# World AIDS DAY info



## taichiliberal (Dec 1, 2011)

Appropo to the World AIDS Day observation, please read the following:


Inventing the AIDS Virus
by Dr. Peter Deusberg (Regenery USA 1996)


----------



## Tank (Dec 1, 2011)




----------



## whitehall (Dec 1, 2011)

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


----------



## martybegan (Dec 1, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> Appropo to the World AIDS Day observation, please read the following:
> 
> 
> Inventing the AIDS Virus
> by Dr. Peter Deusberg (Regenery USA 1996)


----------



## Mad Scientist (Dec 1, 2011)

What? Are you saying that a gov't would create a Race Specific Bio Weapon and use it on their people? Why that's a Conspiracy Theory and Crazy Talk!

Proof that AIDS is a race-specific bio-weapoon. - The Body's Bulletin Boards
I'll have you know our gov't *ONLY* does stuff like support Al Qaida overseas and Gun Running programs in Mexico.


----------



## whitehall (Dec 1, 2011)

It's all about the liberal Barney Frank mentality that you need to be free to lik a sticky dik no matter what the consequences and blame republicans if you die of a horrible disease. Thank the democrat party of anti-morality for the concept.


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 1, 2011)

Tank said:


>



a) Please source your material for reference purposes and further discussion.

b) What was your point of your post in relation to the book I referenced?

c)  Did you ever read the book I referenced?


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 1, 2011)

whitehall said:


> 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!


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 1, 2011)

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Appropo to the World AIDS Day observation, please read the following:
> ...



Translation: Marty Began is either willfully ignorant or an intellectual coward or both.

Get back to me when you actually read the material and KNOW WTF you're going on about, Marty boy.


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 1, 2011)

Mad Scientist said:


> What? Are you saying that a gov't would create a Race Specific Bio Weapon and use it on their people? Why that's a Conspiracy Theory and Crazy Talk!
> 
> Proof that AIDS is a race-specific bio-weapoon. - The Body's Bulletin Boards
> I'll have you know our gov't *ONLY* does stuff like support Al Qaida overseas and Gun Running programs in Mexico.



Interesting how fact based information upsets people so much that they need to rant and blather on like this "mad scientist" clod.


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 1, 2011)

whitehall said:


> It's all about the liberal Barney Frank mentality that you need to be free to lik a sticky dik no matter what the consequences and blame republicans if you die of a horrible disease. Thank the democrat party of anti-morality for the concept.



Interesting how fact based information upsets people so much that they need to rant and blather on like this "whitehall" clod.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 2, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Ive read the basic premise, that HIV is unrelated to AIDS, that it is caused by poor nutrition, the drugs used to treat it, recreational drug use, and overall poor health. 

The fact is that HIV has been isolated, and has been shown to cause AIDS, has been seen via electron microscope infecting and bursting from T-cells.

The premise of the book also completely ignores the concentration of AIDS in the North American Gay community, which is not explained by the premises above, in particular the fact that there were tens of thousands of AIDS deaths prior to the invention of even a single AIDS related drug. 

The book was written in 1996 and has been debunked countless times. 

The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS


----------



## Warrior102 (Dec 2, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Keep it in your pants? What is it about the A in AIDS do radical perverts fail to understand?
> ...



Lighten up Francis. You'll blow a gasket


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 2, 2011)

The way to stop the spread of AIDS among blacks is for every black dude to have an assigned Rubber Guy.  The Rubber Guy's job is to wrestle the black dude to the ground and forcibly put a condom on him before he has sex.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 2, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> Appropo to the World AIDS Day observation, please read the following:
> 
> 
> Inventing the AIDS Virus
> by Dr. Peter Deusberg (Regenery USA 1996)



does Bush get a shout out?


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 3, 2011)

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Wrong as usual, Marty boy, as you point to an article that is talking about "evidence", and NOT A CONCLUSIVE PROOF to the contrary.  Funny how you latched onto this WITHOUT READING DEUSBERG'S BOOK.  You shouldn't let others do your thinking for you, Marty boy...but hope springs eternal.  Here's a primer for your education, if you dare to do honest research:

_Dear Friends-
On October 1st, 2008, I hosted a press conference with renowned British journalist Janine Roberts. At that conference we presented new evidence confirming that world renowned scientist Dr. Robert Galloformer head of the Laboratory of Tumor Cell Biology (LTCB) at the National Cancer Institute, intentionally altered his laboratorys research in order to falsely claim he had detected and isolated a retrovirus (HIV) as the causal agent of Auto Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). 

Janine Roberts has recently uncovered invaluable documentation, in Dr. Gallos own handwriting, that conclusively demonstrates that the results and conclusions derived from laboratory experiments were intentionally alteredby Gallo himselfso that he could take credit for an alleged discovery that was not supported by the facts from his own laboratorys findings. 

To this day, HIV has never been isolated from an AIDS inflicted patient and photographed under an electron microscope. 

In an email sent to me by Dr. Etienne de Harven, Professor Emeritus from the University of Toronto and one of the worlds foremost authorities on electron microscopy, Dr. de Harven stated, I have never observed one single particle of retrovirus in any of the thousands of samples of human leukemic, cancerous and AIDS related samples I studied under the electron microscope between 1956 and 1993 (the time of my retirement). 

For many years there has been a group of prominent medical scientists and virologists throughout the world who have criticized the prevailing dogma that a retrovirus is the cause for the symptoms now known as AIDS. Their rationale for stating that the HIV hypothesis is seriously flawed can be summarized quite easily. No diagnostic text has ever been developed that singly targets the HIV retrovirus. HIV has never been isolated from an AIDS patient and there are no conclusive studies to show it is the cause of AIDS-like symptoms. No proof exits that HIV actually destroys killer t-cells, which is indicative of an autoimmune disease. There is no antiretroviral drug that doesnt also seriously compromise the human immune system and further threaten patients with other life-threatening illnesses. There is no conclusive research to prove that HIV is readily sexually transmittedanother claim made by Gallo without scientific evidence to support himself.
The ramifications of Roberts investigations are historic because they show that the original scientific foundation to support the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS hypothesis is flawed and has no justification in medical science. 

And now my staff and I are making the complete video of this conference available to you. 
Yours in good health, Gary (Null)_


For further edification:

The Great HIV Hoax
written by Patrick Rattigan ND


The Great &#8220;HIV&#8221; Hoax


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 3, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Who is "Francis"?  And did YOU read the book, or have any comment/opinion on the subject at hand?


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 3, 2011)

Katzndogz said:


> The way to stop the spread of AIDS among blacks is for every black dude to have an assigned Rubber Guy.  The Rubber Guy's job is to wrestle the black dude to the ground and forcibly put a condom on him before he has sex.



And since for the last 20 years or so it's been about typing people with HIV and NOT actual cases of AIDS, one basis for your absurd little rant just doesn't make sense, as TO DATE NO ONE HAS PRODUCED A CONCLUSIVE PAPER THAT HIV=AIDS.

As to your obvious bent about black people, I'm sure you and Tank can have a maudlin exchange on that...but unless you man-up and actually READ the book I site to know WTF you're talking about, then it's a waste of time to engage you further.


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 3, 2011)

Trajan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Appropo to the World AIDS Day observation, please read the following:
> ...



For merely extending the same false premise and then pointing to a self fulfilled prophecy?


----------



## Tank (Dec 3, 2011)

Blacks are much more promiscuous, thats why they have so much more of the aids.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 3, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



ucg2p9r, fveo mwog hyasp. Hteaot gaorhd vaf.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 3, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



You dig up one doctor, who disagrees with 99.99% of the rest of medical doctors, researchers, and universities, yet you accept his premise as fact, and ignore everyone else.

I, on the other had look at the vastly overall scientific consensus, and agree with it.  How difficult is it to think there is a virus that infects T cells, and that virus can be spread via fluidic contact?  All the other AIDS "theories" take Occams Razor and turn its on its head. 

HIV and AIDS: Does HIV cause AIDS?

here is a link you worthless pseudo-scientific hack. Its papers like the one you linked that are allowing governments in Africa to deny AIDS as a communicable disease, while thier populations are ravaged by it. 

Can someone move this to conspiracy theories please?


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 3, 2011)

Tank said:


> Blacks are much more promiscuous, thats why they have so much more of the aids.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/4492131-post18.html


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 3, 2011)

Trajan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



If you can't respond in English, Trajan,  then don't bother....because as we all know that you, Trajan are incapable of any honest debate beyond a certain point.

Get back to me when you actually read the book.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 3, 2011)

To claim that HIV isn't responsible for AIDS demonstrates such a profound lack of education that it is pointless to even debate it.  

So, rant away.  It's not going to change a damn thing.  Nor are the handful of bullshit artists who claim that their is a conspiracy going on.


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 3, 2011)

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Once again, I'll have to humiliate this Marty moron beyond his hunt & peck google search to back up the HIV=AIDS mantras



_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_
IS "HIV" REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW" SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS? (PART 1) - Home - Gary Null - Your Guide To Natural Living


And for a more intense explanation:

Dr. Peter Deusberg - ProActiveHealthNet


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 3, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> To claim that HIV isn't responsible for AIDS demonstrates such a profound lack of education that it is pointless to even debate it.
> 
> So, rant away.  It's not going to change a damn thing.  Nor are the handful of bullshit artists who claim that their is a conspiracy going on.



No one is "claiming" anything, genius.  When you can produce the scientific document that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that HIV=AIDS, let me know.  Until then, grow the fuck up and READ the book.  Meanwhile, here's a primer for you:



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



IS "HIV" REALLY THE CAUSE OF AIDS? ARE THERE REALLY ONLY "A FEW" SCIENTISTS WHO DOUBT THIS? (PART 1) - Home - Gary Null - Your Guide To Natural Living


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 3, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> No one is "claiming" anything, genius.  When you can produce the scientific document that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that HIV=AIDS, let me know.  Until then, grow the fuck up and READ the book.  Meanwhile, here's a primer for you:



Go ahead and turn into a screaming jackass.  I don't care.  In the time I have to read scientific literature, I'll limit myself to legit publications and not a load of bullshit.

At any rate, two can play at the "read my source or STFU" game.

So, feel free to read any of these sources:

HIV AIDS NIH - Google Scholar

And show how the assumption that HIV leads to AIDS is flawed.  Please refrain from hyperbolic bullshit and limit yourself to an assessment based on confidence intervals, p values, experimental design (cohort v. case control), alpha or beta error or some other form of methodology error that would demonstrate an massive error in the methodology.


----------



## Tank (Dec 3, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > Blacks are much more promiscuous, thats why they have so much more of the aids.
> ...


HIV, AIDS whatever you want to call it blacks and Hispanics have it at extreamly high rates.


----------



## Tank (Dec 3, 2011)

Todays News:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NmXE3rOOxo]Former Wrestler &#39;Gangster Of Love&#39; Found Guilty Of Knowingly Infecting 12 Women With HIV - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## martybegan (Dec 4, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



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.

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.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 4, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > No one is "claiming" anything, genius.  When you can produce the scientific document that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that HIV=AIDS, let me know.  Until then, grow the fuck up and READ the book.  Meanwhile, here's a primer for you:
> ...



Lets go one better. Lets see some study that shows that the factors shown in that "book" are the cause of AIDS, using the same level of confidence that those trying to shoot down the real reason use. 

Again, someone put this in conspiracy theories.


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 6, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > No one is "claiming" anything, genius.  When you can produce the scientific document that PROVES CONCLUSIVELY that HIV=AIDS, let me know.  Until then, grow the fuck up and READ the book.  Meanwhile, here's a primer for you:
> ...



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

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4495213-post26.html

*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!


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 6, 2011)

martybegan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...




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.


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 6, 2011)

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



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.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 6, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



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.


----------



## martybegan (Dec 6, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...




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.


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 7, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> 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.  You certainly have not published any "peer-reviewed" document that disputes that HIV causes AIDS.  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.  



> 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.  

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.  



> *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![/COLOR]



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.  

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 (Dec 7, 2011)

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



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...........


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 7, 2011)

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



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). 

http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch2.html
_


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.


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 7, 2011)

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



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


----------



## taichiliberal (Dec 7, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...




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 (Dec 8, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Dec 8, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



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 (Dec 8, 2011)

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



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 (Dec 8, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



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 (Dec 8, 2011)

Aids is racist


----------



## martybegan (Dec 9, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



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 (Dec 12, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...




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 (Dec 12, 2011)

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



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 (Dec 12, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Keep it in your pants? What is it about the A in AIDS do radical perverts fail to understand?
> ...



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


----------



## martybegan (Dec 13, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



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 (Dec 13, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...





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 (Dec 14, 2011)

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



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 (Dec 14, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



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 (Dec 14, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



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 (Dec 14, 2011)

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



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 (Dec 15, 2011)

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




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 (Dec 15, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...




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 (Dec 15, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



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.)


----------



## geauxtohell (Dec 15, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



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 (Dec 16, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



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 (Dec 16, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



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 (Dec 16, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Again, you can't rant and rave all you want.  I could give a fuck 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 (Dec 16, 2011)

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



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 (Dec 16, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



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 (Dec 17, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



"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 (Dec 17, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



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 (Dec 17, 2011)

martybegan said:


> 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 (Dec 19, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



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 (Dec 19, 2011)

martybegan said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



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 (Dec 19, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


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



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 (Dec 19, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> 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"_
> 
> ...



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&#39;s All Folks!" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## freedombecki (Dec 19, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


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 (Dec 20, 2011)

freedombecki said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



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 (Dec 21, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> 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:
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 21, 2011)

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 (Dec 21, 2011)

taichiliberal said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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*
> ...



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 (Jan 13, 2012)

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 (Jan 13, 2012)

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."


----------



## waltky (Jul 23, 2012)

Granny wonderin' what dey gonna do when it comes here?

*Drug-resistant HIV 'on increase' in sub-Saharan Africa*
_22 July 2012 - Monitoring of patients helps in detecting drug resistance_


> Drug-resistant HIV has been increasing in parts of sub-Saharan Africa over the last decade, according to experts writing in the Lancet.  Studies on 26,000 untreated HIV-positive people in developing countries were reviewed by the team. They said resistance could build up if people fail to stick to drug regimes, and because monitoring could be poor.
> 
> A UK HIV organisation said resistance was a serious problem in Africa where alternative treatments were lacking.  The researchers, from the World Health Organization (WHO) and University College London (UCL) found the most rapid increase in drug resistance occurred in East Africa, at 29% per year. In Southern Africa, it was 14% per year.  There was no change in resistance over time in Latin America and in West and Central Africa.
> 
> ...


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 24, 2012)

waltky said:


> Granny wonderin' what dey gonna do when it comes here?
> 
> *Drug-resistant HIV 'on increase' in sub-Saharan Africa*
> _22 July 2012 - Monitoring of patients helps in detecting drug resistance_
> ...



HIV does NOT equal AIDS.

To date, there has been NO scientific paper that proves so.
Diseases born of poor water, food, shelter, healthcare resources that have been treated successfully for decades previously are NOW indicators of AIDS.  So time and effort is wasted on trying to eradicate an anti-body that DOES NOT cause AIDS.

Case in point from one of the doctors that helped discover HIV:

UC Berkeley professor denies link between HIV and AIDS - The Daily Californian

http://davidrasnick.com/Home_files/Duesberg 2011, IJAE, AIDS since 1984.pdf


----------



## mal (Jul 25, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Appropo to the World AIDS Day observation, please read the following:
> 
> 
> Inventing the AIDS Virus
> by Dr. Peter Deusberg (Regenery USA 1996)




What about Fire-AIDS?...



peace...


----------



## whitehall (Jul 25, 2012)

Second only to MM global warming, AIDS is the biggest whiny scam in history. If they considered two things we wouldn't need an AIDS day. "Keep it in your pants" and "don't share a dirty needle". What do you think the "A" stands for?


----------

