 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / May 2007The Other Side of AIDS
http://www.theothersideofaids.com/ >http://www.theothersideofaids.com/ Yeah, David Pasquarelli and a lot of other denialists have discovered the other side of AIDS. I hope they're busy being useful and kicking Falwell's nasty dead a.s. > >http://www.theothersideofaids.com/ > > Yeah, David Pasquarelli and a lot of other denialists have discovered > the other side of AIDS. > > I hope they're busy being useful and kicking Falwell's nasty dead a.s. Important video relating to HIV and AIDS. http://www.aidsfraudvideo.com http://aidsmyth.addr.com/enteraidsmyth.htm http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sold-Out-Really-Cause/dp/1556436424 http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-AIDS-Virus-Peter-Duesberg/dp/0895263998 http://aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.php http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1430/is_n9_v14/ai_12508167 http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aids/chap6.htm http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com/producer.htm rocketscience >> >http://www.theothersideofaids.com/ >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Important video relating to HIV and AIDS. Just like a good repugnican--repeat the lie ad nauseam. There ARE WMD in Iraq. There IS a connection with Saddam and Al Qaeda. HIV doesn't cause AIDS. All the same psychotic bullshit pushed by right wing psychotics that want to kill people with HIV. George M. Carter >>Important video relating to HIV and AIDS. > > Just like a good repugnican--repeat the lie ad nauseam. But on Usenet that has consequences. For example, google on spam thresholds, Breidbart Index, and BI > 20. B/ > There ARE WMD in Iraq. There IS a connection with Saddam and Al Qaeda. > HIV doesn't cause AIDS. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > George M. Carter >>>Important video relating to HIV and AIDS. >> >> Just like a good repugnican--repeat the lie ad nauseam. > >But on Usenet that has consequences. For example, google on spam >thresholds, Breidbart Index, and BI > 20. What the heck is all that?? >>>>Important video relating to HIV and AIDS. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What the heck is all that?? Usenet spam isn't like email spam. It's determined to be "the same thing many times." The Breidbart Index is a mathematical formula to determine how often a message has been posted (taking all possible combinations of posting into account). If the BI is more than 20, then the 3rd party spam cancellers go into motion. That means someone who has been spamming may find their messages removed from various servers. That is, repeating the same lie may have consequences, as I said. B/ > Just like a good repugnican--repeat the lie ad nauseam. rather sums up your argument Mr. Carter apparently does not appreciate the irony that he identifies critics of the "HIV/AIDS" mess/nonsense with the tactics used so blatantly by the current administration, and yet it is people like himself who employ these tactics, not the "dissidents" (in general). One thing I learned in graduate school is to first determine who is willing to answer the tough questions. The "orthodoxy" refuses to do so; no matter how many of them I have asked to participate in a debate that is to focus on one scientific issue at a time, the answer is the same, though sometimes it is laced with a few obscentities or personal attacks. Thus, I will put forth the offer again. On my site, I am willing to moderate a debate on any scientific point an "orthodox" individual wishes to discuss in the "HIV/AIDS" context. The person will have all the space he/she wishes to explain his positions and criticize the position of the person he/she debates. My role is to keep the debate on point, to ask for clarification or further explanation, etc., along with the usual and obvious (personal attacks and obscentities will be deleted). I have a strong feeling that many people like Mr. Carter suffer from a personality disorder which renders them unable to tolerate those who disagree with them on these "dry" scientific issues. Their actions and statements often make no sense in any context. For example, if there are people who you believe are totally wrong on a scientific issue, and that your explanation is so clearly superior, why wouldn't you want to debate them and demonstrate this? Mr. Carter and his ilk have no answers, and instead wish to do exactly what we have seen from so many disgraced politicians or political appointees just before they felt compelled to step down or decided not to run for office again. Mr. Carter and his ilk > have no answers, and instead wish to do exactly what we have seen from > so many disgraced politicians or political appointees just before they > felt compelled to step down or decided not to run for office again. Heavy denial tends to bring out the beast, with MMR vaccine the main nut attacking the scientist exposing the autism connection--his son developed autism 4 weeks after he gave him a MMR jab. Go figure. Carter must have a conscience somwhere which he keeps well down by being a rabid HIV zealot. Anyone with 3 brain cells can see through HIV. > Mr. Carter and his ilk >> have no answers, and instead wish to do exactly what we have seen from >> so many disgraced politicians or political appointees just before they >> felt compelled to step down or decided not to run for office again. > >Heavy denial tends to bring out the beast, I've noticed that. >Mr. Carter apparently does not appreciate the irony that he identifies >critics of the "HIV/AIDS" mess/nonsense with the tactics used so >blatantly by the current administration, and yet it is people like >himself who employ these tactics, not the "dissidents" (in general). What tactics specifically? And don't make me laugh. I've seen denialists pull every sleazy tactic that exists. At the end of the day, no one's "tactics" matter a damn. What matters is the truth. And you're simply wrong. HIV exists and it causes AIDS in well over 90% of infected individuals. >One thing I learned in graduate school is to first determine who is >willing to answer the tough questions. The "orthodoxy" refuses to do >so; no matter how many of them I have asked to participate in a debate >that is to focus on one scientific issue at a time, the answer is the >same, though sometimes it is laced with a few obscentities or personal >attacks THAT is a an outrageous lie. EVERY question raised by denialists has been answered exhaustively and with a great deal of evidentiary support. This forum and other blogs provide those responses. What happens is that once one question is answered, denialists trot off to the next question as if it is some new idea that just struck them. It's one great big circle jerk of delusional bullshit of non-issues that range from isolation to testing to treatment. And what's worse is GENUINE issues get lost in the tiny minds that regurgitate the denialist bullshit. >Thus, I will put forth the offer again. On my site, f.ck you and your site. Do it right here. No one censors anyone here. George M. Carter > It's one great big circle jerk of delusional bullshit of non-issues > that range from isolation to testing to treatment. And what's worse is > GENUINE issues get lost in the tiny minds that regurgitate the > denialist bullshit. If you had cured one single case of aids you would have a leg to stand on. the vaccination hoax is easy to take apart, and then when you know that you would be insane to trust them again, eg with HIV, in fact, like Tony Blair, you would find out what he wants or thinks, and do the complete opposite notice how they invent or comandeer terms like 'denialist'. That is mind control/propaganda basic. Firstly you control the usage of the term, eg by controlling Wikipedia. Then you have another loaded term to chuck. The Church had one term--heretics. But the medical industry needs plenty with all the diseases and drugs. Eg: 'Conspiracy theory', 'Quack/crank', 'Anti-vaccine', 'Pseudoscience' & 'anti-science' >> It's one great big circle jerk of delusional bullshit of non-issues >> that range from isolation to testing to treatment. And what's worse is >> GENUINE issues get lost in the tiny minds that regurgitate the >> denialist bullshit. > >If you had cured one single case of aids you would have a leg to stand on. Why? You think diseases can't exist in the absence of a cure? >the vaccination hoax is easy to take apart, and then when you know that you >would be insane to trust them again, eg with HIV, in fact, like Tony Blair, >you would find out what he wants or thinks, and do the complete opposite LOL...vaccination hoax. What a load of crap. Smallpox has been eradicated because of vaccines. >notice how they invent or comandeer terms like 'denialist'. That is mind >control/propaganda basic. Darling, denialists have plenty of nasty terms for people that don't buy your codswallop. So don't play high and mighty. It's simply ludicrous. >Firstly you control the usage of the term, eg by controlling Wikipedia. LOL. Time to take off the aluminum hat and wake up. But ya won't. George M. Carter > Why? You think diseases can't exist in the absence of a cure? Medical politics 101. Ignore the ones who can't cure anything. I know you aids zealots like us to think in a vacuum, but any moron looking at your friends history in cancer would see the game http://www.whale.to/a/cancer_c.html in essence, suppress all the non-allopathic/drug cures and force everyone through ignorance to take chemo. Why would anyone believe you with aids with that skeleton in your cupboard same with heart disease same with alzheimers same with arthritis and the piece de resistance is vaccination killed millions with smallpox vaccine get the picture? > LOL...vaccination hoax. What a load of crap. Smallpox has been > eradicated because of vaccines. Another great lie. http://www.whale.to/a/smallpox_hoax.html and such an easy one to shaft. Do you think cutting pus from a calf or arm of a smallpox victim into babies arms is going to do anything but kill or spread disease? you can read the 30 or so books on smallpox vaccination http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox14.html I wont hold my breath just one on Leicester http://www.whale.to/a/biggs.html is enough to do the trick, they had 2,000 LESS BABY DEATHS in their non-vaccination years go figure >>Firstly you control the usage of the term, eg by controlling Wikipedia. > > LOL. Time to take off the aluminum hat and wake up. I spend months on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Whaleto so fact, not tin hat >> Why? You think diseases can't exist in the absence of a cure? > >Medical politics 101. Ignore the ones who can't cure anything. What in the world are you babbling about? >I know you aids zealots like us to think in a vacuum, but any moron looking >at your friends history in cancer would see the game You're just like the psycho fundamentalists. It's all one way, all good or all bad. You must love Bush and Cheney. "For us or agin us" is all you can manage. >>Medical politics 101. Ignore the ones who can't cure anything. > > What in the world are you babbling about? Simple, allopathy (that's your medicine) can only cure bacterial infections in over 100 years of trying http://www.whale.to/a/allopathy_h.html what comes of running a monopoly > You're just like the psycho fundamentalists. It's all one way, all > good or all bad. You must love Bush and Cheney. > > "For us or agin us" is all you can manage. What in the world are you babbling about? avoid the argument as usual >>>Medical politics 101. Ignore the ones who can't cure anything. >> >> What in the world are you babbling about? > >Simple, allopathy (that's your medicine) can only cure bacterial infections >in over 100 years of trying Wrong. Allopathic treatments can cure some bacterial and fungal infections. And occasionally viral infections (for those that achieve a sustained viral response with Hep C treatment; respiratory syncytial virus). Some cancers can be cured. So this statement is wrong. >what comes of running a monopoly No, the problem is that the hostage holding of our lives by pharma actually REDUCE innovation, as well as exploration of non-allopathic approaches. Very little is done for the majority of infectious diseases by pharma. And some vaccines have been enormously successful, your deranged ditherings notwithstanding. The privatized model of both drug discovery and healthcare access is corrupt and bankrupt. >> You're just like the psycho fundamentalists. It's all one way, all >> good or all bad. You must love Bush and Cheney. >> >> "For us or agin us" is all you can manage. > >What in the world are you babbling about? Babbling? I'm saying you're just like a fundamentalist who thinks the world is all black or white when actually it's technicolor and full of sounds ranging from white noise to sublime music. Sadly, you're on the noise end of the aural spectrum. >avoid the argument > >as usual Wrong yet again. I'm not avoiding the argument at all--your just not making a cogent one. And I'm not clicking on your links. You're consistently, persistently and nauseatingly wrong, John. About so much. George M. Carter > Wrong. Allopathic treatments can cure some bacterial and fungal > infections. And occasionally viral infections (for those that achieve > a sustained viral response with Hep C treatment; respiratory syncytial > virus). Some cancers can be cured. So this statement is wrong. No cancer is 100% curable under allopathy. They claim 80% with child leukemia, but that is a lie, more like 50% and that is only 5 year survival, and then they end up with chemo induced cancers some 400, 000 or so people die of cancer every yaer in the USA. 'Occasionally' isn't a cure is it. and they have suppressed the vitamin C cure for all infections, for over 50 years just one example of the a.sholes running aids inc, the ones you champion every day. The pied piper of HIV=AIDS=DEATH >>what comes of running a monopoly > > No, the problem is that the hostage holding of our lives by pharma > actually REDUCE innovation, as well as exploration of non-allopathic > approaches. Very little is done for the majority of infectious > diseases by pharma. Just a fancy way of saying medical monoply. >And some vaccines have been enormously > successful, your deranged ditherings notwithstanding. You can't argue vaccination which is why you resort to insults. How about explaing how measles vaccination was effective when daeths had declined by 99.4% before vaccination. > Wrong yet again. I'm not avoiding the argument at all--your just not > making a cogent one. And I'm not clicking on your links. Ignorance is your denial. Try arguing for measles vaccine. > You're consistently, persistently and nauseatingly wrong, John. About > so much. You live in an HIV bubble of death, which is why you can't even argue about the other diseases or drugs >some 400, 000 or so people die of cancer every yaer in the USA. You're underselling yourself. It's estimated over 550,000 people will die from cancer in the US during 2007. See <http://blogs.thelancet.com/archive/2007/01/22/us-cancer-deaths-drop>. This figure alone makes HIV and AIDS seem pretty insignificant: it's about half the total number of people estimated to have HIV in the US.  Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> >>some 400, 000 or so people die of cancer every yaer in the USA. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This figure alone makes HIV and AIDS seem pretty insignificant: it's > about half the total number of people estimated to have HIV in the US. and most of those died from chemo or radiation, allied to the suppression of the real non-toxic cures. if anyone looked at their cancer racket they would run a mile from their HIV drugs and lies > >>some 400, 000 or so people die of cancer every yaer in the USA. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > if anyone looked at their cancer racket they would run a mile from theirHIV > drugs and lies Important video relating to HIV and AIDS. http://www.aidsfraudvideo.com http://aidsmyth.addr.com/enteraidsmyth.htm http://www.amazon.com/Science-Sold-Out-Really-Cause/dp/1556436424 http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-AIDS-Virus-Peter-Duesberg/dp/0895263998 http://aras.ab.ca/rethinkers.php http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/culshaw1.html http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1430/is_n9_v14/ai_12508167 http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aids/chap6.htm http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com/producer.htm rocketscience >> Wrong. Allopathic treatments can cure some bacterial and fungal >> infections. And occasionally viral infections (for those that achieve >> a sustained viral response with Hep C treatment; respiratory syncytial >> virus). Some cancers can be cured. So this statement is wrong. > >No cancer is 100% curable under allopathy. And on what do you base that statement??? >They claim 80% with child >leukemia, but that is a lie, more like 50% and that is only 5 year survival, >and then they end up with chemo induced cancers In that case, no remedy ever cured anything 100% of the time. That's just disingenuous. Can you name a non-allopathic treatment that cures 100% of the time? Any cancer? >some 400, 000 or so people die of cancer every yaer in the USA. > >'Occasionally' isn't a cure is it. It is for the people for whom the treatment stopped the disease. You're mixing up epidemiology with treatment outcomes. >and they have suppressed the vitamin C cure for all infections, for over 50 >years So you think vitamin C can cure cancers 100%?? >>>what comes of running a monopoly >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Just a fancy way of saying medical monoply. Which doesn't mean all the treatments that exist are worthless in terms of efficacy. >>And some vaccines have been enormously >> successful, your deranged ditherings notwithstanding. > >You can't argue vaccination which is why you resort to insults. LOL...yes, I can. >How about explaing how measles vaccination was effective when daeths had >declined by 99.4% before vaccination. How about why bother trying to figure out what the hell you're talking about without any supporting data. >> Wrong yet again. I'm not avoiding the argument at all--your just not >> making a cogent one. And I'm not clicking on your links. > >Ignorance is your denial. Try arguing for measles vaccine. I'm neither arguing for a measles vaccine or against it. I didn't bring up that topic....but somehow I don't trust your interpretation of any data, given what I've seen so far. >> You're consistently, persistently and nauseatingly wrong, John. About >> so much. > >You live in an HIV bubble of death, which is why you can't even argue about >the other diseases or drugs Darling, I don't. People living with HIV face horrific challenges. Denial just makes it a fatal challenge. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > How about why bother trying to figure out what the hell you're talking > about without any supporting data. > > I'm neither arguing for a measles vaccine or against it. I didn't > bring up that topic....but somehow I don't trust your interpretation > of any data, given what I've seen so far. More of Carters doublespeak. "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > > > Wrong yet again. I'm not avoiding the argument at all--your just not > making a cogent one. And I'm not clicking on your links. >>No cancer is 100% curable under allopathy. > > And on what do you base that statement??? Bloody obvious, read Chemotherapy by Ralph Moss to educate yourself if that is possible. how come you spend all your time defending Allopathy, yet try and claim you aint a pharma shill? >>and they have suppressed the vitamin C cure for all infections, for over >>50 >>years > > So you think vitamin C can cure cancers 100%?? I said infections, can't you read? > Which doesn't mean all the treatments that exist are worthless in > terms of efficacy. All can be replaced by nutritional med, with cures and no side effects http://www.whale.to/w/ortho.html how come you spend all your time defending Allopathy, yet try and claim you aint a pharma shill? >>How about explaing how measles vaccination was effective when daeths had >>declined by 99.4% before vaccination. > > How about why bother trying to figure out what the hell you're talking > about without any supporting data. http://www.whale.to/vaccines/measles.html how come you spend all your time defending Allopathy, yet try and claim you aint a pharma shill? >>>No cancer is 100% curable under allopathy. >> >> And on what do you base that statement??? > >Bloody obvious, read Chemotherapy by Ralph Moss to educate yourself if that >is possible. Ralph Moss is a lot brighter than you, that's for sure! I'll check it out. >how come you spend all your time defending Allopathy, yet try and claim you >aint a pharma shill? I don't spend all my time defending allopathy. Allopathy has made some great strides and small steps. Like every other medicinal system on the planet. >>>and they have suppressed the vitamin C cure for all infections, for over >>>50 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I said infections, can't you read? So you did. So you think vitamin C can cure 100% of infections? And the question remains--what non-allopathic cure for cancer works 100% of the time? >> Which doesn't mean all the treatments that exist are worthless in >> terms of efficacy. > >All can be replaced by nutritional med, with cures and no side effects And this will cure cancer 100% of the time? George M. Carter >>I said infections, can't you read? > > So you did. So you think vitamin C can cure 100% of infections? looks like it http://www.whale.to/a/levy4.html > And the question remains--what non-allopathic cure for cancer works > 100% of the time? Allopathy is about 20% cure rate, which is about placebo level. But it actually kills more people than it cures Cancer has a big emotional content so some people want to die, bit like many of those HIV+ folk But gerson was curing 100% stage 1 and 2 cancers, 50% stage 3,4 Most cure 80%, but with the knowledge acrued over 100 years it would cure 98-100%. >>>I said infections, can't you read? >> >> So you did. So you think vitamin C can cure 100% of infections? > >looks like it Do share the data here. >> And the question remains--what non-allopathic cure for cancer works >> 100% of the time? > >Allopathy is about 20% cure rate, which is about placebo level. But it >actually kills more people than it cures An unsupported claim. >Cancer has a big emotional content so some people want to die, bit like many >of those HIV+ folk I see. So emotional distress causes death. >But gerson was curing 100% stage 1 and 2 cancers, 50% stage 3,4 Gerson? What cancers? 3,4? And 50% only? That's not 100%. That being said, Gerson's therapies probably deserve closer scrutiny. >Most cure 80%, but with the knowledge acrued over 100 years it would cure >98-100%. LOL...fantasy. George M. Carter "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message > I see. So emotional distress causes death. Theme from MASH plays in the background... Through early morning fog I see Visions of the things to be, The pains that are withheld for me, I realize and I can see... That suicide is painless, It brings on many changes And I can take or leave it if I please. The game of life is hard to play, I'm going to loose it anyway, The loosin' card I'll someday lay; So this is all I have to say... That suicide is painless, It brings on many changes And I can take or leave it if I please. The only way to win is cheat And lay it down before I'm beat And to another give my seat For that's the only painless feat. That suicide is painless, It brings on many changes And I can take or leave it if I please. And you can do the same thing if you please. typical pharma shill speil typical aluminum hat insults "JOHN" <john@btinternet.com> wrote in message > > and such an easy one to shaft. Do you think cutting pus from a calf or arm > of a smallpox victim into babies arms is going to do anything but kill or > spread disease? 18 May 2007 10:09:24 GMT Source: Reuters More GENEVA, May 18 (Reuters) - The World Health Organisation (WHO) on Friday delayed for at least four years any decision on when to destroy the world's last known stockpiles of smallpox, a deadly virus eradicated nearly 30 years ago. There is no treatment for the virus that was killing millions of people a year as recently as the 1960s and left many more blind and scarred. In 1979, it became the first disease officially stamped out after a worldwide vaccination campaign. But the United States and Russia, which hold the only known stockpiles of the virus in high-security laboratories, have long resisted calls to destroy them in case smallpox is found to exist elsewhere. The 60th annual World Health Assembly, the top decision-taking body of the United Nations agency, reaffirmed a previous commitment to getting rid of the remaining stockpiles but agreed to postpone any decision on when this should happen until its 2011 meeting. In 2010, the WHO secretariat will carry out a review of all research undertaken and still planned in order that the "64th World Health Assembly may reach global consensus on the timing of the destruction of existing variola virus stocks." A previous 2002 deadline for destroying smallpox had been waived by the WHO until new vaccines or treatments for smallpox were found, after the United States said it would keep stocks on hand to combat any re-emergence of the disease. That decision was taken in the wake of the Sept. 11 suicide plane attacks on the United States which stirred fears that deadly viruses could fall into the hands of terrorist groups. AlertNet news URL: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L1842027.htm For our full disclaimer and copyright information please visit http://www.alertnet.org > "JOHN" <john@btinternet.com> wrote in message > >> and such an easy one to shaft. Do you think cutting pus from a calf or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > stockpiles of smallpox, > a deadly virus eradicated nearly 30 years ago. hardly deadly, Sydenham only had a 2% death rate in the 17th century! http://www.whale.to/v/smallpox2.html and homeopaths, and naturopaths even better, 100% cure rate. the only reason smallpox became daedly was due to carters doctors, allopaths, who managed to get 26% death rate under compulsory vaccination http://www.whale.to/a/case.html > There is no treatment for the virus that was killing millions of people a > year as recently as > the 1960s and left many more blind and scarred. In 1979, it became the > first disease officially > stamped out after a worldwide vaccination campaign. Lie, vaccination died out with the decline in poverty and decline of compulsory vaccination. Vaccination spread smallpox which was why they repealed the law after huge vaccine created epidemics. Now they hide it under terms such as monkeypox http://www.whale.to/vaccine/smallpox1.html an old old lying ploy of allopathy http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ploy3.html > But the United States and Russia, which hold the only known stockpiles of > the virus in > high-security laboratories, have long resisted calls to destroy them in > case smallpox is found > to exist elsewhere. Oooh, I'm soooo scared http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ploy6.html I'll rush off and get a vaccination or HIV test. > The 60th annual World Health Assembly, the top decision-taking body of the > United Nations > agency, reaffirmed a previous commitment to getting rid of the remaining > stockpiles but agreed > to postpone any decision on when this should happen until its 2011 > meeting. WHO: "The World Health Organisation (WHO) was a cover for bringing together an inside group of people whose purpose and intent was much different than what was generally thought and publicly portrayed. Lots of illegal activity went on without detection and across borders...among other things, it was also a cover for drug deals, child prostitution, heinous experiments on human beings, illegal sale of babies etc.........Most of the free trade these men were REALLY alluding to was in illegal drugs (cocaine, heroin), pornography, prostitution, and weaponry.....These men had no scruples, no compassion or ability to empathize with the feelings of others; instead they were self-seeking and ruthless---without conscience."---- Thanks for the Memories: The Memoirs of Bob Hope's and Henry Kissinger's mind control slave by Brice Taylor p91. http://www.whale.to/a/who_q.html > That decision was taken in the wake of the Sept. 11 suicide plane attacks > on the United States > which stirred fears that deadly viruses could fall into the hands of > terrorist groups. LOL! If biowarfare was effective they would have given it to saddam to chuck at the Kurds, Iranians or swamp folk. So far ONE person has died from germ attack, and he was killed by the CIA using anthrax. and the only real terrorist abroad is the covert government http://www.whale.to/b/terrorism.html > AlertNet news > > URL: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L1842027.htm > > For our full disclaimer and copyright information please visit > http://www.alertnet.org >> "JOHN" <john@btinternet.com> wrote in message > >>> and such an easy one to shaft. Do you think cutting pus from a calf or [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >hardly deadly, Sydenham only had a 2% death rate in the 17th century! >http://www.whale.to/v/smallpox2.html LOL...I'd LOVE to see you get smallpox and then see what you think about it. >>hardly deadly, Sydenham only had a 2% death rate in the 17th century! >>http://www.whale.to/v/smallpox2.html > > LOL...I'd LOVE to see you get smallpox and then see what you think > about it. some argument, smallpox died out years ago so I will never get it >>>hardly deadly, Sydenham only had a 2% death rate in the 17th century! >>>http://www.whale.to/v/smallpox2.html [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >some argument, smallpox died out years ago so I will never get it Because there was a global vaccinaton campaign. >>some argument, smallpox died out years ago so I will never get it > > Because there was a global vaccinaton campaign. that is just a lie, no mind how many times you repeat it. Have a look at the picture quotes http://www.whale.to/vaccines/smallpox.html as I know you have trouble reading >>>some argument, smallpox died out years ago so I will never get it >> >> Because there was a global vaccinaton campaign. > >that is just a lie, no mind how many times you repeat it. So you claim. PS: and it is a filth disease, died out when they introduced sewers mainly, but vaccination kept it going for another 80 years or so and they lived on meat and bread, no vitamin C go figure >PS: and it is a filth disease, died out when they introduced sewers mainly, >but vaccination kept it going for another 80 years or so > >and they lived on meat and bread, no vitamin C > >go figure Oh my god. Yep. I've figured. You're so full of sh.t you need a QTip wrapped in toilet paper to start cleaning it out. > You're so full of sh.t you need a QTip wrapped in toilet paper to > start cleaning it out. One of your habits no doubt. You never left the playground as far as argument goes. Your knowledge on vaccination is nil, hence your abuse and anal talk. "The town of Leicester rejected vaccination in favour of sanitation. Her experience during the past fifty years makes nonsense of the claims of the pro-vaccinists. When her population was thoroughly vaccinated she suffered severely from smallpox. As vaccination declined to one per cent of the infants born, smallpox disappeared altogether."---- Lilly Loat [Book 1951] The Truth About Vaccination and Immunization "Sanitation did for Prussia what 35 years of compulsory vaccination was unable to accomplish. At the present time in Prussia small-pox is almost extinct. (Cheers.) It is not that people 'are being vaccinated more; they are vaccinated less."----Dr Hadwen MD (The Case Against Vaccination ---an address at Gloucester on Saturday, January 25th, 1896, during the Gloucester Smallpox Epidemic) "If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." --Elbert Hubbard http://www.whale.to/vaccine/sanitation.html >> You're so full of sh.t you need a QTip wrapped in toilet paper to >> start cleaning it out. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Your knowledge on vaccination is nil, hence your abuse and anal talk. I have been awaiting your data, not your URLs. > "The town of Leicester rejected vaccination in favour of sanitation. Her >experience during the past fifty years makes nonsense of the claims of the >pro-vaccinists. When her population was thoroughly vaccinated she suffered >severely from smallpox. As vaccination declined to one per cent of the >infants born, smallpox disappeared altogether."---- Lilly Loat [Book 1951] Vaccines are not without risks. Sanitation is important. Sanitation did not end the smallpox pandemic. Clearly. Most of the world lives in highly unsanitary conditions. Lilly is wrong. >The Truth About Vaccination and Immunization >"Sanitation did for Prussia what 35 years of compulsory vaccination was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >address at Gloucester on Saturday, January 25th, 1896, during the >Gloucester Smallpox Epidemic) Herd immunity, vaccination and sanitation all together probably helped eliminate the disease. They're not mutually exclusive. These are assertions, however. Not data. >"If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call >him vile names." --Elbert Hubbard I can answer your arguments and call you vile names! I'm just so happy to know that you have never called anyone a vile name. LOL. George M. Carter > Lilly is wrong. pharma shill speil >> Lilly is wrong. > >pharma shill speil bet you can't say that 3 times fast. So...running away from any conversation, eh?? LOL. >>> Lilly is wrong. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So...running away from any conversation, eh?? > LOL. pretty boring talking to shills pretending to be 'open to persuasion' been there done that http://www.whale.to/a/newsgroups_h.html Yawn >>Mr. Carter apparently does not appreciate the irony that he identifies >>critics of the "HIV/AIDS" mess/nonsense with the tactics used so >>blatantly by the current administration, and yet it is people like >>himself who employ these tactics, not the "dissidents" (in general). >What tactics specifically? And don't make me laugh. I've seen >denialists pull every sleazy tactic that exists. I think the worst tactic you employ is the one of fear. I've put forward several viewpoints and arguments here that are opposed to yours. The main thrust of your responses seem to include the word 'death' a lot. And specifically the dogma that I should begin taking ARVs or die within the next four months. >At the end of the day, no one's "tactics" matter a damn. What matters >is the truth. And you're simply wrong. HIV exists and it causes AIDS >in well over 90% of infected individuals. Oh dear. You missed an opportunity there: you forgot to mention your favourite word again: 'death.' The 90% you mention relies on some very dubious *estimates*, including figures from places such as Africa. >>One thing I learned in graduate school is to first determine who is >>willing to answer the tough questions. The "orthodoxy" refuses to do >>so; no matter how many of them I have asked to participate in a debate >>that is to focus on one scientific issue at a time, the answer is the >>same, though sometimes it is laced with a few obscentities or personal >>attacks >THAT is a an outrageous lie. EVERY question raised by denialists has >been answered exhaustively and with a great deal of evidentiary >support. Oh yes, like this question I asked in <sm8k43hdr0rgm158i5t3sek74480u9srka@4ax.com>: "Does ART work?" Your exhaustive answer, "with a great deal of evidentiary support," was an attempt to rephrase the question: "The question is what is the rate of death among those who do not have access to ARV therapy." And in <g2re435853e0g81sllgb8b91h54avmpo4d@4ax.com> when I posed the question: "Is HIV/AIDS really killing people in South Africa?" You gave this considered response: "Presuming the data are accurate, it's your interpretation that is suspect." >What happens is that once one question is answered, denialists trot >off to the next question as if it is some new idea that just struck >them. You're being ridiculous now. Asking questions should be viewed as a positive thing because it's how we learn and test ideas and theories. The HIV=AIDS=Death theory is treated like a religion: don't question it, and anyone who doesn't believe will die. What's so precious about HIV=AIDS=Death that prevents anyone from questioning it? Internet newsgroups are generally discussion forums. Perhaps you shouldn't be here if you don't want to discuss your delicate theory. >It's one great big circle jerk of delusional bullshit of non-issues >that range from isolation to testing to treatment. And what's worse is >GENUINE issues get lost in the tiny minds that regurgitate the >denialist bullshit. Another one of your well reasoned arguments! And what "GENUINE issues" are you referring to? The issue of funding toxic drug treatment programmes? SignatureShould I begin ART? Vote: <http://hiv-positive.freehostia.com/vote/> >>>Mr. Carter apparently does not appreciate the irony that he identifies >>>critics of the "HIV/AIDS" mess/nonsense with the tactics used so [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >'death' a lot. And specifically the dogma that I should begin taking >ARVs or die within the next four months. Well, darling, given that another denialist just died of AIDS, I think the fear is valid. It should not be debilitating--but it can be. Fear is a natural human response to dangerous situations. And yes, I think you should be on treatments, including ARV, to prevent an OI developing since you claim to be HIV+ with less than 100 T cells. >>At the end of the day, no one's "tactics" matter a damn. What matters >>is the truth. And you're simply wrong. HIV exists and it causes AIDS >>in well over 90% of infected individuals. > >Oh dear. You missed an opportunity there: you forgot to mention your >favourite word again: 'death.' Life causes death. Birth is the first step on the way to dying. However, the reality of HIV causing AIDS seems to have escaped you. Sadly, you have bought a group of horrible lies. >The 90% you mention relies on some very dubious *estimates*, including >figures from places such as Africa. Actually, many of the cohorts that look at the small numbers of long term non- or very slow progressors have been in places from San Francisco to Scotland to Kenya. And the epi stats are from all over the world. >>>One thing I learned in graduate school is to first determine who is >>>willing to answer the tough questions. The "orthodoxy" refuses to do [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Oh yes, like this question I asked in Feel free to copy it here. I'm not following that link. >"Does ART work?" > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"The question is what is the rate of death among those who do not have >access to ARV therapy." You don't like my answers, that's your option. If you really cared about the answers, you'd look at the data, not my views. The data are out there. I ain't gonna dig it up for you because I choose not to take the time right now. George M. Carter >Well, darling, given that another denialist just died of AIDS, I think >the fear is valid. It should not be debilitating--but it can be. Fear >is a natural human response to dangerous situations. Ah, an admission that your preaching of HIV=AIDS=Death is dangerous. And, I find it rather sad that you've used someone's obituary to attempt to support your argument. That's very cruel, and doesn't even support your hypothesis. >And yes, I think you should be on treatments, including ARV, to >prevent an OI developing since you claim to be HIV+ with less than 100 >T cells. You haven't been paying attention. My last CD4 count on 29th March was exactly 100. An improvement of 3 on the month before. Apparently my 'HIV viral load' had also been slashed by 50% from over 50,000 to 23,000. At this rate I'll have a 'normal' CD4 count by the year 2020. :) >Life causes death. Birth is the first step on the way to dying. You're very morbid. >However, the reality of HIV causing AIDS seems to have escaped you. >Sadly, you have bought a group of horrible lies. So now I've gone from being a dangerous 'denialist' to a sheep who follows others. The reality you speak of only exists inside the church of HIV=AIDS=Death. >>The 90% you mention relies on some very dubious *estimates*, including >>figures from places such as Africa. >Actually, many of the cohorts that look at the small numbers of long >term non- or very slow progressors have been in places from San >Francisco to Scotland to Kenya. And the epi stats are from all over >the world. But you're comparing two opposites: long-term/non/slow progressors in wealthy counties with deaths in some of the poorest parts of the world. >>>THAT is a an outrageous lie. EVERY question raised by denialists has >>>been answered exhaustively and with a great deal of evidentiary >>>support. >>Oh yes, like this question I asked in >Feel free to copy it here. I'm not following that link. It's not a link. It's the Message-ID of another message in this newsgroup. >>"Does ART work?" >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>"The question is what is the rate of death among those who do not have >>access to ARV therapy." >You don't like my answers, that's your option. >If you really cared about the answers, you'd look at the data, not my >views. The data are out there. I ain't gonna dig it up for you because >I choose not to take the time right now. LOL, LOL, LOL. Duck the question again! I suggest you and the choir pop off to Google and see what you can come up with. SignatureShould I begin ART? Vote: <http://hiv-positive.freehostia.com/vote/> >>Well, darling, given that another denialist just died of AIDS, I think >>the fear is valid. It should not be debilitating--but it can be. Fear >>is a natural human response to dangerous situations. > >Ah, an admission that your preaching of HIV=AIDS=Death is dangerous. I don't preach HIV=AIDS=Death. If you want to make some simplistic commentary, denialism=death is closer to what I feel. >And, I find it rather sad that you've used someone's obituary to >attempt to support your argument. That's very cruel, and doesn't even >support your hypothesis. Bullshit. He believed the lies, just like David Pasquarelli and the consequence was that he developed AIDS, a lethal infection and he f.cking died. >>And yes, I think you should be on treatments, including ARV, to >>prevent an OI developing since you claim to be HIV+ with less than 100 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >23,000. At this rate I'll have a 'normal' CD4 count by the year 2020. >:) That would be marvelous. >>Life causes death. Birth is the first step on the way to dying. > >You're very morbid. Not at all. Are you claiming to be immortal?? >>However, the reality of HIV causing AIDS seems to have escaped you. >>Sadly, you have bought a group of horrible lies. > >So now I've gone from being a dangerous 'denialist' to a sheep who >follows others. You're in danger with the denialism. You are a potential danger to others who believe that bullshit. And it's not incomprehensible that you're just a follower. In this case, possibly to an early grave. >The reality you speak of only exists inside the church of >HIV=AIDS=Death. Not a church, dear. It's based on evidence. Denialists--including you--have NEVER come up with a reason for why people die of AIDS nor any data to support the few flaky theories they have thrown around (e.g., "drugs cause AIDS" - what a load of sh.t.) >>>The 90% you mention relies on some very dubious *estimates*, including >>>figures from places such as Africa. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >wealthy counties with deaths in some of the poorest parts of the >world. Not really. The Kenyan cohort of exposed but persistently uninfected women were among sex workers. I made an error there--they weren't long-term non progressors. >>>>THAT is a an outrageous lie. EVERY question raised by denialists has >>>>been answered exhaustively and with a great deal of evidentiary [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >It's not a link. It's the Message-ID of another message in this >newsgroup. Nice. >>>"Does ART work?" >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >LOL, LOL, LOL. Duck the question again! I suggest you and the choir >pop off to Google and see what you can come up with. f.ck you. Any time I present evidence, you ignore it. Then you trot off to the next question, leaving the demolition of your horseshit behind. You have done that time and again. So why the hell should I bother? And fear or not, I figure you'll probably be dead fairly soon anyway. I'd rather exert my energies on people who want to stay alive and well and aren't bamboozled by denialist bullshit. George M. Carter
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.