| |
MrJoe
|
Yurune,
I seem to recall something about this but not well enough to give you any kind of answer. My belief is that with anonynimity promised by a hospital and the general inability or lack of effort to coordinate between various agencies, the Falang in question would probably just be "told and left to (his) own devices".
As I say, I have some memory of a story relating to this but I can't think what it is.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 12:28 am on Jan. 9, 2003
|
|
Yurune
|
Cheers mate
If you ever do remember or find anything else...let me know.....
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Sensual Bangkok Women
Posted on: 12:31 am on Jan. 9, 2003
|
|
haam sup
|
"...there are 1000s of notable scientists around the world including nobel lauretes who share this view."
Regarding the Nobel laureat who shares the view that HIV doesn't cause AIDS:
Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion, based on my experience in the local academic community, and the biotech industry in Southern California.
Kary Mullis, who received his Nobel Prize for inventing the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), is a biochemist, and has NO medical training whatsoever. ÝHis technique, while used in a research setting for, among many other things, detecting HIV, has no direct clinical bearing on AIDS, but is considered a milestone in genetic research.
"The idea was not the product of a painstaking laboratory discipline, but was conceived while cruising in a Honda Civic on Highway 128 from San Francisco to Mendocino. " - National Health Museum bio, March 2002
He is a local legend in my area, and a notable party animal. ÝHe can be seen surfing on any good day, a few miles up the coast from where I live. ÝHe has very little standing, though, in the academic community, and is held in general disrepute due to a penchant for excess in his not-so-personal party life.
Although he is a truly gifted guy, he hasn't had a 'hit' since 1993, and aside from opining on the "AIDS myth", he is (once again, IMHO) headed for obscurity. ÝHe lends creedence to irresponsible medical iconoclasts, due to his Nobel fame, and is a staple of the "AIDS Myth" movement.
I wouldn't argue PCR, or any biochemistry, with him, but I wouldn't take a sex-ed class from him, on a bet.
Simon's post applies. ÝAnd BigDUSA's.
haam sup
hope no one's insulted, but this is life-or-death
|
Thai Girls : Meet Sexy Thai Girls
Posted on: 1:09 am on Jan. 9, 2003
|
|
afm171
|
I always find it amusing that the best anyone can ever come up with for defending the HIV theory is one of three themes:
1) well everyone seems to think its true so it must be
2) those guys who say its a blunder are a bunch of goofballs
3) the rules of science don't apply to HIV
These types of arguments just don't hold up for me. It's slander & doubletalk vs.science & logic. Sadly present day science is more about having a "hit" in order to secure funding - than in finding the objective truth.
The nature of people is certainly something to take into consideration in any debate, but more important than whether they are a party animal or a devout churchgoer is to examine their motives.
Even so, examining the the people is really secondary to examining the evidence. Yes, this is life or death, and sadly people have died BECAUSE they believed in the HIV theory. Here is some stuff to chew on, the following are some notes i took from Duesbergs book...
what is AIDS?
AIDS by itself is not a disease. There are no syptoms that are specific to AIDS. It is a collection of 30 diseases that have been known about for a long time. eg Kaposiís Sarcoma (skin lesions) pneumonia, etc
The reason that the term AIDS was created, was because of the unusual number of people that were succumbing to diseases that were not previously common. Many of these diseases are actually present in healthy people, but have no effect on them because their immune system is healthy enough to control them.
Initially, the term AIDS was applied to anyone who became ill due to a weakened immune system.
Right now, a diagnosis of AIDS is given if the patient has one or more of the 30 diseases, and also tests positive for HIV. In other words if someone has Kaposiís Sarcoma and tests negative for HIV then the diagnosis is ěKaposiís Sarcomaî if someone has Kaposiís Sarcoma and tests positive for HIV then the diagnosis is ěAIDSî. If they have pnuemonia and test negative for HIV then the diagnosis is pnuemonia, if they test positive , then the diagnosis is AIDS, etc. AIDS is not a disease! It is just a label applied to other diseases if a certain microbe is present.
The connection of HIV and AIDS was first hypothesized by a french researcher, but announced by an american Dr Gallo, it was presented without review by the scientific community. Dr Gallo appeared on TV to present his ëdiscoveryí of a microbe that he had found in a number of victims, the press , the government and the public picked it up and have been running with it ever since. There was no clinical trial showing that the microbe was responsible for anything, there was no evidence at all. See if you can find the original scientific report that HIV causes AIDS (or anything for that matter), you canít! there is no such thing!
The evidence presented was that the HIV virus was found in several men who were suffering from ěAIDS diseases.î Interesting, but hardly proof of anything ń several men probably had antibodies against the chicken pox in their systems too, that doesnít prove that chicken pox causes AIDS.
HIV is probably not even a new virus, the technology to detect it just happened to become available at the same time that AIDS was first recognized. Coincidentally, Dr Gallo filed for the patent to the HIV test later that day
The HIV test actually is a test for ANTIBODIES to HIV, which when found indicate that the bodies immune system is intact and has dealt with the HIV virus.
The HIV theory proposes that the virus is ělatentî for a period of time, and then reactivates to kill all the cells on which it survives, causing the immune system to fail. This concept contradicts basic elements of virology: first the way that a virus works is by multiplication, doubling and then doubling again, with any virus this means that the body infected will either become ill within 2 weeks or that the body will form enough antibodies to stop the infection. Second, there is no virus that operates by killing the host cell on which it lives, any such virus would soon become extinct.
What about herpes it can be latent for a time and then come back? Yes, but there is a key difference, herpes comes back when the immune system is weakened by something else, stress, alcohol, etc. the HIV theory holds that the virus CAUSES the weakened immune system which is the other way around.
As time went on it was discovered that many people who were diagnosed as having AIDS, did not in fact test positive for HIV, this is why the definition was changed to require it.
This distinction can be very misleading, especially when someone makes a report that says something like ě100% of AIDS patients have HIVî, by including HIV in the definition of AIDS it makes it impossible to be any other way.
There are many viruses In the body that do no harm, have no disease associated with them known as passenger viruses, there is no evidence that HIV is anything else but a passenger. There has never been a documented case of HIV ever destroying another cell.
There is no evidence that AIDS is caused by a virus at all, the facts indicate otherwise
Viruses do not make a distinction between people based on lifestyle or sex, yet AIDS continues to be prominent only among homosexual men and IV drug users, the predictions in the early 80ís of the coming epidemic was based on the premise that AIDS was caused by a virus, yet AIDS continues to be found primarily among gay men and IV drug users.
Basic Virology operates by a set of rules known as Kochís postulates, they are used to determine if a microbe is guilty of causing a disease, in other words ěis it contagious?î:
1 if a disease is caused by a virus then you will find that virus in EVERY case of the disease
HIV has failed postulate #1, it is not found in every person who has Acquired an Immune Deficiency.
2 the germ must be isolated and grown in the labratory, It has satisfied this step, then again with many BILLIONS of dollars invested that shouldnít be a surprise. HIV is probably the most studied virus of all time
3 the purified germ must cause the disease in another host
It has failed #3, no otherwise healthy animal or person has become ill due to HIV infection alone.
So what does cause AIDS
Keeping in mind that AIDS is just a collective term for a variety of preexisting diseases, there is much evidence to suggest that the use of drugs is responsible for people to Acquire an Immune Defieciency.
Among gay men, it was the ones who most actively participated in receptive anal sex, who were succumbing to illness, in particular Kaposií Sarcoma, this created the theory that the illness was sexually transmitted. However what came to be known later is that 98% of these men admitted to be habitual users of Amyl Nitrite inhalants (poppers), among other things this chemical is known to relax the muscles of the anus.
Many of these men were developing Kaposiís Sarcoma of the lungs, which was never seen before, indicating that something that was being inhaled may be responsible.
IV drug users and hemophiliacs were not getting Kaposiís Sarcoma, they were getting pneumonias or other diseases.
ironically, Kaposiís Sarcoma has recently been dropped from the ěofficialî AIDS diseases list, since the usage of poppers has declined, it has returned to being a rare condition.
What about people who donít use drugs?
(the africans, Arthur Ashe, Magic Johnson, Kimberley Bergalis etc.)
In the case of the africans, the ones who have Acquired an Immune Deficiency have done it the old fashioned way - ěstarvationî.
There is a high incidence of HIV in africa, which is found in equal ratios between men and women, but in the more than 10 years since testing began their death rate is the same as HIV negative people. ans since HIV is a harmless virus they will remain that way.
The predicted african epidemic has not materialized, but AIDS has become an important industry in africa. Where AIDS is reported, funding money soon follows. This situation has lead to widespread false reports of AIDS incidents.
In the case of Arthur Ashe, Kimberly Bergalis and many other high profile cases something truly tragic occured. Being in a panic as most people who have been diagnosed with HIV are they began ětherapyî with AZT. this drug has never been approved for use on anything, in fact it operates by indiscrimanetly killing any cell it encounters. given enough time it effectively eliminates the Immune system. creating a self fulfilling prophecy.
Before beginning AZT ětherapyî Arthur and Kimberly had normal health
Shortly after Magic Johnson was diagnosed with HIV, it was announced that his health was deteriorating, during this time he was also taking AZT, he stopped taking it, against his doctors advice and now enjoys normal health.
many Hemophiliacs have become infected by the harmless HIV virus due to frequent blood transfusions, which in themselves are detrimental to the immune system. statistically HIV positive hemophiliacs are living longer than the HIV negative ones. That is unless they are drug abusers or undergoing AZT therapy.
They HIV theorists first proposed that it would take 6 months from the time of getting HIV to developing AIDS, that time has continually been expanded, now anywhere from 7 to 15 years.
AIDS first appeared in the early 80s, sex has been around for a few million years. Drug abuse became widespread in the 7 to 15 years before the early 80s. Which one do you think looks suspicious?
The bottom line is that Amyl Nitrites, heroin and AZT are corruptive to the bodies immune system, much the same way that alcohol is corruptive to the liver or cigarettes corruptive to the lungs, there is nothing radical about this concept, and in fact all the evidence points towards it.
Our scientists couldnít make a mistake like this
there is a long history of mistakes like this, ironically most of them have occured because of the success of identifying viruses in other diseases, polio being the best example.
a similar panic occured around the turn of the century, it was called Pellegra, it was found among poor people who subsisted mostly on corn, the medical establishment was convinced that there was some kind of virus in the corn that was killing these people. Research went on for many years, not even one doctor ever developed Pellegra from working with these highly ěcontagiousî victims, who were often ostracized from society. It was later determined that these people were suffering from nothing more than an incomplete diet.
In the 1960ís there was an epidemic in Japan called SMON, people were reporting stomach problems and then eventually dying, many thousands of people were afflicted. Once again the virus search was on, Millions of dollars were invested to find a cure. Eventually it was found that the medicine doctors were prescribing for the stomach problems was the actual cause of the fatalities.
The disease BeriBeri was initially thought to be caused by a virus, once again many people died while science sought to find the virus and then to create a cure. Meanwhile another researcher discovered a new vitamin called niacin, he also noticed that the people who had beriberi did not get any in their diet, he brought this to the attention of the scientific community and was ridiculed, but he was right.
Why would they let it happen again?
the medical research establishment is heavily invested in virus research this has been true for a long time, its biggest triumph over polio has made it very powerful as well, as the infectuous diseases have been cured this establishment has been left with nothing much to do. During the 70s the ěwar on cancerî was established, based on the idea that cancer might be caused by a virus. By the late 70s it was becoming clear that there was no progress being made and that in all likelihood cancer was not caused by a virus. When the HIV postulate appeared the war on cancer was dropped like a hot potato and the new virus quest was (and still is) onÖ
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Sexy Bangkok Girls
Posted on: 2:53 am on Jan. 9, 2003
|
|
Chompoo
|
afm, it seems you have fallen victim to the current epidemic of conspiracy theories. I haven't read every word you've posted and I haven't followed the links, but what I've read so far is enough to convince me that this is just a crackpot idea (that HIV is unrelated to AIDS).
First there are a hell of a lot of really smart people (smarter than you and even smarter than me) who know a lot more about this than either of us. What motivation do they have for being involved in this conspiracy? Do you really believe that the 1000 other Nobel Prize winners are afraid to stand up and speak the truth?
The intelligent people of the world are too highly motivated to not waste resources doing HIV research, if it were indeed easily shown to be a harmless virus. Some few may profit (e.g. the researchers and drug makers, the ultra-conservatives, ...), but most will not. The crackpots, on the other hand, have everything to gain from causing uncertainty.
Some of the obvious fallacies in your post are:
Yes, but there is a key difference, herpes comes back when the immune system is weakened by something else, stress, alcohol, etc. the HIV theory holds that the virus CAUSES the weakened immune system which is the other way around.
There is absolutely no reason why HIV cannot be activated (turned into AIDS) by a weakened immune system, just like herpes, and when triggered results in a total breakdown of the entire immune system. This is not counter intuitive at all.
Right now, a diagnosis of AIDS is given if the patient has one or more of the 30 diseases, and also tests positive for HIV.... if a disease is caused by a virus then you will find that virus in EVERY case of the disease
HIV has failed postulate #1, it is not found in every person who has Acquired an Immune Deficiency
This is absurd thinking. AIDS is not a particular disease, it is the shutdown of the immune system which makes the body susceptible to these diseases. A particular disease may cause my hair to fall out, but that doesn't mean that if my hair falls out that I must necessarily have that disease. This is elementary logic. By itself the correlation doesn't prove anything (except perhaps through statistical analysis), but it certainly shouldn't be counted as a strike against the theory.
In the case of the africans, the ones who have Acquired an Immune Deficiency have done it the old fashioned way - ěstarvationî.
This is not very compelling. If this were the case then presumably you would have a high number of people who had an immune deficiency (I'm not sure how you quantify that) who do not have HIV. Where is the evidence for this? Do you have statistics that show Africans dying from a particular non-sexually transmitted disease to be at the same rate for those who are HIV+ vs. HIV-?
I could go on, but I won't. I also won't waste space proving that we landed on the moon.
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 4:15 pm on Jan. 9, 2003
|
|
afm171
|
The answers to your questions are availble with further investigation, certainly more in depth answers than i can provide - but since you asked them here i will do my best to address them.
I don't think the word 'conspiracy' descibes the situation ń blunder would be a better word. I do not represent in any way that there was some kind of devious plan to defraud.
The motivation for people to be involved in the HIV industry are many: belief that they are doing important work, and billions of dollars are two of them. The people involved do not believe that there is a fundamental error (or conspiracy as you say) in the work they are doing. They are largely good honest people who believe (without question) in what they are doing. Those that do are the HIV dissidents. The issues i raise are largly aimed at the 'without question' mindset.
No, i do not believe that the other 1000 Nobel lauretaes are afraid to stand up and speak the truth. Most of them are just as unaware of all the information out there as everyone else that couldn't be bothered to click the link. A few of them probably are scared, as the consequences of speaking on this subject are a loss of funding and recognition within the mainstream scientific community
The so called "crackpots" have nothing to gain from creating uncertainty. It is a very BAD career move. Some of the people involved in criticising the HIV theory are among the bravest people i have ever encountered, it's equivalent to Galileo telling the Pope that the earth revolves around the sun, with nearly as harsh consequences.
Whether or not HIV can or cannot be activated into anything really is the issue here. I do not say that it is impossible, I say that there is scant evidence that it does so.
The point of the comparison with herpes (or any virus) is that the HIV theory does not follow the pattern of behaviour of viruses
Herpes virus + weak immune system = herpes (w/ active herpes virus cells)
small pox virus+ weak immune system = small pox (w/ active small pox virus cells)
Polio virus + weak immune system = polio (w/ active polio virus cells)
HIV + weak immune system = weak immune system (w/ no active HIV virus cells)
When a person has a weakened immune system and has an outbreak of herpes there are abundant active herpes virus cells present and observable in their body. This is true of any active virus. In people with an AIDS diagnosis , there are no active HIV virus cells, just the same antibodies that were sitting there before, no matter what stage their health is.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make with the ěhair falling outî analogy. I understand what you are saying and I completely agree with its logic. I just donít see how it refutes anything that I have said.
There are BILLIONS of people who have had an immune deficiency who do not have HIV. Anyone who has ever had the flu, chicken pox, measles, a cold etc. has had a virus present in their body, their immune system was not able to produce sufficient antibodies to combat it and they got sick. Thatís the way it works, always has, always will.
You asked for some specific information relating to African AIDS. I do not carry World Health Organization reports around with me. I can find a reference to locate a specific report if you really want it, but I get the feeling you donít really want it. You can find an introduction to the subject here: http://www.duesberg.com/subject/africa2.html
I cannot prove that HIV doesnít do anything, just like I canít prove that there is no Santa Claus. It is very difficult to prove a negative, the burden of proof falls on those that claim something is true. I maintain that the proof that has been offered to support the HIV theory is highly questionable, nowhere near to being certain. Certainly something that should be openly questioned.
|
Bangkok Women : Meet Beautiful Thai Girls
Posted on: 6:37 pm on Jan. 9, 2003
|
|
Chompoo
|
I don't think the word 'conspiracy' descibes the situation ń blunder would be a better word. ÝI do not represent in any way that there was some kind of devious plan to defraud.
The motivation for people to be involved in the HIV industry are many: belief that they are doing important work, and billions of dollars are two of them. ÝThe people involved do not believe that there is a fundamental error (or conspiracy as you say) in the work they are doing. They are largely good honest people who believe (without question) in what they are doing. Those that do are the HIV dissidents. ÝThe issues i raise are largly aimed at the 'without question' mindset.
I find this highly suspicious. Given the thousands or tens of thousands of very smart people working on this, why are so few credible researchers bothering to examine this mountain of evidence that Duesberg has supposedly produced? If the evidence were really compelling it would only take one or two to start converting their co-workers and it would mushroom from there.
In almost every other scientific field there are plenty of people willing to at least consider the possibility that the underlying assumptions are wrong, whether it is the big bang, constant speed of light, .... The stakes are way too high for people to just look the other way and there is far more glory to be gained in being proven right than just going along with a dead-end theory.
No, i do not believe that the other 1000 Nobel lauretaes are afraid to stand up and speak the truth. Most of them are just as unaware of all the information out there as everyone else that couldn't be bothered to click the link. A few of them probably are scared, as the consequences of speaking on this subject are a loss of funding and recognition within the mainstream scientific community
Again this is just not true. Surely thousands of nobel prize winners and candidates (if that is the criteria for scientific genius) have been exposed to the idea that HIV does not cause AIDS and if there were any real merit they would have followed it up. Smart guys like these (and the millions of other researchers in the world) love analytical problems like this and are desperate for a chance to make their mark on society. I'm sure all of them, like me, start to follow the supposed evidence and find at a certain point it is not compelling (or even encouraging).
Can't Duesberg knock on the doors of each of the current Nobel Prize winners and present his evidence to convince even one? If this is important enough he can surely come up with, say, $10,000 for wasting the time of a reputable scientist (i.e. if I can't convince you in two days that AIDS is a myth, you keep the money).
The so called "crackpots" have nothing to gain from creating uncertainty. ÝIt is a very BAD career move. Some of the people involved in criticising the HIV theory are among the bravest people i have ever encountered, it's equivalent to Galileo telling the Pope that the earth revolves around the sun, with nearly as harsh consequences.
They have everything to gain. They gain money from publishing books, public appearances, etc. and more importanly they gain publicity and the public eye which they so desperately crave.
Whether or not HIV can or cannot be activated into anything really is the issue here. I do not say that it is impossible, I say that there is scant evidence that it does so.
I'm glad to hear you say at least this much. So I won't have to challenge you to voluntarily expose yourself to the HIV virus.
The point of the comparison with herpes (or any virus) is that the HIV theory does not follow the pattern of behaviour of viruses
Herpes virus + weak immune system = herpes (w/ active herpes virus cells)
small pox virus+ weak immune system = small pox (w/ active small pox virus cells)
Polio virus + weak immune Ýsystem = polio (w/ active polio virus cells)
HIV + weak immune system = weak immune system (w/ no active HIV virus cells)
When a person has a weakened immune system and has an outbreak of herpes there are abundant active herpes virus cells present and observable in their body. This is true of any active virus. In people with an AIDS diagnosis , there are no active HIV virus cells, just the same antibodies that were sitting there before, no matter what stage their health is.
How do you diagnose a weakened immune system? In particular, a permanently weakened one? If you can do that then you should be able to analyze statistically the people who are in that state who have HIV+ vs. those who have a history of using poppers, e.g. Where is the evidence of all the popper users who are in this state who are not HIV+?
I am not sure what point you are trying to make with the Ýěhair falling outî analogy. I understand what you are saying and I completely agree with its logic. I just donít see how it refutes anything that I have said. Ý
You made the point that a disease must be caused by a specific thing and that since the disease can exist without HIV being present that means that HIV was not a factor in getting the disease. My point was that sometimes HIV may be the cause, other times it may not be. So your point was invalid.
There are BILLIONS of people Ýwho have had an immune deficiency who do not have HIV. ÝAnyone who has ever had the flu, chicken pox, measles, a cold Ýetc. has had a virus present in their body, their immune system was not able to produce sufficient antibodies to combat it and they got sick. ÝThatís the way it works, always has, always will.
There is a big difference between having a temporarily weakened immune system and a permanently disabled one. As I understand it, once people who have HIV+ reach the state where there immune system shuts down, they never recover, even if somehow (perhaps through external drugs) they manage to kill the current disease.
You asked for some specific information relating to African AIDS. I do not carry World Health Organization reports around with me. I can find a reference to locate a specific report if you really want it, but I get the feeling you donít really want it. ÝYou can find an introduction to the subject here: http://www.duesberg.com/subject/africa2.html Ý Ý
That website presents only self-serving data and so much of it that it is impossible to wade through (unless Duesberg wants to offer up the $10,000 previously mentioned).
According to statistics from WHO and others, AIDS has caused the death of millions of Africans (perhaps 18-20 million). If HIV+ was not the cause, then those people would have died anyway (at least those who weren't taking medicine to prevent AIDS, which is the vast majority). In some countries over 10% of the population is HIV+, so that is certainly a large enough sample set for Duesberg to prove his conclusions (although he repeatedly claims the AIDS deaths are not significant enough for analysis). Given that the life expectancy has gone down in much of africa (from 59 to say 45 in one report), how do you explain this? Is starvation and drug use really that much more significant now? Why is it that mortality among sexually active people (from non sexually transmitted diseases) has increased significantly, but it has not for others (e.g. monogamous adults)?
I cannot prove that HIV doesnít do anything, just like I canít prove that there is no Santa Claus. ÝIt is very difficult to prove a negative, the burden of proof falls on those that claim something is true. ÝI maintain that the proof that has been offered to support the HIV theory is highly questionable, nowhere near to being certain. ÝCertainly something that should be openly questioned.
This is disingenuous, IMO. I can disprove just about any theory you have for Santa Claus given current scientific understanding. The current theories on HIV/AIDS are not so fragile.
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 7:37 pm on Jan. 9, 2003
|
|
afm171
|
I don't think i did a very good job giving examples of people with an Immunodeficiency and negative for HIV ( i let my natural sarcastic tendencies go, sorry). I think you were after people with critical deficiencies. Better examples would be:
ďÝpeople who have been overexposed to harmful toxins (drugs such as heroin and amyl nitrites, chemicals, AZT, etc.)
ď hemophiliacs
ď people who are malnourished
ďÝpeople with another serious disease (ie, cancer)
ď old people
Having a serious immunodeficiency is not dependant on having HIV in any way.
|
Thai Girls : Meet Active Thai Girls
Posted on: 7:42 pm on Jan. 9, 2003
|
|
Chompoo
|
Surely there are stats for people who are HIV+ who have been given AZT and who have not. If AZT causes immune system weakness then people given AZT should die earlier (or more often, depending on how you look at it). This seems like such a straightforward example.
|
Thai Women : Meet Matured Thai Women
Posted on: 7:53 pm on Jan. 9, 2003
|
|
afm171
|
Man you type fast!
I think we've made our points as clear as we can (which apparently isnít very clear  , so for my part i'm going to try to not go on and on about this for too much longer.
You raise a several more issues, so i'll offer what i can, no need to respond to tell me that it is self serving info, why can't duesberg just knock on everyones door, etc etc. i understand your viewpoint. I only respond with more info because you ask for it...
1 - AZT stats
heres an excerpt from a VA admin study:
Not only did AZT not confer any benefit in terms of survival, a slightly higher proportion of patients died in the early treatment group (14%) than in the later treatment group (11%). One astounding finding was that in the early AZT group, 10 patients (6%) died without ever progressing to CDC-defined "AIDS", whereas none of the patients in the later AZT group did so. One must ask, then, what these patients died from, if not from "AIDS"; and the answer is that they probably died, at least in part, from AZT poisoning. It would seem a dubious benefit to take a drug that will prevent you from progressing to "AIDS" by killing you first.
You can see the whole thing at:
http://www.duesberg.com/articles/jlsecond.html
2 - a challenge to inject myself with HIV
Oddly enough this same challenge has been offered in reverse. David Resnick Ph.D has agreed to inject himself with the HIV virus if another scientist will take anti-HIV medicine for the rest of his life, so far no takers...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/24/MN44200.DTL
Here is an offer of 1000 pounds to simply isolate HIV, that ought to be simple enough for someone to claim:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/award.htm
Pardon me for a little sarcastic rant:
If being an AIDS dissedent scientist is a ploy to get publicity it has to be rated a collosal failure! Ever seen Duesberg on Network TV? Time Magazine? Washington Post? Jerry Springer? Book of the month club? Whoa, he is getting soooo much fame and fortune, he should take all that money he is making and go door to door offering $10,000 dollars to everyone  The only place heís getting press is in a bangkok nightlife chat room, whohoo heís really hit the big time now!!
Ok, sorry ń thatís over (for now...)
There is abundant information on the toxicity of poppers. So much so that the disorder that they are associated with (Kaposiís Sarcoma) has been dropped from the list of ěAIDS diseases.î Very odd indeed since in the early days of AIDS this was considered the signature disease.
There are some issues with some of your arguments that i differ with (big surprise) but Iím going to stop here (because I havenít done a damn thing at work today and I type slow)
So let me just end with this so we can get on with our lives.
You have totally convinced me that HIV is the one and only explanation for AIDS. I completely recant any assertions I have made that an open discussion of questioning this hypothesis should be made. It is a completely proven and sancrosanct fact. I apologize for even daring to question the statistically popular opinion. I now see that there is no validty at all to any of the points that I have raised, you have crushed them like so many ants. I have been the unknowing puppet of the publicity seeking HIV dissidents. If one day I should be exposed to the HIV virus then I will surely die. Maybe in 6 months, maybe in 5 years, maybe in 30 years. I donít know what I will die from but whatever it is, it will surely have been caused by the tricky HIV virus that no one can isolate. I vow to live my life in fear of contracting this deadly virus from this time forward, thank you, thank you, thank you for showing me the error of my ways.
Everyone, please disregard everything i have said. I am clearly insane as i also believe in Santa Claus. Are you sure you can prove there is no Santa Claus? What about the Easter Bunny?
|
Bangkok Girls : Meet Attractive Thai Girls
Posted on: 10:41 pm on Jan. 9, 2003
|
|
| |
|
