 |
 | 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 2007Distorted news
<http://www.greaterkashmir.com/Home/Newsdetails.asp?newsid=5995> reports: "After seeking help of religious leaders for spreading the education of killer disease AIDS, the Jammu and Kashmir AIDS prevention society plans to educate the security forces for prevention and control of the disease. This comes fore when the state AIDS Prevention control society organized a seminar wherein more than 500 CRPF men were briefed about the causes and prevention of the disease." Erm, when did AIDS become a "killer disease?" Some reporters really should do a little more research.  SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 snip >Erm, when did AIDS become a "killer disease?" Some reporters really >should do a little more research. Ask David Pasquarelli. >>Erm, when did AIDS become a "killer disease?" Some reporters really >>should do a little more research. >Ask David Pasquarelli. He's dead, but that's probably your point. :) Confusingly the definition of AIDS differs between countries, but I don't think any define it as a killer disease, or even a disease. David Pasquarelli exhibited two very common reactions. Firstly, he became an HIV/AIDS activist and campaigner after receiving his diagnosis. It's quite common for people who have been diagnosed with a particular condition to 'get involved' in this way. Usually the 'afflicted' promote the cause, however David took the opposite path. Secondly, David exhibited what I call the 'God Condition.' A process whereby non-believers 'see the light' towards the end of their life. I saw this in a friend who died recently of something totally unconnected with HIV and AIDS. Throughout his life he had no belief in God, but right at the very end he 'let God into his life'. It's quite sad when people abandon their beliefs in this way, but it does happen. On the other side of the coin there are those who have championed the HIV=AIDS=Death cause, but later switch to the other side of the debate. So it does work both ways. SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 >>>Erm, when did AIDS become a "killer disease?" Some reporters really >>>should do a little more research. > >>Ask David Pasquarelli. > >He's dead, but that's probably your point. :) Yes. He died of AIDS. Because HIV infection resulted directly and indirectly in a depletion of CD4 count until he got otherwise rare opportunistic infections which killed him. Which is precisely what will happen to you unless you wise up and stop believing the right wing bullshit and lies you've embraced. I do not wish you dead. Quite to the contrary. George M. Carter > On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 14:08:18 +0100, "HIV Positive" > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > indirectly in a depletion of CD4 count until he got otherwise rare > opportunistic infections which killed him. The assumption here is that HIV causes the depletion of CD4 cell count which is the basic mantra of the HIV=AID$ industry. Current medical research shows that this assumption is wrong and has been wrong for 20 years. See JAMA rodriguez sept 27 2006 in which there HIV viral load is not predictive of CD4 cell count decline. HIV is a benign retrovirus which does not kill CD4 cells. Death from AIDS is caused by cytotoxic drugs used to treat HIV. > Which is precisely what will happen to you unless you wise up and stop > believing the right wing bullshit and lies you've embraced. > > I do not wish you dead. Quite to the contrary. > > George M. Carter The witch doctor carter shakes his rattle, but to no avail. LIFE IS HERE. see: http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com/ http://www.duesberg.com/ rocketscience >See JAMA rodriguez sept 27 2006 in which there HIV viral load is not >predictive of CD4 cell count decline. That's a good point. For me, at least, there's no correlation between CD4 count and 'viral load' what-so-ever. I don't think anyone is really sure what 'viral load' measures, anyway. But it gives pretty inaccurate results whatever it is. SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 >>See JAMA rodriguez sept 27 2006 in which there HIV viral load is not >>predictive of CD4 cell count decline. > >That's a good point. For me, at least, there's no correlation between >CD4 count and 'viral load' what-so-ever. That's a complete distortion of the Rodriguez data. This has been underscored before. That does NOT support your point--to the contrary. > On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:30:57 +0100, "HIVPositive" > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That does NOT support your point--to the contrary. Yes it does: here is the paper: "greater than 90% amount of HIV disease progression and pathogenesis is due to factors other than viral load." authors quote. Anyone can read for themselves the paper which shows that CD4 decline is not predicted by viral load. This is not the only paper. There are many others. This has been going on for 20 years and we know by now the truth please. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/8/805 Presenting Plasma HIV RNA Level and Rate of CD4 T-Cell Decline To the Editor: The study by Dr Rodriguez and colleagues1 concludes that presenting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) plasma RNA viral load only minimally predicts the rate of CD4 cell decline in individuals with HIV infection and hypothesizes that a significant (>90%) amount of HIV disease progression and pathogenesis is *****due to factors other than viral load.****** The results are portrayed as casting doubt on the utility of an early viral load measurement to predict disease outcome in individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Presenting HIV RNA level predicts the rate of CD4 cell decline only minimally in untreated persons. Other factors, as yet undefined, likely drive CD4 cell losses in HIV infection. http://www.aidsfraudvideo.com Important video relating to HIV and AIDS. rocketscience >> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:30:57 +0100, "HIVPositive" >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >disease progression and pathogenesis is >due to factors other than viral load." authors quote. THAT is not the same as saying that HIV does not cause AIDS. As I have been saying on this NG for over a goddamned decade, the stupidity of HIV denialists is that it deflects from GENUINE issues. Such as HOW does HIV cause AIDS? This isn't even news (except maybe to John Mellors). And again it does NOT mean--nor do the authors suggest, imply or anywhere state the contention, that HIV does not exist or does not cause AIDS. That's a typically denialist misreading--disingenuous or otherwise. George M. Carter >As I have been saying on this NG for over a goddamned decade, the >stupidity of HIV denialists is that it deflects from GENUINE issues. > >Such as HOW does HIV cause AIDS? There are at least two questions that need to be answered before that: Does HIV exist? Does HIV cause (or lead to) AIDS? And I don't think "HIV denialists" deflect from any issues. It's not as if they receive any of the money spent on HIV/AIDS research or get much press coverage. Few people know there are those who question the HIV=AIDS=Death hypothesis. It's lack of questioning that's got us into this HIV=AIDS=Death mess. In 1984 Dr Robert Gallo announced to the world he had discovered the cause of AIDS: HIV. Unfortunately no one bothered to question his theory. And even now, 23 years later, after he's known to be a liar and thief people still continue with believing his 'research.' SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 >>As I have been saying on this NG for over a goddamned decade, the >>stupidity of HIV denialists is that it deflects from GENUINE issues. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Does HIV exist? Yes. Even Peter Duesberg knows that. >Does HIV cause (or lead to) AIDS? Yes. snipping the same old lame crap that has led too many down the rosy path to AIDS and an early death. Will you be next? George M. Carter >On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:19:13 +0100, "HIV Positive" >>There are at least two questions that need to be answered before that: >> >>Does HIV exist? >Yes. Even Peter Duesberg knows that. I bet you're not so keen to go along with all his other ideas. :) >>Does HIV cause (or lead to) AIDS? >Yes. >snipping the same old lame crap that has led too many down the rosy >path to AIDS and an early death. > >Will you be next? No. SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 >>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:19:13 +0100, "HIV Positive" >>>There are at least two questions that need to be answered before that: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I bet you're not so keen to go along with all his other ideas. :) His other ideas are idiotic. Drugs cause AIDS? I'd know one HELL of a lot of dead straight people if that were the case. His claim that an antibody response means everything is hunky dory is just f.cking breathtakingly wrong. You think he's an idiot? Do you think HIV exists or not. >>>Does HIV cause (or lead to) AIDS? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >No. I hope not but I sadly think you will. George M. Carter >>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:19:13 +0100, "HIV Positive" >>>>There are at least two questions that need to be answered before that: >>>> >>>>Does HIV exist? >>>Yes. Even Peter Duesberg knows that. >>I bet you're not so keen to go along with all his other ideas. :) >His other ideas are idiotic. Drugs cause AIDS? I'd know one HELL of a >lot of dead straight people if that were the case. His claim that an >antibody response means everything is hunky dory is just f.cking >breathtakingly wrong. I thought you'd have a bit of a problem going along with the rest of his claims. >You think he's an idiot? I've read some of his Inventing the AIDS Virus book, seen him being interviewed and listened to some of the radio shows he's been on. I'm not entirely sure what to make of him. It's difficult to just toss aside his qualifications and knowledge, but I think his pet theory that recreational drug use causes AIDS is just as difficult to believe as the HIV=AIDS=Death theory. I think like you, and the orthodox HIV/AID view, Duesberg has closed his mind and has tunnel vision. I also get the feeling that Duesberg enjoys his 'dissident' status. Perhaps he's just making the most of what he's got left. He's forever moaning about having no students, no grant money and not being invited to any parties. I wonder what he does all day at the University of California in Berkeley? Okay, there's what I think about Peter Duesberg. Now tell me, what do you think about Robert Gallo? >Do you think HIV exists or not. I have been asked that question here before and answered it. On that occasion my first answer was rejected and I was forced into replying 'yes' or 'no.' Sometimes things aren't as simple as that, however giving the choice between those two words I choose 'no.' HIV is defined the virus that causes AIDS. I think that is a statement you would agree with. I do not believe it is true. I do not believe that having a few specific proteins in my blood which react to some pre-determined enzymes means I *will* get one of the conditions listed here: <http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002279/>. And if HIV doesn't cause AIDS, HIV can't be HIV because HIV causes AIDS. >>>>Does HIV cause (or lead to) AIDS? >>>Yes. >>>Will you be next? >>No. >I hope not but I sadly think you will. The only way I will get AIDS is by going to the US. Me and my <100 CD4 count are AIDS free here in Europe, but in the US we'd be an AIDS statistic. SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 >>>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:19:13 +0100, "HIV Positive" >>>>>There are at least two questions that need to be answered before that: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >I thought you'd have a bit of a problem going along with the rest of >his claims. You were right. >>You think he's an idiot? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >orthodox HIV/AID view, Duesberg has closed his mind and has tunnel >vision. Well, we agree on some things. >I also get the feeling that Duesberg enjoys his 'dissident' status. >Perhaps he's just making the most of what he's got left. He's forever >moaning about having no students, no grant money and not being invited >to any parties. I wonder what he does all day at the University of >California in Berkeley? And what his income is there. And why they keep paying him at all. Tenure, I suppose. >Okay, there's what I think about Peter Duesberg. > >Now tell me, what do you think about Robert Gallo? An arrogant fellow, no doubt. I have far more respect and liking for Luc Montagnier and Francoise Barre-Sinoussi and Jay Levy, the folks who actually discovered HIV. >>Do you think HIV exists or not. > >I have been asked that question here before and answered it. On that >occasion my first answer was rejected and I was forced into replying >'yes' or 'no.' Sometimes things aren't as simple as that, however >giving the choice between those two words I choose 'no.' Then really, you'd have to say that no infectious disease exists. The techniques used to identify HIV are the same used for many viruses. >HIV is defined the virus that causes AIDS. I think that is a >statement you would agree with. I do not believe it is true. I do >not believe that having a few specific proteins in my blood which >react to some pre-determined enzymes means I *will* get one of the >conditions listed here: <http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002279/>. Then you are deluded. What I believe is that HIV infection results through direct and, more often, indirect, mechanisms in the depletion of CD4+ T lymphocytes. This in turn results in the susceptibility to the types of infections and diseases listed above. These proteins in your blood are not found in HIV uninfected individuals. HIV-negative individuals do not, with VERY rare exceptions, see CD4 counts plunge persistently toward zero. >And if HIV doesn't cause AIDS, HIV can't be HIV because HIV causes >AIDS. Hmf. You need lessons in logic. Your premise is faulty. >>>>>Does HIV cause (or lead to) AIDS? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >CD4 count are AIDS free here in Europe, but in the US we'd be an AIDS >statistic. I'd say you are at extremely high risk of dying within the next year unless you get treatment. George M. Carter >>I have been asked that question here before and answered it. On that >>occasion my first answer was rejected and I was forced into replying >>'yes' or 'no.' Sometimes things aren't as simple as that, however >>giving the choice between those two words I choose 'no.' >Then really, you'd have to say that no infectious disease exists. The >techniques used to identify HIV are the same used for many viruses. There is currently a discussion on one of the 'alternative' AIDS forums about that very topic. Someone appears to be arguing that viruses don't exist and we don't have or need an immune system. I'm sure there's a lot more to the argument than that. Let's just not go there, though. I'm not suggesting that viruses, in general, don't exist. >>HIV is defined the virus that causes AIDS. I think that is a >>statement you would agree with. I do not believe it is true. I do >>not believe that having a few specific proteins in my blood which >>react to some pre-determined enzymes means I *will* get one of the >>conditions listed here: <http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002279/>. >Then you are deluded. Yes, you're probably right. I was in a bit of a rush when I wrote that. I think I meant something like: 'I do not believe that having a few antibodies in my blood which react with some pre-determined specific proteins mean I *will* get...' >What I believe is that HIV infection results through direct and, more >often, indirect, mechanisms in the depletion of CD4+ T lymphocytes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >These proteins in your blood are not found in HIV uninfected >individuals. Well, putting my mistake to one side if we can... The HIV antibody test initially suggested that almost everyone was HIV+ and was considered too unreliable for use. So, now, blood plasma has to be diluted hundreds of times to give a more 'accurate' result. <http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/rgelisa.htm> >HIV-negative individuals do not, with VERY rare >exceptions, see CD4 counts plunge persistently toward zero. I don't think those diagnosed HIV+ see that happen either. What usually happens is a slow decline in CD4 over a period of many years. I'm not aware of any long-term CD4 tests on 'healthy' people that could be used as a comparison against someone who is diagnosed HIV+. And even if there were, comparisons might not prove very much. For many people the worry of being diagnosed HIV+ and the regular health checks may be enough to lower CD4 anyway. Depression, which is common in those diagnosed HIV+, can reduce CD4. >I'd say you are at extremely high risk of dying within the next year >unless you get treatment. That's very pessimistic. According to NAM, which is funded by the drug companies, look: <http://www.nam.org.uk/cms1177632.asp>, I have a 40.1% chance of developing AIDS within the next three years. Or make that an 85.5% chance if we use the viral load result I had before my last one. I couldn't find their 'table of death' on their website, so I've uploaded it here <http://hiv-positive.freehostia.com/img/death_table.jpg>. It'll be interesting to see if I'm still here in a year's time. 11th April 2008: a date for the diary. :) SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 >>>I have been asked that question here before and answered it. On that >>>occasion my first answer was rejected and I was forced into replying [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >forums about that very topic. Someone appears to be arguing that >viruses don't exist and we don't have or need an immune system. Nutty as a fruitcake. What forum is that? >I'm sure there's a lot more to the argument than that. Let's just not >go there, though. I'm not suggesting that viruses, in general, don't >exist. Well, then you're not a complete idiot. >>>HIV is defined the virus that causes AIDS. I think that is a >>>statement you would agree with. I do not believe it is true. I do [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >'I do not believe that having a few antibodies in my blood which react >with some pre-determined specific proteins mean I *will* get...' You already got, dear. You got HIV. You got a dangerously low CD4 count. Stress does NOT cause that on its own. There are no data whatsoever anywhere to indicate that stress causes a persistent and severe depletion of CD4 count. That would cause A LOT more people to have AIDS. >>What I believe is that HIV infection results through direct and, more >>often, indirect, mechanisms in the depletion of CD4+ T lymphocytes. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >The HIV antibody test initially suggested that almost everyone was >HIV+ and was considered too unreliable for use. The antibody tests they use now are QUITE reliable. The cross reactivity stuff is horrifically exaggerated has been discussed here over and over and over and over. snip >>HIV-negative individuals do not, with VERY rare >>exceptions, see CD4 counts plunge persistently toward zero. > >I don't think those diagnosed HIV+ see that happen either. What >usually happens is a slow decline in CD4 over a period of many years. Stress does NOT cause that to happen. You're correct that it happens among most over about 8 years. Stress does NOT do that alone. It's nonsense. But that's an average--some people have very rapid progression, some very slow. Also normal that people with an infection present differently. Stress CAN affect the progression of HIV disease, of course. It is good to address stress reduction, getting enough sleep and exercise, good nutrition--all these things are important of course. >I'm not aware of any long-term CD4 tests on 'healthy' people that >could be used as a comparison against someone who is diagnosed HIV+. Bet you never bothered to look, did you? >And even if there were, comparisons might not prove very much. Of course not to you. You're in abject denial. You happily believe a ridiculous theory based on nothing at all to account for your very low CD4 count. >For >many people the worry of being diagnosed HIV+ and the regular health >checks may be enough to lower CD4 anyway. Depression, which is common >in those diagnosed HIV+, can reduce CD4. Bullshit. You will believe this notion in the absence of ANY data whatsoever to support while rejecting HIV as a proximate cause of AIDS. Or perhaps you have data? None? >>I'd say you are at extremely high risk of dying within the next year >>unless you get treatment. > >That's very pessimistic. Yes. >According to NAM, which is funded by the drug companies, look: ><http://www.nam.org.uk/cms1177632.asp>, I have a 40.1% chance of >developing AIDS within the next three years. Or make that an 85.5% >chance if we use the viral load result I had before my last one. Pretty high risk. >I couldn't find their 'table of death' on their website, so I've >uploaded it here ><http://hiv-positive.freehostia.com/img/death_table.jpg>. > >It'll be interesting to see if I'm still here in a year's time. 11th >April 2008: a date for the diary. :) I hope you are. And healthy, despite that this will temporarily affirm your personal delusions--I'd rather see you alive and well. George M. Carter *** Savastano M, Aita M, Barlani F. Psychological, neural, endocrine, and immune study of stress in tinnitus patients: any correlation between psychometric and biochemical measures? Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2007 Feb;116(2):100-6. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Padua University, Padua, Italy. OBJECTIVES: The present study was carried out in tinnitus patients in order to study the psychological distress and the biochemical measures of this stressful condition. Psychological features were compared to immune and neuroendocrine parameters in order to verify in these subjects the possible presence of psychological and somatic responses to stress. METHODS: We studied 85 tinnitus patients who underwent hematochemical immune tests: lymphocyte subpopulations (CD3; CD4; CD3+CD4; CD8; CD19; CD16NK; CD3+CD16+CD56; and CD4/CD8), cortisol, adrenocorticotropic hormone, beta-endorphin, prolactin, and urinary catecholamine. RESULTS: Clinically, significant scores were obtained for hysteria, depression, paranoia, hypochondrias, and social introversion; and high scores were obtained for anxiety, depression, care for health, difficulty of treatment, low self-esteem, family and work difficulties, and social discomfort. There was a low to medium level of self-perception of stress. The less a subject felt stressed, the higher was his or her satisfaction level in the areas of psychological and physical functioning. The scores on the tests and the biochemical measures did not show a significant correlation, but there was a tendency to correlation for the lymphocytes CD19 and CD16NK and for adrenocorticotropic hormone. CONCLUSIONS: The comparison between the psychometric and biochemical variables did not reveal any significant correlation among stress perception, daily satisfaction, and the biochemical parameters of stress. *** >Nutty as a fruitcake. What forum is that? <http://groups.msn.com/AIDSMythExposed> >>>HIV-negative individuals do not, with VERY rare >>>exceptions, see CD4 counts plunge persistently toward zero. >>I don't think those diagnosed HIV+ see that happen either. What >>usually happens is a slow decline in CD4 over a period of many years. >Stress does NOT cause that to happen. You're correct that it happens >among most over about 8 years. Stress does NOT do that alone. It's >nonsense. But that's an average--some people have very rapid >progression, some very slow. Also normal that people with an infection >present differently. Stress and depression can have a huge impact on someone's physical state and well being. The power of mind over matter shouldn't be underestimated. >>I'm not aware of any long-term CD4 tests on 'healthy' people that >>could be used as a comparison against someone who is diagnosed HIV+. >Bet you never bothered to look, did you? Yes, I did. >>And even if there were, comparisons might not prove very much. >Of course not to you. You're in abject denial. You happily believe a >ridiculous theory based on nothing at all to account for your very low >CD4 count. What's your CD4 count? SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 >>Nutty as a fruitcake. What forum is that? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >state and well being. The power of mind over matter shouldn't be >underestimated. I don't and that's true--but that's NOT the same as saying Stress is the cause of your CD4 count dropping below 100. It doesn't. >>>I'm not aware of any long-term CD4 tests on 'healthy' people that >>>could be used as a comparison against someone who is diagnosed HIV+. > >>Bet you never bothered to look, did you? > >Yes, I did. LOL...sure. George M. Carter >>>>I'm not aware of any long-term CD4 tests on 'healthy' people that >>>>could be used as a comparison against someone who is diagnosed HIV+. >>>Bet you never bothered to look, did you? >>Yes, I did. >LOL...sure. I really have looked. There is some data about CD4 counts of 'HIV-' people, however they have other medical problems/conditions so the information isn't very useful. Details about what an 'average' CD4 count should be seem a bit vague: anything from 500 to 800. Maybe more, maybe less. And during the twelve years I've been diagnosed HIV+ what's considered to be an acceptable CD4 count has fallen and fallen. I think in reality CD4 counts do fluctuate widely from one person to the next, and even within the same person. Everyday things such as time of day, time of year, mood, exercise and being pregnant can all cause CD4 counts to fall. I think judging someone's health based on CD4 count alone, which is what happens to those diagnosed HIV+, isn't very accurate. I've asked you a couple of times what your CD4 count is and you've chosen to ignore my question and not answer it. Is your CD4 count not very good, or do you simply not know what it is? SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 >>>>>I'm not aware of any long-term CD4 tests on 'healthy' people that >>>>>could be used as a comparison against someone who is diagnosed HIV+. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Details about what an 'average' CD4 count should be seem a bit vague: >anything from 500 to 800. Maybe more, maybe less. And yet somehow less than 100 is just peachy, eh? A sign of health or something? You have a medical condition: HIV infection. > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 14:06:48 +0100, "HIV Positive" > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The HIV drugs are poisons and cause a list of adverse side effects leading to liver failure. HIV drugs are a form of iatrogenic genocide. The HIV drugs (intentionally or not) such as AZT eliminated a segment of the population considered "undesirebale", namely IV drug addicts, minority groups and homosexuals like you, Carter, Carter, like his other cronies is a paid shill for the drug industry peddling death pills. see this video: http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com/ http://aidsmyth.addr.com/enteraidsmyth.htm We are a global-reach voluntary group. Our goal is ensuring the interests of AIDS-diagnosed people are no longer secondary to the interests of drug suppliers, service providers and the AIDS research industry. Did You Know that many experts now contend AIDS is not a fatal, incurable condition caused by HIV? We bring you the voices of alternative scientists and reforming campaigners worldwide. We are independent of vested pharmaceutical and medical interests -offering readers and forum members, global news and leading edge views on diagnosis and treatment. Most of the information you receive is commercially driven and based on misleading assumptions or unfounded estimates and predictions. The symptoms associated with AIDS are treatable using non-toxic, immune enhancing therapies that have restored health and have enabled those truly at risk to remain well. rocketscience snip >The HIV drugs are poisons and cause a list of adverse side effects >leading to liver failure. HIV drugs are a form of iatrogenic >genocide. Evidence? None. Just now Frodlet still hides behind a sock while finally saying what he was too much of a coward to say signing his own name. The drugs ARE toxic and can have side effects--sometimes mild, sometimes horrible. AIDS is worse. The drugs are overpriced. Pharma is committing the genocide by denying access and stealing everyone's money. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > The drugs are overpriced. Pharma is committing the genocide by denying > access and stealing everyone's money. You know Carter, every-time you say that I smile. Drugs come into play long after the sex (that put you needing drugs). Never a word about the personal behavior that condemned you to a life needing drugs. You hate pharma so bad? say, faggot keep your dick out of sh.t and put pharma out of the HIV/AIDS business all-to-gether. >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message >> >> The drugs are overpriced. Pharma is committing the genocide by denying >> access and stealing everyone's money. > >You know Carter, every-time you say that I smile. I didn't know you were capable of smiling, given the amount of hate you express. But then the guy that shot all those people smiled too, didn't he? >Drugs come into play long after the sex (that put you needing drugs). Sex does not necessarily require the use of drugs. Infections associated with sex may, however. >Never a word about the personal behavior that condemned you to a life >needing drugs. I don't use drugs! LOL....so you personalize it yet again and then.... >You hate pharma so bad? say, faggot keep your dick out of sh.t and put >pharma out of the HIV/AIDS business all-to-gether. ...more ugly bigoted nastiness from a chicken sh.t anonymous troll! "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > " Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> > >"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you express. But then the guy that shot all those people smiled too, > didn't he? I passed on your first reference to that shooting. It is truly a faggot ploy to compare that to wantingly and knowingly getting involved in risky sexual behavior. You are a low-life faggot to the nth degree. > >Drugs come into play long after the sex (that put you needing drugs). > > Sex does not necessarily require the use of drugs. No one said that was required. Another straw-man by Killer Karter. The drugs in question are taken and I paraphrase, ...long after the sex (that put you in need of drugs), AIDS cock-tails et el. snip >I passed on your first reference to that shooting. >It is truly a faggot ploy to compare that to wantingly >and knowingly getting involved in risky sexual behavior. That's why there's safer sex to reduce risk of infection. but what is there for a low life, stinking bigot full of hate? "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > but what is there for a low life, stinking bigot full of hate? Ask your psychiatrist. I'm not here to help you with the poor choices you have made in life. > The HIV antibody test initially suggested that almost everyone was > HIV+ and was considered too unreliable for use. So, now, blood plasma > has to be diluted hundreds of times to give a more 'accurate' result. That's a lie and you know it. You have swallowed the misinformation of the aberrant lab tech, Giraldo, hook line and sinker without letting the information pause for the slightest digestion in your credibility organs. http://www.aidstruth.org/howimmunoassayswork.php The original tests were diluted, as are almost every antibody test known to science. Current HIV tests use dilutions between 1:10 to 1:1000. Some tests for other pathogens use much higher dilutions than these. The original tests were pretty accurate even by today's standards, but since then have just become more so. http://cdli.asm.org/cgi/reprint/2/6/637 > The only way I will get AIDS is by going to the US. Me and my <100 > CD4 count are AIDS free here in Europe, but in the US we'd be an AIDS > statistic. You keep saying that, even though administrative/bureaucratic decisions have nothing to do with medicine or science. If you're <100 CD4s, are you at least on OI prophylaxis? B/ >> The only way I will get AIDS is by going to the US. Me and my <100 >> CD4 count are AIDS free here in Europe, but in the US we'd be an AIDS >> statistic. >You keep saying that, even though administrative/bureaucratic decisions >have nothing to do with medicine or science. I keep mentioning it to highlight the absurdity of the reasoning behind HIV and AIDS. Are you suggesting that AIDS isn't defined by medicine or science? >If you're <100 CD4s, are you at least on OI prophylaxis? Well, yes, on the face of it a CD4<100 count doesn't look too good. However these things tend to bounce around a bit, CD4's home is elsewhere, and perhaps I just don't need much of it floating aimlessly around in my blood at the moment. Oh, and to get my CD4 count done I have to get up six hours earlier than usual, and put up with an unpleasant two hour drive to the clinic and back. It's a long story, but the extra stress it causes me probably doesn't do my CD4 count much good. Oh, and I also use poppers which probably doesn't do my immune system very much good. Perhaps I should stop using it for a week or two before my next blood test. :) SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 >>> The only way I will get AIDS is by going to the US. Me and my <100 >>> CD4 count are AIDS free here in Europe, but in the US we'd be an AIDS [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I keep mentioning it to highlight the absurdity of the reasoning > behind HIV and AIDS. There is no "reasoning behind HIV and AIDS" on a governmental level. One can say crime doesn't exist because the justice systems between the two countries are different. > Are you suggesting that AIDS isn't defined by medicine or science? You're purposely inverting what I said. >>If you're <100 CD4s, are you at least on OI prophylaxis? (snip) I take it that was a long-winded way of saying "no." B/ >> Are you suggesting that AIDS isn't defined by medicine or science? >You're purposely inverting what I said. As you like simple yes or no answers, shall we take that as a yes, then? >>>If you're <100 CD4s, are you at least on OI prophylaxis? >(snip) > >I take it that was a long-winded way of saying "no." In my opinion not everything can be answered with a simple yes or no. SignatureURL: http://hiv.positive.googlepages.com/ Moible: +447939991519 >>> Are you suggesting that AIDS isn't defined by medicine or science? > >>You're purposely inverting what I said. > > As you like simple yes or no answers, shall we take that as a yes, > then? If you wish to use dishonest means of discussion, then you lose credibility. Being clever isn't the same as being smart. B/ > > The only way I will get AIDS is by going to the US. Me and my <100 > > CD4 count are AIDS free here in Europe, but in the US we'd be an AIDS [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > B/ There is AMPLE research that HIV is the biggest medical FRAUD and mass genocidal program to ever be perpetuated by quacks like Bob Gallo in history! They poisoned 400,000 AIDS patients at least in the US and now they want to kill millions more in Africa! There IS NO convincing evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS based on the vast population studies (where it really counts) and STRONG proof that HIV/AID$ a is genocidal fraud perpeutated by paid liars. Visit this site: http://www.aidsfraudvideo.com Here is another great site: http://www.rethinkingaids.com/challenges/index.html http:www.rethinkingaids.com snip >There is AMPLE research that HIV is the biggest medical FRAUD and >mass lol...bullshit. You're a fraud and an anonymous trolling liar, ain't ya? On 12 Apr, 01:03, "rocketscience" <rocketscience13...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is AMPLE research that HIV is the biggest medical FRAUD and > mass [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http:www.rethinkingaids.com Thereby demonstrating "rocketscience" is just "Truth PLEASE's" sock puppet. There are so few denialists in existence that are capable of debating the issue objectively that they have to bulk up their numbers in this way, trying to pretend there are more than the 2 or 3 who frequent this site. Even if there were dozens of you it would make no difference - you'd still be wrong. > On 12 Apr, 01:03, "rocketscience" <rocketscience13...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - The HIV drugs are poisons and cause a list of adverse side effects leading to liver failure. HIV drugs are a form of iatrogenic genocide. The HIV drugs (intentionally or not) such as AZT eliminated a segment of the population considered as "undesirebale", namely IV drug addicts, minority groups and homosexuals like your partner, Carter. see this video: http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com/ http://aidsmyth.addr.com/enteraidsmyth.htm We are a global-reach voluntary group. Our goal is ensuring the interests of AIDS-diagnosed people are no longer secondary to the interests of drug suppliers, service providers and the AIDS research industry. Did You Know that many experts now contend AIDS is not a fatal, incurable condition caused by HIV? We bring you the voices of alternative scientists and reforming campaigners worldwide. We are independent of vested pharmaceutical and medical interests -offering readers and forum members, global news and leading edge views on diagnosis and treatment. Most of the information you receive is commercially driven and based on misleading assumptions or unfounded estimates and predictions. The symptoms associated with AIDS are treatable using non-toxic, immune enhancing therapies that have restored health and have enabled those truly at risk to remain well. rocketscience snip >The HIV drugs are poisons and cause a list of adverse side effects >leading to liver failure. Shut the f.ck up, frodlet > There are so few denialists in existence that are capable of debating > the issue objectively that they have to bulk up their numbers in this > way, trying to pretend there are more than the 2 or 3 who frequent > this site. It's not just that. One of them is desparate for attention, any kind of attention. Even though it's negative (except for the applause of his socks),* he gets it from this group. *it's true, though, some of them go against the core personality, but anyone who's studied Multiple Personality Disorder can spot the groupings/types. B/ > On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:19:13 +0100, "HIVPositive" > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > >>Such as HOW doesHIVcauseAIDS? It doesn't. > >There are at least two questions that need to be answered before that: > > >DoesHIVexist? Yes. HIV is a benign retrovirus which is non-pathogenic. HIV has been sequenced (cloned). There is a problem with isolating it as a pure culture however, as it has never been isolated separately from cellular debris. The Perth Group has been the major advocates questioning the existence of HIV based on lack of Electron microscopy evidence of purified culture material. > >DoesHIVcause (or lead to)AIDS? No it does not. Death from immune suppression is caused by various immune suppresssive drugs and chemicals including the anti-HIV drugs such as AZT. HIV has never been shown to directly kill CD4 cells. Although the NIH bulletins claim that HIV infection causes AIDS, this is in fact false for the last 20 years ever since it was announced by Gallo at the 1984 NIH press conference. http://aidsmyth.addr.com/enteraidsmyth.htm rocketscience >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:19:13 +0100, "HIVPositive" >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >It doesn't. It does. >> >There are at least two questions that need to be answered before that: >> >> >DoesHIVexist? > >Yes. HIV is a benign retrovirus which is non-pathogenic. HIV has been >sequenced (cloned). So at least you recognize that the Perth group is full of sh.t. That's a start. But here we disagree. HIV is quite clearly pathogenic. >There is a problem with isolating it as a pure culture however, as it >has never been isolated separately from cellular debris. Oh my god. You really are like the clapper in Sylvia's Bell Jar. If you can wrap your pointy little head around this cognitive dissonance, you're intellectually completely bankrupt. What a load of deranged sh.t. George M. Carter snip >The assumption here is that HIV causes the depletion of CD4 cell count >which is the basic mantra of the HIV=AID$ industry. Current medical >research shows that this assumption is wrong and has been wrong for 20 >years. What research? There is AMPLE research showing that HIV results in CD4 depletion. Nothing else fits the bill. Not drugs. Nothing. George M. Carter > snip > >The assumption here is that HIV causes the depletion of CD4 cell count [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > George M. Carter There is AMPLE research that HIV is the biggest medical FRAUD and mass genocidal program to ever be perpetuated by quacks like Bob Gallo in history! They poisoned 400,000 AIDS patients at least in the US and now they want to kill millions more in Africa! There IS NO convincing evidence that HIV is the cause of AIDS based on the vast population studies (where it really counts) and STRONG proof that HIV/AID$ a is genocidal fraud perpeutated by paid liars. Visit this site: http://www.aidsfraudvideo.com Here is another great site: http://www.rethinkingaids.com/challenges/index.html http:www.rethinkingaids.com STOP TAKING CARTER's Lil' PILLS! (they will kill you in the long run) >> snip >> >The assumption here is that HIV causes the depletion of CD4 cell count [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >There is AMPLE research that HIV is the biggest medical FRAUD LOL...bullshit. NONE of that is research but deranged ditherings and abject misinterpretations of extant data.
|
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.