait a minute! A homophobic theory? Coming from me? You must be >confusing me with 'Death'. Not in the slightest. Everything you write screams "BIGOT" much tho you might try to hide it. Or--being a denialist par excellence--unaware of your own abiding prejudices and ignorance. George M. Carter >>"And they wind up dead, like David Pasquarelli, if they buy your sibilant >lies and your abject >ignorance" > >We've been through this before. Pasquarelli didn't die until het had >decided to take the toxic drugs after all. Wow. That's compassionate. So the PCP and cryptococcal meningitis are normal diseases in young male adults in the US? Huh. I'm sure you have all the cites and references to back that theory up, don't you? > And dying from ARV's is > more terrifying than dying from any of the AIDS diseases. Get treated for > what ailment you *really* have. Forget about AIDS." > Now if everybody would frame those words and hang them over his bed... Now that's about the biggest load of crap you've posted here to date Claster. As someone who almost died 3 times before I started ARV I can tell you first hand that your full of sh.t. I will take the side effects of ARV (which I have been taking daily for a decade) over laying in a hospital bed wondering if this breath will be my last any day. Gary Stein >"As someone who almost died 3 times before I started ARV I can tell you first hand that your full of sh.t. I will take the side effects of ARV (which I have been taking daily for a decade) over laying in a hospital bed wondering if this breath will be my last any day." I'm sory to hear that. As I said before, I wish you well. You must be a very strong, healthy individual, being able to take that crap for so long and still be alive. But I'm convinced you would be doing better yet if you quit the ARV's. I know somebody here who quit the drugs, and she's doing much better now than when she was still taking them. These poisons are the same stuff they're using for cancer chemotherapy. I've seen people die with dignity from cancer, and I've seen people die like poisoned rats from cancer chemotherapy, stripped of anything that even remotely reminded me of a human being. I may get cancer some day (who can tell?), but my choice is already made - no chemotherapy. AIDS is out of the question, of course. I'll never get that, because it's a fraud. > "Have you read "Intelligent Design" websites. You will also find comments > there saying that Darwinists spend so much time attempting to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > but you've really spent a good deal of time and energy debating/discussing > with him. There must be a reason or two for that. Yes honest people have a hard time ignoring liars, thus when someone like Iconclaster shows up here and consistently lies, misrepresents, obfuscates, and overall attempts to use disinformation to convince people of his wild eyed theories about HIV honest intelligent people push back at him. > "Iconoclaster asserts that HIV does not exist without providing any > justifiable reasons for this belief. When he does provide reasons such [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Iconoclaster "wins", I doubt that I'll suddenly become convinced that HIV > causes AIDS. Just for grins what would convince you? Gary Stein "Yes honest people have a hard time ignoring liars, thus when someone like Iconclaster shows up here and consistently lies, misrepresents, obfuscates, and overall attempts to use disinformation to convince people of his wild eyed theories about HIV honest intelligent people push back at him." Gary, thank you, you made me laugh. >You two can debate the point about mutation all >you like. Whether you or Iconoclaster "wins", I >doubt that I'll suddenly become convinced that >HIV causes AIDS. "Just for grins what would convince you?" Well, Gary, your "team" has had almost 22 years now to convince/brainwash me that HIV causes AIDS. I may have an answer to your question, though. I think if I sustained some sort of horrific, irreparable head injury that left me practically retarded, you might be able to convince me that HIV causes AIDS. I'd have to lose much of my ability to reason and think critically before I was able to swallow all of the tripe that comes from the orthodox view on "AIDS". Just for grins, Gary, kiss my hairy a.s. >"I think if I sustained some sort of horrific, irreparable head injury..." Or, maybe, a co-infection with the .357Magnum Virus? > ... I may have an answer to your question, though. I think if > I sustained some sort of horrific, irreparable head injury that left me > practically retarded, you might be able to convince me that HIV causes > AIDS. See, Gary, that's the difference between that mindset and ours. If someone came along with properly documented and convincing evidence that the denialist POV actually had been accurate... we'd be accepting it. B/ I was thinking the same thing. Odd how the denialists claim it is the mainstream who's minds are closed but when their honest it is actually they who have the closed minds.................. Gary Stein >> ... I may have an answer to your question, though. I think if >> I sustained some sort of horrific, irreparable head injury that left me [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > B/ "I was thinking the same thing. Odd how the denialists claim it is the mainstream who's minds are closed but when their honest it is actually they who have the closed minds.................." Gary Stein <yawn> > "I was thinking the same thing. Odd how the denialists claim it is the > mainstream who's minds are closed but when their honest it is actually [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > <yawn> You must go through life half asleep, that being the only excuse for such lazy reasoning.................... Gary Stein snip >Just for grins, Gary, kiss my hairy a.s. LOL....this is about what one might expect from someone who relies utterly on faith to make his decisions. Dearest, if that hairy a.s is HIV+, you will be dead in short order and not need to worry about your brain. Wonder what ever happened to Paul Whiting? I hope he is OK! George M. Carter "Dearest, if that hairy a.s is HIV+, you will be dead in short order and not need to worry about your brain." Short order? Don't I have to wait ten years or more for "HIV's" timer to go off, signaling it to start wreaking havoc on my t-cells, or however the f.ck it's supposed to lower my t-cell count? Sorry, witchypoo, I can't be hexed by you and your imaginary retrovirus. "Wonder what ever happened to Paul Whiting? I hope he is OK!" Sure, George, I "believe" you. Salivating at the mere thought of a sick or dead dissident? As far as I know, Paul's fine, sorry to disappoint you. > Wonder what ever happened to Paul Whiting? I hope he is OK! He disappeared right after I posted a long screed talking about how the traditional medicine he so blasts (confusing pharmabiz with the practice of medicine) does and is incorporating 'alternative' medicine. B/ >> Wonder what ever happened to Paul Whiting? I hope he is OK! > >He disappeared right after I posted a long screed talking about how the >traditional medicine he so blasts (confusing pharmabiz with the practice >of medicine) does and is incorporating 'alternative' medicine. And long has been. The good part is finding out what works/helps. The bad part is the "biz" side that takes discoveries and does not reward discoverers nearly as much (sometimes not at all) as CEOs and stockholders. A clear and complete perve |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message