World AIDS DAY info

[taichiliberal]

You are not schooling anyone. you are trumping out the same disputed studies. There is oodles of evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV, and zero evidence it is caused by the factors the papers describe. You ignore overwhelming evidence and zero in on a few crocks. Having an MD after your name does not make you beyond reproach.

Your last sentence is a joke, Marty boy...because in your willful ignorance you readily latch onto any MD or PhD that preaches what YOU want to hear, so long as you refrain from critical thinking and contrary inforamtion sources. You keep squawking the same old hyperboli, but you have NO SUBSTANCE BECAUSE NOTHING YOU PRESENTS PROVES CONCLUSIVELY THAT HIV=AIDS ON ANY LEVEL. That you REFUSE to discuss the information I presented, let alone read it, displays the a-typical willful ignorance by parrots like YOU Marty boy, who for some reason see any facts that contradict the party line as a threat of some sort.

THINK, YOU MARTY FOOL, THINK! Since YOU CANNOT provide any point for point fact based information that disproves what I linked, all you're doing is just squawking empty propaganda. AND IF ALL OF WHAT YOU SAY IS TRUE, THEN THE DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES OF WHAT I CITED WOULD NOT EXIST. PERIOD.

“…‘HIV’ tests were conducted [in Tanzania], but they led to the observation that sick children, whether ‘HIV’-positive or ‘HIV’-negative, recuperated equally well, so long as they received adequate nutrition and medical attention.”

“To state that the priority, with respect to emergency humanitarian aid, should be given to the fight against ‘HIV’ and to giving those countries the possibility of buying cheap-priced anti-viral products is just as irrational as saying to someone suffering from acute vitamin C deficiency, ‘Sir, I see that you are suffering from scurvy. You’d better go buy yourself some antibiotics and condoms.’”

December 8, 2003, address to European Parliament Conference on AIDS in Africa, Brussels

— Dr. Marc Deru, MD, Visé, Belgium
You are either a troll, completely idiotic, or a sub human piece of pond scum. The lies you beleive in allow despotic regimes to ignore the fact that the social norms of thier societies leads to easy transmission of a preventable STD.

Marty boy, you don't have a fucking clue as to what you're so vehemetly protecting, do ya? "Despotic regimes" that the USA had NO PROBLEM doing business with so long as the pharma companies have that $$$ pipeline to their population via contracts.

Bottom line: I can read your material and provide DIRECT CONTRADICTION WITH DOCUMENTED VALID FACTS THAT HAVE CONCLUSIVE PROOF. The chronology of the posts prove this.

You can't, Marty boy. But do keep blustering away while you hunt and peck for any source that repeats your BS in various forms. That you are ignorant and proud of that ignorance regarding Deusberg's book speaks volumes. Carry on.

paper on the mechanism of HIV entering target cells.

http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/Electron-Microscopy-PLOS-2007.pdf

page with several reports on HIV causing AIDS

Science - Cohen.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4512762-post40.html

 

[taichiliberal]

Marty boy, you don't have a fucking clue as to what you're so vehemetly protecting, do ya? "Despotic regimes" that the USA had NO PROBLEM doing business with so long as the pharma companies have that $$$ pipeline to their population via contracts.

Bottom line: I can read your material and provide DIRECT CONTRADICTION WITH DOCUMENTED VALID FACTS THAT HAVE CONCLUSIVE PROOF. The chronology of the posts prove this.

You can't, Marty boy. But do keep blustering away while you hunt and peck for any source that repeats your BS in various forms. That you are ignorant and proud of that ignorance regarding Deusberg's book speaks volumes. Carry on.

paper on the mechanism of HIV entering target cells.

http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/AIDS/Electron-Microscopy-PLOS-2007.pdf

page with several reports on HIV causing AIDS

Science - Cohen.

Pearls before swine my friend.

As if we don't manage HIV and AIDS (simply a CD4 count below 200) based on HIV viral load and CD4 counts.

As if anti-virals aren't indisputedly linked with better (and not worse) outcomes.

I find it hilarious that someone thinks they can link one whack job source and scream really loud on the path to becoming an expert.

I guess as long as we are bitching about evil "big pharma" the ends justify the means for this jackass.

Oh yeah.... I am not reading his book.

Oh gee, I guess that automatically impeaches me...........

Tweedle Dumb complimenting Tweedle Dumber...pathetic.

Finding HIV anti-bodies does NOT automatically equate HIV=AIDS. Here, for your education:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4512762-post40.html

 

[taichiliberal]

YOU opened with a snotty, condescending attitude, toodles. You get back what you give, so TFB if you don't like it. And if you "don't care", you wouldn't have posted in the first place. So either you're full of it or not wrapped too tight. And I'll agree you are limited, because the sources I site ALL list legitimate members of the medical/scientific community who are published, peer reviewed and in many cases authorities in their field. If you can disprove or discredit them, then please do....if not, blow it out your ass.

You are right. I am snotty and condescending towards people I deem to be too stupid to argue with. First you state that such people are not worth commenting on/responding to, now you take the opposite stance. Get your act together, bunky...because only crazy people think they can have it both ways. You certainly have not published any "peer-reviewed" document that disputes that HIV causes AIDS. Really? Then all you have to do is just take any of the people in my links and show documented proof that they are not published professionals in their fields, or noted experts or both. Just because dopes like you and the folks raking in the cash on research salaries and pharma production WON'T READ THE MATERIAL....that doesn't mean it's not been reviewed by OTHERS in the field with equal credibility. The fact that you publish some sort of hack articles from people who have been peer reviewed in other fields is like claiming that an all state football player is the same as an NFL MVP.

Have a care, genius...because that criteria is applicable to all the jokers you and that idiot Marty keep throwing up. Thing is, unlike you two clown, I don't ignore material just because I don't agree with it, THAT is how I can deconstruct the BS so easily, and why YOU keep blowing smoke.

Sorry chump, but since YOU haven't read Deusberg's book, you're just blowing smoke here.

Haven't read it. Not going to read it. Garbage in, garbage out. I haven't read "Mein Kampf" either. I don't have to step in shit to know it's shit. But go ahead and act like everyone has to read your obscure little crap to have an opinion on this. It's a joke. Apparently, you don't get it.

Ahhh, the ignorant and proud finally admits to his folly regarding Deusberg. If you were a non-Jew in Germany in the 30's, you'd have bought inot Mein Kampf hook, line and sinker with that attitude of yours, bunky. Seems your god given cognitive reasoning and critical thinking skills have indeed gone to hell.
So, feel free to read any of these sources:

Please refrain from throwing around terms that you evidently don't comprehend when discussing the issue. Your "sources" have the fatal flaw of NOT HAVING CONCLUSIVE PROOF...but instead depend heavily on supposition and conjecture as well as making exceptions to the rules regarding basic identification of diseases when it comes to the HIV=AIDS propaganda. Just the few examples I gave CONCLUDE that HIV does NOT equal AIDS or is a precursor to such

By all means. I'd love to discuss biostats with you. What terms do I not "comprehend"? I am curious if you could even spot a scientifically valid study from shinola.

Other than that: "CONCLUSIVE PROOF"....... "supposition".... "conjuction"..... "propaganda"...... blah blah fucking blah. If you want to be intentionally ignorant, that is your fucking perrogative. Don't think you are going to convince the enlightened with rhetorical three card monty.

Only a stupid man would admit that he will not read information that others have told him is wrong, and then try to sound intelligent and condescending about information he is willfully ignorant about. Your mind indeed has "gone to hell", because you're just babbling like a parrot on acid.[/COLOR]Matters of fact and history that fly in the face of your "sources". If your "sources" were correct in their assertions, then the examples cited in my sources would not exist! Get it now, toodles? So like I told your like minded compadres, when you can provide the scientific paper that conclusively proves that HIV=AIDS, call a press conference. Until then, stop with this childish stubborn reaction of yours to any information that faults what you perceive as authority....READ THE BOOK!

What the fuck are you even talking about? I am not reading your retarded little book. I don't need some quack to attempt to muddle my understanding of virology.

The "quack" you referred was one of the virologist that DISCOVERED THE HIV VIRUS, you clod! Deusberg was one of the top virologist in the country with an international rep, until he dared CONTINUE his investigations and research, and thus come up with the FACTS that don't fit the party line. Really geauxtohell, you sound more fucking stupid with each post.

For whatever reason, you are desperate to dispute the overwhelming scientific evidence about HIV/AIDS. I have no idea why. I only know it's not my problem. It's also not going to change the way that the rest of us that actually know what the fuck we are talking about think.

geauxtohell is one dumb SOB, folks....and proud of it! So much more to pity him.

Here's something else for this idiot geauxtohell to ignore:

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not the cause of AIDS because it fails to meet the postulates of Koch and Henle, as well as six cardinal rules of virology.
1) HIV is in violation of Koch's first postulate because it is not possible to detect free virus (1, 2), provirus (3-5), or viral RNA (4, 6, 7) in all cases of AIDS. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has established guidelines to diagnose AIDS when all laboratory evidence for HIV is negative (8).
2) In violation of Koch's second postulate, HIV cannot be isolated from 20 to 50% of AIDS cases (1, 9-11). Moreover, "isolation" is very indirect. It depends on activating dormant provirus in millions of susceptible cells propagated in vitro away from the suppressive immune system of the host.
3) In violation of Koch's third postulate, pure HIV does not reproduce AIDS when inoculated into chimpanzees or accidentally into healthy humans (9, 12, 13).
4) In contrast to all pathogenic viruses that cause degenerative diseases, HIV is not biochemically active in the disease syndrome it is named for (14). It actively infects only 1 in 104 to > 105 T cells (4, 6, 7, 15). Under these conditions, HIV cannot account for the loss of T cells, the hallmark of AIDS, even if all infected cells died. This is because during the 2 days it takes HIV to replicate, the body regenerates about 5% of its T cells (16), more than enough to compensate for losses due to HIV.
5) It is paradoxical that HIV is said to cause AIDS only after the onset of antiviral immunity, detected by a positive "AIDS test," because all other viruses are most pathogenic before immunity. The immunity against HIV is so effective that free virus is undetectable (see point 1), which is why HIV is so hard to transmit (9, 12, 13). The virus would be a plausible cause of AIDS if it were reactivated after an asymptomatic latency, like herpes viruses. However, HIV remains inactive during AIDS. Thus the "AIDS test" identifies effective natural vaccination, the ultimate protection against viral disease.
6) The long and highly variable intervals between the onset of antiviral immunity and AIDS, averaging 8 years, are bizarre for a virus that replicates within 1 to 2 days in tissue culture and induces antiviral immunity within 1 to 2 months after an acute infection (9, 17). Since all genes of HIV are active during replication, AIDS should occur early when HIV is active, not later when it is dormant. Indeed, HIV can cause a mononucleosis-like disease during the acute infection, perhaps its only pathogenic potential (9, 17).
7) Retroviruses are typically not cytocidal. On the contrary, they often promote cell growth. Therefore, they were long considered the most plausible viral carcinogens (9). Yet HIV, a retrovirus, is said to behave like a cytocidal virus, causing degenerative disease killing billions of T cells (15, 18). This is said even though T cells grown in culture, which produce much more virus than has ever been observed in AIDS patients, continue to divide (9, 10, 18).
8) It is paradoxical for a virus to have a country-specific host range and a risk group-specific pathology. In the United States, 92% of AIDS patients are male (19), but in Africa AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes, although the virus is thought to have existed in Africa not much longer than in the United States (20). In the United States, the virus is said to cause Kaposi's sarcoma only in homosexuals, mostly Pneumocystis pneumonia in hemophiliacs, and frequently cytomegalovirus disease in children (21). In Africa the same virus is thought to cause slim disease, fever, and diarrhea almost exclusively (22, 23).
9) It is now claimed that at least two viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2, are capable of causing AIDS, which allegedly first appeared on this planet only a few years ago (20). HIV-1 and HIV-2 differ about 60% in their nucleic acid sequences (24). Since viruses are products of gradual evolution, the proposition that within a few years two viruses capable of causing AIDS could have evolved is highly improbable (25).

Duesberg on AIDS- HIV is not the cause of AIDS

 

[martybegan]

Let's go one better....Marty boy grows a pair and acknowledges that he was proven WRONG here http://www.usmessageboard.com/4495213-post26.html


And since Marty boy hasn't even read Deusberg's book, how can he ask for information from it to verify some else's assertions that are based on bad science? Deusberg does NOT deny AIDS....he just merely points out the factors based on scientific evidence that HIV is NOT a precusor to AIDS, let alone a direct casue.

What we have here folks, are two idiots who don't really understand why they are pissed, they just know that the "authorities" sold them a bill of goods, and therefore they must ignore all else.

and I have linked pages showing that HIV has been PROVEN as a precursor to AIDS, you just choose to ignore it. Keep being ignorant if you want, but the book doesnt need to be read, because other people have done it for us, given us the gist of it, and then DEBUNKED IT AS HORSECRAP.

All you keep regurgitating are reports that show HIV anti-bodies present in AIDS patients, and they ASSUME that is the cause....newflash for ya, genius: As of 1989, the CDC reported that 5% of all U.S. AIDS patients who had been tested for HIV to that time were HIV-negative. No figures have been reported by the CDC since 1989
In 1992 cases of AIDS were turning up without the presence of HIV, and the status quo medical system scrambled with a bunch of "could be" excuses while maintaining that HIV=AIDS Doctors Find AIDS-Like Disease Without H.I.V. Virus Is Growing - New York Times

But here, let Deusberg break it down for you:


Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not the cause of AIDS because it fails to meet the postulates of Koch and Henle, as well as six cardinal rules of virology.
1) HIV is in violation of Koch's first postulate because it is not possible to detect free virus (1, 2), provirus (3-5), or viral RNA (4, 6, 7) in all cases of AIDS. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has established guidelines to diagnose AIDS when all laboratory evidence for HIV is negative (8).
2) In violation of Koch's second postulate, HIV cannot be isolated from 20 to 50% of AIDS cases (1, 9-11). Moreover, "isolation" is very indirect. It depends on activating dormant provirus in millions of susceptible cells propagated in vitro away from the suppressive immune system of the host.
3) In violation of Koch's third postulate, pure HIV does not reproduce AIDS when inoculated into chimpanzees or accidentally into healthy humans (9, 12, 13).
4) In contrast to all pathogenic viruses that cause degenerative diseases, HIV is not biochemically active in the disease syndrome it is named for (14). It actively infects only 1 in 104 to > 105 T cells (4, 6, 7, 15). Under these conditions, HIV cannot account for the loss of T cells, the hallmark of AIDS, even if all infected cells died. This is because during the 2 days it takes HIV to replicate, the body regenerates about 5% of its T cells (16), more than enough to compensate for losses due to HIV.
5) It is paradoxical that HIV is said to cause AIDS only after the onset of antiviral immunity, detected by a positive "AIDS test," because all other viruses are most pathogenic before immunity. The immunity against HIV is so effective that free virus is undetectable (see point 1), which is why HIV is so hard to transmit (9, 12, 13). The virus would be a plausible cause of AIDS if it were reactivated after an asymptomatic latency, like herpes viruses. However, HIV remains inactive during AIDS. Thus the "AIDS test" identifies effective natural vaccination, the ultimate protection against viral disease.
6) The long and highly variable intervals between the onset of antiviral immunity and AIDS, averaging 8 years, are bizarre for a virus that replicates within 1 to 2 days in tissue culture and induces antiviral immunity within 1 to 2 months after an acute infection (9, 17). Since all genes of HIV are active during replication, AIDS should occur early when HIV is active, not later when it is dormant. Indeed, HIV can cause a mononucleosis-like disease during the acute infection, perhaps its only pathogenic potential (9, 17).
7) Retroviruses are typically not cytocidal. On the contrary, they often promote cell growth. Therefore, they were long considered the most plausible viral carcinogens (9). Yet HIV, a retrovirus, is said to behave like a cytocidal virus, causing degenerative disease killing billions of T cells (15, 18). This is said even though T cells grown in culture, which produce much more virus than has ever been observed in AIDS patients, continue to divide (9, 10, 18).
8) It is paradoxical for a virus to have a country-specific host range and a risk group-specific pathology. In the United States, 92% of AIDS patients are male (19), but in Africa AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes, although the virus is thought to have existed in Africa not much longer than in the United States (20). In the United States, the virus is said to cause Kaposi's sarcoma only in homosexuals, mostly Pneumocystis pneumonia in hemophiliacs, and frequently cytomegalovirus disease in children (21). In Africa the same virus is thought to cause slim disease, fever, and diarrhea almost exclusively (22, 23).
9) It is now claimed that at least two viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2, are capable of causing AIDS, which allegedly first appeared on this planet only a few years ago (20). HIV-1 and HIV-2 differ about 60% in their nucleic acid sequences (24). Since viruses are products of gradual evolution, the proposition that within a few years two viruses capable of causing AIDS could have evolved is highly improbable (25).

Duesberg on AIDS- HIV is not the cause of AIDS



Get an adult to explain it to you before you google (yet another) article that parrots the SOS you've been squawking, because if I do it for you, it'll just add insult to injury.

Lets get down to brass tacks here. If you are SO SURE HIV does not cause AIDS, do an experiment. Inject yourself with HIV infected blood, and when AIDS hits, dont take any anti-virals. We will then see who is right, and who is a stupid fucking hack.

I have already linked plenty of items that debunk every point made in your quote. The simple fact is you are either a troll, and jerking off at your computer in your trollish crapulence, or a complete idiot. I would wager on a combination of the two.

 

[taichiliberal]

and I have linked pages showing that HIV has been PROVEN as a precursor to AIDS, you just choose to ignore it. Keep being ignorant if you want, but the book doesnt need to be read, because other people have done it for us, given us the gist of it, and then DEBUNKED IT AS HORSECRAP.

All you keep regurgitating are reports that show HIV anti-bodies present in AIDS patients, and they ASSUME that is the cause....newflash for ya, genius: As of 1989, the CDC reported that 5% of all U.S. AIDS patients who had been tested for HIV to that time were HIV-negative. No figures have been reported by the CDC since 1989
In 1992 cases of AIDS were turning up without the presence of HIV, and the status quo medical system scrambled with a bunch of "could be" excuses while maintaining that HIV=AIDS Doctors Find AIDS-Like Disease Without H.I.V. Virus Is Growing - New York Times

But here, let Deusberg break it down for you:


Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not the cause of AIDS because it fails to meet the postulates of Koch and Henle, as well as six cardinal rules of virology.
1) HIV is in violation of Koch's first postulate because it is not possible to detect free virus (1, 2), provirus (3-5), or viral RNA (4, 6, 7) in all cases of AIDS. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has established guidelines to diagnose AIDS when all laboratory evidence for HIV is negative (8).
2) In violation of Koch's second postulate, HIV cannot be isolated from 20 to 50% of AIDS cases (1, 9-11). Moreover, "isolation" is very indirect. It depends on activating dormant provirus in millions of susceptible cells propagated in vitro away from the suppressive immune system of the host.
3) In violation of Koch's third postulate, pure HIV does not reproduce AIDS when inoculated into chimpanzees or accidentally into healthy humans (9, 12, 13).
4) In contrast to all pathogenic viruses that cause degenerative diseases, HIV is not biochemically active in the disease syndrome it is named for (14). It actively infects only 1 in 104 to > 105 T cells (4, 6, 7, 15). Under these conditions, HIV cannot account for the loss of T cells, the hallmark of AIDS, even if all infected cells died. This is because during the 2 days it takes HIV to replicate, the body regenerates about 5% of its T cells (16), more than enough to compensate for losses due to HIV.
5) It is paradoxical that HIV is said to cause AIDS only after the onset of antiviral immunity, detected by a positive "AIDS test," because all other viruses are most pathogenic before immunity. The immunity against HIV is so effective that free virus is undetectable (see point 1), which is why HIV is so hard to transmit (9, 12, 13). The virus would be a plausible cause of AIDS if it were reactivated after an asymptomatic latency, like herpes viruses. However, HIV remains inactive during AIDS. Thus the "AIDS test" identifies effective natural vaccination, the ultimate protection against viral disease.
6) The long and highly variable intervals between the onset of antiviral immunity and AIDS, averaging 8 years, are bizarre for a virus that replicates within 1 to 2 days in tissue culture and induces antiviral immunity within 1 to 2 months after an acute infection (9, 17). Since all genes of HIV are active during replication, AIDS should occur early when HIV is active, not later when it is dormant. Indeed, HIV can cause a mononucleosis-like disease during the acute infection, perhaps its only pathogenic potential (9, 17).
7) Retroviruses are typically not cytocidal. On the contrary, they often promote cell growth. Therefore, they were long considered the most plausible viral carcinogens (9). Yet HIV, a retrovirus, is said to behave like a cytocidal virus, causing degenerative disease killing billions of T cells (15, 18). This is said even though T cells grown in culture, which produce much more virus than has ever been observed in AIDS patients, continue to divide (9, 10, 18).
8) It is paradoxical for a virus to have a country-specific host range and a risk group-specific pathology. In the United States, 92% of AIDS patients are male (19), but in Africa AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes, although the virus is thought to have existed in Africa not much longer than in the United States (20). In the United States, the virus is said to cause Kaposi's sarcoma only in homosexuals, mostly Pneumocystis pneumonia in hemophiliacs, and frequently cytomegalovirus disease in children (21). In Africa the same virus is thought to cause slim disease, fever, and diarrhea almost exclusively (22, 23).
9) It is now claimed that at least two viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2, are capable of causing AIDS, which allegedly first appeared on this planet only a few years ago (20). HIV-1 and HIV-2 differ about 60% in their nucleic acid sequences (24). Since viruses are products of gradual evolution, the proposition that within a few years two viruses capable of causing AIDS could have evolved is highly improbable (25).

Duesberg on AIDS- HIV is not the cause of AIDS



Get an adult to explain it to you before you google (yet another) article that parrots the SOS you've been squawking, because if I do it for you, it'll just add insult to injury.

Lets get down to brass tacks here. If you are SO SURE HIV does not cause AIDS, do an experiment. Inject yourself with HIV infected blood, and when AIDS hits, dont take any anti-virals. We will then see who is right, and who is a stupid fucking hack.


Let's get down to brass tacks here, you blithering idiot.....your little scenario has already played out in parts of the world, as was related here:

HIV’ tests were conducted [in Tanzania], but they led to the observation that sick children, whether ‘HIV’-positive or ‘HIV’-negative, recuperated equally well, so long as they received adequate nutrition and medical attention.”

“To state that the priority, with respect to emergency humanitarian aid, should be given to the fight against ‘HIV’ and to giving those countries the possibility of buying cheap-priced anti-viral products is just as irrational as saying to someone suffering from acute vitamin C deficiency, ‘Sir, I see that you are suffering from scurvy. You’d better go buy yourself some antibiotics and condoms.’”

December 8, 2003, address to European Parliament Conference on AIDS in Africa, Brussels

— Dr. Marc Deru, MD, Visé, Belgium


I have already linked plenty of items that debunk every point made in your quote. The simple fact is you are either a troll, and jerking off at your computer in your trollish crapulence, or a complete idiot. I would wager on a combination of the two.

This is about the SECOND time Marty boy has posted this tiresome two sentence paragraph (or something like it), folks. As the chronology of the posts shows, Marty boy merely just IGNORES the information I post that counters all his links. Unable to mount a fact based and logical retort, Marty boy just bluffs and blusters ad nauseum. So having displayed the willful ignorance of believers in the status quo, I leave Marty boy to his usual rantings, ragings, denials and repeating in various forms the SOS we've already read. I'll respond only our moronic Marty boy grows a pair and either reads Deusberg's book or can honestly, logically and factually discuss and deconstruct the information I posted that effectively counters his. Until then.

 

[geauxtohell]

YOU opened with a snotty, condescending attitude, toodles. You get back what you give, so TFB if you don't like it. And if you "don't care", you wouldn't have posted in the first place. So either you're full of it or not wrapped too tight. And I'll agree you are limited, because the sources I site ALL list legitimate members of the medical/scientific community who are published, peer reviewed and in many cases authorities in their field. If you can disprove or discredit them, then please do....if not, blow it out your ass.

You are right. I am snotty and condescending towards people I deem to be too stupid to argue with. First you state that such people are not worth commenting on/responding to, now you take the opposite stance. Get your act together, bunky...because only crazy people think they can have it both ways. You certainly have not published any "peer-reviewed" document that disputes that HIV causes AIDS. Really? Then all you have to do is just take any of the people in my links and show documented proof that they are not published professionals in their fields, or noted experts or both. Just because dopes like you and the folks raking in the cash on research salaries and pharma production WON'T READ THE MATERIAL....that doesn't mean it's not been reviewed by OTHERS in the field with equal credibility. The fact that you publish some sort of hack articles from people who have been peer reviewed in other fields is like claiming that an all state football player is the same as an NFL MVP.

Have a care, genius...because that criteria is applicable to all the jokers you and that idiot Marty keep throwing up. Thing is, unlike you two clown, I don't ignore material just because I don't agree with it, THAT is how I can deconstruct the BS so easily, and why YOU keep blowing smoke.


Haven't read it. Not going to read it. Garbage in, garbage out. I haven't read "Mein Kampf" either. I don't have to step in shit to know it's shit. But go ahead and act like everyone has to read your obscure little crap to have an opinion on this. It's a joke. Apparently, you don't get it.

Ahhh, the ignorant and proud finally admits to his folly regarding Deusberg. If you were a non-Jew in Germany in the 30's, you'd have bought inot Mein Kampf hook, line and sinker with that attitude of yours, bunky. Seems your god given cognitive reasoning and critical thinking skills have indeed gone to hell.
So, feel free to read any of these sources:



By all means. I'd love to discuss biostats with you. What terms do I not "comprehend"? I am curious if you could even spot a scientifically valid study from shinola.

Other than that: "CONCLUSIVE PROOF"....... "supposition".... "conjuction"..... "propaganda"...... blah blah fucking blah. If you want to be intentionally ignorant, that is your fucking perrogative. Don't think you are going to convince the enlightened with rhetorical three card monty.

Only a stupid man would admit that he will not read information that others have told him is wrong, and then try to sound intelligent and condescending about information he is willfully ignorant about. Your mind indeed has "gone to hell", because you're just babbling like a parrot on acid.[/COLOR]Matters of fact and history that fly in the face of your "sources". If your "sources" were correct in their assertions, then the examples cited in my sources would not exist! Get it now, toodles? So like I told your like minded compadres, when you can provide the scientific paper that conclusively proves that HIV=AIDS, call a press conference. Until then, stop with this childish stubborn reaction of yours to any information that faults what you perceive as authority....READ THE BOOK!

What the fuck are you even talking about? I am not reading your retarded little book. I don't need some quack to attempt to muddle my understanding of virology.

The "quack" you referred was one of the virologist that DISCOVERED THE HIV VIRUS, you clod! Deusberg was one of the top virologist in the country with an international rep, until he dared CONTINUE his investigations and research, and thus come up with the FACTS that don't fit the party line. Really geauxtohell, you sound more fucking stupid with each post.

For whatever reason, you are desperate to dispute the overwhelming scientific evidence about HIV/AIDS. I have no idea why. I only know it's not my problem. It's also not going to change the way that the rest of us that actually know what the fuck we are talking about think.

geauxtohell is one dumb SOB, folks....and proud of it! So much more to pity him.

Here's something else for this idiot geauxtohell to ignore:

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not the cause of AIDS because it fails to meet the postulates of Koch and Henle, as well as six cardinal rules of virology.
1) HIV is in violation of Koch's first postulate because it is not possible to detect free virus (1, 2), provirus (3-5), or viral RNA (4, 6, 7) in all cases of AIDS. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has established guidelines to diagnose AIDS when all laboratory evidence for HIV is negative (8).
2) In violation of Koch's second postulate, HIV cannot be isolated from 20 to 50% of AIDS cases (1, 9-11). Moreover, "isolation" is very indirect. It depends on activating dormant provirus in millions of susceptible cells propagated in vitro away from the suppressive immune system of the host.
3) In violation of Koch's third postulate, pure HIV does not reproduce AIDS when inoculated into chimpanzees or accidentally into healthy humans (9, 12, 13).
4) In contrast to all pathogenic viruses that cause degenerative diseases, HIV is not biochemically active in the disease syndrome it is named for (14). It actively infects only 1 in 104 to > 105 T cells (4, 6, 7, 15). Under these conditions, HIV cannot account for the loss of T cells, the hallmark of AIDS, even if all infected cells died. This is because during the 2 days it takes HIV to replicate, the body regenerates about 5% of its T cells (16), more than enough to compensate for losses due to HIV.
5) It is paradoxical that HIV is said to cause AIDS only after the onset of antiviral immunity, detected by a positive "AIDS test," because all other viruses are most pathogenic before immunity. The immunity against HIV is so effective that free virus is undetectable (see point 1), which is why HIV is so hard to transmit (9, 12, 13). The virus would be a plausible cause of AIDS if it were reactivated after an asymptomatic latency, like herpes viruses. However, HIV remains inactive during AIDS. Thus the "AIDS test" identifies effective natural vaccination, the ultimate protection against viral disease.
6) The long and highly variable intervals between the onset of antiviral immunity and AIDS, averaging 8 years, are bizarre for a virus that replicates within 1 to 2 days in tissue culture and induces antiviral immunity within 1 to 2 months after an acute infection (9, 17). Since all genes of HIV are active during replication, AIDS should occur early when HIV is active, not later when it is dormant. Indeed, HIV can cause a mononucleosis-like disease during the acute infection, perhaps its only pathogenic potential (9, 17).
7) Retroviruses are typically not cytocidal. On the contrary, they often promote cell growth. Therefore, they were long considered the most plausible viral carcinogens (9). Yet HIV, a retrovirus, is said to behave like a cytocidal virus, causing degenerative disease killing billions of T cells (15, 18). This is said even though T cells grown in culture, which produce much more virus than has ever been observed in AIDS patients, continue to divide (9, 10, 18).
8) It is paradoxical for a virus to have a country-specific host range and a risk group-specific pathology. In the United States, 92% of AIDS patients are male (19), but in Africa AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes, although the virus is thought to have existed in Africa not much longer than in the United States (20). In the United States, the virus is said to cause Kaposi's sarcoma only in homosexuals, mostly Pneumocystis pneumonia in hemophiliacs, and frequently cytomegalovirus disease in children (21). In Africa the same virus is thought to cause slim disease, fever, and diarrhea almost exclusively (22, 23).
9) It is now claimed that at least two viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2, are capable of causing AIDS, which allegedly first appeared on this planet only a few years ago (20). HIV-1 and HIV-2 differ about 60% in their nucleic acid sequences (24). Since viruses are products of gradual evolution, the proposition that within a few years two viruses capable of causing AIDS could have evolved is highly improbable (25).

Duesberg on AIDS- HIV is not the cause of AIDS

You apparently can't get it through your noggin that Duesberg is a quack.

As I said, that's not my problem.

You can cut and paste his crap all day, no one is buying it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/data/cohen/266-5191-1642a.pdf

 

[Tank]

Aids is racist

 

[martybegan]

All you keep regurgitating are reports that show HIV anti-bodies present in AIDS patients, and they ASSUME that is the cause....newflash for ya, genius: As of 1989, the CDC reported that 5% of all U.S. AIDS patients who had been tested for HIV to that time were HIV-negative. No figures have been reported by the CDC since 1989
In 1992 cases of AIDS were turning up without the presence of HIV, and the status quo medical system scrambled with a bunch of "could be" excuses while maintaining that HIV=AIDS Doctors Find AIDS-Like Disease Without H.I.V. Virus Is Growing - New York Times

But here, let Deusberg break it down for you:


Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not the cause of AIDS because it fails to meet the postulates of Koch and Henle, as well as six cardinal rules of virology.
1) HIV is in violation of Koch's first postulate because it is not possible to detect free virus (1, 2), provirus (3-5), or viral RNA (4, 6, 7) in all cases of AIDS. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has established guidelines to diagnose AIDS when all laboratory evidence for HIV is negative (8).
2) In violation of Koch's second postulate, HIV cannot be isolated from 20 to 50% of AIDS cases (1, 9-11). Moreover, "isolation" is very indirect. It depends on activating dormant provirus in millions of susceptible cells propagated in vitro away from the suppressive immune system of the host.
3) In violation of Koch's third postulate, pure HIV does not reproduce AIDS when inoculated into chimpanzees or accidentally into healthy humans (9, 12, 13).
4) In contrast to all pathogenic viruses that cause degenerative diseases, HIV is not biochemically active in the disease syndrome it is named for (14). It actively infects only 1 in 104 to > 105 T cells (4, 6, 7, 15). Under these conditions, HIV cannot account for the loss of T cells, the hallmark of AIDS, even if all infected cells died. This is because during the 2 days it takes HIV to replicate, the body regenerates about 5% of its T cells (16), more than enough to compensate for losses due to HIV.
5) It is paradoxical that HIV is said to cause AIDS only after the onset of antiviral immunity, detected by a positive "AIDS test," because all other viruses are most pathogenic before immunity. The immunity against HIV is so effective that free virus is undetectable (see point 1), which is why HIV is so hard to transmit (9, 12, 13). The virus would be a plausible cause of AIDS if it were reactivated after an asymptomatic latency, like herpes viruses. However, HIV remains inactive during AIDS. Thus the "AIDS test" identifies effective natural vaccination, the ultimate protection against viral disease.
6) The long and highly variable intervals between the onset of antiviral immunity and AIDS, averaging 8 years, are bizarre for a virus that replicates within 1 to 2 days in tissue culture and induces antiviral immunity within 1 to 2 months after an acute infection (9, 17). Since all genes of HIV are active during replication, AIDS should occur early when HIV is active, not later when it is dormant. Indeed, HIV can cause a mononucleosis-like disease during the acute infection, perhaps its only pathogenic potential (9, 17).
7) Retroviruses are typically not cytocidal. On the contrary, they often promote cell growth. Therefore, they were long considered the most plausible viral carcinogens (9). Yet HIV, a retrovirus, is said to behave like a cytocidal virus, causing degenerative disease killing billions of T cells (15, 18). This is said even though T cells grown in culture, which produce much more virus than has ever been observed in AIDS patients, continue to divide (9, 10, 18).
8) It is paradoxical for a virus to have a country-specific host range and a risk group-specific pathology. In the United States, 92% of AIDS patients are male (19), but in Africa AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes, although the virus is thought to have existed in Africa not much longer than in the United States (20). In the United States, the virus is said to cause Kaposi's sarcoma only in homosexuals, mostly Pneumocystis pneumonia in hemophiliacs, and frequently cytomegalovirus disease in children (21). In Africa the same virus is thought to cause slim disease, fever, and diarrhea almost exclusively (22, 23).
9) It is now claimed that at least two viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2, are capable of causing AIDS, which allegedly first appeared on this planet only a few years ago (20). HIV-1 and HIV-2 differ about 60% in their nucleic acid sequences (24). Since viruses are products of gradual evolution, the proposition that within a few years two viruses capable of causing AIDS could have evolved is highly improbable (25).

Duesberg on AIDS- HIV is not the cause of AIDS



Get an adult to explain it to you before you google (yet another) article that parrots the SOS you've been squawking, because if I do it for you, it'll just add insult to injury.

Lets get down to brass tacks here. If you are SO SURE HIV does not cause AIDS, do an experiment. Inject yourself with HIV infected blood, and when AIDS hits, dont take any anti-virals. We will then see who is right, and who is a stupid fucking hack.


Let's get down to brass tacks here, you blithering idiot.....your little scenario has already played out in parts of the world, as was related here:

HIV’ tests were conducted [in Tanzania], but they led to the observation that sick children, whether ‘HIV’-positive or ‘HIV’-negative, recuperated equally well, so long as they received adequate nutrition and medical attention.”

“To state that the priority, with respect to emergency humanitarian aid, should be given to the fight against ‘HIV’ and to giving those countries the possibility of buying cheap-priced anti-viral products is just as irrational as saying to someone suffering from acute vitamin C deficiency, ‘Sir, I see that you are suffering from scurvy. You’d better go buy yourself some antibiotics and condoms.’”

December 8, 2003, address to European Parliament Conference on AIDS in Africa, Brussels

— Dr. Marc Deru, MD, Visé, Belgium


I have already linked plenty of items that debunk every point made in your quote. The simple fact is you are either a troll, and jerking off at your computer in your trollish crapulence, or a complete idiot. I would wager on a combination of the two.

This is about the SECOND time Marty boy has posted this tiresome two sentence paragraph (or something like it), folks. As the chronology of the posts shows, Marty boy merely just IGNORES the information I post that counters all his links. Unable to mount a fact based and logical retort, Marty boy just bluffs and blusters ad nauseum. So having displayed the willful ignorance of believers in the status quo, I leave Marty boy to his usual rantings, ragings, denials and repeating in various forms the SOS we've already read. I'll respond only our moronic Marty boy grows a pair and either reads Deusberg's book or can honestly, logically and factually discuss and deconstruct the information I posted that effectively counters his. Until then.

So again, inject yourself with some HIV to prove that it doesnt cause AIDS. if you dont get sick, you win. If you do get sick, it is honestly no big loss to the world.

 

[taichiliberal]

You are right. I am snotty and condescending towards people I deem to be too stupid to argue with. First you state that such people are not worth commenting on/responding to, now you take the opposite stance. Get your act together, bunky...because only crazy people think they can have it both ways. You certainly have not published any "peer-reviewed" document that disputes that HIV causes AIDS. Really? Then all you have to do is just take any of the people in my links and show documented proof that they are not published professionals in their fields, or noted experts or both. Just because dopes like you and the folks raking in the cash on research salaries and pharma production WON'T READ THE MATERIAL....that doesn't mean it's not been reviewed by OTHERS in the field with equal credibility. The fact that you publish some sort of hack articles from people who have been peer reviewed in other fields is like claiming that an all state football player is the same as an NFL MVP.

Have a care, genius...because that criteria is applicable to all the jokers you and that idiot Marty keep throwing up. Thing is, unlike you two clown, I don't ignore material just because I don't agree with it, THAT is how I can deconstruct the BS so easily, and why YOU keep blowing smoke.


Haven't read it. Not going to read it. Garbage in, garbage out. I haven't read "Mein Kampf" either. I don't have to step in shit to know it's shit. But go ahead and act like everyone has to read your obscure little crap to have an opinion on this. It's a joke. Apparently, you don't get it.

Ahhh, the ignorant and proud finally admits to his folly regarding Deusberg. If you were a non-Jew in Germany in the 30's, you'd have bought inot Mein Kampf hook, line and sinker with that attitude of yours, bunky. Seems your god given cognitive reasoning and critical thinking skills have indeed gone to hell.
So, feel free to read any of these sources:



By all means. I'd love to discuss biostats with you. What terms do I not "comprehend"? I am curious if you could even spot a scientifically valid study from shinola.

Other than that: "CONCLUSIVE PROOF"....... "supposition".... "conjuction"..... "propaganda"...... blah blah fucking blah. If you want to be intentionally ignorant, that is your fucking perrogative. Don't think you are going to convince the enlightened with rhetorical three card monty.



What the fuck are you even talking about? I am not reading your retarded little book. I don't need some quack to attempt to muddle my understanding of virology.

The "quack" you referred was one of the virologist that DISCOVERED THE HIV VIRUS, you clod! Deusberg was one of the top virologist in the country with an international rep, until he dared CONTINUE his investigations and research, and thus come up with the FACTS that don't fit the party line. Really geauxtohell, you sound more fucking stupid with each post.

For whatever reason, you are desperate to dispute the overwhelming scientific evidence about HIV/AIDS. I have no idea why. I only know it's not my problem. It's also not going to change the way that the rest of us that actually know what the fuck we are talking about think.

geauxtohell is one dumb SOB, folks....and proud of it! So much more to pity him.

Here's something else for this idiot geauxtohell to ignore:

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not the cause of AIDS because it fails to meet the postulates of Koch and Henle, as well as six cardinal rules of virology.
1) HIV is in violation of Koch's first postulate because it is not possible to detect free virus (1, 2), provirus (3-5), or viral RNA (4, 6, 7) in all cases of AIDS. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has established guidelines to diagnose AIDS when all laboratory evidence for HIV is negative (8).
2) In violation of Koch's second postulate, HIV cannot be isolated from 20 to 50% of AIDS cases (1, 9-11). Moreover, "isolation" is very indirect. It depends on activating dormant provirus in millions of susceptible cells propagated in vitro away from the suppressive immune system of the host.
3) In violation of Koch's third postulate, pure HIV does not reproduce AIDS when inoculated into chimpanzees or accidentally into healthy humans (9, 12, 13).
4) In contrast to all pathogenic viruses that cause degenerative diseases, HIV is not biochemically active in the disease syndrome it is named for (14). It actively infects only 1 in 104 to > 105 T cells (4, 6, 7, 15). Under these conditions, HIV cannot account for the loss of T cells, the hallmark of AIDS, even if all infected cells died. This is because during the 2 days it takes HIV to replicate, the body regenerates about 5% of its T cells (16), more than enough to compensate for losses due to HIV.
5) It is paradoxical that HIV is said to cause AIDS only after the onset of antiviral immunity, detected by a positive "AIDS test," because all other viruses are most pathogenic before immunity. The immunity against HIV is so effective that free virus is undetectable (see point 1), which is why HIV is so hard to transmit (9, 12, 13). The virus would be a plausible cause of AIDS if it were reactivated after an asymptomatic latency, like herpes viruses. However, HIV remains inactive during AIDS. Thus the "AIDS test" identifies effective natural vaccination, the ultimate protection against viral disease.
6) The long and highly variable intervals between the onset of antiviral immunity and AIDS, averaging 8 years, are bizarre for a virus that replicates within 1 to 2 days in tissue culture and induces antiviral immunity within 1 to 2 months after an acute infection (9, 17). Since all genes of HIV are active during replication, AIDS should occur early when HIV is active, not later when it is dormant. Indeed, HIV can cause a mononucleosis-like disease during the acute infection, perhaps its only pathogenic potential (9, 17).
7) Retroviruses are typically not cytocidal. On the contrary, they often promote cell growth. Therefore, they were long considered the most plausible viral carcinogens (9). Yet HIV, a retrovirus, is said to behave like a cytocidal virus, causing degenerative disease killing billions of T cells (15, 18). This is said even though T cells grown in culture, which produce much more virus than has ever been observed in AIDS patients, continue to divide (9, 10, 18).
8) It is paradoxical for a virus to have a country-specific host range and a risk group-specific pathology. In the United States, 92% of AIDS patients are male (19), but in Africa AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes, although the virus is thought to have existed in Africa not much longer than in the United States (20). In the United States, the virus is said to cause Kaposi's sarcoma only in homosexuals, mostly Pneumocystis pneumonia in hemophiliacs, and frequently cytomegalovirus disease in children (21). In Africa the same virus is thought to cause slim disease, fever, and diarrhea almost exclusively (22, 23).
9) It is now claimed that at least two viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2, are capable of causing AIDS, which allegedly first appeared on this planet only a few years ago (20). HIV-1 and HIV-2 differ about 60% in their nucleic acid sequences (24). Since viruses are products of gradual evolution, the proposition that within a few years two viruses capable of causing AIDS could have evolved is highly improbable (25).

Duesberg on AIDS- HIV is not the cause of AIDS

You apparently can't get it through your noggin that Duesberg is a quack.

As I said, that's not my problem.

You can cut and paste his crap all day, no one is buying it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/data/cohen/266-5191-1642a.pdf

And once again geauxtohell demonstrates that he is one dumb SOB. First he states in no uncertain terms that he HAS NOT AND WILL NOT read Deusberg's book. And then, after admitting his willful ignorance geauxtohell shoves his foot FURTHER into his mouth by calling Deusberg a "quack". Here's a little FYI for our "see-no-evil" monkey geauxtohell:

Peter H. Duesberg Ph.D. is a Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. In 1968-1970 he demonstrated that influenza virus has a segmented genome. This would explain its unique ability to form recombinants by reassortment of subgenomic segments. He isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He is also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health. On the basis of his experience with retroviruses, Duesberg has challenged the virus-AIDS hypothesis in the pages of such journals as Cancer Research, Lancet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Nature, Journal of AIDS, AIDS Forschung, Biomedicine and Pharmacotherpeutics, New England Journal of Medicine and Research in Immunology. He has instead proposed the hypothesis that the various AIDS diseases are bought on by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and AZT, which is prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS.

Geauxtohell should follow his screen name while google searching every SOS article that STILL doesn't scientifically prove that HIV=AIDS or disprove what I've previously posted. But I do enjoy watching the little dope run in circles.

 

[taichiliberal]

Lets get down to brass tacks here. If you are SO SURE HIV does not cause AIDS, do an experiment. Inject yourself with HIV infected blood, and when AIDS hits, dont take any anti-virals. We will then see who is right, and who is a stupid fucking hack.


Let's get down to brass tacks here, you blithering idiot.....your little scenario has already played out in parts of the world, as was related here:

HIV’ tests were conducted [in Tanzania], but they led to the observation that sick children, whether ‘HIV’-positive or ‘HIV’-negative, recuperated equally well, so long as they received adequate nutrition and medical attention.”

“To state that the priority, with respect to emergency humanitarian aid, should be given to the fight against ‘HIV’ and to giving those countries the possibility of buying cheap-priced anti-viral products is just as irrational as saying to someone suffering from acute vitamin C deficiency, ‘Sir, I see that you are suffering from scurvy. You’d better go buy yourself some antibiotics and condoms.’”

December 8, 2003, address to European Parliament Conference on AIDS in Africa, Brussels

— Dr. Marc Deru, MD, Visé, Belgium


I have already linked plenty of items that debunk every point made in your quote. The simple fact is you are either a troll, and jerking off at your computer in your trollish crapulence, or a complete idiot. I would wager on a combination of the two.

This is about the SECOND time Marty boy has posted this tiresome two sentence paragraph (or something like it), folks. As the chronology of the posts shows, Marty boy merely just IGNORES the information I post that counters all his links. Unable to mount a fact based and logical retort, Marty boy just bluffs and blusters ad nauseum. So having displayed the willful ignorance of believers in the status quo, I leave Marty boy to his usual rantings, ragings, denials and repeating in various forms the SOS we've already read. I'll respond only our moronic Marty boy grows a pair and either reads Deusberg's book or can honestly, logically and factually discuss and deconstruct the information I posted that effectively counters his. Until then.

So again, inject yourself with some HIV to prove that it doesnt cause AIDS. if you dont get sick, you win. If you do get sick, it is honestly no big loss to the world.

See folks, All one has to do is READ to know that I ALREADY responded to the Marty moron's " challenge. Either Marty's too stupid to comprehend what's been posted or just thinks being insipidly stubborn and repetitive will make previous posts magically disappear.

You're finished, Marty boy. Try something different aside from lying, denying....like oh, READING the offered material.

 

[WillowTree]

Keep it in your pants? What is it about the A in AIDS do radical perverts fail to understand?

Just STFU and READ the book, you idiot!

could you just give us a brief synopsis? I can't afford a book.

 

[martybegan]

This is about the SECOND time Marty boy has posted this tiresome two sentence paragraph (or something like it), folks. As the chronology of the posts shows, Marty boy merely just IGNORES the information I post that counters all his links. Unable to mount a fact based and logical retort, Marty boy just bluffs and blusters ad nauseum. So having displayed the willful ignorance of believers in the status quo, I leave Marty boy to his usual rantings, ragings, denials and repeating in various forms the SOS we've already read. I'll respond only our moronic Marty boy grows a pair and either reads Deusberg's book or can honestly, logically and factually discuss and deconstruct the information I posted that effectively counters his. Until then.

So again, inject yourself with some HIV to prove that it doesnt cause AIDS. if you dont get sick, you win. If you do get sick, it is honestly no big loss to the world.

See folks, All one has to do is READ to know that I ALREADY responded to the Marty moron's " challenge. Either Marty's too stupid to comprehend what's been posted or just thinks being insipidly stubborn and repetitive will make previous posts magically disappear.

You're finished, Marty boy. Try something different aside from lying, denying....like oh, READING the offered material.

Inject yourself with HIV and prove to the world how "smart" you are, you gutless hack.

Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.
Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.
Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.
Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.

 

[taichiliberal]

Keep it in your pants? What is it about the A in AIDS do radical perverts fail to understand?

Just STFU and READ the book, you idiot!

could you just give us a brief synopsis? I can't afford a book.

Try READING the linked responses and quotes I offer on this thread to the other responders...and THEN do some internet research into Deusberg......or try Gary Null, who is a very good medical/health researcher.

 

[taichiliberal]

So again, inject yourself with some HIV to prove that it doesnt cause AIDS. if you dont get sick, you win. If you do get sick, it is honestly no big loss to the world.

See folks, All one has to do is READ to know that I ALREADY responded to the Marty moron's " challenge. Either Marty's too stupid to comprehend what's been posted or just thinks being insipidly stubborn and repetitive will make previous posts magically disappear.

You're finished, Marty boy. Try something different aside from lying, denying....like oh, READING the offered material.

Inject yourself with HIV and prove to the world how "smart" you are, you gutless hack.

Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.
Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.
Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.
Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.

Poor Marty....unable to deal with FACTS that destroy his feverent belief, he urges people to inject themselves with a virus as proof he is right. Unfortunately for our willfully ignorant Marty, THERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN PEOPLE INFECTED WITH HIV THAT NEVER DEVELOPED AIDS.

A matter of fact, a matter of history that Marty boy just can't handle

HIV & AIDS - Dissenting on AIDS - The case against the HIV-causes-AIDS hypothesis


And a pefect example of the above linked article

Doctors Find AIDS-Like Disease Without H.I.V. Virus Is Growing - NYTimes.com

Read it, Marty boy...research it, Marty boy. (repeat as needed)

 

[martybegan]

See folks, All one has to do is READ to know that I ALREADY responded to the Marty moron's " challenge. Either Marty's too stupid to comprehend what's been posted or just thinks being insipidly stubborn and repetitive will make previous posts magically disappear.

You're finished, Marty boy. Try something different aside from lying, denying....like oh, READING the offered material.

Inject yourself with HIV and prove to the world how "smart" you are, you gutless hack.

Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.
Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.
Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.
Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.

Poor Marty....unable to deal with FACTS that destroy his feverent belief, he urges people to inject themselves with a virus as proof he is right. Unfortunately for our willfully ignorant Marty, THERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN PEOPLE INFECTED WITH HIV THAT NEVER DEVELOPED AIDS.

A matter of fact, a matter of history that Marty boy just can't handle

HIV & AIDS - Dissenting on AIDS - The case against the HIV-causes-AIDS hypothesis


And a pefect example of the above linked article

Doctors Find AIDS-Like Disease Without H.I.V. Virus Is Growing - NYTimes.com

Read it, Marty boy...research it, Marty boy. (repeat as needed)

People have been infected with LOTS of diseases and not gotten sick. Remember Typhoid Mary? She was infected and immune, and managed to get plenty of people ill.

And note the times article says "AIDS like" disease, and is FROM 1992 YOU DUMB FUCK. Other things can cause Immune system depression, not just HIV.

Again, Take the HIV challenge. If you are so sure that it doesnt cause AIDS, get some in your system.

You really are a dumbass, arent you.

 

[geauxtohell]

geauxtohell is one dumb SOB, folks....and proud of it! So much more to pity him.

Here's something else for this idiot geauxtohell to ignore:

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is not the cause of AIDS because it fails to meet the postulates of Koch and Henle, as well as six cardinal rules of virology.
1) HIV is in violation of Koch's first postulate because it is not possible to detect free virus (1, 2), provirus (3-5), or viral RNA (4, 6, 7) in all cases of AIDS. Indeed, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has established guidelines to diagnose AIDS when all laboratory evidence for HIV is negative (8).
2) In violation of Koch's second postulate, HIV cannot be isolated from 20 to 50% of AIDS cases (1, 9-11). Moreover, "isolation" is very indirect. It depends on activating dormant provirus in millions of susceptible cells propagated in vitro away from the suppressive immune system of the host.
3) In violation of Koch's third postulate, pure HIV does not reproduce AIDS when inoculated into chimpanzees or accidentally into healthy humans (9, 12, 13).
4) In contrast to all pathogenic viruses that cause degenerative diseases, HIV is not biochemically active in the disease syndrome it is named for (14). It actively infects only 1 in 104 to > 105 T cells (4, 6, 7, 15). Under these conditions, HIV cannot account for the loss of T cells, the hallmark of AIDS, even if all infected cells died. This is because during the 2 days it takes HIV to replicate, the body regenerates about 5% of its T cells (16), more than enough to compensate for losses due to HIV.
5) It is paradoxical that HIV is said to cause AIDS only after the onset of antiviral immunity, detected by a positive "AIDS test," because all other viruses are most pathogenic before immunity. The immunity against HIV is so effective that free virus is undetectable (see point 1), which is why HIV is so hard to transmit (9, 12, 13). The virus would be a plausible cause of AIDS if it were reactivated after an asymptomatic latency, like herpes viruses. However, HIV remains inactive during AIDS. Thus the "AIDS test" identifies effective natural vaccination, the ultimate protection against viral disease.
6) The long and highly variable intervals between the onset of antiviral immunity and AIDS, averaging 8 years, are bizarre for a virus that replicates within 1 to 2 days in tissue culture and induces antiviral immunity within 1 to 2 months after an acute infection (9, 17). Since all genes of HIV are active during replication, AIDS should occur early when HIV is active, not later when it is dormant. Indeed, HIV can cause a mononucleosis-like disease during the acute infection, perhaps its only pathogenic potential (9, 17).
7) Retroviruses are typically not cytocidal. On the contrary, they often promote cell growth. Therefore, they were long considered the most plausible viral carcinogens (9). Yet HIV, a retrovirus, is said to behave like a cytocidal virus, causing degenerative disease killing billions of T cells (15, 18). This is said even though T cells grown in culture, which produce much more virus than has ever been observed in AIDS patients, continue to divide (9, 10, 18).
8) It is paradoxical for a virus to have a country-specific host range and a risk group-specific pathology. In the United States, 92% of AIDS patients are male (19), but in Africa AIDS is equally distributed between the sexes, although the virus is thought to have existed in Africa not much longer than in the United States (20). In the United States, the virus is said to cause Kaposi's sarcoma only in homosexuals, mostly Pneumocystis pneumonia in hemophiliacs, and frequently cytomegalovirus disease in children (21). In Africa the same virus is thought to cause slim disease, fever, and diarrhea almost exclusively (22, 23).
9) It is now claimed that at least two viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2, are capable of causing AIDS, which allegedly first appeared on this planet only a few years ago (20). HIV-1 and HIV-2 differ about 60% in their nucleic acid sequences (24). Since viruses are products of gradual evolution, the proposition that within a few years two viruses capable of causing AIDS could have evolved is highly improbable (25).

Duesberg on AIDS- HIV is not the cause of AIDS

You apparently can't get it through your noggin that Duesberg is a quack.

As I said, that's not my problem.

You can cut and paste his crap all day, no one is buying it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/data/cohen/266-5191-1642a.pdf

And once again geauxtohell demonstrates that he is one dumb SOB. First he states in no uncertain terms that he HAS NOT AND WILL NOT read Deusberg's book. And then, after admitting his willful ignorance geauxtohell shoves his foot FURTHER into his mouth by calling Deusberg a "quack". Here's a little FYI for our "see-no-evil" monkey geauxtohell:

Peter H. Duesberg Ph.D. is a Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. In 1968-1970 he demonstrated that influenza virus has a segmented genome. This would explain its unique ability to form recombinants by reassortment of subgenomic segments. He isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He is also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health. On the basis of his experience with retroviruses, Duesberg has challenged the virus-AIDS hypothesis in the pages of such journals as Cancer Research, Lancet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Nature, Journal of AIDS, AIDS Forschung, Biomedicine and Pharmacotherpeutics, New England Journal of Medicine and Research in Immunology. He has instead proposed the hypothesis that the various AIDS diseases are bought on by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and AZT, which is prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS.

Geauxtohell should follow his screen name while google searching every SOS article that STILL doesn't scientifically prove that HIV=AIDS or disprove what I've previously posted. But I do enjoy watching the little dope run in circles.

All your asinine insults aside, Duesberg and his curious crew and their views on the HIV/AIDS link (or lack thereof) are not taken seriously by the scientific community. The article I linked lays out the reasons.

So rant and rave all you want. I could care less. I am also not going to read Duesberg's book. It would be a waste of my time. I haven't read Mein Kampf either, does that mean I can't discuss what Hitler did to the world? You think your rhetorical strawman is going to keep me from pointing out the facts? Not a chance. Brighter minds then yours and mine have addressed this issue.

 

[geauxtohell]

Inject yourself with HIV and prove to the world how "smart" you are, you gutless hack.

Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.
Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.
Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.
Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.

Poor Marty....unable to deal with FACTS that destroy his feverent belief, he urges people to inject themselves with a virus as proof he is right. Unfortunately for our willfully ignorant Marty, THERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN PEOPLE INFECTED WITH HIV THAT NEVER DEVELOPED AIDS.

A matter of fact, a matter of history that Marty boy just can't handle

HIV & AIDS - Dissenting on AIDS - The case against the HIV-causes-AIDS hypothesis


And a pefect example of the above linked article

Doctors Find AIDS-Like Disease Without H.I.V. Virus Is Growing - NYTimes.com

Read it, Marty boy...research it, Marty boy. (repeat as needed)

People have been infected with LOTS of diseases and not gotten sick. Remember Typhoid Mary? She was infected and immune, and managed to get plenty of people ill.

And note the times article says "AIDS like" disease, and is FROM 1992 YOU DUMB FUCK. Other things can cause Immune system depression, not just HIV.

Again, Take the HIV challenge. If you are so sure that it doesnt cause AIDS, get some in your system.

You really are a dumbass, arent you.

Ironically, the article I linked leads in with a physician who did just that.

Of course, the odds of getting HIV from a needle stick are about .3% so.............

 

[taichiliberal]

Inject yourself with HIV and prove to the world how "smart" you are, you gutless hack.

Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.
Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.
Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.
Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it Do it.

Poor Marty....unable to deal with FACTS that destroy his feverent belief, he urges people to inject themselves with a virus as proof he is right. Unfortunately for our willfully ignorant Marty, THERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN PEOPLE INFECTED WITH HIV THAT NEVER DEVELOPED AIDS.

A matter of fact, a matter of history that Marty boy just can't handle

HIV & AIDS - Dissenting on AIDS - The case against the HIV-causes-AIDS hypothesis


And a pefect example of the above linked article

Doctors Find AIDS-Like Disease Without H.I.V. Virus Is Growing - NYTimes.com

Read it, Marty boy...research it, Marty boy. (repeat as needed)

People have been infected with LOTS of diseases and not gotten sick. Remember Typhoid Mary? She was infected and immune, and managed to get plenty of people ill.

And note the times article says "AIDS like" disease, and is FROM 1992 YOU DUMB FUCK. Other things can cause Immune system depression, not just HIV.

Again, Take the HIV challenge. If you are so sure that it doesnt cause AIDS, get some in your system.

You really are a dumbass, arent you.

Marty boy is losing it, folks. He keeps repeating his assinine "challenge" despite the FACT that you have valid, documented FACT that there are people with HIV DO NOT CONTRACT AIDS (see previous post). Marty boy can't handle FACTS that disprove his near-religious beliefs, so he just blurts out his personal supposition and conjecture as if they're facts. Thing is, our moronic Marty paints himself into a corner.....Marty now claims/asserts that the people mentioned are "carriers" or "immune". This is a DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO THE MANTRA THAT HIV=AIDS....as for the last 30 years we've been told that if you're HIV positive you have a damned good chance of developing AIDS within the next decade or so....I would like to see the paper that shows there are carriers who are HIV positive but are immune to developing AIDS. Also, if Marty boy would stop acting simple and READ ALL of the material I provide, he would note that "AIDS" is NOT a virus in and of itself....the whole crux of Marty's malaise is that HIV=AIDS...which is false since there is no concrete, declarative paper that proves such, so "AIDS like viruses" were the new created hypothesis.

For the uninformed: Since the whole HIV=AIDS scenario throws Koch's principles' out the window, diseases that could cause AIDS that WERE TREATABLE AND CUREABLE were added onto the list each year since it's discovery in order to justify the forementioned scenario. So now once you're typed for HIV, you're "treated" in order to prevent AIDS rather than being treated for the other symptoms of established diseases (with established cure rates). Some basic research will prove me out on that, as I grow tired of doing homework for dumb toots like Marty (but will do so for the guilty pleasure of humiliating the little dweeb).

Oh and since Marty boy is STILL defending a flawed hypothesis that is going on thirty years old, one has to wonder why he thinks 19 year old information is invalid due to age.

Now let's watch Marty do the same old dance moves as usual, folks.

 

[taichiliberal]

Poor Marty....unable to deal with FACTS that destroy his feverent belief, he urges people to inject themselves with a virus as proof he is right. Unfortunately for our willfully ignorant Marty, THERE HAVE ALREADY BEEN PEOPLE INFECTED WITH HIV THAT NEVER DEVELOPED AIDS.

A matter of fact, a matter of history that Marty boy just can't handle

HIV & AIDS - Dissenting on AIDS - The case against the HIV-causes-AIDS hypothesis


And a pefect example of the above linked article

Doctors Find AIDS-Like Disease Without H.I.V. Virus Is Growing - NYTimes.com

Read it, Marty boy...research it, Marty boy. (repeat as needed)

People have been infected with LOTS of diseases and not gotten sick. Remember Typhoid Mary? She was infected and immune, and managed to get plenty of people ill.

And note the times article says "AIDS like" disease, and is FROM 1992 YOU DUMB FUCK. Other things can cause Immune system depression, not just HIV.

Again, Take the HIV challenge. If you are so sure that it doesnt cause AIDS, get some in your system.

You really are a dumbass, arent you.

Ironically, the article I linked leads in with a physician who did just that.

Of course, the odds of getting HIV from a needle stick are about .3% so.............

And yet THAT was a major bullhorn for your HIV=AIDS patrons, genius. And your article is all supposition but no concrete results....and results equal PROOF. See my explanation to your moronic compadre below, as I grow tired of repeating myself to programed parrots.

But what else can one expect from a person who proudly admits his willful ignorance such as Geauxtohell? Carry on.

 

[taichiliberal]

You apparently can't get it through your noggin that Duesberg is a quack.

As I said, that's not my problem.

You can cut and paste his crap all day, no one is buying it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/data/cohen/266-5191-1642a.pdf

And once again geauxtohell demonstrates that he is one dumb SOB. First he states in no uncertain terms that he HAS NOT AND WILL NOT read Deusberg's book. And then, after admitting his willful ignorance geauxtohell shoves his foot FURTHER into his mouth by calling Deusberg a "quack". Here's a little FYI for our "see-no-evil" monkey geauxtohell:

Peter H. Duesberg Ph.D. is a Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. In 1968-1970 he demonstrated that influenza virus has a segmented genome. This would explain its unique ability to form recombinants by reassortment of subgenomic segments. He isolated the first cancer gene through his work on retroviruses in 1970, and mapped the genetic structure of these viruses. This, and his subsequent work in the same field, resulted in his election to the National Academy of Sciences in 1986. He is also the recipient of a seven-year Outstanding Investigator Grant from the National Institutes of Health. On the basis of his experience with retroviruses, Duesberg has challenged the virus-AIDS hypothesis in the pages of such journals as Cancer Research, Lancet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Nature, Journal of AIDS, AIDS Forschung, Biomedicine and Pharmacotherpeutics, New England Journal of Medicine and Research in Immunology. He has instead proposed the hypothesis that the various AIDS diseases are bought on by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and AZT, which is prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS.

Geauxtohell should follow his screen name while google searching every SOS article that STILL doesn't scientifically prove that HIV=AIDS or disprove what I've previously posted. But I do enjoy watching the little dope run in circles.

All your asinine insults aside, I'm just pointing out the stupid things YOU state, toodles. TFB if you're insulted....you should think before you "geauxtohell" and type. Duesberg and his curious crew and their views on the HIV/AIDS link (or lack thereof) are not taken seriously by the scientific community. The article I linked lays out the reasons.


All you're doing is just repeating yourself, bunky. The "articles" you put forth just EDIT OUT ANY CONTRARY INFORMATION, and then they proceed to act on there supposition and conjecture as if it's a valid conclusion....THOUGH NONE IS SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO BE A CONCLUSION THAT HIV=AIDS.

Bottom line: Geauxtohell made an ignorant statement about Deusbergs credentials, and he's too much of an intellectual coward to admit he was WRONG. Not surprising.


So rant and rave all you want. I could care less. Then you're psychotic, because only a crazy person would post response after response about something he "could care less" about. I am also not going to read Duesberg's book. Because you're a willfully ignorant fool who's proud of it. It would be a waste of my time. FACTS for closed minded idiots that "geauxtohell" usually are. I haven't read Mein Kampf either, does that mean I can't discuss what Hitler did to the world? No stupid, it means that you couldn't discuss the CONTENTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE BOOK and to try and do so would make you out to be a braying jackass. You think your rhetorical strawman is going to keep me from pointing out the facts? No, your proudly displayed willful ignorance has done that. Not a chance. Says the ignorant and proud man who will "geauxtohell" Brighter minds then yours and mine have addressed this issue.

As the articles I put forth demonstrate. What's hysterical is watching small minded idiots with delusions of intelligence like "geauxtohell" try to condescend to others will avoiding any information that threatens his fragile ego. Follow your screen name, chump....I'm done wiping the floor with you (this is where the crazy person who swears all this is not worth responding to either responds or has a maudlin exchange with his moron toward that vein.)