BS: What causes AIDS?

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 04 - 11:44 AM

excuse me, but me and my friends are doing a project on AIDS in africa, and it just so happens that you guys are doing nothing but attacking eachother. maybe you should stick to the topic.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: harpgirl
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 08:50 AM

this is the info that attracted my attention to the reappraisal literature:

So, to prove the existence of a retrovirus one is obliged to:

1. Culture putatively infected cells.

2. Purify a sample in a sucrose density gradient.

3. Photograph the 1.16 band proving there are particles of the right size and form, and there is no other material.

4. Extract and analyse the constituents of the particles and prove they contain reverse transcriptase by showing they can make DNA from RNA.

5. Culture purified particles with virgin cells demonstrating that a new set of particles appears with the same morphology and constituents as the originals.

Gallo didn't do that.....

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 03:39 AM

Sorry, that's Michael Fumento.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 03:35 AM

M.Ted, I did read the articles. I suggest you read the article cited by Wolfgang, The Evidence that HIV causes AIDS, before continuing to quote Dr. Mullis saying "There is no such document." I was unimpressed by the interview with Dr. Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos. It seems that her major point was "HIV can't be a retrovirus because we know what retroviruses look like and the pictures of HIV don't look like that." That is a surprising statement coming from someone who calls herself a scientist. Her interview sounds mostly like an attack on Dr. Tony Gallo. It's no secret that the world of scientific and medical research has more than its share of backbiting prima donnas. (I seem to recall that Dr. Gallo himself has been guilty of a few displays of ego in the past.) In science, as in many other fields, quite often you find that the more strident the voice, the weaker the facts.

The last article you quoted was by Michael Frumento, who is the author of a book entitled "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS." I read what was supposed to be an excerpt from the book and cannot for the life of me figure out what his agenda is, except that he's pissed off at The New Republic for killing his article. But I could probably find several million women and their babies--the ones who are still alive, that is--who would strongly disagree with the statement that heterosexual AIDS is a "myth."

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 05:35 PM

I am disappointed that you didn't comment on the articles yourself, Mark--

A growing number of scientists of the highest stature, including UC Berkeley's Peter Duesberg and Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis. as well as the Perth Group, mentioned above, continue to publish work that questions the entire idea that HIV causes AIDS--

The author of the unpublished work above is not a virologist, and acknowledges that he has never done scientific research work related to the subject that he discusses.

If there are good responses to Mullis, Duesberg, and the rest, then there should be no problem in finding qualified scientists within the field who express them--

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:35 AM

(For anyone who still believes that the cause of AIDS is an "open question", I urge you to follow the links in the "Guest" posts above, to the article, "The AIDS Heresies: A Case Study in Skepticism Taken Too Far.")

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:32 AM

Thanks, Guest, I (certainly!) couldn't have said it better myself.

Another point is that the paper "HIV and AIDS: Correlation but not Causation" cited by M.Ted and another Guest above was published 16 years ago, back when the cause was much less clear.

I really hope we can put this issue to rest. Then maybe we can talk about something really controversial, like the existence of phlogiston, or whether the heart actually pumps blood.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 03:24 PM

Wolfgang, you're German. You're not supposed to know words like that.

Jeri, the respective German word is 'heterodox' and in 98 out of 100 cases the English word is the same (with very minor adaptations). I would fail a vocabulary test for twelve year olds or a test about colloquial English but would have a chance to pass a vocabulary test for students.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 10:29 AM

link

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 10:24 AM

link

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: M.Ted
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 01:24 PM

Sorry, that 12:55PM GUEST was me--

Bobert,

I guess I wasn't very clear--I don't think that you take this all lightly--

I just wished that you had brought up some of the substantial issues more clearly when you started the thread, because, as you know by now, even a peek outside the box on this issue can get you hammered---

Pat--forget your dismissal of Bobert, and start reading the links. All I know is, Everything You Know is Wrong!!

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:55 PM

Here is a bit bit more on Brucie's point, from a published scientific paper, archived here:

HIV and AIDS: Correlation but not Causation

>About 40% of the AIDS patients in the U.S. (5), and many of >those who are at risk for AIDS, have been confirmed to have >neutralizing antibodies to a retrovirus (3, 7) that was discovered >in 1983 (15). These antibodies are detected by the "AIDS test" >(3). Less than a year later, in 1984, this virus was adopted as >the cause of AIDS by the U.S. Department of Health and Human >Services and the AIDS test was registered as a patent, even >before the first American study on the virus was published (16). >The epidemiological correlation between these antibodies and >AIDS is the primary basis for the hypothesis that AIDS is >caused by this virus (3, 7, 12, 14, 17, 18). AIDS is also believed >to be caused by this virus because AIDS diseases appear in a >small percentage (see below) of recipients of blood >transfusions that have antibo- dies to this virus (3, 12, 19-22). In >view of this the virus has been named human >immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by an international committee of >retrovirologists (18) and antibody to HIV became part of the >definition of AIDS (3, 5, 7). If confirmed, HIV would be the first >clinically relevant retrovirus since the Virus-Cancer Program >called for viral carcinogens in 1971 (23, 24).


The footnotes are appended to the article, at the link--

I think it is important to read the link that Wolfgang provided, on the evidence that HIV causes AIDS, as well as the other stuff--

Also, I want to mention that VirusMyth is an archive for documents from a wide variety of sources, that were previously scattered on the web--The various authors differ on a many points, which gives an open mind a lot of excercise--

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 11:43 AM

"Heterodox" Wolfgang, I fail to understand how their sexual preference matters! (Sorry.) I had to look that one up Heterodox: departing from or opposed to the usual beliefs or established doctrines, etc. In any case, Wolfgang, you're German. You're not supposed to know words like that. NOBODY should be expected to know words like that.)

Mark explained the negative results. If tests can be false-positive, they also can be false-negative. You have a disease which supresses the immune system and antibody response. If the test is for an antibody, and a person's ability to make antibody's is compromised, they can easily have a negative test result. Look at tuberculosis, which is on the list of opportunistic infections that AIDS patients may have. The TB mycobacterium may be isolated from sputum samples, but the individual can have repeat negative reactions to skin tests. They're still infected with TB.

Now, here's the CDC guidelines on Prevention and Treatment of TB in people infected with HIV. <--IF YOU CLICK, IT WILL START TO DOWNLOAD. One thing they DO say (page 15, 2nd para.) is that "these data suggest that pulmonary tuberculosis might act as a potent stimulus for the cellular-level replication of HIV."

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 11:28 AM

Since according to Little Hawk HIV does not cause AIDS perhaps he would be willing to prove his point by willingly and repeatedly exposing his body to the virus. After all, if there is nothing to fear....

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: catspaw49
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 11:25 AM

Perhaps one of the most depressing threads I have ever read here. Do we so want to believe that all traditional medicine and medical organizations are inherently evil that any semblance of logic goes out the proverbial window? It's very depressing....really!

Bobertz and Hawk and some more of you need to forget the extrapolations and get back to basics, like doing some elemental reading on viruses....one of the most fascinating life forms ever known.

No sense in me getting into this as it's going nowhere and adding one more voice to Jeri and Mark's view will not help. I guess I thought we were a long ways past this point in the HIV/AIDS scenario but I regret to see that I am wrong. Though you may believe you are thinking "outside the box," you are really just thinking within a different one.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:47 AM

If one follows Brucie's link one can read:

Five percent of AIDS patients tested for HIV do not demonstrate the presence of antibody or virus and only about 50 % of all AIDS patients in the United States have ever been tested for HIV antibody

It's a long way from that statement to Brucie's statement cited above.

I cannot say anything about the physiology in that article from lack of knowledge, but I know about the logic of tests. While he makes a good case for HIV being not sufficient to cause AIDS (I don't know anybody claiming that, by the way, that's uncontroversial as far as I see), I find his logic regarding the relevant question of HIV being a necessary condition or not very weak. But it is good reading for finding out about the difference between the two ways (necessary, sufficient) we can talk about causation. Only one of them is relevant for the discussion.

And: the article is from 1990!

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:32 AM

In a study of 100 AIDS patients, only half tested positive for HIV. (Brucie)

Where did you read that? It makes no sense at all. The opposite statement would make sense (but would be not relevant in this discussion) as LH has already said.

On each field of knowledge you can find more than one heterodox PhD or professor. So a list of selected quotes can be sampled quickly. William B. Shockley, 1956 physics nobelist for having developed the transistor, is on record for stating that Blacks are for genetical reasons dumber than Whites. Should I be impressed? Does him being a physics Nobelist make his statement any truer? I do not value much the opinion of a peace Nobelist when she talks about science.

The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS (from Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH), NIAID)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Jeri
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 09:40 AM

I read the article last night, and have to confess to zoning out during much of it. I did notice he seemed to say one study showed 50% of people receiving blood products died. ["The only controlled study of blood transfusions that I have been able to locate indicates that 50 % of patients receiving HIV-tainted blood died within a year, and also that 50 % of "recipients of components from a random selection of donors not known to be infected with HIV, died in the year after transfusion" (Ward et al., 1989)") Really? Half of everyone who received blood products died within a year? I've never heard that that receiving blood products resulted in such a high mortality rate!

He concludes that this suggests"HIV is an insignificant cause of morbìdity and mortality among both HIV-infected and HIV-negative patients.

He's comparing HIV status in the donors to mortality rates in the recipients. What was the HIV positive status of the recipients, and was their mortality rate so high because they were possibly suffering from a terminal disease? One might ask what the HIV status of the recipients was, and what follow-up was done on the the 50% who didn't die in the first year, and whether they expected people who eventually tested positive in the first year (it can take up to 6 months to convert to positive) to die. He says HIV was an insignificant cause of morbidity, but he doesn't even address morbidity.

I saw other problems. Basically, the article seems like it's written with a lot of impressive medical terminology and citations to studies. What seems to be missing is the logic in his explanations. In other words, why do certain statistics support his conclusions. In at least one case ("If HIV were suffiicient to cause AIDS, then AIDS should affect men and women in their mid-twenties (heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals) equally. Clearly, it does not (CDC, 1989a,b).", he doesn't give any statistics.

I may be missing something though, and I'm interested in reading Mark's opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 09:05 AM

But...maybe there in fact IS no virus. That appears to be a possibility, according to what I've read. A broken-down immune system will kill you, regardless, because your body will not be able to resist a variety of common illnesses. If the modern lifestyle is one of the main contributors to broken-down immune systems (I believe it is), and many multi-billion dollar industries depend upon maintaining the modern lifestyle in full swing, then you have a conflict of interest, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:02 AM

M.Ted, I will take a look at those links as soon as I can, and I will get back to you. If there is validity to a theory that runs counter to prevailing opinion, I'm more than happy to acknowledge it. So far, though, the "expert" opinions I've read have been less than impressive--including Harpgirl's Nobel-prize-winning ecologist Wangari Maathai, whose conclusions make very little logical or scientific sense, in my opinion.

Brucie, I believe that the most common reason someone with AIDS would test negative for HIV is that most HIV tests look for antibodies to the virus. If your T cell counts are low enough as a result of having AIDS, you may not be able to produce enough antibodies to show up as positive on the test. (I could be wrong on that, since I'm a pediatrician, and have not taken care of someone with AIDS since 1986. I can check on it.)

Aloha,
Mark

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:05 AM

I have read material which states the very opposite to that, brucie, and it was written by medical doctors and people who were professionally qualified to have an informed opinion about the matter.

M. Ted also provided a very interesting link a way back there which might help, if you can wade through it (it takes a while...).

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:11 PM

In a study of 100 AIDS patients, only half tested positive for HIV. Why is that? I always thought that HIV caused AIDS.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:18 PM

Well, LH, a big thankee... Not like you have stepped in like Jesus didc when the mob was about to stone the prostitute but, hey, there are models and cultures that folks fall into that are counterproductive.... AIDS, I think, is one one of those areas where folks baises, officespeak if you will, show readily and won't do one thing towards finding a cure for HIV/AIDS...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:06 PM

Roger was an M.D. practicing at a large hospital in California. He had served in Vietnam in his youth (and had used various illegal drugs there...grass and hashish, I presume). He subsequently came back stateside, went to medical school, and became a highly successful doctor. He was heterosexual, had a stable married life, and was not engaging in promiscuous sexual activities nor taking illegal drugs anymore (after Vietnam). He was leading a remarkably ordinary upper-middle class life, you might say.   Nevertheless he became ill (in the 80's or early 90's, I forget which) and was diagnosed eventually as being HIV-positive. He attempted every conventional treatment known at the time and just got sicker and sicker (because those treatments attack the symptoms...but not the causes of the symptoms). Finally he turned himself over to his best friend, another M.D. whom he totally trusted, and they began to investigate alternative possibilities of treatment since everything else had failed anyway. The book is about what they found out while doing that. They found a cure...and they found out that pretty well all the conventional wisdom about Aids was ass-backwards and counterproductive...in fact, highly dangerous and misleading.

The book itself is somewhere among my possessions now, but God knows where. I read it several years ago. I have never seen another copy of it anywhere, but I figure it's probably available somewhere on the Net.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Bobert
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:54 PM

Well, I'm certainly glad I ain't runin' fir President on this thread, gol dangit...

An' M Ted, I'm sorry if you thought I was in any way trivilizing HIV/AIDS 'cause that is not my intent. It's some danged serious stuff and I have lots of gay friends and have attended 3 funerals of friends who have died from complications of AIDS... And they were all great people...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:53 PM

www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/rrbresimmunol90.htm - 84k

Mark Cohen,

Maybe you could give an opinion on the above link (which I cannot turn blue). I don't know if it's fact, fiction, both or what.

---

Clickified. If the " - 84k" was in your address, maybe that's why it didn't work? --JoeClone

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: harpgirl
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 08:19 PM

Did Roger stop exposing himself to sperm? The immunosuppressive properties of sperm is noted in several of these articles. Something else I didn't know. (Serious question, yahoos)

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 07:51 PM

Believe me, after I read "Roger's Recovery from Aids", a book which absolutely stunned me and brought me to tears a few times...I never took the conventional view of Aids for granted again. I think the conventional view is very, very mistaken...and it has burgeoned into a growth industry that has its own motives for maintaining itself, backed up by an initial set of assumptions that are probably false.

I had no particular opinion about Aids at all prior to reading that book...nor did I begin reading the book with any particular motive...it just happened to come my way at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: harpgirl
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 07:42 PM

Thank you for that, M. Ted. I read the entire interview and I intend to read all "reappraisal of AIDS" articles I have googled up. You have stimulated my thinking very consderably this evening. I would like to read Mark's reaction to Eleni's interview and her research. Her discussion of Gallo's faulty logic is difficult to refute. I'd like to hear BillD's response to her discussion of the logic of Gallo's research, as well.

I still believe that behavioral protection against disease is a key to stemming the tide of this (or these) illness(es). But the possibility that environmental agents contribute to AIDS now seems even more likely....

For a long time I have wondered why we haven't come up with a vaccine for AIDS. I suspected without really quite understanding why, that it is because we are using misinformation. Eleni's interview supports that conclusion, IMO.

I have spent many years now in close personal contact with LTNP's as well as many individuals who have since passed on. I have lots of ideas about these individuals and I appreciate all the non-linear and creative thinkers around here as well as the mainstream folks...

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 07:41 PM

And thank you for those links, El Ted. There are indeed some serious voices in the professional scientific community who question the "conventional wisdom" on Aids.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 07:34 PM

'some' people, right?

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 07:24 PM

That's not fair anyway, because rabbits only screw in season. People do it whenever they can.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Blissfully Ignorant
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 07:22 PM

And there's something intrinsically wrong with screwing like rabbits how?

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 06:41 PM

No problem, Mark, I did notice that...but try reading the book anyway if you can find a copy of it anywhere. I think the whole Aids thing has been miscaste to quite an extent and blown out of proportion by various special interest groups, and the book might shed some useful light on why and how that could happen. What have you got to lose by reading it? You might find out something new and interesting, and that would be much more important than whether you succeed in convincing me of anything. I am a very small fish in these particular waters.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 05:43 PM

I am particularly annoyed with Bobert(in an abstract, not a personal way) for introducing the contrarian views about HIV/AIDS in such a careless and dismissive way--the fact of the matter is that, contrary to what Jeri and others have said, there are significant and growing numbers of scientists who question the validity of what is commonly accepted about HIV/AIDS--

Check this site Quotes on the Controversy to get an idea of what some of the issues are--and here is a taste of what is there:


"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."

Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."

Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München.


A group of Australian scientists, know collectively as "The Perth Group" are a central part of the opposition to the conventional wisdom, and they are an increasingly visible presence at scientific conferences--here is an interview with Dr.Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, a Professor of Medical Physics at Royal Perth Hospital, that should at least persuade you that a lot of what is supposed to be clear is not:


IS HIV THE CAUSE OF AIDS?

For some questions about the validity of the commonly tossed about numbers on AIDS in AFRICA and other places, like the ones that Brucie has kindly contributed above, check this recent article by Michael Fumento AIDS THREATENS HUMANITY (AGAIN)

Here is a bit of what he has to say:

"The Boston Globe reported in June that two U.S. AIDS officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they think global HIV numbers may be pumped up by 50 percent. Berkeley epidemiologist Dr. James Chin puts the inflation range at 25 percent to 40 percent....

Nor is there any reason to accept that 20-million-dead figure, nor that almost five million new people became infected last year or that almost three million died of AIDS....

The epidemic always has and always will refuse to live up to the official predictions for one simple reason: The louder the Klaxon sounds, the more public and private contributions pour in. The UN AIDS program doesn't even care if it contradicts other UN branches..."

There are a lot of open questionsabout AIDS/HIV, and they are being asked by people with stronger science credentials than Gary Null-- Taking sides, particularly in a disdainful and dismissive fashion-- believing one thing is true, and attacking the motives of people who see merit in another side, all make it harder to address the bottom line, which is to help people who are suffering--

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:21 AM

I'm with Mark.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 05:52 AM

Another thanks to Jeri. I was close to posting something similar yesterday, only it would have come less clear but with stronger language. So I'm glad I didn't.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 02:42 AM

PS, Thanks, Jeri. I'm glad somebody gets it.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 02:41 AM

Hey, Bobert, you know how it feels when you try to argue with DougR or Bearded Bruce? That's about what I'm feeling now. Seems to me that it's Gary Null against the world, and you figure the world is wrong. OK, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll still buy you a Mai Tai if you come to Honolulu.

Aloha,
Mark

PS, LH, maybe you didn't notice, but I'm not arguing with the book. I believe that some people have been cured of AIDS by improving their diet, taking vitamins, or using other "nontraditional" means. OK? Now, please go back and read my posts, in which I say That does NOT mean AIDS is caused by lack of vitamins or malnutrition.

If you have pneumonia, and I give you penicillin, and you're cured, does that mean your illness was caused by a penicillin deficiency?



Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 11:52 PM

What is the question, Jeri?

Awww, jus' funnin'.... I know, or think I know, what you are asking>

"Believe" is too strong a word here, Jeri. Doubt works fine fir this ol' hillbilly, jus' fine.

Hey, I don't have any particular *trust* in folks who have gone thru the AMA, medical school model. Yeah, if I get shot then I need a doctor. And I will give credit where credit is due where the AMA model doctor actaully treats and cures the patient but...

... over the last 30 years of my life I have never found a doctor who could diagnos much of anything. I also watched helplessly as AMA doctors went about *treating* my late wife, Judy, while she died of breast cancer. Trreated her right into her grave...

So there are my biases...

Now we keep hearing that Africans will have sex with anything with a pulse. Not so. In many cultures in Africa, not only is this not the case, but monogomy is way more the norm than in any neighborhood in America. Yet in these same African populations there is bad water, bad food and lots of disease and lots of HIV positives...

(Gary Null has done a lot of research on these populations and if anyone is interested they can Google him and get their hands on the research.)

Once again, I find it real convient that in a time when Africa needs so much help from the developed world (ha) that the developed world has a tidy little stroy about how them Africans deserve what they are getting! And why? Well, gol danged, (spit) 'cause they can't keep their clothes on??? This is real convient. Blame the victims so you don't feel like you have to do anythg about it... Think Sudan here...

But if anyone wants to think "Hey, Bobert is a nut but worse than that he's in denial" then fine....

.... jus' remember this thread.

Whacked out, African lovin' Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 11:31 PM

As of the end of 2003, an estimated 37.8 million people worldwide - 35.7 million adults and 2.1 million children younger than 15 years - were living with HIV/AIDS. Approximately two-thirds of these people (25.0 million) live in Sub-Saharan Africa; another 20 percent (7.4 million) live in Asia and the Pacific.

An estimated 4.8 million new HIV infections occurred worldwide during 2003; that is, about 14,000 infections each day. More than 95 percent of these new infections occurred in developing countries.

More than 20 million people with HIV/AIDS have died since the first AIDS cases were identified in 1981.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Jeri
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 11:26 PM

Bobert, what you fail to realise about the "AMA company story" is that it's not the AMA. It's every group of knowledgable people in every country around the world. It could be that Mark believe what he believes because it's right? He's demonstrated on several occasions that he is open to unconventional, but logical, theories.

You, on the other hand, seem to disbelieve current knowledge about AIDS and HIV simply because the AMA does believe it. Some people always go with authority figures, and some always go against. Both tendencies mean they don't care as much about facts as who's telling them, they're going to be wrong at least as often as right, and in the meantime, will do their level best to spread propaganda.

I'm not worried about being wrong. I'm worried that you are, and you don't seem to care. It's easy to be so suspiscious of people in authority that when you read an opposing view, you believe THAT without checking. That's what bothers me: people who believe or disbelieve things simply because they fit their pre-conceived notions, and then accuse anyone who disagrees with them as being part of the conspiracy. You believe that many of the people in Africa diagnosed with AIDS don't really have AIDS, but have all the signs and symptoms PLUS false positive tests. You believe the list of conditions that can cause a false positve. Why do you believe that list is correct, when it's also "AMA company policy"?

No, that was a rhetorical question.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 10:34 PM

What Little Hawk said, 'cept I ain't got a dog...

Ahhhhh, jus' funnin'...

But really, A-Gin, I don't think Mark, in all due respect, went too far beyond the AMA company story...

Wouldn't it be real strage to find that the AMA comapny story turns out to be faulty and that, while yeah HIV viris is transmitted mainly from needles and sex, that's it's detection is a tad on the tricky side? Yeah, as the world turns its back on Africans at a time of major human needs, it needs a story to keep the rest of us folks all comfy... Problem is that there is a good chance that HIV *false positives* are occuring in Africa from other diseases.... Someone listed many of these diseases in a post above but the list is rather extensive...

But, heck, if we're going to get all hot and bothered by the possibility that we may be wrong, screw it... Lets just pass a law that says we can never be wrong?

Yeah, that oughtta take care of it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:42 PM

If you're going to start freely tossing around words like "asinine" you'd better be prepared for serious retaliation, Amergin! I'll have you know that I have now drawn a really insulting caricature of you, put it up on the wall, and am throwing darts at it (on Bobert's behalf). When I am done I will take it outside, crumple it up savagely, spit on it, and grind it into the ground with my heel. Then my dog will pee on it contemptuously.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: GUEST,amergin
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:32 PM

I think he did, bobert, that is why he found your arguments so asinine.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 06:57 PM

Mark,

My original arguments were related to other diseaeses and factors that can produce a false positive, many of which are *disporportionately* found in many African populations... I think you came into the discussion a little late and might want to go back and reread some of my earlier posts to better understand the "redneck mantra"...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 05:41 PM

M.Ted:

The greatest oxymoron in the English language is "Microsoft Works."

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: M.Ted
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 05:37 PM

As far as your AIDS/Computer virus analogy, I can do pretty much what I want on the internet--I've never had a virus--I run Mac--

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 12:46 PM

I'm just saying "read the book". After all, it was written by an M.D. who cured another M.D. who had already believed and tried all the conventional stuff, none of which worked, and was dying regardless. Why try to convince me? Call up these doctors and try to convince them instead. I'm just a guy who sings songs, after all.

Subject: RE: BS: What causes AIDS?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 12:33 PM

Exactly, Jeri. However, prevention of HIV spread in 'first world countries' is easier to create/influence/educate people about. IMO, the Neocons want to depopulate the entire planet--that is, drop population by 50% (for a figure). AIDS helps get rid of Africans in larger numbers than N Americans, and it all contributes to the game plan. IMO