HIV/AIDS in Africa: Real or Imagined?
jdach
HIV/AIDS in Africa: Real or Imagined? Please visit my web site and
leave a comment on the contact page for my opinions.
Regards from www.drdach
DavidT
http://www.unaids.org/en/HIV_data/2006GlobalReport/default.asp
(This has 35 pages of references)
http://www.unaids.org/en/HIV_data/Epidemiology/default.asp
Also see the WHO publications on HIV
http://www.who.int/topics/hiv_infections/en/
http://www.who.int/hiv/en/
js
"DavidT" <davi...@volcanomail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1161247805.8...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I suggest you start with the 2006 UNAIDS report as useful background:
>
> Also see the WHO publications on HIV
Yeah, the WHO! Aren't they also the puppets promoting the avian flu hype? Weird bunch of
stupid nuts over there in Geneva.
DavidT
js wrote:
> Yeah, the WHO! Aren't they also the puppets promoting the avian flu hype? Weird bunch of
> stupid nuts over there in Geneva.
Thank you. As per usual you have made a invaluable contribution to the
debate.
js
Yeah! First time for you to recognize it though. You'll get there and see the light,
David, but not before good ol' Georgie.
Death
"js" <me@nospamplease> wrote in message >
>
> Yeah, the WHO! ...
There were 3 IV drug users in a New York drug "shooting gallery." A social worker discovers
them sharing needles and is appalled. She turns to one and asks, "Do you know what you're
doing? Haven't you heard about AIDS?" One turns to her and casually replies, "Don't worry about
us. We are all wearing condoms."
jdach
reply from drdach:
Regarding the question of AIDS in Africa:
To provide balanced and alternative viewpoints to the UN and WHO web
sites posted above, I have listed for the reader a few other
information sites below.
(However, listing here does not indicate endorsement by the
management):
HIV=AIDS Controversy: What's All This Then?
Here is the complete text of South Africa President Thabo Mbeki's
letter to world leaders on AIDS in Africa. And here is the reaction.
April 3, 2000
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/mbeki.shtml
PRESIDENTIAL AIDS ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
panel of experts invited by the President of the Republic of South
Africa,
the Honourable Mr Thabo Mbeki, March 2001
http://www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/reports/aids/aidspanel.htm
Aids was supposed to destroy Uganda. So why is it flourishing again?
Billions will be spent on powerful anti-Aids drugs for the third world
- but Uganda
reversed its Aids epidemic without them Aids sunset gives way to new
dawn in Uganda
by Neville Hodgkinson The Business, October 2003
http://barnesworld.blogs.com/Uganda.pdf
Rebecca Culshaw on AIDS and Her Native Africa
http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/09/post.html
Peter Duesberg The African AIDS Epidemic
http://barnesworld.blogs.com/pdonaa.pdf
How AIDS in Africa was Overstated.
http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/08/how_aids_in_afr_1.html
President of the African National Congress
and President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/mbeki/
Regards from www.drdach.com
Death
"js" <me@nospamplease> wrote in message
> > > Yeah, the WHO!
By DAVID BAUDER
Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK
Most of the 24 years since the last time the Who released a new album passed with the group's
creative force, guitarist and songwriter Pete Townshend, believing there would never be another
one. That doesn't mean no one tried _ with almost comically dysfunctional results.
Although the Who is down to only two original members in Townshend and singer Roger Daltrey,
the first disc to carry the group's name since 1982 is set for release at the end of October.
"Endless Wire" is familiar in its crunchy rock 'n' roll and literary aspirations; half is a
rock opera based on a mini-novel Townshend wrote and distributed online.
From "My Generation," to "Baba O'Riley" to "Behind Blue Eyes" and "Who Are You," it's a
daunting legacy to live up to.
Townshend has always considered live performances as important a part of the Who's legacy as
recordings, and the band has sporadically performed both before and after bassist John
Entwistle's death in He said he never wanted to release an album that he wasn't sure was good,
and he couldn't say that for the previous two, including aptly titled "It's Hard."
"I've just been waiting," he told The Associated Press, "waiting, I suppose, for science to
take over and give me the right to have another baby as a 60-year-old woman and suddenly it's
arrived and there's a baby and it feels good. It think it's a good record. It feels like a
record I may have made way back, back in 1968 or 1970."
The wait may have been longest for Daltrey, who's always been impatient for new Townshend songs
to sing.
"Roger would say, `all we have to do is get in the studio and play and the music will happen'
and I'd have to say to him, `No, Roger, it won't," Townshend said. "So we would try it, the
music wouldn't come and he'd have another press conference where he'd claim to have written
four songs and I said, `can I hear them?'
"He'd say, `it's about this and that' and I'd say, `No, Roger, I want to hear them.'" Came the
reply: "Well... they're not quite finished."
Entwistle would claim to have hundreds of songs written.
"I'd say, `great, maybe we can do the first Who album of songs by John Entwistle, can you play
them for me?'" Townshend recalled. "And he'd say, `I'm not playing them to Roger.'
"And I said, `we have a slight problem there. Why not?' And he said, `because he's always
picking my songs apart and saying they're not as good as yours."
A number of factors came together to push Townshend toward finally making another Who record,
including Entwistle's death.
With the band on hold, Townshend had quite happily started another career as a book editor. But
it didn't pay the bills. He tried working in musical theater, but found he could only be
successful with things that had already been successes before. It didn't make sense to ignore a
powerful band that he enjoyed and found easy to work with.
"I just thought, `why am I trying to reinvent the wheel here?" he said.
Entwistle died on the eve of a brief Who tour of the United States that was organized, in large
part, to make money so the bassist could maintain the rock 'n' roll lifestyle to which he was
accustomed, Townshend said.
The guitarist agonized during a sleepless night over whether the tour should be canceled in
Entwistle's honor, or whether he and Daltrey should press forward.
He thought back to his parents' generation, for whom duty meant putting their lives aside to
fight World War II. He concluded his own duty was to everyone else involved in the undertaking
_ the crew, the promoters, the fans who had bought tickets and were looking forward to a night
out.
The first performance was at the Hollywood Bowl and "it was a riot," Townshend said.
"We missed John, of course, but we were able to go on without him," he said. "I thought, hell,
people die, things change and it's OK. I suppose I thought then that maybe I could make a Who
record under these changing circumstances and maybe I can say to people that it's not the old
sound or the old machine ... At that moment, I knew we would make a Who record."
Another incentive? While Townshend said he enjoys the old hits, he couldn't stand the idea of
another Who tour with nothing new to say musically. The band has just begun a 15-month concert
tour all around the world, its largest ever.
Besides the familiar sight of Daltrey twirling his microphone and Townshend's windmill motion
with the guitar, the onstage Who also includes Zak Starkey, the longtime replacement for the
late drummer Keith Moon, and Townshend's brother Simon on guitar.
Much like another long-lasting rock partnership between Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, the
relationship between Daltrey and Townshend is famously complex. They have a deep personal bond
and will forever be joined in rock history, but there are moments when they drive each other
nuts.
"We're very different," Townshend said. "I think I've changed over the last 12 years. I'm much
happier and content and much less pressured about everything in my life. Roger sees himself at
the center of a great mystical circus. He exalts it. He doesn't understand that you have to
write every day and suddenly you'll come up with something good. He tends to describe things as
magic. If he only knew.
"I think we've arrived at a good place and it's very good to be working with him at the
moment," Townshend said. "He's doing a fantastic job."
Daltrey, who wasn't made available for an interview, said in a statement: "When John died, it
changed the balance of the band. Pete and I are at two opposite ends of the globe and John was
the equator. Something happened. And it has given us a whole new edge."
Daltrey was reportedly unenthusiastic when Townshend gave him a copy of his story, "The Boy Who
Heard Music," but later came around to embracing it when it was used as the framework for half
of the new album.
It is about an aging `60s rocker, Ray High, watching from a sanatorium as neighborhood kids
form a band and follow the trajectory of success that he once had. It's poignant hearing the
Who perform it, singing about how music "makes me strong" and "long for a place where I
belong."
"In some ways it's the same old story," Townshend said. "I really haven't changed my tune in
many, many years."
DavidT
> To provide balanced and alternative viewpoints to the UN and WHO web
> sites posted above, I have listed for the reader a few other
> information sites below.
A list of a few postings from HIV denialists on an internet blog is
certaily "alternative", but it hardly provides "balance" to the 35
pages of nearly a thousand scientific peer-reviewed references cited by
UNAIDS on the extent of the HIV pandemic.
Nor is the Presidential panel of experts a "panel of experts" in the
HIV field, but a collection of disparate denialists that Thabo Mbeki
uses to justify his much criticised views on HIV. His country is
suffering as a result of his ignorance and indecision, spurred on by
the opinions of his now-defunct "expert" panel.
Uganda has reversed its rise in HIV incidence through a comprehensive
social revolution that has led to dramatic decline in HIV transmission
- condom use has soared, people are less promiscuous and behaving more
responsibly. Similar events have occurred in Thailand where the benefit
of programmes to decrease transmission have also borne fruit.
jdach
DavidT wrote:
> jdach wrote:
> > To provide balanced and alternative viewpoints to the UN and WHO web
> > sites posted above, I have listed for the reader a few other
> > information sites below.
>
> A list of a few postings from HIV denialists on an internet blog is
> certaily "alternative", but it hardly provides "balance" to the 35
> pages of nearly a thousand scientific peer-reviewed references cited by
> UNAIDS on the extent of the HIV pandemic.
If you would like to post additional web sites more to your liking
which give views other than those of government agencies, please feel
free to do so.
> Nor is the Presidential panel of experts a "panel of experts" in the
> HIV field, but a collection of disparate denialists that Thabo Mbeki
> uses to justify his much criticised views on HIV. His country is
> suffering as a result of his ignorance and indecision, spurred on by
> the opinions of his now-defunct "expert" panel.
The document written and published by the democratically elected free
government of South Africa is entitled "Presidential Panel of
Experts". If you feel the title should be changed to:
"Presidential Panel of Non-Expert Disparate Aids Denialists",
please inform the president of the government of South Africa.
Perhaps they will agree to republish the document with the new title.
Although TAC activists would agree with your last statement, some other
first hand observers might disagree with your opinion.
> Uganda has reversed its rise in HIV incidence through a comprehensive
> social revolution that has led to dramatic decline in HIV transmission
> - condom use has soared, people are less promiscuous and behaving more
> responsibly. Similar events have occurred in Thailand where the benefit
> of programmes to decrease transmission have also borne fruit.
Sounds very encouraging. Would you perhaps have any links to
references where this information originated, professor?
Regards from www.drdach.com
DavidT
> If you would like to post additional web sites more to your liking
> which give views other than those of government agencies, please feel
> free to do so.
I would rather rely on the UNAIDS and WHO web sites than the web sites
you seem to rely on for your information. You can always look up
Bennett's web site too, if you like....
> The document written and published by the democratically elected free
> government of South Africa is entitled "Presidential Panel of
> Experts". If you feel the title should be changed to:
> "Presidential Panel of Non-Expert Disparate Aids Denialists",
> please inform the president of the government of South Africa.
I think he already knows the view of the rest of the world. He was
informed about this at the Durban AIDS conference. Five thousand AIDS
specialists signed the Durban Declaration calling for Mbeki to wake up
and smell the coffee. Unfortunately for hundreds of thousands of his
countrymen, he didn't bother his backside. They are dead as a result.
Commentators such as HIV expert Richard Chaisson have said :"His
(Mbeki's) appointment of a presidential panel to advise him on how to
respond to the epidemic caused grave concerns when he asked prominent
HIV naysayers and AIDS deniers such as Peter Duesberg to participate.
His panel devolved into a circus sideshow, but not without inflicting
incalculable harm to AIDS prevention efforts in South Africa."
http://www.hopkins-aids.edu/publications/report/sept00_1.html
> Perhaps they will agree to republish the document with the new title.
> Although TAC activists would agree with your last statement, some other
> first hand observers might disagree with your opinion.
Some people disagree with the statement that the world is not flat.
Re Uganda:
David wrote:
> > Uganda has reversed its rise in HIV incidence through a comprehensive
> > social revolution that has led to dramatic decline in HIV transmission
> > - condom use has soared, people are less promiscuous and behaving more
> > responsibly. Similar events have occurred in Thailand where the benefit
> > of programmes to decrease transmission have also borne fruit.
>
DrDach wrote:
> Sounds very encouraging. Would you perhaps have any links to
> references where this information originated, professor?
Happy to oblige as always, doctor:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/bmj;328/7444/891
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7444/848
Quotes:
"HIV prevention responses were rapid, endogenous, inexpensive, and
simple."
"Partner reduction seems to have been pivotal to success in two
countries heralded for reversing their HIV epidemics, Thailand and
Uganda"
"In the same surveys, ever use of condoms increased from 1% to 6% for
women, and by 1995 had reached 16% among men. In the 1989 and 1995
surveys conducted by WHO's Global Programme on AIDS, which sampled a
more urban population, reported ever use of condoms was substantially
higher, increasing from 7% to 20% in women and from 15% to 30% in men."
"But even more important changes in sexual behaviour had occurred in
Uganda. In the face of the then pervasive national campaign to
encourage sticking to regular partners ("zero grazing," fig 1),
reported multiple partner behaviour dropped noticeably. The Global
Programme on AIDS surveys found that the proportion of men with one or
more casual partners in the previous year fell from 35% in 1989 to 15%
in 1995, and the proportion of women from 16% to 6%.5-7 Notably, the
proportion of men reporting three or more non-regular partners fell
from 15% to 3% (see bmj.com)."
jdach
reply from drdach:
AIDS in UGANDA: The True Story is Quite Different from the WHO Story
Christian Fiala, M.D. is a physician in Vienna, Austria who has worked
in Africa and is the author the Lieben Wir Gefahrlich? Do We Love
Dangerously? A Doctor in Search of the Facts and Background to AIDS.
1999. In his book, he discusses AIDS in UGANDA and the statistics
accumulated by the WHO. In his book he says:
The WHO (World Health Organization) says most HIV infection in Africa
comes from heterosexual transmission, and the reduction in AIDS in
Uganda came about because of a decrease in sexual promiscuity behavior
and increased condom use prompted by AIDS awareness campaigns in
Uganda. Dr. Christian Fiala says there is no reliable evidence for this
belief.
On the contrary, the latest household survey (2001) shows that the
following indicators of sexual behavior have been stable, some for 30
years: fertility (seven children per woman); average age for women at
time of first sexual intercourse (16.7 years); age at marriage (18
years); and first childbirth (18.5 years). The only indicator that has
slightly changed is the proportion of married women using
contraception, up over the last five years from 15 to 23%. But only 2%
regularly use a condom (though 35% report unmet needs for family
planning).
According to Dr. Christian Fiala, the reason AIDS mortality has
decreased dramatically is the unreliability of HIV tests. Africans have
high levels of antibodies in their blood triggered by infectious,
parasitic diseases, and exposure to contaminated blood or dirty
injections. Increased antibody levels cause false positive results with
the HIV tests. African who test false positive do not get sick and die
from AIDS.
Dr. Fiala also says that the official HIV and AIDS statistics are
unreliable and misleading. The WHO diagnosis of AIDS in Africa is based
on a different definition for developing countries decided in 1985
based on "non-specific clinical symptoms" such as continuous
diarrhea, weight loss etc. People with these clinical symptoms are
declared to be suffering from AIDS. And the typical symptoms for the
common malady tuberculosis: fever, weight loss, productive cough and
hemoptysis are also officially considered to be AIDS without the use of
HIV testing which is rarely done.
WHO's Geneva headquarters incorrectly estimated total AIDS cases by
adding the
registered AIDS cases to a high number of unreported cases which WHO
presumed
to have occurred. Thus in November 1997, WHO announced that since July
1996 there had been a further 4.5 million AIDS cases in Africa. In this
period, however, only 120,000 AIDS cases were actually registered. In
other words, 97% of the supposed new AIDS cases occurred only on paper
at the WHO Headquarters in Geneva as a creation of their imagination.
regards from www.drdach.com
Death
"js" <me@nospamplease> wrote in message
>
> stupid nuts over there in Geneva.
>
Scores of children and seniors will be immunised against deadly bird flu after an
Australian-made test vaccine proved safe on adults.
Perth researchers have begun trialling a vaccine manufactured by serum and vaccine maker CSL on
the two groups most vulnerable to a pandemic.
Similar trials are expected to start soon in Adelaide and Melbourne - involving 800 people in
total.
CSL has said initial trials on 18- to 45-year olds, which began in the three cities last year,
found the vaccine to be effective with few side-effects.
Telethon Institute for Child Health Research in Perth is recruiting 100 children aged six
months to eight years and the same number of people over 65.
Study leader Dr Peter Richmond said the encouraging results needed to be tested on more
vulnerable groups.
"In any flu pandemic, young children and the elderly are particularly at risk," Dr Richmond
said.
"The best preparation is to have a vaccine available that is proven to be safe and effective -
and that's our aim."
He said there was no live virus in the vaccine, which meant there was no chance of catching an
infection from a vaccination.
Study volunteers will receive two doses of the vaccine three weeks apart, followed by blood
tests over the following seven months to check their immunity levels.
The commonwealth-supported vaccine - the first of its kind in the southern hemisphere - was
developed from a strain taken from a Vietnamese bird flu victim.
The disease has so far infected more than 160 people in Asia and the Middle East. About 100
have died.
CSL said its product could be available in Australia within six weeks of a pandemic beginning.
However, it warned that because the vaccine was developed from one strain of the avian flu it
may not provide immunity if the H5N1 virus mutated and became highly infectious between people.
CSL will present its research to the Therapeutic Goods Administration for approval as soon as
trials are complete.
© 2006 AAP
Brought to you by
The Sydney Morning Herald.
Alex
news:1161335018....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Uganda has reversed its rise in HIV incidence through a comprehensive
> > social revolution that has led to dramatic decline in HIV transmission
> > - condom use has soared, people are less promiscuous and behaving more
> > responsibly. Similar events have occurred in Thailand where the benefit
> > of programmes to decrease transmission have also borne fruit.
>
> Sounds very encouraging. Would you perhaps have any links to
> references where this information originated, professor?
Right, there never was any evidence that there was an 'hiv epidemic' in
any country in Africa, but especially Uganda.
I remember watching a documentary on how the population of
Uganda was doomed, back in the early 1990s.
Nothing of the sort happened.
Here is something to think about. If Uganda is 'special' because of
the special early measures taken by it's government, then countries
who did not take those measures must have been doomed. Right?
So let's compare the population size of two Central African
countries. (numbers x 1,000)
Uganda
1980 12,415
2004 27,234
Malawi
1980 6,259
2004 12,677
Source:
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=ug
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/idbsum?cty=mi
In short, in the 24 years from 1980 to 2004, the population of
Uganda grew 119%, while the population of Malawi grew 102%.
Although the population of Malawi grew at a slower pace than
the population of Uganda, it is certainly not indicative of a
pupulation decimated by AIDS.
Also keep in mind that this data is not free from assumptions about
the impact of AIDS.
> Regards from www.drdach.com
>
Alex
Dildeaux
" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:RnNZg.33019$vi3....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
You quite the jokester, Death.
yes indeedy.
GMCarter
<avdeelen.R...@wanadoo.nl> wrote:
>Right, there never was any evidence that there was an 'hiv epidemic' in
>any country in Africa, but especially Uganda.
Uh-huh. That's ranking right up there with some of the dumbest things
you've ever spouted.
David Canzi -- non-mailable
jdach <drd...@drdach.com> wrote:
>The WHO (World Health Organization) says most HIV infection in Africa
>comes from heterosexual transmission, and the reduction in AIDS in
>Uganda came about because of a decrease in sexual promiscuity behavior
>and increased condom use prompted by AIDS awareness campaigns in
>Uganda. Dr. Christian Fiala says there is no reliable evidence for this
>belief.
>
>On the contrary, the latest household survey (2001) shows that the
>following indicators of sexual behavior have been stable, some for 30
>years: fertility (seven children per woman); average age for women at
>time of first sexual intercourse (16.7 years); age at marriage (18
>years); and first childbirth (18.5 years).
I see here only measures of how early a woman starts to have sex
and how often she has sex. If women start having sex at the same
age and have sex with the same frequency, then the age at which
they have their first child and the number of children they end
up having is the same whether they are having sex with only one
man or with many men. Frequency and promiscuity are not synonyms.
Fiala says there is no reliable evidence of a decrease in
promiscuity. There is no evidence here that he has looked for any.
The measurements he chose to cite are uniformly irrelevant.
In the absence of any process of reasoning relating these
measurements to promiscuity, you accepted them as relevant on
Fiala's say-so. Once again you demonstrate your gullibility.
--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |
David Canzi -- non-mailable
jdach <drd...@drdach.com> wrote:
>from drdach:
>
>HIV/AIDS in Africa: Real or Imagined? Please visit my web site and
>leave a comment on the contact page for my opinions.
Here in the newsgroup we can contradict Dr. Dach and show the
flaws in his reasoning, or his lack of reasoning. If you go to
his web site instead, you will see only what he lets you see.
Death
"Dildeaux" <dild...@toys.com> wrote in message news:d987a$453ade94$471f4a5b$14...@ALLTEL.NET...
drdach
David Canzi wrote:
> Fiala says there is no reliable evidence of a decrease in
> promiscuity. There is no evidence here that he has looked for any.
> The measurements he chose to cite are uniformly irrelevant.
>
> In the absence of any process of reasoning relating these
> measurements to promiscuity, you accepted them as relevant on
> Fiala's say-so. Once again you demonstrate your gullibility.
>
> --
> David Canzi
Reply from drdach
Christian Fiala, M.D. is a practicing physician who went to Africa and
wrote a book about the largely fictional government version of HIV/AIDS
there. He therefore has credibility in the mind of any reasonable
person. Have you gone to Africa? Have you written a book about
HIV/Aids n Africa? Do you have any training or background in biological
science or medicine or HIV/AIDS. No you don't. You are merely a
computer hack - systems programmer from Waterloo Canada. You don't
even have a web site.
Actually, I shouldn't be so hard on you. You are correct in a way
about this. Why should anyone believe Dr. Fiala's account of his
findings? After all, he is only one person. Let's improve the
chances of a truthful account by looking at many different sources of
information on the topic: Here are a few more:
Here is the complete text of South Africa President Thabo Mbeki's
letter to world leaders on AIDS in Africa. April 3, 2000
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/mbeki.shtml
PRESIDENTIAL AIDS ADVISORY PANEL REPORT
panel of experts invited by the President of the Republic of South
Africa,
the Honourable Mr Thabo Mbeki, March 2001
http://www.polity.org.za/html/govdocs/reports/aids/aidspanel.htm
Aids was supposed to destroy Uganda. So why is it flourishing again?
Billions will be spent on powerful anti-Aids drugs for the third world
- but Uganda
reversed its Aids epidemic without them Aids sunset gives way to new
dawn in Uganda
by Neville Hodgkinson The Business, October 2003
http://barnesworld.blogs.com/Uganda.pdf
Rebecca Culshaw on AIDS and Her Native Africa
http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/09/post.html
Peter Duesberg The African AIDS Epidemic
http://barnesworld.blogs.com/pdonaa.pdf
How AIDS in Africa was Overstated.
http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/08/how_aids_in_afr_1.html
President of the African National Congress
and President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/mbeki/
BTW, you might want to read my devastating reply to your buddy, Bennett
located here:
http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/10/by_jeffrey_dach.html
regards from www.drdach.com
drdach
reply from drdach:
Although I really hate to admit it, David Canzi is right again. Please
don't visit my web site. Instead, watch this video first and then
afterwards, visit my web site and leave a comment on the contact page.
Google video entitled, HIV/AIDS, Fact or Fraud?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4396856850556632563
regards from ww.drdach.com
js
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Canzi -- non-mailable" <dmc...@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca>
> Here in the newsgroup we can contradict Dr. Dach and show the
> flaws in his reasoning, or his lack of reasoning. If you go to
> his web site instead, you will see only what he lets you see.
>
> --
> David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |
.... you will see only what he lets you see ...
This reminds me of a big problem I had some time ago when I found this definition:
Aids denialism = Seeing what you want to see.
Man, did I struggle with that one. I even sent a letter to ACTUP NY:
Cornillon - France
the 25th of March 2006
Open letter to ACTUP New York I
To: ACTUP New York
CC: Everybody else
Subject: ACTUP's definition of Aids Denialism
Friends,
You must help me. I don't know what to do anymore. Some days ago I was hanging around on
the Web again, surfing from one site to another. That's been my main occupation ever since
I decided to stay at home and lock everybody out in order to be sure that this fu**ing HIV
will never get me by the throat. Internet provides a lot of good information about
diseases, especially about HIV and AIDS. And recently also, of course, about that
go*da**ed H5N1 virus. Well, no birds around my place so it doesn't really bother me.
I've been reading much about Celia Farber's ridiculous article in Harper's and reading all
your debunking articles has been a lot of fun for me. Really keeps me going, you know. The
denialists are really too silly for words, it's almost another race of human beings, don't
you think so ? Well, you might as well leave the human out of it. Bloody retards, that's
what they are.
What bothers me though, is something I read on www.actupny.org :
>> http://www.actupny.org/reports/denialist_harpers.html
There's a beautiful picture of three men, denier dummies of course, burying their heads in
the sand. But the phrase next to it, well, it's difficult to say but really, it drives me
crazy.
AIDS DENIALISM = SEEING WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE
It must be said that I have read every single article written by you and your friends so
I hate the guts of the aids dissidents, but how can I get away with this? Since I have
read your definition of AIDS denialism, I am trying very hard to only see what I don't
want to see but it doesn't work. For instance, the movie I didn't want to see yesterday,
well, I saw it just because I didn't want to see it. And now I'm feeling all messed up
because I saw the movie that I wanted to see because I didn't want to see it. So in the
end I saw what I wanted to see. Does that mean that I'm an AIDS denier now?
I can't decide anymore. I finally read Celia Farber's article because I thought that
reading the crap myself would get me out of my awkward situation, but the opposite
happened: I think Celia's writing does make a lot of sense. Is that because I see in the
article what I want to see? It's strange. All of a sudden, I have the impression that we
are suffering a total lack of elementary logic where the deniers do seem brilliant. Well,
maybe that's also because Celia really looks very cute on that picture. Maybe I'll have
some more of the crap. And now I come to think of it: if the deniers were right, I could
go unlock my front door and get some fresh air.
Well, I started my letter asking you for help, but now I've written it all down, I don't
think I need it anymore. I feel kind of silly all of a sudden. Being locked away from the
world and all that. I'm going to have a closer look at www.virusmyth.com
Regards,
Jan Spreen
David Canzi -- non-mailable
js <me@nospamplease> wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "David Canzi -- non-mailable" <dmc...@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca>
>> Here in the newsgroup we can contradict Dr. Dach and show the
>> flaws in his reasoning, or his lack of reasoning. If you go to
>> his web site instead, you will see only what he lets you see.
>
>
>This reminds me of a big problem I had some time ago when I found this
>definition:
>
>Aids denialism = Seeing what you want to see.
It is better to see only what *you* want to see than to see only
what *somebody* *else* wants you to see.
David Canzi -- non-mailable
drdach <drd...@drdach.com> wrote:
>
>David Canzi wrote:
>> Fiala says there is no reliable evidence of a decrease in
>> promiscuity. There is no evidence here that he has looked for any.
>> The measurements he chose to cite are uniformly irrelevant.
>>
>> In the absence of any process of reasoning relating these
>> measurements to promiscuity, you accepted them as relevant on
>> Fiala's say-so. Once again you demonstrate your gullibility.
>
>wrote a book about the largely fictional government version of HIV/AIDS
>there. He therefore has credibility in the mind of any reasonable
>person.
Old Joke: "It takes 9 months to produce a baby no matter how many
men you assign to the project."
Christian Fiala's counterargument against the claim that Ugandans
have become less promiscuous is that Ugandan women are still having
the same number of babies. The number of babies women have is
related to how often they have sex, and not related to the number
of different men they have sex with. This is a fact so simple and
obvious that anybody can understand it.
Your message to your readers is that they are unable to
judge Fiala's argument for themselves and should accept his
conclusion even if his argument seems to be wrong, because he's
an "authority". In other words, your message to your readers is
that they're stupid.
drdach
David Canzi -- non-mailable wrote:
reply from drdach:
My suggestion to you, mr computer man from waterloo, is to go outside,
walk around, open your eyes, activate your occipital cortex and and
start to really see. So far, there is no indication of this occurring.
regards from www.drdach.com
DavidT
May I take it you agree with their opinions on medical issues and
therapies?
drdach
No, you may not take it. Other web sites may very well contain
information that I do not agree with.
Your readers would like to know about the goats and monkeys at your
Veterinary school in Edinburgh Scotland, professor. What are the
chimp's names and how long have they been injected with HIV positive
blood with no symptoms? Do you ever let them out of their cages or do
you discuss their test results while in the cage?
regards from www.drdach.com
DavidT
drdach wrote:
> DavidT wrote:
> > Doctor, on your web site you recommend other web sites for information.
> > May I take it you agree with their opinions on medical issues and
> > therapies?
>
> No, you may not take it. Other web sites may very well contain
> information that I do not agree with.
You misunderstand me.
On your web site, you recommend/have links to other web sites for
information on the medical topics you discuss. I was wondering if that
meant you agreed with the opinions/advice on those web sites.
>
> Your readers would like to know about the goats and monkeys at your
> Veterinary school in Edinburgh Scotland, professor. What are the
> chimp's names and how long have they been injected with HIV positive
> blood with no symptoms? Do you ever let them out of their cages or do
> you discuss their test results while in the cage?
Your valuable contribution to this ongoing debate is welcomed, as
usual.
I am glad out readers can see for themselves how rationally you can
discuss topics.
drdach
Give me one good readon why I should discuss anything with an anonymous
web surfer, the lowest form of Internet credibility, David Thomson,
Doctor of Veterinary Medicine at Edinburgh Scotland ? Why don't you
stand up and grow some courage in that veterinary chest of yours and
tell your readers your real name. Your readers want to know how well
you treat your caged animals at the Veterinary School. Do you infuse
the Chimps with HIV positive blood every day, or every other day? Have
any of the chimps been sick from the HIV, or have you found that they
dont ever get sick? What about their CD4 cell counts? Have you been
measuring these? Tell us good doctor. You wouldn't hold back this
information from us would you? You wouldn't lie to us would you?
DavidT
drdach wrote:
> DavidT wrote:
> > You misunderstand me.
> > On your web site, you recommend/have links to other web sites for
> > information on the medical topics you discuss. I was wondering if that
> > meant you agreed with the opinions/advice on those web sites.
> Give me one good readon why I should discuss anything with an anonymous
> web surfer, the lowest form of Internet credibility, David Thomson,
> Doctor of Veterinary Medicine at Edinburgh Scotland ? Why don't you
> stand up and grow some courage in that veterinary chest of yours and
> tell your readers your real name. Your readers want to know how well
> you treat your caged animals at the Veterinary School. Do you infuse
> the Chimps with HIV positive blood every day, or every other day? Have
> any of the chimps been sick from the HIV, or have you found that they
> dont ever get sick? What about their CD4 cell counts? Have you been
> measuring these? Tell us good doctor. You wouldn't hold back this
> information from us would you? You wouldn't lie to us would you?
My mummy told me to never tell anyone on the internet my real name.
She warned me that I might encounter obnoxious individuals who wouldn't
wish to hold rational discussions but would instead try and pursue
their own sickening agendas.
She is evidently quite correct.
I am not a Scottish vet.
I suggest that if you only wish to have discussions with people whose
identity you can verify, that you avoid the internet entirely and
certainly cease posting in this group and other HIV forums.
Haven't you got better things to do anyway, like persuading some
gullible people that you have the the fountain of youth at your
disposal and that if only they would part with some of their money you
could offer them immortality?
By the way, seeing as how you are now such an expert on HIV/AIDS, when
will you be adding a section on the subject to your own web site?
Perhaps you could even post links to this forum, so prospective clients
for your "anti-aging" medicines can see you for what you really are,
warts and all.
Death
"drdach" <drd...@drdach.com> wrote in message
>
> Give me one good readon why I should discuss anything with an anonymous
> web surfer, the lowest form of Internet credibility,
Usenet is an exchange of ideas, not personalities.
Either you can handle the issues or you can not.
So far, I have you down as a can not.
David Canzi -- non-mailable
drdach <drd...@drdach.com> wrote:
>DavidT wrote:
>> drdach wrote:
>> > DavidT wrote:
>> > > Doctor, on your web site you recommend other web sites for information.
>> > > May I take it you agree with their opinions on medical issues and
>> > > therapies?
>> >
>> > No, you may not take it. Other web sites may very well contain
>> > information that I do not agree with.
>>
>> You misunderstand me.
>> On your web site, you recommend/have links to other web sites for
>> information on the medical topics you discuss. I was wondering if that
>> meant you agreed with the opinions/advice on those web sites.
>> >
>> > Your readers would like to know about the goats and monkeys at your
>>
>> Your valuable contribution to this ongoing debate is welcomed, as
>> usual.
>> I am glad out readers can see for themselves how rationally you can
>> discuss topics.
>
>Give me one good readon why I should discuss anything with an anonymous
>web surfer,
Your readers would like to know why you are evading the anonymous
web surfer's question.
drdach
>My mummy told me to never tell anyone on the internet my real name.
>She warned me that I might encounter obnoxious individuals who wouldn't
>wish to hold rational discussions but would instead try and pursue
>their own sickening agendas. She is evidently quite correct.
I didn't think you had a mummy. Does she live in Scotland, too?
Does she approve of your experiments infusing HIV tainted blood into
the chimps?
>I am not a Scottish vet.
Phew, I am very relieved to hear that. You mean you are not doing HIV
research on chimps in Edinburgh Scotland, after all?
>I suggest that if you only wish to have discussions with people whose
>identity you can verify, that you avoid the internet entirely and
>certainly cease posting in this group and other HIV forums.
Ok, thanks for the advice. That's so very considerate of you to
phrase it so politely.
>Haven't you got better things to do anyway, like persuading some
>gullible people that you have the fountain of youth at your
>disposal and that if only they would part with some of their money you
>could offer them immortality?
Number 1) I do not claim to have a fountain of youth. If you know of
its location, please inform our readers. Ponce de Leon would be
interested in this information, as well. After that, you can tell us
where the tooth fairy lives.
Number 2) Immortality is a tough order to deliver even for me. Even
so, the FDA would refuse approval because it would throw our social
security system into bankruptcy.
Number 3) Yes, there is a parting of some money...mostly mine when I
tabulate the office expenses every month.
>By the way, seeing as how you are now such an expert on HIV/AIDS, when
>will you be adding a section on the subject to your own web site?
Number 5) Just as soon as you stand up and find the courage to tell our
readers who you are, David Thomson, Veterinary Pathologist from
University of Edinburgh Scotland who experiments on chimps with HIV
infusions. Any results yet, professor? How do you explain the chimps
never get AIDS?
>Perhaps you could even post links to this forum, so prospective clients
>for your "anti-aging" medicines can see you for what you really are,
>warts and all.
Number 6) I have only one very large wart ....please examine it
carefully every morning when you look into the bathroom mirror.
In the future, assuming you have one, please do reply to any of my
posts.
Regards from www.drdach.com
DavidT
> Number 5) Just as soon as you stand up and find the courage to tell our
> readers who you are, David Thomson, Veterinary Pathologist from
> University of Edinburgh Scotland who experiments on chimps with HIV
> infusions. Any results yet, professor? How do you explain the chimps
> never get AIDS?
Can you explain why you think I am a Scottish veterinary researcher and
why you think my name is Thomson?
What makes you think chimps never get AIDS?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10979899&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11152525&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=10075569
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=9339842
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=9573225
I guess it must be all the poppers, crystal meth and repeated exposure
to human semen that is causing their immunodeficiency huh?
To be fair, chimps are not a good model for HIV-1 pathogenesis, but
they have had considerable time to evolve protective immune mechanisms
against the virus. Perhaps you would prefer to call many of them "elite
controllers"?
DavidT
David Canzi -- non-mailable wrote:
Quite. How about it doctor....?
Do you endorse the content of the web sites that you recommend readers
of dr dach.com visit for medical information?
drdach
reply from drdach:
David Thomson, vet from Edinburgh Scotland,
How many times do you need to be told to finally GET IT?
Chimps dont get AIDS from HIV,
just call the Yerkes National Primate Research Center and ask them,
they are the subject of a New York Times article, January 7, 2003
entitled : For Retired Chimps, a Life of Leisure by Sheryl Gay
Stolberg,
in which they admit that chimps dont get sick from HIV.
The one chimp that allegedly had AIDS after 10 years of HIV injection
research was the only one.
tha allegedly got AIDS.Chimp number C499 was injected with three
different HIV isolates .
After 3 or more years of infection, however, none of the viruses
derived from
C499 have induced AIDS in other chimpanzees, which allays concerns over
the use of such virulent isolates in chimpanzees.
One chimp after 10 years gets AIDS...not very convincing
...and then that chimp's blood is non-pathogenic to other chimps
...not very convincing at all if this is the best thay can come up
with.
The reason chimps dont get AIDS from HIV is the same reason people dont
get AIDS from HIV.
It ocurrs naturally in their population in the wild.
That's why you should be careful when you go out, "its a jungle out
there".
Origin of HIV-1 Discovered January 31, 1999
http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=8535
BIRMINGHAM, AL - Scientists at the University of Alabama at
Birmingham (UAB)
have discovered the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) in
Chimps in in Africa who do not get AIDS, Dr. George Shaw, a Howard
Hughes
Medical Institute Investigator at UAB and a principal author of the
paper.
"Chimpanzees are identical to humans in over 98 percent of their
genome,
or hereditary material, yet they appear to be resistant to the damaging
effects
of the AIDS virus on the immune system.
Thursday, 25 May 2006 HIV 'found in wild chimps'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5012268.stm
The origin of HIV has been found in wild chimpanzees living in southern
Cameroon, researchers report.
But it has not been found to cause any AIDs-like illnesses in
chimpanzees,
so researchers are investigating why the animals do not suffer any
symptoms
Professor David Thomson Vet from Edinburgh Scotland. I suspect you
dont have any chimps there after all do you?
Dont let anyone see you reading "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Duesberg
http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-AIDS-Virus-Peter-Duesberg/dp/0895263998/sr=8-1/qid=1162162202/
or watching the video: HIV=AIDS FACT or Fraud
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4396856850556632563&q=AIDS&hl=en
You could be transformed very shortly into an AIDS Denialist
regards from www.drdach.com
DavidT
drdach wrote:
> David Thomson, vet from Edinburgh Scotland,
> How many times do you need to be told to finally GET IT?
> Chimps dont get AIDS from HIV,
( How many times do YOU need to be told to finally GET IT? - I am NOT
David Thomson)
Also, I recollect your making the statement that chimps don't get AIDS
only once, not several times.
All I did was point out that they can and do, something you have been
unable to refute and that your references actually confirm.
The fact that it is a rare phenomenon is besides the point (hint - the
H in HIV stands for Human).
Anyhow, I am pleased you quote references reaffirming the existence of
HIV and its primate origins, and have stopped denying its existence.
Perhaps we will bring you out of denial eventually....?
Now could now apply your mind to the issue of HIV in humans in Africa,
the subject of this thread, started by yourself.
2 questions that you have so far persistently been hiding from for some
reason:
No 1. Do you think there is an epidemic, or not?
No 2. Do you endorse the contents of web sites that you advise people
to link to from your own web site?
drdach
No I do not
drdach
> > David Thomson, vet from Edinburgh Scotland,
I think I remember asking you not to reply to any of my posts in the
future until you admit that you are David Thomson a Veterinary
Patholgist from University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
regards from www.drdach.com
drdach
The anonymous DT has been asked not to reply to any of my posts until
he identifies himself as David Thomson, Veterinary Pathologust at
Edinburgh Scotland.
The same goes for you.
Any interested reader is invited to visit my web site and leave a
comment on the contact page.
For further information about the HIV/AIDS hypothesis the, reader is
directed to the book by Peter Duesberg, Inventing the AIDS Virus.
http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-AIDS-Virus-Peter-Duesberg/dp/0895263998/sr=8-1/qid=1162162202/
and the google video: HIV=AIDS FACT or Fraud .
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4396856850556632563&q=AIDS&hl=en
Brian Mailman
> The anonymous DT has been asked not to reply to any of my posts until
> he identifies himself as David Thomson, Veterinary Pathologust at
> Edinburgh Scotland.
>
> The same goes for you.
I am the walrus.
B/
DavidT
drdach wrote:
> I think I remember asking you not to reply to any of my posts in the
> future until you admit that you are David Thomson a Veterinary
> Patholgist from University of Edinburgh, Scotland.
What are you so scared of doctor?
Unable to answer a couple of simple questions about the subject you
raised?
You are not in a position to say who posts here, doctor, unless you
acquire some magical ability to moderate a Google Group.
If you don't like what people ask you then I suggest you don't post
here in the first place.
Does it matter whether I am David, or Fred, or Jeff? How can my name or
identity affect the answer to my questions? The identity of those you
correspond with at Hank Barnes' blog doesn't seem to bother you. Why do
you start sweating when the questions get tricky and try to change the
subject?
Your readers wish to know, doctor.
DavidT
drdach wrote:
> The anonymous DT has been asked not to reply to any of my posts until
> he identifies himself as David Thomson, Veterinary Pathologust at
> Edinburgh Scotland.
>
> The same goes for you.
If you are going to refuse to discuss any HIV related subject with
anyone who asks you questions, I suggest you stick to posting on Hank
Barnes' blog, where the rest of the sycophants and denialists will
never contradict you.
Brian Mailman
> You are not in a position to say who posts here, doctor,
He can get rid of ALL of us.
All he has to do is fill his bathtub with water, and then drop his CPU
into it while it's plugged in.
We'd all vanish in an instant.
B/
Marc
David Canzi -- non-mailable wrote:
Thanks, you guys....
Now you've gone and chased him over to talk.origins where we will
probably be stuck with him for months now.
Listen. Talk.Origins was created to take the loons away from
other groups, but we really have our fair share at the moment
(including the Prime Minister of The Kingdom of God) so do
try to keep any other fruitcakes for yourselves. We've been
able to get drdach to start proper quotation and bottom posting
which is a step, but he's coming out with the "goddidit" card
regarding evolution so our work is cut out for us there. (And it
seems he's an AIDS-denialist, right?)
Oh... and he got real uppity at somebody in T.O. asking if he
was born from a virgin mother (based on something the doc said)
and told the poor fellow was not allowed to reply without first
making an apology. (A true "King of Usenet" making the rules.)
drdach's comment in this thread was quite funny since he
declared nobody could comment about his family and yet
he expressed surprise that DavidT "had a mommy" in this
very thread here.
So please, before giving us any more kooks, do check if t.o.
has a full working quota at the moment, OK?
(signed) marc
..
DavidT
conspiracy theories? Or whether NASA has really gone to the moon?
(Heads up Doctor.... this is you we are talking about! I am sure your
readers want to know your opinion on those matters)
David Canzi -- non-mailable
sci.physics.relativity was created for a similar purpose, to divert
an endless argument with a set of people who are chronically wrong
out of other physics newsgroups. Perhaps we can get Doc D. to
take an interest in the Old Boy Network of Orthodox Physicists
conspiring to cover up the Obvious Fatal Flaws in the Theory
of Relativity. And perhaps he'll be the next misc.health.aids
"dissident" to score the net loon "hat trick": three evidence-free
alternative theories supported solely by accusations about the
motivations of the "orthodoxy".
David Canzi -- non-mailable
drdach <drd...@drdach.com> wrote:
>
>The anonymous DT has been asked not to reply to any of my posts until
>he identifies himself as David Thomson, Veterinary Pathologust at
>Edinburgh Scotland.
>
>The same goes for you.
My identity is not disguised in any way. A child can verify that.
If you can't, ask a child to help you.
In the meantime, I request that you don't respond to me until
you have admitted that (a) "Dach" rhymes with "duck", (b) your
first name is "Donald", and (c) that is the explanation for the
quacking sounds you make.
Truth PLEASE!
malnutrition, poor sanitation, parasitic infection, no health care,
polution and the results of mass genocide.
They are NOT dying from HIV infection. "HIV - the virus that causes
AIDS" is a fraud!
Visit this site:
http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com
You will see 10 scientific reasons why HIV can NOT be the cause of US
or African AIDS. What the real causes are. Why AID$ drugs cause AIDS by
prescription. Why HIV testing is bogus. And--who is behind this
mass-genocidal fraud that has poisoned 400,000 people while ripping off
the public for about 300 Billion people!
Death
"Truth PLEASE!" <comm...@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote in message
> AIDS---or people dying in {America} is VERY REAL. They are dying from
> malnutrition, poor sanitation, parasitic infection, no health care,
> polution and the results of mass genocide.
>
I changed one word in your statement, Africa to America.
Is your statement still true about AIDS?
Fact or Fraud
Truth PLEASE!
Death,
It appears that the top portion of my blog was not included here. I was
explaining the causes of AIDS in Africa, which differ tremendously from
the causes of AIDS in the US.
As you know, Africa has suffered for years with blight, malnutrition,
very impoverished conditions and civil unrest. That is why the
"epidemic" in Africa is as different as night and day when compared to
the modern industrialized world. AIDS exists evenly between the sexes,
there are no risk groups, (if you discount extreme poverty) the
diseases are different in many cases, the latency between HIV infection
and AIDS is much longer. (leading to the weaker HIV strain debate) and
the mode of transmission sems to favor mother to child, rather than
dirty needles (you can rule sexual transmission out in both the US and
Africa as the main means in most cases.). AIDS in Africa is real. We
just reject HIV as the cause.
Hope this helps
GMCarter
<comm...@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
snip
>
>Hope this helps
No, it doesn't. It's more ditherings of yet another completely
anonymous individual living in a fantasy land (while coddling a
bigot).
George M. Carter
Truth PLEASE!
Opps. sorry George,
I was still under the impression that this was a scientific debate. I
didn't notice that you had some unexplained bug up your ass. I guess
that is the reason why you degress to emotionalism, Ummm the men's room
is down the hall. There is plenty of reading material for you by the
jon. Have a nice day!
GMCarter
<comm...@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
>
>GMCarter wrote:
>> On 5 Nov 2006 21:35:33 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
>> <comm...@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>> >
>> >Hope this helps
>>
>> No, it doesn't. It's more ditherings of yet another completely
>> anonymous individual living in a fantasy land (while coddling a
>> bigot).
>>
>> George M. Carter
>
>Opps. sorry George,
LOL. You are indeed sorry.
Death
> very impoverished conditions and civil unrest.
> That is why the "epidemic" in Africa is as different as night and day when compared to
> the modern industrialized world. AIDS exists evenly between the sexes,
> there are no risk groups, (if you discount extreme poverty) the
> diseases are different in many cases, the latency between HIV infection
> and AIDS is much longer.
No, sorry. You can't make that statement now, you have eliminated
extreme poverty.
>(leading to the weaker HIV strain debate) and
> the mode of transmission sems to favor mother to child,
This would have been a good spot to demenstrate how the mother
became infected. If it wasn't through sexual contact with an infected male......
Damn, I forgot about that blight, please continue.
>rather than dirty needles (you can rule sexual transmission out in both the US and
> Africa as the main means in most cases.).
Nope, sorry, I can't do that. Sexual transmission is the main venue
for the transmission of aids.
>AIDS in Africa is real. We
> just reject HIV as the cause.>
Ok, is hiv the cause of aids (or) is it years of blight, malnutrition, impoverished
conditions and civil unrest?
Brian Mailman
> On 6 Nov 2006 22:14:45 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
> <comm...@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>GMCarter wrote:
>>> On 5 Nov 2006 21:35:33 -0800, "Truth PLEASE!"
>>> <comm...@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> snip
>>> >
>>> >Hope this helps
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. It's more ditherings of yet another completely
>>> anonymous individual living in a fantasy land (while coddling a
>>> bigot).
It's socks from one rather .... esoteric ... individual talking to each
other.
B/
Death
"Brian Mailman" <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote yet again
>
> It's socks ...
Your thinking is some limited........and wrong, again, LOL.
Brian Mailman
No, like your pretend conversation between yourself and "Hollywood."
B/
Death
"Brian Mailman" <bmai...@sfo.invalid> wrote in message
OK, I'll play, what pretend conversation between me and any-one?
Truth PLEASE!
> "Truth PLEASE!" <comm...@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote in message
> >
> > As you know, Africa has suffered for years with blight, malnutrition,
> > very impoverished conditions and civil unrest.
>
> > That is why the "epidemic" in Africa is as different as night and day when compared to
> > the modern industrialized world. AIDS exists evenly between the sexes,
> > there are no risk groups, (if you discount extreme poverty) the
> > diseases are different in many cases, the latency between HIV infection
> > and AIDS is much longer.
>
> No, sorry. You can't make that statement now, you have eliminated
> extreme poverty.
No, I presume you misunderstood. I did NOT eliminate extreme poverty.
What I am pointing out is that AIDS exists in a very large risk group
of extreme poverty in Africa, meaning that you will find less AIDS
cases among the well nourished and wealthier populations, and more
among the rural malnourished. In these populations AIDS is close to
evenly divided between the sexes 50/50. That is unlike the US AIDS
patients population which has averaged about 85% male since 1985.
*NOTE: Does that bring up a question? Why is it that HIV is EVENLY
SPREAD among the sexes here in the US, yet AIDS only picks on IV drug
users (about 2/3 of US women with AIDS are IV drug users), gay males
and people who were fed AZT, or the small percentage with medical risks
like hemophilia? 20 years of CDC studies and surveys might make one
think that AIDS may NOT be a sexually transmitted disease after all.
Someone needs to wake up the ladies and shout: "WOMEN, WAKE UP AND
START GETTING AIDS, SO WE CAN SAVE OUR HIV=AIDS HYPOTHESIS AND KEEP OUR
RESEARCH FUNDING AND DEVELOP NEW DRUGS TO MIX WITH AZT AND SAVE THE
WHITE WORLD FROM THE PLIGHT OF AFRICA!" Women never comply with our
"HIV science."
>
> >(leading to the weaker HIV strain debate) and
> > the mode of transmission sems to favor mother to child,
>
> This would have been a good spot to demenstrate how the mother
> became infected. If it wasn't through sexual contact with an infected male......
>
> Damn, I forgot about that blight, please continue.
>
> >rather than dirty needles (you can rule sexual transmission out in both the US and
> > Africa as the main means in most cases.).
>
> Nope, sorry, I can't do that. Sexual transmission is the main venue
> for the transmission of aids.
Gee, then that is a fast, fast bug they have over there in the dark
jungles. Do you suppose they are swinging on vines and having wild sex
in the trees?
In 1996 the UNAIDS/WHO "estimated" that there were 14.2 million
Africans with HIV/AIDS. Then years later the "estimate" is now 45 plus
million! Wow! The concept of AIDS in Africa is right out of an old
Tarsan movie, it's racist and completely ignores that some of the
higher HIV positive populations are among very chaste African church
people. As many as 65% of Africans clinically diagnosed as "AIDS"
patients are later actually tested (with ELISA) and are HIV negative.
Visit this website and learn the facts:
http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com
The "concept of sexual transmission of AIDS" belongs on the Oprah show
and not in a real discussion about AIDS. First of all, HIV is almost
NEVER spread sexually. The Wall Street Journal printed a candid
admission from Dr. Walter Dowdle of the CDC (who was the man assigned
to assess the risk of HIV sexual transmission by the CDC) on May 1st,
1996 where he admitted that transmitting HIV via sex was "like being
hit by lightning." Only 1 out of 1,000 encounters at best. This is not
saying it can't happen. But it did not with Magic Johnson, Arthur Ashe,
or Rock Hudson and Liberace's gay lovers.
Then, since HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS anyway it is a moot point. The
CDC's survey and statistics show that at random, 1 person out of 200
(.05%) will test antibody positive for HIV and have at the SAME rate
(or very close to it) since 1985. HIV is not gaining or losing numbers
in percentage of the population at large. This indicates by Farr's law,
(which is accepted as a biological law as opposed to Gallo's silly
hypothesis) that HIV is a very old virus that has been handed down for
centuries, thus not the cause of AIDS in the US or Africa.
> >AIDS in Africa is real. We
> > just reject HIV as the cause.>
>
> Ok, is hiv the cause of aids (or) is it years of blight, malnutrition, impoverished
> conditions and civil unrest?
The latter. Have we ever seen a time in the last 200 years when
Africans were very healthy as a whole?
If you are HIV positive and are investigating these facts and issues,
visit this site:
http://www.helpfor hiv.com
Death
"Truth PLEASE!" <comm...@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote in message
> Death wrote:
> > "Truth PLEASE!" <comm...@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote in message
> > > (if you discount extreme poverty)
> >
snip
> > No, sorry. You can't make that statement now, you have eliminated
> > extreme poverty.
>
> No, I presume you misunderstood. I did NOT eliminate extreme poverty.
Ok, perhaps I did misunderstand.
Death
> of extreme poverty in Africa, meaning that you will find less AIDS
> cases among the well nourished and wealthier populations, and more
> among the rural malnourished. In these populations AIDS is close to
> evenly divided between the sexes 50/50.
>That is unlike the US AIDS
> patients population which has averaged about 85% male since 1985.
> *NOTE: Does that bring up a question? Why is it that HIV is EVENLY
> SPREAD among the sexes here in the US, yet ...
Sorry Doc you lost me again. 85% vs 15% in the US to me is not EVENLY SPREAD.
Your figure in Africa of 50/50 seems closer to that.
Perhaps that is what you were making reference to.
Death
> users (about 2/3 of US women with AIDS are IV drug users), gay males
> and people who were fed AZT, or the small percentage with medical risks
> like hemophilia?
Are you saying AZT causes AIDS?
It would seem reasonable that any of the risk groups you
mention above would become infected first then move
on to azt or any-other drug.
Death
> think that AIDS may NOT be a sexually transmitted disease after all.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Download all
Facts about STDs
(pdf)
*edited (snip) for time and space*
Sexually transmitted diseases (also called STDs or STIs -- sexually transmitted infections) are
infections that can be transferred from one person to another through sexual contact.
According to the Centers for Disease Control there are over 15 million cases of sexually
transmitted disease cases reported annually. Adolescents and young adults (15-24) are the age
groups at the greatest risk for acquiring an STD, 3 million becoming infected each year.
Most STDs are treatable. However, even the once easily cured gonorrhea has become resistant to
many of the older traditional antibiotics. Other STDs, such as herpes, AIDS, and genital warts,
all of which are caused by viruses, have no cure.
Some of these infections are very uncomfortable, while others can be deadly. Syphilis, AIDS,
genital warts, herpes, hepatitis, and even gonorrhea have all been known to cause death. Many
STDs can lead to related conditions such as pelvic inflammatory disease, cervical cancer, and
complications in pregnancy. Therefore, education about these diseases and prevention is
important.
It is important to recognize that sexual contact includes more than just intercourse. Sexual
contact includes kissing, oral-genital contact, and the use of sexual "toys," such as
vibrators. There really is no such thing as "safe" sex.
The only truly safe sex is abstinence. Sex in the context of a monogamous relationship where
neither party is infected with a STD is also considered "safe". Most people think that kissing
is a safe activity. Unfortunately, syphilis, herpes, and other diseases can be contracted
through this apparently harmless act.
All other forms of sexual contact also carry some risk. Condoms are commonly thought to
protect against STDs. Condoms are useful in helping to prevent certain diseases, such as HIV
and gonorrhea. However, they are less effective protecting against herpes, trichomoniasis, and
chlamydia. Condoms provide little protection against HPV, the cause of genital warts.
If you think you may have an STD or a related condition, see a doctor right away.
Common STDs
A partial listing of sexually transmitted diseases:
Chlamydia - Chlamydia is a very dangerous STD as it usually has no symptoms; 75% of infected
women and 25% of infected men have no symptoms at all.
Gonorrhea - Gonorrhea is one of the most frequently reported STD. 40% of it's victims contract
PID if not treated, and it can cause sterility.
Hepatitis B - A vaccine exists, but there's no cure; can cause cancer of the liver.
Herpes - Painful and episodic; can be treated but there's no cure.
HIV/AIDS - First recognized in 1984, AIDS is the sixth leading cause of death among young men
and women.
Sources for all Epigee STD info: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - Public Health
Service, Rockville, MD 20857; The Upjohn Company; Contraceptive Technology by R. Hatcher et al,
Chapter 4, 16th Revised Ed., 1994; Medical Institute for Sexual Health, P. O. Box 4919, Austin,
TX, 78765; MedicineNet.com; Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
Death
"Truth PLEASE!" <comm...@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote in message
> Death wrote:
> > "Truth PLEASE!" <comm...@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote in message
>
> > >(leading to the weaker HIV strain debate) and
> > > the mode of transmission sems to favor mother to child,
> >
> > This would have been a good spot to demenstrate how the mother
> > became infected. If it wasn't through sexual contact with an infected male......
> >
> Gee, then that is a fast, fast bug they have over there in the dark
> jungles. Do you suppose they are swinging on vines and having wild sex
> in the trees?
>
I don't believe they are swinging hungry from vines and that
action is infecting them.
Why not just say people with-out TV are infected at greater numbers
than people with TV.
That way people could blame RCA for all their woes.
Truth PLEASE!
No worries here. These are good questions. What I am trying to point
out Death is that as you progress from rural areas suffering from
malnutrition, parasitic infection, terrible sanitation and poluted
water among the poor in Africa to the more modern cities in Africa and
the modern US, AIDS demographics move from being evenly spread to
unevenly spread sexually. Thus, in poor areas AIDS is 50 percent male
and 50 percent female. In richer populations AIDS becomes 85% male and
only 15% female even though the virus is evenly spread between the
sexes in both cases. This indicates that HIV is not the cause of AIDS,
and that in poor populations it is the malnutrition etc. that effects
males and females alike. In the richer areas it is more related to drug
use among gay males and addicts. In summary, HIV does NOT effect women
in more affluent populations, unless they shoot drugs which cause AIDS
in 2/3 of the women in the US who have AIDS. HIV does NOT cause AIDS
the same way in the US that it does in Africa, which means the HIV
model is a failure as the cause of AIDS. If HIV was the cause, the
demographics would be the same regardless of poverty or affluence and
in the US vs Africa.
check out this video free download go to:
http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com
Death
> out Death is that as you progress from rural areas suffering from
> malnutrition, parasitic infection, terrible sanitation and poluted
> water among the poor in Africa to the more modern cities in Africa and
> the modern US, AIDS demographics move from being evenly spread to
> unevenly spread sexually.
> Thus, in poor areas AIDS is 50 percent male
> and 50 percent female. In richer populations AIDS becomes 85% male and
> only 15% female even though the virus is evenly spread between the
> sexes in both cases. This indicates that HIV is not the cause of AIDS,
The way I an seeing this is: in rural areas the number
of people one could inter-act with is much smaller.
Given limited transportation to expand the number of people
you could inter-act with...... the disease stays local.
In rural areas with say 50 people....15% positive is a large %
but moving toward modern cities with a population in the thousands
15% wanes.
> and that in poor populations it is the malnutrition etc. that effects
> males and females alike. In the richer areas it is more related to drug
> use among gay males and addicts. In summary, HIV does NOT effect women
> in more affluent populations, unless they shoot drugs which cause AIDS
> in 2/3 of the women in the US who have AIDS.
Ritual scaring and tattoos spread hiv/aids. Males on the down-low
and the number of rapes seem to get lost in the numbers also.
Infected males rape/molest young girls thinking that action will cure
their disease. The females acquire hiv/aids and pass that on to their children.
Am I missing something?
Indeed hunger is no friend to any disease, but hunger does
not cause aids, it worsens the existing condition of the disease.
Alex
" Death" <De...@yourdoor.net> schreef in bericht news:C5n6h.10938$Cv6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> Ritual scaring and tattoos spread hiv/aids. Males on the down-low
You mean like Revered Ted 'Got Meth?' Haggard?
> and the number of rapes seem to get lost in the numbers also.
>
> Infected males rape/molest young girls thinking that action will cure
> their disease. The females acquire hiv/aids and pass that on to their children.
>
> Am I missing something?
Environmental pollution. Starvation wages of less than a dollar per day.
And a farmaceutical industry looking for a market.
Oh, and the fact that the infection numbers are artificially pumped up.
The Antenatal Clinic Surveys that these huge infection rates were based
on have now been discredited by the work of the CDC, but don't count
on reading any prominent articles about that. ANCs were _always_
unscientific, and their interpretation was always anti-scientific.
Alex
Death
"Alex" <avdeelen.R...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
>
> Environmental pollution. Starvation wages of less than a dollar per day.
>
> And a farmaceutical industry looking for a market.
>
That does not cause aids
> Oh, and the fact that the infection numbers are artificially pumped up.
Perhaps all that you list is true, but so far none of those effects have
caused one case of hiv/aids.
Poverty and hunger are things that happen in this world.
Using them as an excuse for a disease is laughable.
Many people who are fed and have extra spending money
also have hiv/aids weather they live in a city or in the burbs.
Truth PLEASE!
Malnutrition has been a known factor in immune suppression for
centuries. People whose diets are insufficient or lacking often die of
opportunisic (OIs) Infections simply because they lack the physical
resources to cobat diseases. But malnutrition is NOT by any means the
only cause of AIDS. But let's look at several diseases, all thought to
be at one time caused by a germ (either bacteria or virus) and later
proved to be non-infectious and actually a result of malnutrition.
Scury is the first one. It appeared to be an infectious disease among
sailors on long ocean voyages. The real cause? Lack of good old Vitamin
C. Pellagra was more modern in the US in the early 1910-30's a disease
cause by a lack of B-Niacin, but believed by the US department of
health to be infectious for almost 20 years (sound like AIDS?). There
others such as beri beri, gout and rickets all realted to diet.
But as we observed, in the US as opposed to Africa, most AIDS patients
(though not all) have a background of IV drug use and poppers.
Check out the video, and watch the free streaming introdcuction.
http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com
If you are HIV positive and want more information go to this site.
http://www.helpforhiv.com
Death
> centuries. People whose diets are insufficient or lacking often die of
> opportunisic (OIs) Infections simply because they lack the physical
> resources to cobat diseases. But malnutrition is NOT by any means the
> only cause of AIDS.
Malnutrition is not a cause of aids.
(Lack of food) is not infected with any dis-ease.
>But let's look at several diseases, all thought to
> be at one time caused by a germ (either bacteria or virus) and later
> proved to be non-infectious and actually a result of malnutrition.
> Scury is the first one. It appeared to be an infectious disease among
> sailors on long ocean voyages. The real cause? Lack of good old Vitamin
> C.
Good point, no virus or bacteria caused scurvy.
A lack of ascorbic acid is non-infectious.
However lacking an orange or lemon is not malnutrition
but it does make for a shitty Americano.
>Pellagra was more modern in the US in the early 1910-30's a disease
> cause by a lack of B-Niacin, but believed by the US department of
> health to be infectious for almost 20 years (sound like AIDS?). There
> others such as beri beri, gout and rickets all realted to diet.
>
Yes, a poor diet not malnutrition.
Eating at Burger King is a poor diet.
> But as we observed, in the US as opposed to Africa, most AIDS patients
> (though not all) have a background of IV drug use and poppers.
I'll check that out and get back with you at a later date.
That is some-thing I have not researched.
GMCarter
<comm...@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
>
snip
>Malnutrition has been a known factor in immune suppression for
>centuries.
There is no evidence that malnutrition causes a steady, progressive
decline of CD4 counts.
Malnutrition in a world as wealthy and connected as ours is abject
cruelty. Malnutrition can accelerate HIV disease progression to AIDS.
Food and a multi are excellent treatments for HIV as part of an
overall package of care.
Malnutrition is not the cause of AIDS.
George M. Carter
Truth PLEASE!
George,
Malnutrition has been linked to opportunistic infections, disease and
death for CENTURIES in the medical historical literature. Anyone who
would even attempt to deny this could not be trusted to know anything
about health.
>
>
GMCarter
<comm...@hiv-aids-factorfraud.com> wrote:
I do not disagree with this statement! Malnutrition is a terrible
thing, rendered worse in the global politic by shifting away from
subsistence farming to cash crops and the Structural Adjustment
Programs.
Malnutrition, however, does NOT cause AIDS. It does NOT cause CD4
counts to decline to zero. Many people in developing nations have
enough to eat (though WAY too many do not). Those who have HIV, as
with the poor, the rich, white, black, gay, straight--doesn't
matter--almost always see their CD4 count decline to zero. Without
treatment, OIs develop. And then death.
Malnutrition can be cured with food and hydration unless it is too
severe.
Food, clean water and a multivitamin are all important parts of
treating HIV infection and can slow disease progression and reduce
morbidity and mortality. They cannot, however, cure AIDS or prevent
AIDS from occurring.
George M. Carter
Death
"GMCarter" <fi...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>
> Malnutrition can be cured with food
Truth just can't seem to turn that idea into gold.
Perhaps to loose the idea that something other than
poverty is the cause of hiv/aids would force him
to see things differently. That thought may scare shit out of him.