World AIDS DAY info

[geauxtohell]

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 ****. 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.

AIDS is simply the immunodeficient state the bodies reaches when the CD4 count falls below 200 and the body is at risk for opportunistic infection.

It's not some separate, mystical pathological process. It's just a state of extreme immunosuppression. Other pathologies (and drugs) can cause immunosuppression. The HIV virus is known to infect CD4 cells to replicate itself and lyse the cells. The cellular process is highly replicated to the point that we known people who have certain mutations for certain cell receptors are immune to HIV.

So, no, HIV doesn't equal AIDS. You can rant and rave all you want. It's not going to change the medical science behind the matter. Nor is it going to change my mind or the mind of the rest of the community. So by all means, parrot Duesburg until you are blue in the face. It's not going to change anything.

 

[taichiliberal]

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.

AIDS is simply the immunodeficient state the bodies reaches when the CD4 count falls below 200 and the body is at risk for opportunistic infection.


NO SHIT, SHERLOCK! YOU are simply STALLING by making a moot point rather than just admitting that TO DATE THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PAPER THE PROVES HIV=AIDS. YOU cannot admit that TO DATE THERE IS SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION OF PEOPLE WITH HIV WHO HAVE NEVER DEVELOPED AIDS, AND AIDS PATIENTS WHO HAVE NO HIV IN THEIR SYSTEMS. Instead, you proudly state that you deny and ignore any such evidence and facts....only a geauxtohell fool would do so and think they can be taken seriously.

It's not some separate, mystical pathological process. I never said it was, and neither did any of my sources. Once again, YOU CAN'T GET PAST THE FACTS I PRESENTED, so now you try to fabricate this narrative to favor your failed endeavors. But the chronology of the posts will always be your undoing. It's just a state of extreme immunosuppression. Caused by various diseases that have valid, time tested treatments and (in many cases) cures. ....but NOT caused by HIV. Other pathologies (and drugs) can cause immunosuppression. You're parroting, bunky. I previously addressed this lame tactic of yours...repeating yourself won't erase that failed ploy of yours. The HIV virus is known to infect CD4 cells to replicate itself and lyse the cells. The cellular process is highly replicated to the point that we known people who have certain mutations for certain cell receptors are immune to HIV.

So they are carriers? Because if not, then you're (once again) giving HIV magical properties that defy the Koch's properties for identifying diseases. If there are people who have HIV but do not develop AIDS, and people with AIDS but NO HIV in their system, then you can't mount the international hysteria and drug program based on the THEORY that a "minority" of people are "immune" to a disease that essentially changes it's indicators willy nilly. I've already provided FACTS that fly in the face of your hypothesis, But this was all laid out before, and you ignored it like a good little parrot:

Duesberg on AIDS- HIV is not the cause of AIDS

So, no, HIV doesn't equal AIDS. No shit sherlock, and YOU CAN'T PROVE OTHERWISE UNLESS YOU IGNORE EVIDENCE THAT PROVES SUCH. You can rant and rave all you want. That's your dept., bunky... I just present information that you can't get past...and it frustrates you off to no end. It's not going to change the medical science behind the matter. How would YOU know? You willingly admit to ignoring what you don't agree with and therefore any conclusion you make with HALF the facts is considered solid. You're a joke, man...no reputable grad student would entertain your BS. Nor is it going to change my mind or the mind of the rest of the community. Your mind is admittedly closed, and the "rest of the community" that you accept as such does the same. The machine is in place, so all is well. So by all means, parrot Duesburg until you are blue in the face. It's not going to change anything.

As you admitted you didn't even know who the hell Duesburg was credential wise, you're comment is a but a piss in the wind. As the information I produced cited other reputable medical and scientific minds besides him (that you ignore), your statement is rendered even more absurd.

But do continue to proudly squawk your willful ignorance, toodles...I'm sure that served you well as a grades toady in school.

Say goodnight, gracie.

 

[martybegan]

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 ****. 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.

I already linked an article that shows the HIV-AIDS link proves Koch's postulate (which is actually for bacteria, not viruses). If you are to dumb to figure it out, then thats it. I have linked papers showing the mechanism of HIV infection of T-cells. you choose to ignore it.

Again inject yourself with HIV if you are 100% sure it does not cause AIDS.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

AIDS is simply the immunodeficient state the bodies reaches when the CD4 count falls below 200 and the body is at risk for opportunistic infection.


NO SHIT, SHERLOCK! YOU are simply STALLING by making a moot point rather than just admitting that TO DATE THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PAPER THE PROVES HIV=AIDS. YOU cannot admit that TO DATE THERE IS SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION OF PEOPLE WITH HIV WHO HAVE NEVER DEVELOPED AIDS, AND AIDS PATIENTS WHO HAVE NO HIV IN THEIR SYSTEMS. Instead, you proudly state that you deny and ignore any such evidence and facts....only a geauxtohell fool would do so and think they can be taken seriously.

It's not some separate, mystical pathological process. I never said it was, and neither did any of my sources. Once again, YOU CAN'T GET PAST THE FACTS I PRESENTED, so now you try to fabricate this narrative to favor your failed endeavors. But the chronology of the posts will always be your undoing. It's just a state of extreme immunosuppression. Caused by various diseases that have valid, time tested treatments and (in many cases) cures. ....but NOT caused by HIV. Other pathologies (and drugs) can cause immunosuppression. You're parroting, bunky. I previously addressed this lame tactic of yours...repeating yourself won't erase that failed ploy of yours. The HIV virus is known to infect CD4 cells to replicate itself and lyse the cells. The cellular process is highly replicated to the point that we known people who have certain mutations for certain cell receptors are immune to HIV.

So they are carriers? Because if not, then you're (once again) giving HIV magical properties that defy the Koch's properties for identifying diseases. If there are people who have HIV but do not develop AIDS, and people with AIDS but NO HIV in their system, then you can't mount the international hysteria and drug program based on the THEORY that a "minority" of people are "immune" to a disease that essentially changes it's indicators willy nilly. I've already provided FACTS that fly in the face of your hypothesis, But this was all laid out before, and you ignored it like a good little parrot:

Duesberg on AIDS- HIV is not the cause of AIDS

So, no, HIV doesn't equal AIDS. No shit sherlock, and YOU CAN'T PROVE OTHERWISE UNLESS YOU IGNORE EVIDENCE THAT PROVES SUCH. You can rant and rave all you want. That's your dept., bunky... I just present information that you can't get past...and it frustrates you off to no end. It's not going to change the medical science behind the matter. How would YOU know? You willingly admit to ignoring what you don't agree with and therefore any conclusion you make with HALF the facts is considered solid. You're a joke, man...no reputable grad student would entertain your BS. Nor is it going to change my mind or the mind of the rest of the community. Your mind is admittedly closed, and the "rest of the community" that you accept as such does the same. The machine is in place, so all is well. So by all means, parrot Duesburg until you are blue in the face. It's not going to change anything.

As you admitted you didn't even know who the hell Duesburg was credential wise, you're comment is a but a piss in the wind. As the information I produced cited other reputable medical and scientific minds besides him (that you ignore), your statement is rendered even more absurd.

But do continue to proudly squawk your willful ignorance, toodles...I'm sure that served you well as a grades toady in school.

Say goodnight, gracie.

Again, you can't rant and rave all you want. I could give a **** less. Neither your or the other people that live in a state of denial are going to change the consensus on the matter. Your impotent fits on a message board isn't going to change anyone's mind. Neither, apparently, is Duesburg. Whatever he has found hasn't convinced the scientific community.

As it stands, I don't have to prove anything to you. Their is a wealth of evidence to support that HIV is the casual organism behind AIDS. You can choose to deny that, but you are on an island.

I suspect you realize this, and this is why you are basically left with the lame tactic of trying to beat people around the head and neck with lame insults.

That might impress some people. It doesn't impress me. If I am going to listen to a lecture, I'll take one from an Infectious Disease Doctor who has devoted their life to the management of HIV and not some goofy assed dork on a message board.

It's irrelevant to me anyways. In the field I am going into, I am only concerned with the management of disease. That means providing the best care to the sick as I can. I don't know why you have a bee in your bonnet about HIV. I'll assume (by your lack of articulation) that you aren't Duesburg. So, I suspect that makes you either someone who has HIV and is an extreme state of denial about the regular course and progression of the disease process or you are simply a contrarian.

Either way, it's irrelevant to me.

Oh, and, your blue print? I haven't been reading it. I've basically been skimming your bottom lines. If you want to keep wasting your time, go for it. But now you know the score.

 

[taichiliberal]

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 ****. 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.

I already linked an article that shows the HIV-AIDS link proves Koch's postulate (which is actually for bacteria, not viruses). Stop lying, you produced NO SUCH LINK. If so, you should be able to produce the quote. Also, Koch's postulate has been modified when dealing with viruses Koch's Postulates and the Modern Era in Virus Research. If you are to dumb to figure it out, then thats it. As the chronology of the posts shows, I produce links and exact quotes to back up what I say....YOU just make general claims and statements I have linked papers showing the mechanism of HIV infection of T-cells. you choose to ignore it.

I read it, chuckles...but YOU didn't read this: 4) In contrast to all pathogenic viruses that cause degenerative diseases, HIV is not biochemically active in the disease syndrome it is named for. It actively infects only 1 in 104 to > 105 T cells. 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, more than enough to compensate for losses due to HIV.

Again inject yourself with HIV if you are 100% sure it does not cause AIDS.

Again, since it's all ready PROVEN that folks typed with HIV anti-bodies do NOT develop AIDS, why should I inject myself with a disease to make myself sick (from whatever disease the HIV anti-body accompanied)?

And then there's this: 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

Poor Marty boy, whirling like a dervish and going nowhere fast.

 

[taichiliberal]

AIDS is simply the immunodeficient state the bodies reaches when the CD4 count falls below 200 and the body is at risk for opportunistic infection.


NO SHIT, SHERLOCK! YOU are simply STALLING by making a moot point rather than just admitting that TO DATE THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PAPER THE PROVES HIV=AIDS. YOU cannot admit that TO DATE THERE IS SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION OF PEOPLE WITH HIV WHO HAVE NEVER DEVELOPED AIDS, AND AIDS PATIENTS WHO HAVE NO HIV IN THEIR SYSTEMS. Instead, you proudly state that you deny and ignore any such evidence and facts....only a geauxtohell fool would do so and think they can be taken seriously.

It's not some separate, mystical pathological process. I never said it was, and neither did any of my sources. Once again, YOU CAN'T GET PAST THE FACTS I PRESENTED, so now you try to fabricate this narrative to favor your failed endeavors. But the chronology of the posts will always be your undoing. It's just a state of extreme immunosuppression. Caused by various diseases that have valid, time tested treatments and (in many cases) cures. ....but NOT caused by HIV. Other pathologies (and drugs) can cause immunosuppression. You're parroting, bunky. I previously addressed this lame tactic of yours...repeating yourself won't erase that failed ploy of yours. The HIV virus is known to infect CD4 cells to replicate itself and lyse the cells. The cellular process is highly replicated to the point that we known people who have certain mutations for certain cell receptors are immune to HIV.

So they are carriers? Because if not, then you're (once again) giving HIV magical properties that defy the Koch's properties for identifying diseases. If there are people who have HIV but do not develop AIDS, and people with AIDS but NO HIV in their system, then you can't mount the international hysteria and drug program based on the THEORY that a "minority" of people are "immune" to a disease that essentially changes it's indicators willy nilly. I've already provided FACTS that fly in the face of your hypothesis, But this was all laid out before, and you ignored it like a good little parrot:

Duesberg on AIDS- HIV is not the cause of AIDS

So, no, HIV doesn't equal AIDS. No shit sherlock, and YOU CAN'T PROVE OTHERWISE UNLESS YOU IGNORE EVIDENCE THAT PROVES SUCH. You can rant and rave all you want. That's your dept., bunky... I just present information that you can't get past...and it frustrates you off to no end. It's not going to change the medical science behind the matter. How would YOU know? You willingly admit to ignoring what you don't agree with and therefore any conclusion you make with HALF the facts is considered solid. You're a joke, man...no reputable grad student would entertain your BS. Nor is it going to change my mind or the mind of the rest of the community. Your mind is admittedly closed, and the "rest of the community" that you accept as such does the same. The machine is in place, so all is well. So by all means, parrot Duesburg until you are blue in the face. It's not going to change anything.

As you admitted you didn't even know who the hell Duesburg was credential wise, you're comment is a but a piss in the wind. As the information I produced cited other reputable medical and scientific minds besides him (that you ignore), your statement is rendered even more absurd.

But do continue to proudly squawk your willful ignorance, toodles...I'm sure that served you well as a grades toady in school.

Say goodnight, gracie.

Again, you can't rant and rave all you want. I could give a **** less. Yet here you are AGAIN....are you psychotic or just an insipidly stubborn fool? Neither your or the other people that live in a state of denial are going to change the consensus on the matter. You admit you don't read anything that contradicts your belief system, so your opinion is worthless. Your impotent fits on a message board isn't going to change anyone's mind. I have no intention of trying to change your closed mind....I just expose the lies, errors and deceit that people like you embrace like a badge of honor. Neither, apparently, is Duesburg. Whatever he has found hasn't convinced the scientific community. The same scientific community that is fiananced by pharmaceutical companies and enables them to foster drug treatments on the public that are knowingly useless and/or harmful to the public? The same scientific community that denied acupuncture and alternative medicine for decades despite thousand of years of success for countless millions but now is embracing it so insurance companies can cash in and big pharma can produce their own versions? Pardon me if I don't join you in your religious fervor as you geauxtohell.

As it stands, I don't have to prove anything to you. Translation: This fool will geauxtohell before admitting he cannot logically or factually disprove any of my source material. Their is a wealth of evidence to support that HIV is the casual organism behind AIDS. You can choose to deny that, but you are on an island.

Interesting that for nearly a decade it was HIV=AIDS, then it was HIV and AIDS related diseases, now it's the "casual organism behind AIDS" You're SO full of it, geauxtohell..because as it becomes harder and harder to support your mantras in light of all the contrary facts and evidence brought forth by valid, bonafide experts in their fields and research provided by the very same institutions that folk like you look to. Bottom line: typing someone with HIV anti-bodies DOES NOT LEAD TO DEVELOPING AIDS. Until you can produce the paper that PROVES THAT, you're just pissing in the wind.

I suspect you realize this, and this is why you are basically left with the lame tactic of trying to beat people around the head and neck with lame insults.

Oh spare me your BS, geaxtohell....the chronology of the posts clearly shows it was YOU and your like minded cohorts who initiated the condescending and insulting attitude. That I gave back better than I got just gets your panties in a twist...that YOU ADMIT to being willfully ignorant and proud is YOUR problem and shame.

That might impress some people. It doesn't impress me. Who cares? You can't factually disprove what I post, so all you've been doing is just blowing smoke and bitching. If I am going to listen to a lecture, I'll take one from an Infectious Disease Doctor who has devoted their life to the management of HIV and not some goofy assed dork on a message board.

As the chronology of the board shows, I had to educate your dopey ass as to exactly who Deusberg was and his credentials. Bottom line: an ignorant and proud clown with delusions of intellectualism like geauxtohell ONLY would listen to a lecture from people that tells him what he wants to hear. One deaf, dumb, and blind monkey, our geauxtohell.


It's irrelevant to me anyways. Me thinks thou doth protest to much! In the field I am going into, I am only concerned with the management of disease. Oh Jeezus, you're just some dopey ass college/grad wonk who's looking for an experiment that will prove your forgone conclusion. You'll do well in big pharma research, my little deaf, dumb and blind monkey.
That means providing the best care to the sick as I can. God help us all, given your displayed penchant for willful ignorance here. I don't know why you have a bee in your bonnet about HIV. Oh, maybe because you've had over 30 years of people going broke buying drugs that they didn't need....doing treatments that made ill and/or hastened their deaths. People that use to be treated and CURED for various diseases are now on the HIV cocktail train for God knows how long. Over thirty years of misdiagnosis, fluctuating predictions and "rules" to maintain a premise that was wrong from the start. And all the while research doctors and scientist, pharma companies are making a KILLING (financially and literally). I'll assume (by your lack of articulation) that you aren't Duesburg. Oh wow, geauxtohell tried an insult! How cute! So, I suspect that makes you either someone who has HIV and is an extreme state of denial about the regular course and progression of the disease process or you are simply a contrarian.

More ramblings from an admitted willfully ignorant and proud fool that is geauxtohell.

Either way, it's irrelevant to me. Says the crazy person named geauxtohell who has spent DAYS denying facts and logic and repeating disproven premises and generally making an ass of himself while taking personal shots at me.

Oh, and, your blue print? I haven't been reading it. I've basically been skimming your bottom lines. If you want to keep wasting your time, go for it. But now you know the score.

See folks, this geauxtohell clown is just a crank. He doesn't care, he doesn't read my responses yet he's CONSISTENTLY trying to disprove what I post. Med student my ass.

I leave the little dope with following....if he truly doesn't care and it's all irrelevent to him, and all I say is worthless, then he won't respond. But we know better, don't we folks:


"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 contrast to all pathogenic viruses that cause degenerative diseases, HIV is not biochemically active in the disease syndrome it is named for. It actively infects only 1 in 104 to > 105 T cells. 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, more than enough to compensate for losses due to HIV."

 

[geauxtohell]

As you admitted you didn't even know who the hell Duesburg was credential wise, you're comment is a but a piss in the wind. As the information I produced cited other reputable medical and scientific minds besides him (that you ignore), your statement is rendered even more absurd.

But do continue to proudly squawk your willful ignorance, toodles...I'm sure that served you well as a grades toady in school.

Say goodnight, gracie.

Again, you can't rant and rave all you want. I could give a **** less. Yet here you are AGAIN....are you psychotic or just an insipidly stubborn fool? Neither your or the other people that live in a state of denial are going to change the consensus on the matter. You admit you don't read anything that contradicts your belief system, so your opinion is worthless. Your impotent fits on a message board isn't going to change anyone's mind. I have no intention of trying to change your closed mind....I just expose the lies, errors and deceit that people like you embrace like a badge of honor. Neither, apparently, is Duesburg. Whatever he has found hasn't convinced the scientific community. The same scientific community that is fiananced by pharmaceutical companies and enables them to foster drug treatments on the public that are knowingly useless and/or harmful to the public? The same scientific community that denied acupuncture and alternative medicine for decades despite thousand of years of success for countless millions but now is embracing it so insurance companies can cash in and big pharma can produce their own versions? Pardon me if I don't join you in your religious fervor as you geauxtohell.

As it stands, I don't have to prove anything to you. Translation: This fool will geauxtohell before admitting he cannot logically or factually disprove any of my source material. Their is a wealth of evidence to support that HIV is the casual organism behind AIDS. You can choose to deny that, but you are on an island.

Interesting that for nearly a decade it was HIV=AIDS, then it was HIV and AIDS related diseases, now it's the "casual organism behind AIDS" You're SO full of it, geauxtohell..because as it becomes harder and harder to support your mantras in light of all the contrary facts and evidence brought forth by valid, bonafide experts in their fields and research provided by the very same institutions that folk like you look to. Bottom line: typing someone with HIV anti-bodies DOES NOT LEAD TO DEVELOPING AIDS. Until you can produce the paper that PROVES THAT, you're just pissing in the wind.

I suspect you realize this, and this is why you are basically left with the lame tactic of trying to beat people around the head and neck with lame insults.

Oh spare me your BS, geaxtohell....the chronology of the posts clearly shows it was YOU and your like minded cohorts who initiated the condescending and insulting attitude. That I gave back better than I got just gets your panties in a twist...that YOU ADMIT to being willfully ignorant and proud is YOUR problem and shame.

That might impress some people. It doesn't impress me. Who cares? You can't factually disprove what I post, so all you've been doing is just blowing smoke and bitching. If I am going to listen to a lecture, I'll take one from an Infectious Disease Doctor who has devoted their life to the management of HIV and not some goofy assed dork on a message board.

As the chronology of the board shows, I had to educate your dopey ass as to exactly who Deusberg was and his credentials. Bottom line: an ignorant and proud clown with delusions of intellectualism like geauxtohell ONLY would listen to a lecture from people that tells him what he wants to hear. One deaf, dumb, and blind monkey, our geauxtohell.


It's irrelevant to me anyways. Me thinks thou doth protest to much! In the field I am going into, I am only concerned with the management of disease. Oh Jeezus, you're just some dopey ass college/grad wonk who's looking for an experiment that will prove your forgone conclusion. You'll do well in big pharma research, my little deaf, dumb and blind monkey.
That means providing the best care to the sick as I can. God help us all, given your displayed penchant for willful ignorance here. I don't know why you have a bee in your bonnet about HIV. Oh, maybe because you've had over 30 years of people going broke buying drugs that they didn't need....doing treatments that made ill and/or hastened their deaths. People that use to be treated and CURED for various diseases are now on the HIV cocktail train for God knows how long. Over thirty years of misdiagnosis, fluctuating predictions and "rules" to maintain a premise that was wrong from the start. And all the while research doctors and scientist, pharma companies are making a KILLING (financially and literally). I'll assume (by your lack of articulation) that you aren't Duesburg. Oh wow, geauxtohell tried an insult! How cute! So, I suspect that makes you either someone who has HIV and is an extreme state of denial about the regular course and progression of the disease process or you are simply a contrarian.

More ramblings from an admitted willfully ignorant and proud fool that is geauxtohell.

Either way, it's irrelevant to me. Says the crazy person named geauxtohell who has spent DAYS denying facts and logic and repeating disproven premises and generally making an ass of himself while taking personal shots at me.

Oh, and, your blue print? I haven't been reading it. I've basically been skimming your bottom lines. If you want to keep wasting your time, go for it. But now you know the score.

See folks, this geauxtohell clown is just a crank. He doesn't care, he doesn't read my responses yet he's CONSISTENTLY trying to disprove what I post. Med student my ass.

I leave the little dope with following....if he truly doesn't care and it's all irrelevent to him, and all I say is worthless, then he won't respond. But we know better, don't we folks:


"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 contrast to all pathogenic viruses that cause degenerative diseases, HIV is not biochemically active in the disease syndrome it is named for. It actively infects only 1 in 104 to > 105 T cells. 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, more than enough to compensate for losses due to HIV."

"Folks"? Who do you think you're talking too or is listening to you?

I've never lied on here, but as I always say to people like you; I don't care if you believe me or not.

Again, if there is a paradigm shift on the thinking about HIV, it will come about because someone has done some legit work on it that the community finds to be credible. The rantings of some sort of screaming jackass on an internet message board is not going to change anyone's mind. It certainly isn't going to change mine. You can see the difference in the patients on HAART and those who aren't and the increase in life expectancy tied to anti-retroviral drugs is easily quantitative. They have turned HIV into a condition that people can live with and see a reasonable life expectancy as opposed to a death sentence.

So continue to scream. You aren't going to change the standards of practice. That's not how it works.

 

[martybegan]

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.

I already linked an article that shows the HIV-AIDS link proves Koch's postulate (which is actually for bacteria, not viruses). Stop lying, you produced NO SUCH LINK. If so, you should be able to produce the quote. Also, Koch's postulate has been modified when dealing with viruses Koch's Postulates and the Modern Era in Virus Research. If you are to dumb to figure it out, then thats it. As the chronology of the posts shows, I produce links and exact quotes to back up what I say....YOU just make general claims and statements I have linked papers showing the mechanism of HIV infection of T-cells. you choose to ignore it.

I read it, chuckles...but YOU didn't read this: 4) In contrast to all pathogenic viruses that cause degenerative diseases, HIV is not biochemically active in the disease syndrome it is named for. It actively infects only 1 in 104 to > 105 T cells. 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, more than enough to compensate for losses due to HIV.

Again inject yourself with HIV if you are 100% sure it does not cause AIDS.

Again, since it's all ready PROVEN that folks typed with HIV anti-bodies do NOT develop AIDS, why should I inject myself with a disease to make myself sick (from whatever disease the HIV anti-body accompanied)?

And then there's this: 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

Poor Marty boy, whirling like a dervish and going nowhere fast.

Your going with a figure from 1989? really? Why dont you whip out at NKOTB cassette and call it modern music?

You are a tired hack. keep posting. so far only two people are bothering with you, just to show how stupid you are.

 

[geauxtohell]

Your going with a figure from 1989? really? Why dont you whip out at NKOTB cassette and call it modern music?

You are a tired hack. keep posting. so far only two people are bothering with you, just to show how stupid you are.

It's funny to watch him rant and rave like a moron.

As if you and I are the cause behind his perceived problem.

People tend to become enraged when they feel powerless and TL certainly feels powerless. Even if he were to convince anyone on this board that he was 100% wrong and the medical community was 100% wrong, it wouldn't change anything.

My issue is always, if someone feels so strongly about something, then why are they wasting their time and energy here bitching about it? Go out and do something.

 

[taichiliberal]

Again, you can't rant and rave all you want. I could give a **** less. Yet here you are AGAIN....are you psychotic or just an insipidly stubborn fool? Neither your or the other people that live in a state of denial are going to change the consensus on the matter. You admit you don't read anything that contradicts your belief system, so your opinion is worthless. Your impotent fits on a message board isn't going to change anyone's mind. I have no intention of trying to change your closed mind....I just expose the lies, errors and deceit that people like you embrace like a badge of honor. Neither, apparently, is Duesburg. Whatever he has found hasn't convinced the scientific community. The same scientific community that is fiananced by pharmaceutical companies and enables them to foster drug treatments on the public that are knowingly useless and/or harmful to the public? The same scientific community that denied acupuncture and alternative medicine for decades despite thousand of years of success for countless millions but now is embracing it so insurance companies can cash in and big pharma can produce their own versions? Pardon me if I don't join you in your religious fervor as you geauxtohell.

As it stands, I don't have to prove anything to you. Translation: This fool will geauxtohell before admitting he cannot logically or factually disprove any of my source material. Their is a wealth of evidence to support that HIV is the casual organism behind AIDS. You can choose to deny that, but you are on an island.

Interesting that for nearly a decade it was HIV=AIDS, then it was HIV and AIDS related diseases, now it's the "casual organism behind AIDS" You're SO full of it, geauxtohell..because as it becomes harder and harder to support your mantras in light of all the contrary facts and evidence brought forth by valid, bonafide experts in their fields and research provided by the very same institutions that folk like you look to. Bottom line: typing someone with HIV anti-bodies DOES NOT LEAD TO DEVELOPING AIDS. Until you can produce the paper that PROVES THAT, you're just pissing in the wind.

I suspect you realize this, and this is why you are basically left with the lame tactic of trying to beat people around the head and neck with lame insults.

Oh spare me your BS, geaxtohell....the chronology of the posts clearly shows it was YOU and your like minded cohorts who initiated the condescending and insulting attitude. That I gave back better than I got just gets your panties in a twist...that YOU ADMIT to being willfully ignorant and proud is YOUR problem and shame.

That might impress some people. It doesn't impress me. Who cares? You can't factually disprove what I post, so all you've been doing is just blowing smoke and bitching. If I am going to listen to a lecture, I'll take one from an Infectious Disease Doctor who has devoted their life to the management of HIV and not some goofy assed dork on a message board.

As the chronology of the board shows, I had to educate your dopey ass as to exactly who Deusberg was and his credentials. Bottom line: an ignorant and proud clown with delusions of intellectualism like geauxtohell ONLY would listen to a lecture from people that tells him what he wants to hear. One deaf, dumb, and blind monkey, our geauxtohell.


It's irrelevant to me anyways. Me thinks thou doth protest to much! In the field I am going into, I am only concerned with the management of disease. Oh Jeezus, you're just some dopey ass college/grad wonk who's looking for an experiment that will prove your forgone conclusion. You'll do well in big pharma research, my little deaf, dumb and blind monkey.
That means providing the best care to the sick as I can. God help us all, given your displayed penchant for willful ignorance here. I don't know why you have a bee in your bonnet about HIV. Oh, maybe because you've had over 30 years of people going broke buying drugs that they didn't need....doing treatments that made ill and/or hastened their deaths. People that use to be treated and CURED for various diseases are now on the HIV cocktail train for God knows how long. Over thirty years of misdiagnosis, fluctuating predictions and "rules" to maintain a premise that was wrong from the start. And all the while research doctors and scientist, pharma companies are making a KILLING (financially and literally). I'll assume (by your lack of articulation) that you aren't Duesburg. Oh wow, geauxtohell tried an insult! How cute! So, I suspect that makes you either someone who has HIV and is an extreme state of denial about the regular course and progression of the disease process or you are simply a contrarian.

More ramblings from an admitted willfully ignorant and proud fool that is geauxtohell.

Either way, it's irrelevant to me. Says the crazy person named geauxtohell who has spent DAYS denying facts and logic and repeating disproven premises and generally making an ass of himself while taking personal shots at me.

Oh, and, your blue print? I haven't been reading it. I've basically been skimming your bottom lines. If you want to keep wasting your time, go for it. But now you know the score.

See folks, this geauxtohell clown is just a crank. He doesn't care, he doesn't read my responses yet he's CONSISTENTLY trying to disprove what I post. Med student my ass.

I leave the little dope with following....if he truly doesn't care and it's all irrelevent to him, and all I say is worthless, then he won't respond. But we know better, don't we folks:


"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 contrast to all pathogenic viruses that cause degenerative diseases, HIV is not biochemically active in the disease syndrome it is named for. It actively infects only 1 in 104 to > 105 T cells. 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, more than enough to compensate for losses due to HIV."

"Folks"? Who do you think you're talking too or is listening to you?

YOU ARE, STUPID! DO YOU THINK YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE READING THIS THREAD? Check the indicators. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS, WILL YA PLEASE?


I've never lied on here, but as I always say to people like you; I don't care if you believe me or not.

You are a liar, as the chronology of the posts shows...because YOU stated that my posts were not worth reading or responding to....yet here you are! So either you're just full of it or a little crazy!

Again, if there is a paradigm shift on the thinking about HIV, it will come about because someone has done some legit work on it that the community finds to be credible. The rantings of some sort of screaming jackass on an internet message board is not going to change anyone's mind. It certainly isn't going to change mine. You can see the difference in the patients on HAART and those who aren't and the increase in life expectancy tied to anti-retroviral drugs is easily quantitative. They have turned HIV into a condition that people can live with and see a reasonable life expectancy as opposed to a death sentence.

So continue to scream. You aren't going to change the standards of practice. That's not how it works.

See folks, this geauxtohell idiot thinks that just repeating his BS makes it valid. As the chronology of the posts shows, this geauxtohell fool ADMITS that he has not read Deusberg's material (or material by any other scientist/researcher that disproves his beliefs). And it's also noted that I had to educate the little dimbulb on Deusberg's credentials and why his writings are crucial to the debate. But like the good little drone he is, geauxtohell just sees and hears no "evil" (that HIV does NOT equal AIDS).

Touting party lines like "the anti-virals are working" is based on the forgone conclusion that once typed with HIV anti-bodies, the disease symptoms you have must be treated differently than what they were traditionally treated for and cured! Killing the immune system with various cocktails and then trying to sustain/rebuild it STILL does not prove that HIV was to cause AIDS. Dummies like geauxtohell just IGNORE little FACTS, like the ones I previously touted "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"

A third of the money that goes into AIDS research and prevention pays salaries! The pharmaceutical companies have made BILLIONS off of ALL the various "cocktails" in the last 30 years DESPITE desputed success....and the continent of Africa is a cash cow! So the "paradigm" isn't likely to change for the establishment for some time.

All one has to do is just READ the information out there. Something our resident geauxtohell fool REFUSES to do. You can't argue with idiots, folks...so I'll ignore this dummy and let him geauxtohell.

 

[taichiliberal]

I already linked an article that shows the HIV-AIDS link proves Koch's postulate (which is actually for bacteria, not viruses). Stop lying, you produced NO SUCH LINK. If so, you should be able to produce the quote. Also, Koch's postulate has been modified when dealing with viruses Koch's Postulates and the Modern Era in Virus Research. If you are to dumb to figure it out, then thats it. As the chronology of the posts shows, I produce links and exact quotes to back up what I say....YOU just make general claims and statements I have linked papers showing the mechanism of HIV infection of T-cells. you choose to ignore it.

I read it, chuckles...but YOU didn't read this: 4) In contrast to all pathogenic viruses that cause degenerative diseases, HIV is not biochemically active in the disease syndrome it is named for. It actively infects only 1 in 104 to > 105 T cells. 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, more than enough to compensate for losses due to HIV.

Again inject yourself with HIV if you are 100% sure it does not cause AIDS.

Again, since it's all ready PROVEN that folks typed with HIV anti-bodies do NOT develop AIDS, why should I inject myself with a disease to make myself sick (from whatever disease the HIV anti-body accompanied)?

And then there's this: 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

Poor Marty boy, whirling like a dervish and going nowhere fast.

Your going with a figure from 1989? really? Why dont you whip out at NKOTB cassette and call it modern music?

You are a tired hack. keep posting. so far only two people are bothering with you, just to show how stupid you are.

This is the second time you've displayed your idiocy, Marty boy. You're enamored of a theory that is 30 years old, yet to date YOU CANNOT PRODUCE THE SCIENTIFIC PAPER THAT STATES CONCLUSIVELY IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT HIV=AIDS. The last two words of my quote is "SINCE 1989" It's now 2011, you idiot! If you can find a report from the CDC that contradicts my quote, then produce it. If not, go blow smoke somewhere else.

 

[taichiliberal]

Your going with a figure from 1989? really? Why dont you whip out at NKOTB cassette and call it modern music?

You are a tired hack. keep posting. so far only two people are bothering with you, just to show how stupid you are.

It's funny to watch him rant and rave like a moron.

As if you and I are the cause behind his perceived problem.

People tend to become enraged when they feel powerless and TL certainly feels powerless. Even if he were to convince anyone on this board that he was 100% wrong and the medical community was 100% wrong, it wouldn't change anything.

My issue is always, if someone feels so strongly about something, then why are they wasting their time and energy here bitching about it? Go out and do something.

I love watching these two stupes coddle each other....as the chronology of the posts shows, they both display willful ignorance and sheer hypocrisy with a dose of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[geauxtohell]

See folks, this geauxtohell idiot thinks that just repeating his BS makes it valid. As the chronology of the posts shows, this geauxtohell fool ADMITS that he has not read Deusberg's material (or material by any other scientist/researcher that disproves his beliefs). And it's also noted that I had to educate the little dimbulb on Deusberg's credentials and why his writings are crucial to the debate. But like the good little drone he is, geauxtohell just sees and hears no "evil" (that HIV does NOT equal AIDS).

Touting party lines like "the anti-virals are working" is based on the forgone conclusion that once typed with HIV anti-bodies, the disease symptoms you have must be treated differently than what they were traditionally treated for and cured! Killing the immune system with various cocktails and then trying to sustain/rebuild it STILL does not prove that HIV was to cause AIDS. Dummies like geauxtohell just IGNORE little FACTS, like the ones I previously touted "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"

A third of the money that goes into AIDS research and prevention pays salaries! The pharmaceutical companies have made BILLIONS off of ALL the various "cocktails" in the last 30 years DESPITE desputed success....and the continent of Africa is a cash cow! So the "paradigm" isn't likely to change for the establishment for some time.

All one has to do is just READ the information out there. Something our resident geauxtohell fool REFUSES to do. You can't argue with idiots, folks...so I'll ignore this dummy and let him geauxtohell.

Correct. Haven't and will not read Duesburg.

I have read Robbin's Pathologic Basis of Disease. I'll venture to guess you have not. I am not going to insist you read it before you spout off whatever your opinion is.

If anyone wants to overturn scientific consensus, they own the burden of proof.

In the meantime, all the the evidence shows that HAART therapy has been one of the greatest success stories in medicine over the last 20 years. HIV/AIDS is now a manageable disease with a reasonable life expectancy.

But, by all means, keep screaming about the evils of big pharma or that the real solution is to chew rhubarb or whatever alternative/naturo/holistiocbullshit you believe.

As I noted before, it won't change a damn thing.

If you are really passionate about it, go get a Ph.D or M.D. and devote your life to it.

Or maybe being an impotent fool on a message board is more your style.

And I am sure the "folks" reading this thread agree.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4]Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[freedombecki]

Your going with a figure from 1989? really? Why dont you whip out at NKOTB cassette and call it modern music?

You are a tired hack. keep posting. so far only two people are bothering with you, just to show how stupid you are.

It's funny to watch him rant and rave like a moron.

As if you and I are the cause behind his perceived problem.

People tend to become enraged when they feel powerless and TL certainly feels powerless. Even if he were to convince anyone on this board that he was 100% wrong and the medical community was 100% wrong, it wouldn't change anything.

My issue is always, if someone feels so strongly about something, then why are they wasting their time and energy here bitching about it? Go out and do something.

I love watching these two stupes coddle each other....as the chronology of the posts shows, they both display willful ignorance and sheer hypocrisy with a dose of intellectual dishonesty.

taichilib, you're off track by dwelling on your prejudicial notion that you are talking to idiots, when in fact, you are talking possibly to a gifted healer who may be well grounded in the science he practices and is bound by oath to do the right thing according to what is known about the scientific aspects of a specific health matter, and tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

If you could stop trashing others who have a viewpoint unlike your own for the duration, you might find out a thing or two about human health. I recommend such a behavior when you likely are among giants among healers.

*sigh* Best of luck developing a new approach to learning something from other posters once you stop painting mustaches on their avatars.

 

[taichiliberal]

It's funny to watch him rant and rave like a moron.

As if you and I are the cause behind his perceived problem.

People tend to become enraged when they feel powerless and TL certainly feels powerless. Even if he were to convince anyone on this board that he was 100% wrong and the medical community was 100% wrong, it wouldn't change anything.

My issue is always, if someone feels so strongly about something, then why are they wasting their time and energy here bitching about it? Go out and do something.

I love watching these two stupes coddle each other....as the chronology of the posts shows, they both display willful ignorance and sheer hypocrisy with a dose of intellectual dishonesty.

taichilib, you're off track by dwelling on your prejudicial notion that you are talking to idiots, when in fact, you are talking possibly to a gifted healer who may be well grounded in the science he practices and is bound by oath to do the right thing according to what is known about the scientific aspects of a specific health matter, and tell the truth and nothing but the truth.


Sorry, but I was taught by the nuns and priests from 1st grade through high school that you DO NOT make declarative statements about a subject you know nothing about. The two clowns I took to task demonstrated that not only do they DO NOT KNOW critical information about Deusberg or findings by the medical/scientific community about AIDS and HIV, but the are WILLFULLY IGNORANT of such information...AND PROUD OF IT. NONE of the doctors that ever treated me violated their oaths with the intellectual dishonesty displayed by geauxtohell and Marty Began.

If you could stop trashing others who have a viewpoint unlike your own for the duration, you might find out a thing or two about human health. I recommend such a behavior when you likely are among giants among healers.

Have you actually READ THROUGH the posts on this thread? It's not about "viewpoint", but FACTS. The problem with your two heroes is that they just want to ignore and deny facts that don't jibe with their viewpoints and beliefs. And as the chronology of the posts shows, I was NOT the one who initiated the "trash" talk or condescending, patronizing attitude......too bad if they can dish it out, but can't take it. As the late James Brown was said, "Don't start none, won't be none!"

*sigh* Best of luck developing a new approach to learning something from other posters once you stop painting mustaches on their avatars.

Obviously you're not one to actually READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY an ENTIRE THREAD before you take sides. A pity....you make sigh and eye roll to your hearts content, but like your heroes, you cannnot disprove the information I put forth or deny/dismiss the conclusion drawn from them.

Here's something YOU might read, but your idiot compadre geauxtohell won't, although when he tells people what to read, and then ignores contrary information to that suggestion:



HAART is the therapy, composed of multiple anti-HIV drugs, that is prescribed to many HIV-positive people, even before they develop symptoms of AIDS (and without considering that many will never develop these symptoms).

http://www.garynull.com/home/concerns-about-haart-highly-active-anti-retroviral-therapy.html

Carry on.

 

[geauxtohell]

Obviously you're not one to actually READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY an ENTIRE THREAD before you take sides. A pity....you make sigh and eye roll to your hearts content, but like your heroes, you cannnot disprove the information I put forth or deny/dismiss the conclusion drawn from them.

Here's something YOU might read, but your idiot compadre geauxtohell won't, although when he tells people what to read, and then ignores contrary information to that suggestion:



HAART is the therapy, composed of multiple anti-HIV drugs, that is prescribed to many HIV-positive people, even before they develop symptoms of AIDS (and without considering that many will never develop these symptoms).

CONCERNS ABOUT HAART Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy - Home - Gary Null - Your Guide To Natural Living

Carry on.

Gary Null?

Nice to see you are still bringing it with the expert panel.

Of course you start HAART before a person gets AIDS. That's the point. You are trying to keep their CD4 count above 200 before they start getting opportunistic infections. You and I don't have to worry about CMV. A person with a CD4 count of 50 does.

As for Null:

Supplements guru sues over his own product | Booster Shots | Los Angeles Times

Ironic that when he poisoned himself with Vitamin D (very hard to do, BTW), he didn't rely on "alternative" medicine to treat his acute renal failure.

Further ironic that the spokesman for natural and holistic health feel victim to the major problem with "alternative medicine". Completely unregulated products and healers who have convinced people that they know what the hell they are talking about. One of the most sad cases I saw was of a young woman who had a tumor in the back of her neck. Instead of Chemo and radiation, she went to a "Naturalistic Doctor" for a year.

She came back when the cancer had almost occluded her throat. Of course, the "Naturalistic Doctor" should be stripped of his license and sued. Except he doesn't have to have a license or carry malpractice.

As for Null's credentials:

A Critical Look at Gary Null's Activities and Credentials

 

[taichiliberal]

This is too good to pass up.

Geauxtohell has admitted he has not and WILL NOT read information regarding Deusberg...in fact, HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF DEUSBERG'S CREDENTIALS PRIOR TO MY SCHOOLING HIM.

Geauxtohell has REPEATEDLY ingnored the information I've provided that has documented facts that contradict the conclusions of his sourced material.

And now, to try and discredit my response to another poster with an article that when read, merely points out that Gary Null is VERY diligent about quality control of his products. Only a pure idiot would try and mock someone for doing albeit a better job than some of the FDA inspectors.

And then the topper is the OFFICIAL source that Geauxtohell uses to try and discredit Gary Null. Check this out, folks:


Failed MD Stephen Barrett

Who is Stephen Barrett?

And then there was this little gem

Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases, critic of lyme disease doctors and diagnosis


And remember folks, Geauxtohell has stated SEVERAL times that Everything I've posted here is NOT worth contemplation and that he could care less. YET HE RESPONDS AGAIN AND AGAIN EVEN WHEN NOT DIRECTLY ADDRESSED.

In short, Geauxtohell is just some clown with delusions of intelligence, but who has displayed NOTHING but intellectual dishonesty and willful ignorance. He's a crank with an axe to grind....and having exposed him for that, I have NO reason to continue repeating the same dance steps. Into the dumpster with him.

 

[geauxtohell]

This is too good to pass up.

Geauxtohell has admitted he has not and WILL NOT read information regarding Deusberg...in fact, HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF DEUSBERG'S CREDENTIALS PRIOR TO MY SCHOOLING HIM.

Geauxtohell has REPEATEDLY ingnored the information I've provided that has documented facts that contradict the conclusions of his sourced material.

And now, to try and discredit my response to another poster with an article that when read, merely points out that Gary Null is VERY diligent about quality control of his products. Only a pure idiot would try and mock someone for doing albeit a better job than some of the FDA inspectors.

Oh yeah. Gary Null is so dedicated to "quality control" that he's willing to poison himself.

What kind of fantasy world to you live in where Null can be poisoned by his own "alternative medicine" quackery and claim it was in the name of "quality control"?

Why didn't he rely on alternative medicine to cure his acute renal failure?

I mean, if western medicine is such a bad thing, why did he run to it as soon as he started to die?

And then the topper is the OFFICIAL source that Geauxtohell uses to try and discredit Gary Null. Check this out, folks:


Failed MD Stephen Barrett

Who is Stephen Barrett?

And then there was this little gem

Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases, critic of lyme disease doctors and diagnosis


And remember folks, Geauxtohell has stated SEVERAL times that Everything I've posted here is NOT worth contemplation and that he could care less. YET HE RESPONDS AGAIN AND AGAIN EVEN WHEN NOT DIRECTLY ADDRESSED.

In short, Geauxtohell is just some clown with delusions of intelligence, but who has displayed NOTHING but intellectual dishonesty and willful ignorance. He's a crank with an axe to grind....and having exposed him for that, I have NO reason to continue repeating the same dance steps. Into the dumpster with him.

Nice. A hack piece on Barrett by the very people he discredits.

A Response to Tim Bolen

This is obviously not news to Barrett who noted that Bolen tried to claim that his retirement was due to some sort of sanction (it was not). At any rate, the rest of the smears are addressed at the link.

Funny how you goofs think medicine is like a message board where the person who attacks hardest wins. It is not. Real medicine takes time and effort (and not just a bunch of cranks and their gullible apostles insisting that they are correct).

At least Duesberg was a legit Ph.D. with some bona fides.

He's just wrong about HIV. That makes him a hack. Well, technically, he's not a hack because he's not a physician that actually treats patients, but I digress.

Anyways, he's wrong about HIV. That's not my opinion. It's scientific consensus.

Here is some peer reviewed work on Duesberg's (at best) hypothesis.

Genetica, Volume 104, Number 2 - SpringerLink
Does drug use cause AIDS? [Nature. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI

Oh, and...

Barrett does a better job then I can:

Foreword to "Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Psychoscience, and Human Tragedy"

So again, cry all you want, it's not going to change a damned thing.

 

[Magnus1]

These days life is very tough and this is the thing that we should use the good tips and techniques to live the life and also support them financially.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

the AIDS epidemic reminds me so much of the issue of gonorrhea and syphilis during the world wars. it was just as scary. check this out...


"Venereal diseases were the cause of much debility and loss of manpower during WW1 (as they were in WW2). Salvarsan had been discovered in 1906 and was available for treatment of syphilis, although the older methods of treatment with mercury were still prescribed. Gonorrhoea was mainly treated by urethral washouts using medicated fluids, a treatment that was much detested and feared by the men, but was to continue until the use of Penicillin during the second world war."