Opinion on Dr. Michael Colgan
rde...@earthlink.net
I have recently been reading "Optimum Sports Nutrition" by Dr.
Michael Colgan. Its seems to be a very good book tho I'm no expert.
Does anyone have any comments on this book or the author?
Thanks,
Bob Dexter (rde...@earthlink.net)
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Brian Bucher
rde...@earthlink.net wrote:
: I have recently been reading "Optimum Sports Nutrition" by Dr.
: Michael Colgan. Its seems to be a very good book tho I'm no expert.
: Does anyone have any comments on this book or the author?
He's wrong on his vanadyl sulfate toxicity stance, if I remember
what he's claimed to have written in his book. VS is not toxic.
He also claimed that HIV does not cause AIDS, but that's not really
weights-related.
Brian
--
The misc.fitness.weights FAQ - http://www.imp.mtu.edu/~babucher/mfwfaq.html
The Pointer FAQ - http://www.imp.mtu.edu/~babucher/weights/pointer.html
The Sportscience Web Site - http://www.sportsci.org/
Graham Crackers
rde...@earthlink.net wrote:
: I have recently been reading "Optimum Sports Nutrition" by Dr.
: Michael Colgan. Its seems to be a very good book tho I'm no expert.
: Does anyone have any comments on this book or the author?
In spite of his crazy comments 2 years ago about AIDS, I think he is one
of the most intelligent voices in bodybuilding nutrition.
Robert Rumsey
In <5ic1cd$4...@impsrv1.imp> babu...@mtu.edu (Brian Bucher) writes:
>
>rde...@earthlink.net wrote:
>: I have recently been reading "Optimum Sports Nutrition" by Dr.
>: Michael Colgan. Its seems to be a very good book tho I'm no expert.
>: Does anyone have any comments on this book or the author?
>
>what he's claimed to have written in his book. VS is not toxic.
>
>He also claimed that HIV does not cause AIDS, but that's not really
>weights-related.
>
>Brian
He claimed HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS by itself. He stated
that HIV can cause AIDS in individuals who already have a compromised
immune system (hemophiliacs, recreational drug abusers, etc.) This line
of thinking isn't his alone, he backed these assertions with
references.
Tim Fogarty
Robert Rumsey (rob...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> He claimed HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS by itself. He stated
> that HIV can cause AIDS in individuals who already have a compromised
> immune system (hemophiliacs, recreational drug abusers, etc.) This line
> of thinking isn't his alone, he backed these assertions with
> references.
But those references all have Peter Duesburg as the principal
investigator. Duesberg has been totally discredited.
HIV will cause AIDS in even the healthiest of people. It just can take
10-15 years.
--
Tim Fogarty (fog...@netcom.com)
Brian Silver
Graham Crackers wrote:
>
[Snip]
> In spite of his crazy comments 2 years ago about AIDS, I think he is one
> of the most intelligent voices in bodybuilding nutrition.
If you don't get annoyed by the constant TWIN LABS promotion ...
Funny how TWIN LABS makes all the products in all the proper
proportions as mentioned in Optimum Sports Nutrition ...
Brian.
--
Replace ! with @ for email address: silver!zko.dec.com
Graham Crackers
Brian Silver (s...@my.sig.for.address) wrote:
: Graham Crackers wrote:
: > In spite of his crazy comments 2 years ago about AIDS, I think he is one
: > of the most intelligent voices in bodybuilding nutrition.
: If you don't get annoyed by the constant TWIN LABS promotion ...
: Funny how TWIN LABS makes all the products in all the proper
: proportions as mentioned in Optimum Sports Nutrition ...
1. I don't think Colgan is anywhere near as bad Phillips pushing EAS
products.
2. I think that the reason the TwinLabs products are in the "proper
proportions" is because Colgan TELLS them what proportion to make them
in!!!
Bill Roberts
> rde...@earthlink.net wrote:
> : I have recently been reading "Optimum Sports Nutrition" by Dr.
> : Michael Colgan. Its seems to be a very good book tho I'm no expert.
> : Does anyone have any comments on this book or the author?
If you did everything he recommends I guess it would cost you $1000-$2000
per month and you would be swallowing 100 capsules (all TwinLab, of
course) per day.
He's worth reading but I'd only take his enthusiasms as being evidence
that something may be worth looking into further.
He ain't no bodybuilding guru. Very little of what he says is of
relevance to getting bigger. From the aspect of health, some of what he
says is probably useful. But obviously, not all of it.
-- Bill
Bill Roberts
rob...@ix.netcom.com(Robert Rumsey) wrote:
> In <5ic1cd$4...@impsrv1.imp> babu...@mtu.edu (Brian Bucher) writes:
> >really weights-related.
Score a point for Colgan!
> He claimed HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS by itself. He stated
> that HIV can cause AIDS in individuals who already have a compromised
> immune system (hemophiliacs, recreational drug abusers, etc.) This line
> of thinking isn't his alone, he backed these assertions with
> references.
I agree with it too. Don't forget that AIDS is a clinical state. HIV is a
virus. They are not the same. Some people have AIDS without HIV. A very
large number of people have had HIV for many years but do not have AIDS,
nor show any signs of developing it. This state of affairs does not exist
for diseases where the specified virus is THE cause of the disease.
Also, if HIV were THE cause of AIDS, given the nature of viral
replication, a single virus (eg from a mosquito bite) would result in
AIDS, and everyone in the U.S. would have AIDS.
Recall that scientific theories must be falsifiable: they must make
predictions of a nature that can be tested. Remember the AIDS predictions
from 10-15 years ago? Those were valid predictions if the HIV=AIDS theory
were correct. Of course, the predictions have not come true.
That's all I have to say on it. I'd advise reading Duesberg if anyone
wants to know more about this viewpoint.
Bill Roberts
fog...@netcom.com (Tim Fogarty) wrote:
> But those references all have Peter Duesburg as the principal
> investigator. Duesberg has been totally discredited.
The only attacks on Duesberg that I have seen were pretty obviously
bogus in my view. Don't forget, as a scientist this guy was practically
considered a god by NIH until he announced that their view on AIDS was
wrong, after which they cut off all his research grants in all areas.
Typical.
It normally takes about 40 years for an establishment-but-false view in
science to be overturned, and during that period, those who propose a
model which later is accepted are attacked viciously.
If you have read references which in your opinion had sound arguments and
data, please let me know of them because I really would like to read them.
I'm familiar with the mechanism of HIV; we suffer through it ad nauseum in
seiminars etc. I'm asking for references specifically refuting Duesberg's
arguments or showing that he has presented falsified data, if any such
references exist.
Thanks.
Rifle River
In article <fogartyE...@netcom.com>, fog...@netcom.com (Tim Fogarty)
wrote:
>
> In <8605571...@dejanews.com> Bill Roberts (wrob...@grove.ufl.edu) wrote:
>
> > I agree with it too. Don't forget that AIDS is a clinical state. HIV is a
> > virus. They are not the same. Some people have AIDS without HIV.
>
> down, but thats not the same as AIDS.
Actually Tim that was a true statement. Unfortunately for this guy, it is
the only true statement they made in the entire post. Acquired
Immunodeficiencies are simply those that are not genetic. There are many
causes of AIDS. Is HIV alone a sole cause of AIDS? You better believe it!
You and I both know a very thorough article that summarizes the evidence
for this.
> > That's all I have to say on it. I'd advise reading Duesberg if anyone
> > wants to know more about this viewpoint.
>
> Duesburg has no credibility in the scientific community.
They will never learn...
RR
Tim Fogarty
> I agree with it too. Don't forget that AIDS is a clinical state. HIV is a
> virus. They are not the same. Some people have AIDS without HIV.
No they don't. There are other reasons for the immune system to break
down, but thats not the same as AIDS.
> A very
> large number of people have had HIV for many years but do not have AIDS,
> nor show any signs of developing it. This state of affairs does not exist
> for diseases where the specified virus is THE cause of the disease.
Bull. Your body fights diseases. Some people's bodies are able to fight
it better than others. Another example of genetic superiority. Some
people's immune system is able to keep the virus in check for 10-15
years, but the virus is still there, taking its toll. A very few people
have the genetics that allows their body to pretty much disable the
virus. Much research is going on to find the genetic reason for this.
Most people are able to fight off colds and flus, sometimes without even
showing visible symptoms of the disease. But that doesn't mean that the
cold or flu virus wasn't active.
> Also, if HIV were THE cause of AIDS, given the nature of viral
> replication, a single virus (eg from a mosquito bite) would result in
> AIDS, and everyone in the U.S. would have AIDS.
You know nothing about HIV. A free virus is very fragile. Its very
unlikely that it will survive the transfer from one body to another. Its
virtually impossible to become infected from a free virus. Instead, the
virus enters a cell, such as a blood t-cell. Inside, it splices its DNA
into the cell's DNA, causing the cell to become a factory, cranking out
new HIV viruses. When you exchange body fluids, you are exchanging such
t-cells. Now this HIV factory is not fragile, and can last many hours or
days in the new body, producing thousands of viruses in the blood stream.
Mosquitos don't exchange bodyfluids between one host and other. First
mosquitos don't bite more than one person or animal, unless it was
interrupted the first time. Second, there is no way for t-cells to get
from the gut (?) of the mosquito to the second victum.
> That's all I have to say on it. I'd advise reading Duesberg if anyone
> wants to know more about this viewpoint.
Duesburg has no credibility in the scientific community.
--
Tim Fogarty (fog...@netcom.com)
William Greene
>
> Mosquitos don't exchange bodyfluids between one host and other. First
> mosquitos don't bite more than one person or animal, unless it was
> interrupted the first time. Second, there is no way for t-cells to get
> from the gut (?) of the mosquito to the second victum.
>
Is this true, the moquitos part? How then does heartworm in dogs get
transmitted from one animal to the next? I know this is entirely off-topic,
but I thought this was an interesting statement.
Krista Scott
Rifle River <jst...@girch1.med.uth.tmc.edu> wrote in article
> Actually Tim that was a true statement. Unfortunately for this guy, it
is
> the only true statement they made in the entire post. Acquired
> Immunodeficiencies are simply those that are not genetic. There are many
> causes of AIDS. Is HIV alone a sole cause of AIDS? You better believe
it!
> You and I both know a very thorough article that summarizes the evidence
> for this.
>
Interestingly there is research (which of course I cannot name so perhaps I
made it up in my little world) which suggests a link between earlier forms
of the syphillis virus and the HIV virus. Them viruses is wee tricky
buggers with their mutatin' and all.
I'd also like to note that Tim knows his stuff, and you'd have a hard time
getting HIV from a mosquito bite or licking a toilet seat or whatever the
paranoid folks out there think it requires.
Krista
Brian Silver
With respect to 1., yeah, you're probably right. But "Optimum Sports
Nutrition" is a thinly vailed TWINLABS ad. Why couldn't Colgan
just write the book and leave out all the references to TWINLABS?
Because TWINLAB published the book! (Advanced Research Press is
TWINLAB).
And as far as 2., well, you might be right on that, I don't have
any information one way or the other. But the connection is too
close for me. If Colgan's work was really that impartial he should
have been able to publish the book without the assitance of TWINLAB.
It just looks to sneaky to me.
Brian "Jealous, for sure."
Bill Roberts
fog...@netcom.com (Tim Fogarty) wrote:>
> In <8605571...@dejanews.com> Bill Roberts (wrob...@grove.ufl.edu) wrote:
>
> > I agree with it too. Don't forget that AIDS is a clinical state. HIV is a
> > virus. They are not the same. Some people have AIDS without HIV.
>
> No they don't. There are other reasons for the immune system to break
> down, but thats not the same as AIDS.
Perhaps not in your opinion of what AIDS is, but according to the CDC
definition, my statement is true.
> > A very
> > large number of people have had HIV for many years but do not have AIDS,
> > nor show any signs of developing it. This state of affairs does not exist
> > for diseases where the specified virus is THE cause of the disease.
>
> Bull. Your body fights diseases. Some people's bodies are able to fight
> it better than others. Another example of genetic superiority. Some
> people's immune system is able to keep the virus in check for 10-15
> years, but the virus is still there, taking its toll. A very few people
> have the genetics that allows their body to pretty much disable the
> virus. Much research is going on to find the genetic reason for this.
You certainly have not succeeded in disproving the hypothesis that HIV
depends on immunodeficiency from another cause to become a serious
infection itself.
> > Also, if HIV were THE cause of AIDS, given the nature of viral
> > replication, a single virus (eg from a mosquito bite) would result in
> > AIDS, and everyone in the U.S. would have AIDS.
>
> You know nothing about HIV.
Oh really? I have a degree in microbiology, am currently paid to do
research in medicinal chemistry, and as a grad student in medicinal
chemistry I expect that the seminars and journals I am required to read
have given me some degree of information on the subject that goes beyond
the "nothing" that you assert that I know. In fact, I expect I can name
and understand the function of a hell of a lot more of the proteins
encoded for by HIV than you can, can name and describe far more drug
targets, etc. Do you happen to have a printout of the HIV genome in your
desk, as I do? Could you understand it? I do. And if you can also, great.
But it doesn't sound like it from what you write.
You only make yourself look bad by asserting that I "know nothing about
HIV."
> Its
> virtually impossible to become infected from a free virus. Instead, the
> virus enters a cell, such as a blood t-cell.
Tim you don't know what you are talking about. The virus can be free (not
within another cell) when it does this.
And it is really ludicrous to say that "instead" of getting infected,
what happens is that the virus enters a cell. Sheesh! What the hell do
you think that is if not infection? And what do you mean by "such as a
T-cell"? Can you name another type of cell it infects? (I can, but I'm
wondering if you can.)
> Inside, it splices its DNA
> into the cell's DNA, causing the cell to become a factory, cranking out
> new HIV viruses.
This is an extreme and erroneous oversimplification of the mode of
action of retroviruses.
> Mosquitos don't exchange bodyfluids between one host and other.
Oh really. Guess malaria is not transferred in this manner either.
You don't know what you are talking about.
> First
> mosquitos don't bite more than one person or animal, unless it was
> interrupted the first time.
That's not uncommon.
Second, there is no way for t-cells to get
> from the gut (?) of the mosquito to the second victum.
We are not speaking of the gut, rather, the proboscis.
> > That's all I have to say on it. I'd advise reading Duesberg if anyone
> > wants to know more about this viewpoint.
>
> Duesburg has no credibility in the scientific community.
Well, with that assertion you've really wrapped things up! Thanks for
asserting this. I'm sure you're really up on what everybody in science
thinks, your idea of what the majority thinks is correct, and of course,
the majority must be right.
OK, that was sarcastic. This is sincere. Thanks for sending the article
you did. If you reread it, you will see that the author agrees (!) that
HIV alone is not THE cause of AIDS, and will see that there are a lot
of very reputable scientists mentioned who oppose the establishment view
on this subject.
What I have said is that HIV is not THE cause of AIDS, and you will find
that your author agrees with this, and says so. Specifically, he says that
the HIV-only theory has been completely discredited.
To be more precise, and to put it in pharmacological terms, I say, and
your source would agree (based on the above statement which he made) that
HIV is not shown to be BOTH necessary and sufficient for AIDS by any
definition of AIDS.
Furthermore, there is considerable evidence suggesting that other factors
are necessary to result in immunosuppression which HIV is able to exploit.
This REALLY is the last I have to say on the subject; it is not an
interest of mine professionally because too many other people are working
on it and I see no plausible likelihod that I could propose a durg
development program of any value in this area. A genetic treatment will
be required to deal with the HIV. Understanding of the cause of initial
non-HIV-caused immunosuppression (if this is indeed is required) will
also be required but I have no concept of how a new drug might assist
here.
So that's all I have to say.
Again, thanks for the article, Tim... it had a number of good references
and points in it which I appreciate.
BTW, RR, you also are wrong. <g>
Graham Crackers
Brian Silver (s...@my.sig.for.address) wrote:
: Graham Crackers wrote:
: >
: > : Graham Crackers wrote:
: > : > In spite of his crazy comments 2 years ago about AIDS, I think he is one
: > : > of the most intelligent voices in bodybuilding nutrition.
: >
: > : If you don't get annoyed by the constant TWIN LABS promotion ...
: > : Funny how TWIN LABS makes all the products in all the proper
: > : proportions as mentioned in Optimum Sports Nutrition ...
: >
: > 1. I don't think Colgan is anywhere near as bad Phillips pushing EAS
: > products.
: >
: > 2. I think that the reason the TwinLabs products are in the "proper
: > proportions" is because Colgan TELLS them what proportion to make them
: > in!!!
: With respect to 1., yeah, you're probably right. But "Optimum Sports
: Nutrition" is a thinly vailed TWINLABS ad. Why couldn't Colgan
: just write the book and leave out all the references to TWINLABS?
: Because TWINLAB published the book! (Advanced Research Press is
: TWINLAB).
: And as far as 2., well, you might be right on that, I don't have
: any information one way or the other. But the connection is too
: close for me. If Colgan's work was really that impartial he should
: have been able to publish the book without the assitance of TWINLAB.
Dr. Colgan might have mentioned some TWINLAB supplements in his book, but
again he did not do it every goddamn paragraph or even every page which is
what you are implying. If you're too weak-willed to read "Optimum Sports
Nutrtion" without running out and buying a bunch of TWINLAB supplements,
then don't fucking read the book.
Even IF Dr. Colgan had ads for TWINLAB supplements on every fucking page
it would not detract from the fact that the information in "Optimum Sports
Nutrition" make it one of the better books on the market.
Graham S. Lees
Bill Roberts wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh really? I have a degree in microbiology, am currently paid to do
> research in medicinal chemistry, and as a grad student in medicinal
> chemistry I expect that the seminars and journals I am required to read
> have given me some degree of information on the subject that goes beyond
> the "nothing" that you assert that I know. In fact, I expect I can name
>
Bill-
Watching the discussion on HIV transmission, the mosqueto idea is
off for a very simple reason, the concept of viral load, something that
someone with your credentials
should be quite familiar. What most people don't realize is that HIV
transmission is actually quite difficult. For example, assume that you
are stuck with a needle that has been contaminated by a patient that is
both HIV positive, and has hepatits B. Also assume that you're not
immunized against hep B. Hepatitis B, as I'm sure you're aware
is an extremely virulent virus. Your odds of contracting HIV in this
case approach 100%.
On the other hand, your odds of contracting HIV are about 1 in 300.
While on my first clinical rotation in school, I diagnosed my first case
of AIDS (it was a federal prison, so I guess I had higher odds of doing
this). I ended up doing my required paper for the roation on AIDS, and
while doing my research, found a study of health care workers
that had stuck themselves with HIV contaminated needles. Of the 887
(it's been 9 years, so I may be slightly off on the total number of
sticks), only 3 became HIV positive. This ratio has held up on further
studies since. Remember that while HIV has been isolated in saliva as
well as other body fluids, blood and seamen remain the agents of
transmission. Kissing doesn't transmit HIV. Neither will mosquito bites.
Just not enough virus.
Graham Lees PA-C
@eexi.gr Lysis
In article <8606988...@dejanews.com>,
Bill Roberts <wrob...@grove.ufl.edu> wrote:
>> Inside, it splices its DNA
>> into the cell's DNA, causing the cell to become a factory, cranking out
>> new HIV viruses.
>
>This is an extreme and erroneous oversimplification of the mode of
>action of retroviruses.
It is also the funniest thing I've heard in a month! On par with his attempt
to explain away thermogenesis in humans by applying the Laws of
Thermodynamics a while ago, or the lubrication theory about creatine...
>This REALLY is the last I have to say on the subject; it is not an
>interest of mine professionally because too many other people are working
>on it and I see no plausible likelihod that I could propose a durg
>development program of any value in this area. A genetic treatment will
>be required to deal with the HIV. Understanding of the cause of initial
>non-HIV-caused immunosuppression (if this is indeed is required) will
>also be required but I have no concept of how a new drug might assist
>here.
We are dealing with an infection that shows an inexorable progression in the
vast majority of infected individuals. There is just no other disease like
it in history. This argues that we are facing a challenge that lies so deep
within the very structure of the human genome, we may need to reach the point
of achieving full control over Molecular Genetics, before a "cure" is found.
This is very frightening. I can't forget the heartrending final sequence from
"Longtime Companion" - I wonder if its premise will ever come true.
Michael Mooney
Bill Roberts <wrob...@grove.ufl.edu> wrote:
> rob...@ix.netcom.com(Robert Rumsey) wrote:
>> In <5ic1cd$4...@impsrv1.imp> babu...@mtu.edu (Brian Bucher) writes:
>> >He [Colgan] also claimed that HIV does not cause AIDS, but that's not
>> >really weights-related.
>Score a point for Colgan!
>> He claimed HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS by itself. He stated
>> that HIV can cause AIDS in individuals who already have a compromised
>> immune system (hemophiliacs, recreational drug abusers, etc.) This line
>> of thinking isn't his alone, he backed these assertions with
>> references.
>I agree with it too. Don't forget that AIDS is a clinical state. HIV is a
>virus. They are not the same. Some people have AIDS without HIV. A very
>large number of people have had HIV for many years but do not have AIDS,
>nor show any signs of developing it. This state of affairs does not exist
>for diseases where the specified virus is THE cause of the disease.
>Also, if HIV were THE cause of AIDS, given the nature of viral
>replication, a single virus (eg from a mosquito bite) would result in
>AIDS, and everyone in the U.S. would have AIDS.
>Recall that scientific theories must be falsifiable: they must make
>predictions of a nature that can be tested. Remember the AIDS predictions
>from 10-15 years ago? Those were valid predictions if the HIV=AIDS theory
>were correct. Of course, the predictions have not come true.
>That's all I have to say on it. I'd advise reading Duesberg if anyone
>wants to know more about this viewpoint.
Sorry Bill,
Duesberg compromises himself (with lots of busymaking scientific
semantics) when he (brilliantly) asserts that the pathology
(HIV-disease) isn't really infectious by itself, and that rec drug use
is a more compelling causative factor. Patently incorrect, but
arguable if you're living in academic tunnelvision. (Can't see the
forest from the trees.)
His UCBerkeley students of recent years tell me that Duesberg has
become too "crazy" to be called irresponsible, but he really is
(irresponsible).
In his eyes condoms aren't important. He may be responsible for the
health (and death) of thousands of people who believed him who became
infected. I think one of his problems is that his actual experience
with HIV+ people or people with AIDS is basically limited to what he
reads in journals and textbooks, or sees on TV.
(Dueberg's lack of real connection reminds me of one ACTG- HIV doctor
who at a meeting of wasting commitee members, said, "Anabolic steroids
have never been proven to increase lean body mass." (Thank God, the
other scientists and docs on the committee were appalled.)
I know too many people who know when and from whom they contracted
HIV-disease to believe Deusberg's brilliant fantasy. And several of
them never used rec drugs or had any of Duesberg's idea of historical
risk factors.
And yes, I too was as skeptical as he about the true nature of the
disease only a few years ago, although we differ because I have never
really considered it to be anything but caused by an infectious agent.
As I watch my friends with AIDS who were dieing a short time ago get
healthy enough to go back to work as their viral load decreases, the
potential for HIV to be anything but primarily involved becomes sadly
laughable.
Michael Mooney - West Hollywood, California
Nutrition Professors Eaten For Breakfast
Job #1 - Destroying Myths
See the Anabolic Steroid/HIV/And Other Medical Therapies Newsletter at:
http://www.medibolics.com
Bill Roberts
GSL...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Bill-
> Watching the discussion on HIV transmission, the mosqueto idea is
> off for a very simple reason, the concept of viral load, something that
> someone with your credentials
> should be quite familiar. What most people don't realize is that HIV
> transmission is actually quite difficult. For example, assume that you
> are stuck with a needle that has been contaminated by a patient that is
> both HIV positive, and has hepatits B. Also assume that you're not
> immunized against hep B. Hepatitis B, as I'm sure you're aware
> this case approach 100%.
> On the other hand, your odds of contracting HIV are about 1 in 300.
> While on my first clinical rotation in school, I diagnosed my first case
> of AIDS (it was a federal prison, so I guess I had higher odds of doing
> this). I ended up doing my required paper for the roation on AIDS, and
> while doing my research, found a study of health care workers
> that had stuck themselves with HIV contaminated needles. Of the 887
> (it's been 9 years, so I may be slightly off on the total number of
> sticks), only 3 became HIV positive. This ratio has held up on further
> studies since. Remember that while HIV has been isolated in saliva as
> well as other body fluids, blood and seamen remain the agents of
> transmission. Kissing doesn't transmit HIV. Neither will mosquito bites.
> Just not enough virus.
The fact that single exposure to significant amounts of virus (e.g. from
a needle stick) only rarely leads to HIV infection strongly supports what
I was saying -- that there is evidence that another immunosuppressive
cause is required in many cases for HIV to flourish in the human system.
All I have to say about this is the common view that HIV alone is
necessary and sufficient to lead to deadly AIDS is not proven, as
Duesberg has said. I neither know nor care if he is "crazy" as some claim
(in ad hominem attacks) or if he has made other wrong statements -- those
things are irrelevant to the issue I have described.
Where this may be useful is that it gives hope that if the immune system
can otherwise be kept strong, individuals may find their HIV infection
can be maintained at a background level not intrusive on other aspects of
health -- as is seen in many individuals. How do we achieve this in a
given individual? I do not know, and cannot come up with an answer.
Again, this is not my field, although I know enough about it for what I
have said about it to constitute informed statements (regardless of Tim's
belief that I am entirely ignorant.) While I wish I knew things to say
about it that would help people, I do not, so there is little point in my
discussing it any further.
And re Michael Mooney's post: of course it would be a bad idea for people
to go to the other extreme and imagine that HIV is utterly harmless.And
I am sure he was not suggesting that I had ever said or suggested such a
thing.
Tim Fogarty
To beat a dead horse(fly) even further, here's an article from many years
ago addressing the issue of the transmission of diseases via insect bites:
>Newsgroups: sci.med.aids
>Path: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!ucla-cs!usenet
>From: dkha...@sacam.OREN.ORTN.EDU (David K Hackett)
>Subject: Re: Mosquitos and HIV
>Message-ID: <1993Mar17.1...@cs.ucla.edu>
>Note: Copyright 1993, Dan R. Greening. Non-commercial reproduction allowed.
>Sender: use...@ornl.gov (News poster)
>Nntp-Posting-Host: sole.cs.ucla.edu
>Archive-Number: 423
>Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
>References: <1993Mar16....@cs.ucla.edu>
>Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1993 05:59:15 GMT
>Approved: ph...@wubios.wustl.edu (J. Philip Miller)
>Lines: 43
>
>This article may help explain the reasons why it's extremely unlikely to
>become infected with HIV from a mosquito bite.
>
>Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), the deadly epidemic
>caused by the HIV virus, is most often transmitted by contaminated
>hypodermic needles or sexual contact. Since mosquitos feed on human
>blood and may attack a series of individuals, the question arises:
>can you get AIDS from a mosquito bite?
>
>According to Jonathan F. Day, of the University of Florida's Medical
>Entomology Laboratory, insects can transmit viruses in two ways,
>mechanically and biologically. With mechanical transmission,
>infected blood on the insect's mouthparts might be carried to
>another host while the blood is still fresh and the virus still
>alive. Infection by this means is possible but highly unlikely,
>because mosquitos seldom have fresh blood on the outside of their
>mouthparts. Mechanical transmission does occur in horses, however,
>with equine infectious anemia, a virus closely related to AIDS and
>transmitted by horseflies. These flies are "pool feeders"; their
>bite causes a small puddle of blood to form, and they immerse their
>mouthparts, head, and front legs while lapping it up. If disturbed,
>however, they quickly move on to another horse, where the fresh
>blood of the two hosts may mingle. Blood-feeding mosquitos are much
>neater and more surgical; they insert a tube for drawing blood, and
>by the time they are ready for their next meal, even on a second
>host following an interrupted meal, any viruses from their first
>meal are safely stored away in their midgut.
>
>With biological transmission, the pathogen must complete a portion
>of its life cycle within the carrier, or vector species. Protozoans
>that cause malaria, for instance, go through an extremely complex
>cycle within the mosquito, eventually congregating in the salivary
>glands, from which they may infect avian, primate, rodent, or
>reptilian hosts, depending on the malaria species. The HIV virus,
>however, does not replicate or develop in the mosquito; once in the
>insect's gut, the virus quickly dies. Repeated studies since 1896
>show that AIDS-infected blood fed to mosquitos and other arthopods
>does not live to be passed on and that, fortunately, there is no
>biological-transmission cycle of AIDS in blood-feeding arthopods,
>which frequently ingest the virus as part of their blood meal.
>From "Natural History", July 1991, p. 54.
--
Tim Fogarty (fog...@netcom.com)
Bill Roberts
In article <8607823...@dejanews.com>,> about [HIV] that would help people, I do not, so there is little
> point in my discussing it any further.
Actually I do have a couple of useful things to say, as a result
of research for a seminar I gave last semester on maturation of T-cells
in the thymus, together with information I read last month in
"Science and Medicine" (March/April 1997).
CD4+ and CD8+ T-cells derive from the same progenitor, and the
balance of CD4+/CD8+ can be shifted by drugs.
Testosterone was shown by Athreya et al. to increase CD4+ counts
(in lupus patients) whereas estradiol increased CD8+ cell counts.
However, in dermatological studies, stanozolol (Winstrol) was observed
to increase CD8+. (This suggests to me that the mode of activity
is not via the androgen receptor.)
The "Science and Medicine" article pointed out that some CD8+ cells act
to destroy infected CD4+ cells. (BTW it also had interesting data on the
rates of turnover in HIV patients in steady state; quite interesting and
supportive of what I was saying previously.)
Combining this information, it is plausible that shifting CD4+/CD8+
balance in favor of CD8+ via drugs such as stanozolol could be of benefit
in slowing the progression of the disease via a possible increase rate of
destruction of infected CD4+ cells and a reduction in rate of infection
of new CD4+ cells.
There are people who work with this kind of thing, and I wouldn't be
surprised if they had considered this, but it seems that most have taken
the opposite approach of wanting to tilt the balance towards more CD4+.
(BTW, in support of my hypothesis, CD8+ cell count correlates better with
survival than does CD4+ cell count.)
Also, people forget that there are also extra-thymically produced T-cells,
Their production, BTW, is stimulated by estradiol. Perhaps such T-cells
might be of some relevance in immunological defense against HIV; the
hypothesis should be looked into. I haven't seen it in the literature.
Mooney's written about some of the above, but not all of it, to my
knowledge.
Okay, that at last wraps up my contribution to the HIV thread (I think)
because this really is not my specialty at all.
Michael Mooney
Bill Roberts <wrob...@grove.ufl.edu> wrote:
>The fact that single exposure to significant amounts of virus (e.g. from
>a needle stick) only rarely leads to HIV infection strongly supports what
>I was saying -- that there is evidence that another immunosuppressive
>cause is required in many cases for HIV to flourish in the human system.
>All I have to say about this is the common view that HIV alone is
>necessary and sufficient to lead to deadly AIDS is not proven, as
>Duesberg has said. I neither know nor care if he is "crazy" as some claim
>(in ad hominem attacks) or if he has made other wrong statements -- those
>things are irrelevant to the issue I have described.
>Where this may be useful is that it gives hope that if the immune system
>can otherwise be kept strong, individuals may find their HIV infection
>can be maintained at a background level not intrusive on other aspects of
>health -- as is seen in many individuals. How do we achieve this in a
>given individual? I do not know, and cannot come up with an answer.
>Again, this is not my field, although I know enough about it for what I
>have said about it to constitute informed statements (regardless of Tim's
>belief that I am entirely ignorant.) While I wish I knew things to say
>about it that would help people, I do not, so there is little point in my
>discussing it any further.
>And re Michael Mooney's post: of course it would be a bad idea for people
>to go to the other extreme and imagine that HIV is utterly harmless.And
>I am sure he was not suggesting that I had ever said or suggested such a
>thing.
Actually, I wasn't. I was aiming at Dr. Peter Duesberg and only Dr.
Duesberg.
And I still have friends who have good reason to believe that HIV
doesn't cause AIDS. So nothing personal involved here, anyway. I do
get tired of the Duesberg (ghost) though. God, I wonder of Peter takes
too many rec drugs himself. Probably didn't graduate from acid to X.
Rifle River
In article <5ivk4m$lt7$1...@nnrp1.crl.com>, mmo...@a.crl.com (Michael Mooney)
wrote:
> Bill Roberts <wrob...@grove.ufl.edu> wrote:
Sorry, I just saw this and I'm not responding to Mike or Bill, but the
previous poster.
> >The fact that single exposure to significant amounts of virus (e.g. from
> >a needle stick) only rarely leads to HIV infection strongly supports what
> >I was saying -- that there is evidence that another immunosuppressive
> >cause is required in many cases for HIV to flourish in the human system.
There is another alternative: that there is something unique about the
mucosal immune system, rather than the systemic immune system, which
provides for a much higher frequency of infection. In fact, researchers
are trying to find out what this unique charachteristic is to help reduce
the spread of HIV.
If you don't know what is meant by mucosal immune system, then please go
back to school to learn the basics before you begin speculating on how
viruses work.
RR
Bill Roberts
On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Tim Fogarty wrote:
>
> HIV will cause AIDS in even the healthiest of people. It just can take
> 10-15 years.
Damn, this is bad news indeed for the 99.7% of health care workers who
have gotten HIV-contaminated needle sticks but so far have tested as HIV
negative. They're all going to die of AIDS.
(I'm assuming the statistic posted previously was accurate; I have seen
similar data before.)
And if 10-15 years pass and they still are HIV negative and don't have
AIDS, why then, your theory is not wrong, Tim, you'll just need to modify
it to say that it takes longer. They'll all die of AIDS. You know this. It
is a fact. They even say this on TV after all.
Thanks for clearing that one up, Tim.
Okay, now I'm really really really going to shut up on this, but I so much
dislike seeing this kind of braindead stuff posted that I couldn't resist
this time. (The post only just now appeared on the UF server. Somehow I
resisted when I saw it last week on Deja News.)
-- Bill
Robert Duncan
Rifle River wrote:
>
> There is another alternative: that there is something unique about the
> mucosal immune system, rather than the systemic immune system, which
> provides for a much higher frequency of infection. In fact, researchers
> are trying to find out what this unique charachteristic is to help reduce
> the spread of HIV.
>
> If you don't know what is meant by mucosal immune system, then please go
> back to school to learn the basics before you begin speculating on how
> viruses work.
>
> RR
I am more than willing to contribute something completely useless. so
here it is. In vaginal intercourse when the male had it (blood product)
and the female did not. (and with no other contributing factors) On avg
it took nearly 600 copulations (vaginaly) before the spouse was infected.
I have no idea of the study name, so I'm sorry for the referance
seakers.
But in the couples that had anal intercourse the rates dramatically
rose.
Mucosal immune system? nah, never heard of it. ;^) I wonder if the ones
who NEVER contracted the disease had unusualy high immune responces to
their partners sperm/semen? That is one of the contributing factors to
inability to concieve as well. I wonder if research has ever broached
this area? interesting to be sure.
Rob
mike....@iac.honeywell.com
mmo...@a.crl.com (Michael Mooney)
wrote:
Bill Roberts <wrob...@grove.ufl.edu> wrote:
>>The fact that single exposure to significant amounts of virus (e.g. from
>>a needle stick) only rarely leads to HIV infection strongly supports
>>what
>>I was saying -- that there is evidence that another immunosuppressive
>>cause is required in many cases for HIV to flourish in the human system.
Some of the most interesting research in some quarters centers around two
at-first-glance-unrelated aspects:
1: absence of p350 (DNA-PKcs), which is probably responsible for SCID
(Kirchgessner, C.U., et. al. 1995, and subsequent research) .
2: The recent follow-ups to Hochstrasser's work (Hochstrasser, M. 1995) on
the ubiquitin/proteasome pathway; it seems that pathway breakdown leads to
degradation of regulatory proteins governing lots-o-stuff related to how
well the immune system can respond to systemic assaults.
I suspect that a linkage between the negative results of experiments to
date which show that the DNA double-strand break repair, does not
necessarily proceed from DNA-PK to p53, and that, if the proteins that
put ubiquitin onto the protein to be degraded are degraded themselves due
to the by-products of RPA are thence not scavenged (because of
phosphoraylation post DNA damage), you have a systemic increase in
degraded proteins, which leads to several of the symptoms of AIDS.
>>All I have to say about this is the common view that HIV alone is
>>necessary and sufficient to lead to deadly AIDS is not proven, as
>>Duesberg has said. I neither know nor care if he is "crazy" as some
>claim
>>(in ad hominem attacks) or if he has made other wrong statements --
>those
>>things are irrelevant to the issue I have described.
probably correct; missing links in repair mechanisms and DNA-repair are
likely contributers.
>>Where this may be useful is that it gives hope that if the immune system
>>can otherwise be kept strong, individuals may find their HIV infection
>>can be maintained at a background level not intrusive on other aspects
>of
>>health -- as is seen in many individuals. How do we achieve this in a
>>given individual? I do not know, and cannot come up with an answer.
current research going on that i know of sugggests gene therapy (p350)
might be a starting point.
snip
Christopher C. Lamb
Bill Roberts wrote:
>
> On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Tim Fogarty wrote:
> >
> > HIV will cause AIDS in even the healthiest of people. It just can take
> > 10-15 years.
>
> Damn, this is bad news indeed for the 99.7% of health care workers who
> have gotten HIV-contaminated needle sticks but so far have tested as HIV
> negative. They're all going to die of AIDS.
>
Being *exposed* to HIV and being *infected* with HIV are
two completely different things. Exposure can lead to
infection, but not always. Infection almost always leads
to AIDS and death.
--
Christopher C. Lamb
cl...@mrcabq.com
Please use the above email address when responding.
Due to the proliferation of automated emailers, I
can no longer use my correct address in the
reply-to field.
Diesel 93
Bill ROberts WROTE:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Tim Fogarty wrote:
>> HIV will cause AIDS in even
>> the healthiest of people. It just can take > 10-15 years.
> And if 10-15 years pass and they still are HIV negative and don't have
> AIDS, why then, your theory is not wrong, Tim, you'll just need to
> modify it to say that it takes longer. They'll all die of AIDS. You know
> this. It is a fact. They even say this on TV after all.
What does tis have to do with what Tim was saying? He meant that if you
are HIV POSITIVE, you will eventually develop AIDS; which is a result of
the HIV virus. It just may take a while. He wasn't saying that if you were
exposed to something HIV positive, you will definetly become HIV positive
yourself.
If I miss-understood anything please let me know.
--Eric Adolph
http://members.aol.com/diesel93/eric2.htm
Diesel's Powerlifting and Bodybuilding Page
"Life is lifting, the rest is just waiting"
"It's not about East or West. It's about power and money, niggaz and bitches, ridahs and punks. Which side are you on?"
--2PAC (alias Makaveli)
RIP
"Murder murder murder........was the case that they LOST!"
--Snoop Doggy Dogg
"All I want is money, fuck the fame, I'm a simple man."
--2PAC
RIP
Rifle River
In article <335481...@mail.idt.net>, Robert Duncan
<rdun...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
> I am more than willing to contribute something completely useless. so
> here it is. In vaginal intercourse when the male had it (blood product)
> and the female did not. (and with no other contributing factors) On avg
> it took nearly 600 copulations (vaginaly) before the spouse was infected.
> I have no idea of the study name, so I'm sorry for the referance
> seakers. But in the couples that had anal intercourse the rates dramatically
> rose.
Researchers are quite aware of this study and there is a guy in London who
has some interesting ideas on why this is true. I won't dare speculate.
The key to understanding HIV infection is the mucosal immune system.
> Mucosal immune system? nah, never heard of it. ;^) I wonder if the ones
> who NEVER contracted the disease had unusualy high immune responces to
> their partners sperm/semen? That is one of the contributing factors to
> inability to concieve as well. I wonder if research has ever broached
> this area? interesting to be sure.
It certainly has.
RR
Rifle River
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.970415155304.25375B-100000@cypress>, Bill Roberts
<wrob...@grove.ufl.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Tim Fogarty wrote:
> >
> > HIV will cause AIDS in even the healthiest of people. It just can take
> > 10-15 years.
>
> Damn, this is bad news indeed for the 99.7% of health care workers who
> have gotten HIV-contaminated needle sticks but so far have tested as HIV
> negative. They're all going to die of AIDS.
Bill, you know what the fuck Tim meant. You're too smart for this kind of
bullshit. Tim meant that those people who contract HIV will die of AIDS.
Nowhere did Tim say that every person stuck with a contaminated needle
would contract AND die of AIDS. I guess you just felt like being an
asshole right now.
> And if 10-15 years pass and they still are HIV negative and don't have
> AIDS, why then, your theory is not wrong, Tim, you'll just need to modify
> it to say that it takes longer. They'll all die of AIDS. You know this. It
> is a fact. They even say this on TV after all.
Other than that one infant, can you name any people who have CONTRACTED HIV
and not died within 15 years of seroconversion?
> Okay, now I'm really really really going to shut up on this, but I so much
> dislike seeing this kind of braindead stuff posted that I couldn't resist
> this time. (The post only just now appeared on the UF server. Somehow I
> resisted when I saw it last week on Deja News.)
Listen up! The highest rate of transmission occurs following anal
intercourse. The second highest rate of transmission occurs following
vaginal intercourse. The lowest rates of transmission are seen in those
who are accidentally stuck with an infected needle. This reflects
differences in the systemic and mucosal immune systems. These data should
not be used to support ideologies.
Note: rate of transmission does not necessarily reflect epidemiological
data because things such as safe sex can alter those numbers.
RR
Tim Fogarty
Bill Roberts (wrob...@grove.ufl.edu) wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Tim Fogarty wrote:
> > HIV will cause AIDS in even the healthiest of people. It just can take
> > 10-15 years.
> Damn, this is bad news indeed for the 99.7% of health care workers who
> have gotten HIV-contaminated needle sticks but so far have tested as HIV
> negative. They're all going to die of AIDS.
Thats not what I said at all. If you get a needle stick, and after 6 months
still test negative, its a good bet that you don't have the virus. The
skin is a pretty good barrier. To become infected, you pretty much have
to have a t-cell that has the HIV DNA spliced into its own injected into
your blood. And even if a T-cell gets into the blood stream, your own
immune system may be able to disable it before it gets a chance to create
new viruses. The odds of becoming infected from a needle stick from an
HIV positive person is less than 1 in 200.
What I said was that everyone who tests positive for HIV will develope
full blown AIDS sooner or later, barring advances in medicine. Duesburg
states that this is not the case. He beleive you need cofactors. That
you can have HIV in your body, and yet never develope AIDS. Today we can
measure the activity of the virus. We know that there is no dormant
stage, that during those 10-15 years between exposer and full blown AIDS,
the virus is slowly but surely damaging your body. Thats why _everyone_
who is HIV positive should be on meds (at least ATZ and 3TC, or D4T and 3TC).
(Note that while for most people, its 10-15 years from exposer to full
blown AIDS, it can be as little as 2 years in some people.)
> Okay, now I'm really really really going to shut up on this,
You said that before.
--
Tim Fogarty (fog...@netcom.com)
Bill Roberts
jst...@girch1.med.uth.tmc.edu (Rifle River) wrote:
>
> Bill, you know what the fuck Tim meant. You're too smart for this kind of
> bullshit. Tim meant that those people who contract HIV will die of AIDS.
> Nowhere did Tim say that every person stuck with a contaminated needle
> would contract AND die of AIDS. I guess you just felt like being an
> asshole right now.
No, that wasn't it. I thought the point being discussed was if the
HIV virus in and of itself, with no other factors required, was sufficient
to lead to AIDS. At least that is the point I was talking about.
If Tim didn't say what he meant, well, that is not my fault. I was
supposed to answer something different from what he wrote?
> > And if 10-15 years pass and they still are HIV negative and don't have
> > AIDS, why then, your theory is not wrong, Tim, you'll just need to modify
> > it to say that it takes longer. They'll all die of AIDS. You know this. It
> > is a fact. They even say this on TV after all.
>
> Other than that one infant, can you name any people who have CONTRACTED HIV
> and not died within 15 years of seroconversion?
Actually I can't name anybody who has died of AIDS at all! Unless it was
Lyle Alzado or maybe John Holmes? Oh yeah, Liberace I guess and some actor
who had something to do with Elizabeth Taylor. I don't know any cases
personally and thus can't name any. Those of my friends who are homosexual
are all healthy.
I think (but may not be correct) that your claim (if valid at all) may be
confused by the fact fifteen years ago the HIV virus could not be
detected analytically from blood tests; HIV positive status was
determined (sometimes wrongly) by detection of high levels of antibody
that would bind to an HIV epitope. Did those ELISA tests fail to detect
levels of HIV that now are sufficient to result in HIV+ diagnosis,
selecting for cases which were already well on the way to AIDS? You tell
me.
If you are saying that everyone who was diagnosed HIV positive from 1982
or 1987 on is now dead (except, you say, for one infant), that is news to
me. Can you cite a literature reference?
> Listen up! The highest rate of transmission occurs following anal
> intercourse. The second highest rate of transmission occurs following
> vaginal intercourse. The lowest rates of transmission are seen in those
> who are accidentally stuck with an infected needle. This reflects
> differences in the systemic and mucosal immune systems. These data should
> not be used to support ideologies.
The reason I used the needlestick data is that data is not available on
how many people have taken it up the ass once and only once from an HIV
infected individual yet not become infected. The needlestick data is.
And so far as I know that are a lot of guys who have taken it up the butt
as above, or even many times, and not become systemically (detectably)
infected either. I just don't have any data for it. I doubt there is any
published. I see no way that such data could be very precise.
Sheesh! All I am trying to say is that the real deal is a little bit more
complex than the popular, media-hyped claim that HIV introduced into the
body is sufficient to lead to AIDS in all cases.
But it seems that really upsets some people, almost as if their religion
were being attacked. Don't see it that way. Why the hell is the theory
that HIV = death, no other factors required, something that some people
are so fervent in "defending" against all "attackers" ?
This is not right IMO.
-- Bill
Bob Mann
Robert Duncan <rdun...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>I am more than willing to contribute something completely useless. so
>here it is. In vaginal intercourse when the male had it (blood product)
>and the female did not. (and with no other contributing factors) On avg
>it took nearly 600 copulations (vaginaly) before the spouse was infected.
Christ, I've been married for almost 20 years and we probably still haven't
racked up that total.
Where did they get these figures from? (figuratively speaking, don't go
looking it up)
Bob Mann
--------------------------------------------------------
"Blessed are the weak, for they shall inherit the mirth"
Tim Fogarty
> I don't know any cases personally and thus can't name any.
You're very lucky.
> If you are saying that everyone who was diagnosed HIV positive from 1982
> or 1987 on is now dead (except, you say, for one infant), that is news to
> me. Can you cite a literature reference?
How would you get that from anything that we've said. I know of dozens
of guys who tested positive back in the mid and late 80s who are still
alive. Some of them are surely only alive today because of advances in meds.
> Sheesh! All I am trying to say is that the real deal is a little bit more
> complex than the popular, media-hyped claim that HIV introduced into the
> body is sufficient to lead to AIDS in all cases.
If I have the flu, and I sneeze on you, and you don't come down with the
flu, that doesn't mean that the flu virus doesn't cause the flu, or that
there must be cofactor viruses involved for you to get the flu. What it
means is that the flu virus didn't take hold in your sinuses. It may
have not gotten into your sinuses, or it may have gotten there damaged,
or it may have been attacted by your immune system before it was able to
crank out new viruses.
> But it seems that really upsets some people, almost as if their religion
> were being attacked. Don't see it that way. Why the hell is the theory
> that HIV = death, no other factors required, something that some people
> are so fervent in "defending" against all "attackers" ?
No one has been arguing that HIV infection is a death sentence today. The
arguement has always been whether HIV infection is the sole cause of AIDS.
That, barring medication, everyone who is infected with HIV (everyone who
tests positive) given enough time, will develope full blown AIDS, no
matter how healthy they were to begin with. Duesburg claims that
cofactors are required, cofactors such as drug abuse. He even claims that
just taking AZT can be a cofactor. There is no evidence to support this.
However, today, with AZT, 3TC, D4T, the non-nucleoside reverse
transcriptase inhibitor who's name I've forgotten, and all the protease
inhibitors (pronounced pro-te-aze), people can keep their viral load below
detectable levels. We can now keep the virus in check (although to do so
costs over $40 a day in meds). What we're not too good at is repairing
already damaged immune systems. What we don't know yet is what the long
term effect is of taking all these meds.
--
Tim Fogarty (fog...@netcom.com)
Rifle River
In article <8612430...@dejanews.com>, Bill Roberts
<wrob...@grove.ufl.edu> wrote:
> No, that wasn't it. I thought the point being discussed was if the
> HIV virus in and of itself, with no other factors required, was sufficient
> to lead to AIDS. At least that is the point I was talking about.
Bill, If you question this, you need to read the monograph by Steven Harris
in Skeptic vol. 3 no. 2 1995. Thi is a different question from what you
stated to Tim in the previous post.
> If Tim didn't say what he meant, well, that is not my fault. I was
> supposed to answer something different from what he wrote?
You misinterpreted what he wrote.
> I think (but may not be correct) that your claim (if valid at all) may be
> confused by the fact fifteen years ago the HIV virus could not be
> detected analytically from blood tests; HIV positive status was
> determined (sometimes wrongly) by detection of high levels of antibody
> that would bind to an HIV epitope.
You just described why the disease had progressed so far when discovered by
previous diagnostic techniques.
> The reason I used the needlestick data is that data is not available on
> how many people have taken it up the ass once and only once from an HIV
> infected individual yet not become infected. The needlestick data is.
I was at a recent seminar where these data were actually discussed. I'd be
surprised if they weren't published yet.
> Sheesh! All I am trying to say is that the real deal is a little bit more
> complex than the popular, media-hyped claim that HIV introduced into the
> body is sufficient to lead to AIDS in all cases.
The media uses scare tactics, we learned that with steroids. Tim and I
aren't the media.
> But it seems that really upsets some people, almost as if their religion
> were being attacked. Don't see it that way. Why the hell is the theory
> that HIV = death, no other factors required, something that some people
> are so fervent in "defending" against all "attackers" ?
HIV = Immunodeficiency where opportunistic infections have their way. A
little better?
RR
mike....@iac.honeywell.com
In article <8612430...@dejanews.com>, Bill Roberts
> But it seems that really upsets some people, almost as if their religion
> were being attacked. Don't see it that way. Why the hell is the theory
> that HIV = death, no other factors required, something that some people
> are so fervent in "defending" against all "attackers" ?
claiming other "factors" is so wide open as to be meaningless as it
stands.
Guillermo Gonzalez
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 23:33:46 GMT, rmann*@escape.ca (Bob Mann) wrote:
>Robert Duncan <rdun...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I am more than willing to contribute something completely useless. so
>>here it is. In vaginal intercourse when the male had it (blood product)
>>and the female did not. (and with no other contributing factors) On avg
>>it took nearly 600 copulations (vaginaly) before the spouse was infected.
>
>Christ, I've been married for almost 20 years and we probably still haven't
>racked up that total.
>Where did they get these figures from? (figuratively speaking, don't go
>looking it up)
Uhhhhh... if the average number of copulations per married couple is
2.something per week (read it somewhere, I forgot), that would be around 100 per
year, so in 6 years.....
Of course, SOME of you might not be that prolific....
Guillermo
__________________________________________________________
In order to "Reply" to this message, remove the "!" in
my email string...errrr, well, you know what I mean...
__________________________________________________________
Bill Roberts
fog...@netcom.com (Tim Fogarty) wrote:
> If you get a needle stick, and after 6 months
> still test negative, its a good bet that you don't have the virus. The
> skin is a pretty good barrier.
News flash: if you needle stick yourself, the needle penetrates the skin.
OK that's it. There is no point in answering stuff like this. The
majority of this simply has not been at a reasoned level of discussion.
A thoughtful person would wonder, "Why, in 99% plus of the needle-stick
cases, does systemic infection not develop? Is it possible -- it does
seem likely -- that a few host cells do get infected from such a viral
dose, but the rate of destruction of such cells exceeds rate of infection
of new cells? If so, why is the response in these cases sufficiently
effective whereas in the steady state of infection the rate is too slow?
(It is known that in the steady state, destruction of HIV-infected cells
is very rapid, but unfortunately infection of new cells is just as
rapid.) Can this be a clue in learning how to improve immune response in
the steady-state? Interesting! And is this evidence that introduction of
HIV virus into the body does not necessarily lead to AIDS? Of course!"
BUT NO: we hear that the skin is a pretty good barrier to a needle
stick!!!!
I WILL not answer any more of these. Not even if a post addresses
questions directly to me. Obviously these guys can go on forever with
their religion and they are welcome to do so.
-- Bill
Bill Roberts
fog...@netcom.com (Tim Fogarty) wrote:
> To become infected, you pretty much have
> to have a t-cell that has the HIV DNA spliced into its own injected into
> your blood.
Tim, even after I told you that this was a grossly incorrect
oversimplification, and Lysis laughed at you for it, you STILL keep
saying it!
Please learn SOMETHING, ANYTHING about retroviruses, and then you will not
make silly statements like this one.
> > Okay, now I'm really really really going to shut up on this,
>
> You said that before.
Unfortunately, dubious statements and incorrect assertions from
respondents kept coming, as well as questions "where do you get this,"
etc.
And I think it's unreasonable for you to criticize me for answering
questions which you demanded of me.
Bill Roberts
On Wed, 16 Apr 1997, Diesel 93 wrote:
> Bill ROberts WROTE:
> > On Tue, 8 Apr 1997, Tim Fogarty wrote:
> >> HIV will cause AIDS in even the healthiest of people. It just can
> >> take 10-15 years.
> > And if 10-15 years pass [after a substantial amount of HIV virus is
> > introduced into the system; the example was via a needle stick] and
> > they still are HIV negative and don't have AIDS, why then, your theory
> > is not wrong, Tim, you'll just need to modify it to say that it takes
> > longer. They'll all die of AIDS. You know this. It is a fact. They
> > even say this on TV after all.
> What does tis have to do with what Tim was saying? He meant that if you
> are HIV POSITIVE, you will eventually develop AIDS; which is a result of
> the HIV virus. It just may take a while. He wasn't saying that if you were
> exposed to something HIV positive, you will definetly become HIV positive
> yourself.
Well, if he meant that instead of what he actually said, he would stil be
wrong. It cannot be said that HIV+ individuals WILL eventually develop
AIDS, but rather that many of them will.
What Tim said though was HIV, which is a virus -- not HIV positive, which
is a clinical state.
What my example has to do with that is that it is clear that introduction
of the HIV virus into the human organism, (even in amount substantial
enough that it is unlikely that there are too few viruses to infect any
cells at all) does not necessarily cause death. In fact, it doesn't even
lead to a *systemic* infection even 1% of the time. So it is wrong to say
that "HIV will cause AIDS" as some kind of blanket statement
Tim is also wrong with regards to HIV positive status necessarily leading
to AIDS and death within 10-15 years.. There are a lot of people who have
been HIV positive since the early 80s at least and who are still very
healthy otherwise.
What he said is like saying "Anabolic steroids will cause heart disease
and kill you. It just can take 10-15 years. Oh, there are healthy people
who used anabolic steroids years ago? They're all going to die of heart
disease from it, you wait and see." Irresponsible and unscientific.
The evidence is that a large percentage of persons diagnosed as HIV
positive 10-15 years ago are now, unfortunately, dead, but a very
substantial percentage (I don't have the figure with me) are still healthy
overall and do not have AIDS.
This means that there is (or should be) hope that HIV positive status is
not a death warrant as some, like Tim, are saying.
His statement was awful. He is predicting how many years of life are left
for people who are HIV positive. And he says they "will" die at the end of
his countdown.
I suspect (actually I'm almost sure) he knows better, but did not say what
he meant.
I'd better not say again that this is my last post on the topic; rather, I
don't plan to say any more.
-- Bill
Tim Fogarty
Bill Roberts (wrob...@grove.ufl.edu) wrote:
> This means that there is (or should be) hope that HIV positive status is
> not a death warrant as some, like Tim, are saying.
You know that this is not what I said. I even emailed you on this, yet
you continue to repeat it.
> His statement was awful. He is predicting how many years of life are left
> for people who are HIV positive. And he says they "will" die at the end of
> his countdown.
You know that this is not what I said. In one post I pointed out that
while the average is 10-15 years between infection and full blown AIDS,
_WHEN NO MEDS ARE TAKEN_, it can be as little as 2 years for some
individuals. Therefore, if the average is 10-15 years, yet for some its
2 years, then there must be some where its much more than 10-15 years.
My arguement has always been regarding Duesberg's and later Colgan's claim
that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. First you argued that if you're
healthy when you're first infected, you won't develope AIDS. Then you
tried to change the arguement from being "infected" to being "exposed".
You're arguing just to argue.
HIV infection will lead to AIDS. No cofactors are required. No matter
how healthy you are, you will sooner or later develope AIDS - IF YOU DON'T
TAKE ANY OF THE MEDS THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO AFFECT THE VIRUS. With the
current medications that are available, you can reduce your viral load to
undetectable levels. You're still infected with the virus, but your
infected cells are unable to create new viruses. Therefore, the rate of
infection of new cells in your body is very low, if not zero. Therefore,
you're not getting any sicker, and even perhaps your body can repair some
of the damage already done. Today, HIV infection is not a death
sentence. If you're willing to take the meds, you can live a normal,
healthy life. But start the meds immediately.
--
Tim Fogarty (fog...@netcom.com)
Tim Fogarty
In <8613014...@dejanews.com> Bill Roberts (wrob...@grove.ufl.edu) wrote:
> fog...@netcom.com (Tim Fogarty) wrote:
> > To become infected, you pretty much have
> > to have a t-cell that has the HIV DNA spliced into its own injected into
> > your blood.
> Tim, even after I told you that this was a grossly incorrect
> oversimplification, and Lysis laughed at you for it, you STILL keep
> saying it!
I stand by what I said. The example was a needle stick. Statistically, a
free virus is not going to survive the trip. An infected T-cell injected
into the skin, fat, or muscle is not going to be able to do too much. Any
viruses it is able to produce will also be trapped and all will quickly be
surrounded by antibodies or other immune defenses. Only a t-cell that is
able to get into the blood stream may be able produce new viruses which
will also be free to travel in the blood stream to infect new t-cells.
Your original premise seemed to be that since there were so few infections
from needle sticks, HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS. We've simply given
possible physical reasons why a needle stick does not always lead to HIV
infection. That a needle stick does not always lead to HIV infection does
not mean that HIV infection does not always lead to AIDS.
--
Tim Fogarty (fog...@netcom.com)
Bill Roberts
fog...@netcom.com (Tim Fogarty) wrote:
> Bill Roberts (wrob...@grove.ufl.edu) wrote:
>
> > If you are saying that everyone who was diagnosed HIV positive from 1982
> > or 1987 on is now dead (except, you say, for one infant), that is news to
> > me. Can you cite a literature reference?
>
> How would you get that from anything that we've said. I know of dozens
> of guys who tested positive back in the mid and late 80s who are still
> alive. Some of them are surely only alive today because of advances in meds.
Because I said that a lot of such people were still alive and well, and
RR challenged me to name one, other than "that one infant."
>
> > Sheesh! All I am trying to say is that the real deal is a little bit more
> > complex than the popular, media-hyped claim that HIV introduced into the
> > body is sufficient to lead to AIDS in all cases.
>
> If I have the flu, and I sneeze on you, and you don't come down with the
> flu, that doesn't mean that the flu virus doesn't cause the flu, or that
> there must be cofactor viruses involved for you to get the flu. What it
> means is that the flu virus didn't take hold in your sinuses. It may
> have not gotten into your sinuses, or it may have gotten there damaged,
> or it may have been attacted by your immune system before it was able to
> crank out new viruses.
Quite correct Tim.
But with the flu we do not see the condition where many individuals
suffer debilitating or deadly illness while others remain at a low level
of infection indefinitely. If this were the case with the flu, then
indeed I'd be wondering if the flu virus alone were sufficient to lead to
the deadly illness. Particularly if other factors were well-correlated
with likelihood of the progression of the disease.
> No one has been arguing that HIV infection is a death sentence today.
The quote of yours to which I was responding said that HIV will kill in
10-15 years. Perhaps you simply did not say exactly what you meant, and
you really meant "often does." You've snipped what you wrote (I retained
it in my post) but you stated this unequivocally.
> The
> arguement has always been whether HIV infection is the sole cause of AIDS.
> That, barring medication, everyone who is infected with HIV (everyone who
> tests positive) given enough time, will develope full blown AIDS, no
> matter how healthy they were to begin with.
You say "everyone" with HIV positive status will develop "full blown
AIDS" if they do not use medications. Of course you cannot support this
assertion.
Apparently this is just a matter of religious faith with you, so this
is not worth discussing with you. Or if reason still prevails, then,
as you often say, Tim: Evidence please.
I can't argue matters of religious faith, which your statement plainly
is.
> Duesburg claims that
> cofactors are required, cofactors such as drug abuse. He even claims that
> just taking AZT can be a cofactor. There is no evidence to support this.
Only if you want to keep your eyes shut. But I would say, "may often be
required -- in many cases HIV infection alone seems insufficient to lead
to AIDS."
Really I have nothing further useful to say on this, and this thread
seems now to be only a useless rehash of the same stuff -- at least my
part in it is, and IMO, Tim's too. A few others (e.g. RR) have contributed
useful points though.
-- Bill
Bob Mann
!gonz...@bridge.net (Guillermo Gonzalez) wrote:
>
>Uhhhhh... if the average number of copulations per married couple is
>2.something per week (read it somewhere, I forgot), that would be around 100 per
>year, so in 6 years.....
>
>Of course, SOME of you might not be that prolific....
>
>Guillermo
>
I can think of at least one off the top of my head.
Phil Hees
Brian Silver <s...@my.sig.for.address> writes:
>Graham Crackers wrote:
>>
>> 1. I don't think Colgan is anywhere near as bad Phillips pushing EAS
>> products.
>>
>> 2. I think that the reason the TwinLabs products are in the "proper
>> proportions" is because Colgan TELLS them what proportion to make them
>> in!!!
>
>With respect to 1., yeah, you're probably right. But "Optimum Sports
>Nutrition" is a thinly vailed TWINLABS ad. Why couldn't Colgan
>just write the book and leave out all the references to TWINLABS?
>
>Because TWINLAB published the book! (Advanced Research Press is
>TWINLAB).
>
>And as far as 2., well, you might be right on that, I don't have
>any information one way or the other. But the connection is too
>close for me. If Colgan's work was really that impartial he should
>have been able to publish the book without the assitance of TWINLAB.
Concerning his impartiality, a case in point: He's spoken out many times
against vanadyl, both in "Optimum Sports Nutrition" and in the pages of
MD. Meanwhile, Twinlabs continues to advertise and sell Vanadyl Fuel.
So, I would conclude that (1) he only endorses such products as he
believes in; (2) MD/Twin doesn't tell him what to write; and (2) Twinlabs
does not necessarily follow his advice on every product they make.
Also, he does recommend some non-Twinlabs products in "Optimum Sports
Nutrition" (I lent my copy or I would cite examples).
-Phil Hees <he...@panix.com>
Phil Hees
"Krista Scott" <kr...@interlog.com> writes:
>
>I'd also like to note that Tim knows his stuff, and you'd have a hard time
>getting HIV from a mosquito bite or licking a toilet seat or whatever the
>paranoid folks out there think it requires.
My housemate's mother has been staying with us for a while. Been *REAL* sick.
Former IV drug user. I figured she was HIV+, late stages, but no one said
anything so I didn't come out and ask. Just kept reminding myself that I
wasn't going to get it from sharing a bathroom with her, or using the same
silverware or dishes (although I admit that I've been fussier than usual
about washing said dishes). And hoped for her sake that it was something else.
It all finally came out in the open two nights ago when I had to drive her
to the hospital. They figured that if I hadn't already guessed, I would
figure it out when I saw the "Biohazard" sticker on her hospital room
door. Turns out she's been HIV+ for ten years, this is her third case of
pneumonia in the last year, there's barely any flesh left on her body, and
she's probably not coming home from the hospital this time.
Sorry if this is off topic, but it's still a bit of a shock to me. (Can
anyone point me to an appropriate newsgroup for friends and family of AIDS
victims?)
-Phil Hees <he...@panix.com>
Dlanor Thcof
In article <jstream-18...@girch23.med.uth.tmc.edu>,
jst...@girch1.med.uth.tmc.edu (Rifle River) wrote:
> Then all Tim and I are asking is for you to provide evidence supporting the
> converse. What evidence are you referring to showing that some percentage
> of HIV positive people may not develop AIDS? The evidence we have seen
> supports the contention that people with HIV will develop AIDS.
> <snip>
> RR
Not to get into a flame war but, Magic Johnson. Still no AIDS.
--
These thoughts are mine I think???
They only express my opinion and not those of my company.
The only easy day was yesterday
Rifle River
> You say "everyone" with HIV positive status will develop "full blown
> AIDS" if they do not use medications. Of course you cannot support this
> assertion.
Then all Tim and I are asking is for you to provide evidence supporting the
converse. What evidence are you referring to showing that some percentage
of HIV positive people may not develop AIDS? The evidence we have seen
supports the contention that people with HIV will develop AIDS.
> Only if you want to keep your eyes shut. But I would say, "may often be
> required -- in many cases HIV infection alone seems insufficient to lead
> to AIDS."
Is it really surprising that there are other infectious agents always
present in immunodeficient individuals? For those who are interested see
the article written BY HARRIS IN SKEPTIC VOL> THREE NUMBER TWO< NINETEEN
NINETY_FIVE
RR
Tim Fogarty
Dlanor Thcof (Ron....@nt.com) wrote:
> Not to get into a flame war but, Magic Johnson. Still no AIDS.
Nor is it likely he will for a long while. He's taking all the right
meds. I know dozens of guys who tested positive years and years before
Magic Johnson did. They all look completely healthy. And just like
Magic, they started on the retrovirals and protease inhibitors as soon as
they were available. And today these people are doing fine.
There are two measurments with regards to health with HIV: t-cell count,
and viral load. The t-cell count tells you how close you are to the
wall. Viral load tells you how fast your getting there. Opportunistic
infections rarely occur when your t-cells (CD4) are above 200. T-cells
above 500 is considered great. Someone not taking any meds may have a
viral load of around 100,000. If you have viral loads of under 10,000
you usually don't take the protease inhibitors. When you are on the
three meds (AZT or D4T, plus 3TC, plus a PI) your viral load often drops
to undetectable levels.
But having your viral load drop below detectable levels does not mean
that you're cured. Cells in your body still have the HIV virus DNA
spliced into its own. These cells are still trying to create new
viruses. But the meds are interfering with that process. Take away the
meds and the viral load will jump sky high again.
The problem is that after a while, the meds often stop working. The
virus or your body adapts to the meds. So we may always have to be
creating more.
The bottom line is that while HIV is not necessarily a death sentence,
its still not a lot of fun. Do your best not to get infected. Don't
have unprotected sex.
--
Tim Fogarty (fog...@netcom.com)
Bill Roberts
In article <fogartyE...@netcom.com>,
fog...@netcom.com (Tim Fogarty) wrote:
> HIV will cause AIDS in even the healthiest of people. It just can take
> 10-15 years.
Apparently you meant something different from this than what I thought you
meant.
fog...@netcom.com (Tim Fogarty) wrote:
> Bill Roberts (wrob...@grove.ufl.edu) wrote:
> > This means that there is (or should be) hope that HIV positive status is
> > not a death warrant as some, like Tim, are saying.
> You know that this is not what I said. I even emailed you on this, yet
> you continue to repeat it.
I recall the article you sent me (thanks!) but no other e-mail. Perhaps I
missed it inadvertently.
Bill Roberts
> > > To become infected, you pretty much have
> > > to have a t-cell that has the HIV DNA spliced into its own injected into
> > > your blood.
>
> > Tim, even after I told you that this was a grossly incorrect
> > oversimplification, and Lysis laughed at you for it, you STILL keep
> > saying it!
>
> I stand by what I said.
Tim, the error is that HIV is not a DNA virus -- it has no DNA. It is an
RNA virus. The DNA which is integrated into the host genome is not from
the HIV virus itself, but is a reverse transcription of HIV's RNA genome.
It would be impossible to understand how drugs work against HIV or to
understand anything about HIV infection without knowing this. This is one
of the very first things one would have to know.
E.g. AZT would not work if HIV integrated its own DNA into the host.
Your other post plainly spoke of HIV integrating its DNA into the host.
The error is unfortunate. I should have stated plainly then that HIV is
an RNA virus, rather than just saying that your description was a "gross
and erroneous oversimplification." That was true, but not helpful.
Tim Fogarty
> Tim, the error is that HIV is not a DNA virus -- it has no DNA. It is an
> RNA virus. The DNA which is integrated into the host genome is not from
> the HIV virus itself, but is a reverse transcription of HIV's RNA genome.
Yes, I know this. But the DNA sequence that is spliced into the host's
cell is built based on the RNA sequence from the virus. Hence the
pattern comes from the HIV virus. The DNA sequence belongs to the HIV
virus. The virus is the source of the pattern and the reason the pattern
is being spliced. I never claimed that the DNA came out of the virus.
> It would be impossible to understand how drugs work against HIV or to
> understand anything about HIV infection without knowing this. This is one
> of the very first things one would have to know.
You are arguing just to argue.
--
Tim Fogarty (fog...@netcom.com)
Bill Roberts
In article <fog...@E8DwFn.A6r@netcom.com>, fog...@netcom.com
(Tim Fogarty) wrote:
> You know nothing about HIV... [snip] It's virtually impossible to
> become infected by a free virus. Instead, the virus enters a cell, such as
> a blood t-cell. Inside, it splices its DNA into the cell's DNA, causing
> the cell to become a factory, cranking out new HIV viruses.
I responded:
This is an extreme and erroneous oversimplification of the mode of action
of retroviruses.
Lysis responded:
> It is also the funniest thing I have heard in a month! On a par with his
> attempt to explain away thermogenesis in humans by applying the Laws of
> Thermodynamics a while ago, or the lubrication theory about creatine...
After this, fog...@netcom.com (Tim Fogarty) wrote:
> To become infected, you pretty much have to have a t-cell that has
> the HIV DNA spliced into its own injected into your blood.
I answered:
Tim, even after I told you that this was a gross oversimplification and
Lysis laughed at you for it, you STILL keep saying it!
Please, learn SOMETHING, ANYTHING about retroviruses and then you will
not make silly statements like this.
Tim Fogarty wrote:
> I stand by what I said.
I responded,
Tim, the error is that HIV is not a DNA virus -- it has no DNA. It is an
RNA virus. The DNA which is integrated into the host genome is not from
the HIV virus itself, but is a reverse transcription of HIV's RNA genome.
Tim responded
> Yes, I know this. [snip] You are arguing just to argue.
Let the record speak for itself. Tim has said the same thing many times
before also: e.g. in the "What happened to Bob Paris," "AIDS/steroids,"
"Steroids," and "Lyle's wife in tabloid show" threads.
He has never used the word RNA in a post. He has always referred to
HIV's "DNA." In other words he has grossly misrepresented the nature
and mode of action of the virus every time, whether out of ignorance
or poor communication ability I do not know. But he claims that I am
deliberately miscontruing what he has said. No.
Also his assertion that he has sent me e-mail saying that he does not say
that HIV inevitably leads to death is not true, or at least the UF
computer system has no record of it. My last e-mail from him is dated
April 10th and this was prior to my stating that this was my
understanding of his position. (And I was in error that this is his
position; it only seemed that way from what he was saying.) He did not
correct me on this matter in this or any other e-mail.
His assertion that I have changed my argument (exposure vs. infection) is
also bogus.
When I don't know something and someone informs me of it, I admit it. I
don't say "I knew it all along" like Tim is doing. Shame, shame. Nor do I
accuse others of changing their arguments when they haven't.
Stop the bogus crap, Tim. I've given you lots of opportunities to close
things out decently on this topic and you always come back with stuff like
this.
John Churchill
tyE8sz...@netcom.com> <8615955...@dejanews.com>
<fogartyE...@netcom.com> <8616343...@dejanews.com>:
Distribution:
Bill Roberts (wrob...@grove.ufl.edu) wrote:
> woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof
Geez Louise, Bill, stop your barking. I'm starting to think it was *your*
mamma that was rolling in the hay with the pooches, that's the truth :-)
John
Steve Kidwell
On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 10:03:17 -0600, Bill Roberts
<wrob...@grove.ufl.edu> wrote:
>
>Stop the bogus crap, Tim. I've given you lots of opportunities to close
>things out decently on this topic and you always come back with stuff like
>this.
>
>-- Bill
Bill,
One thing I've learned about Tim Fogarty. When he screws up, he won't
admit it. He just changes his story until it is right. He's done
this to me I don't know how many times. This is one rule you have to
learn with Tim. He is never wrong (yeah right). You just kinda have
to say, "OK Tim. Whatever." I like him, but some people are just
that way ya know.
Steve Kidwell, Natural Physique Systems
http://www.indiana.net/~thekid/phys.htm
Bill Roberts
jchu...@chat.carleton.ca (John Churchill) wrote:>
<fogartyE...@netcom.com> <8616343...@dejanews.com>:
> Distribution:
>
> Bill Roberts (wrob...@grove.ufl.edu) wrote:
> > woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof
>
> Geez Louise, Bill, stop your barking. I'm starting to think it was *your*
> mamma that was rolling in the hay with the pooches, that's the truth :-)
Interesting assertion, that the fact that one doesn't like to be publicly
accused of deliberately misrepresenting what has been said or of
knowingly making false statements about someone else's position after
having been sent e-mail correcting the error suggests such a thing about
one's ancestry!
I did not know that!
Bill Roberts
jchu...@chat.carleton.ca (John Churchill) wrote:
> Bill Roberts (wrob...@grove.ufl.edu) wrote:
> > woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof woof
>
> Geez Louise, Bill, stop your barking. I'm starting to think it was *your*
> mamma that was rolling in the hay with the pooches, that's the truth :-)
John, you owe me a good flaming, but this wasn't it. Please try again!
John Churchill
Bill Roberts (wrob...@grove.ufl.edu) wrote:
> John, you owe me a good flaming, but this wasn't it. Please try again!
Good enough for you to respond to it twice. It took you six hours between
posts to come up with this retort!??!?!? Wow, you musta been really rattled!
You think I owe you a good flaming? For what? I hope you don't mean your
ranting in a certain thread regarding truth. Just because you were
throwing punches doesn't mean you were landing them. You were clearly
unable to grasp simple distinctions, yet continued on foaming at the mouth
(rabies perhaps). So, I let you work yourself into a frenzy. Go argue with
someone else, you bore me.
John
Bill Roberts
Now THAT's more like it!!!