Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 01/24/2004 7:35:28 PM PST by Doc Savage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last
To: Doc Savage
You may be right, however I'll continue to keep my ankles crossed.
4 posted on 01/24/2004 7:47:59 PM PST by mindspy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Doc Savage
What ever happened to those monkeys in Africa who spread the disease to humans that were panted by "Merc" the maker of all those drugs?? :)
5 posted on 01/24/2004 7:48:47 PM PST by chicagolady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Doc Savage
Thanks for posting this. There was an article in "Lancet" about 13 years ago stating that HIV was not a precurser to AIDS.

Naturally, this scientific opinion was scoffed at by my college professors.
7 posted on 01/24/2004 7:51:42 PM PST by annyokie (Wesley Clark: Howard Dean with medals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Doc Savage
1) FACT: Only 1 in 1000 unprotected sexual contacts transmits HIV, and only 1 of 275 US citizens is HIV-infected. Therefore, an average un-infected US citizen needs 275,000 random “sexual contacts” to get infected and spread HIV – an unlikely basis for an epidemic.

2) The cause of AIDS is or are: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy, and malnutrition. HIV does NOT cause AIDS, and AIDS is NOT a sexually transmitted disease. To believe otherwise in the face of fact and logic is incomprehensible to me.

So, is AIDS "NOT a sexually transmitted disease," or is it a fact that "Only 1 in 1000 unprotected sexual contacts transmits HIV"? Rather Contradictory.

Also, regarding the "275,000 random “sexual contacts” to get infected and spread HIV – an unlikely basis for an epidemic." First, the sexual contacts are not RANDOM if gay men tend to have sex with gay men, and heroin users tend to associate with and have sex with other heroin users. Second, the 1 in 1000 odds, even if true of vaginal intercourse with no other STDs or lesions, are way too low for vaginal intercourse for people with STDs or other lesions, and way too low for anal intercourse. As I imply here, I'm sure AIDS is more transmissible in the face of other social and health problems; that does not defeat the conventional paradigm, that AIDS is a virus-caused STD.

In short, your post is absurd.

9 posted on 01/24/2004 7:54:08 PM PST by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Doc Savage
Jon Rappoport at www.nomorefakenews.com has several articles in his archives about HIV not being the cause of Aids.
10 posted on 01/24/2004 7:58:13 PM PST by floridarocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Doc Savage
The cause of AIDS is or are: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy, and malnutrition. HIV does NOT cause AIDS, and AIDS is NOT a sexually transmitted disease. To believe otherwise in the face of fact and logic is incomprehensible to me.

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Since only a tiny minority of already confused souls could ever be influenced by this nonsense, I won't waste my time pointing out all the fallacies.

11 posted on 01/24/2004 7:59:24 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Doc Savage
Wives of hemophiliacs do not get AIDS.

From the Miami Herald - Saturday, December 22, 1990

"Today, clotting factor for the nation's 20,000 hemophiliacs is said to be cleansed by new laboratory processes. But great numbers of men who took it during those years are infected."

"A study of 100 in Miami found 95 percent HIV positive, and nearly 20 percent of their wives, and 2 to 3 percent of their newborn children."

12 posted on 01/24/2004 8:01:31 PM PST by DWPittelli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Doc Savage
there is no AIDS-epidemic in prostitutes.

This contradicts every report I've heard for 20 years. Not that the media can be trusted with regards to this issue, but do you have any studies you can cite to back up this statement?

14 posted on 01/24/2004 8:12:35 PM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Doc Savage
Then, working for Merck & Co., Inc., in New Jersey, I had the benefit of reading almost every scientific journal available.

Umm hmmm, almost?* You should try reading them now. Besides, the molecular biology and immunology of 1981 compared to that of today is like the astronomy of 1881 compared to that currently done at Keck or the Altiplano of Chile.

*The following are just the online scientific journals for S, the subscriptions to which happen to be owned by the U of Chicago. And most of these journals didn't come into existence after 1981:
E-Journal Publishers/Packages subscribed to by the U of C Science Libraries:
Jump To:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

S


15 posted on 01/24/2004 8:31:23 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Doc Savage
Didn't we have this debate a couple of years ago?
17 posted on 01/24/2004 8:39:34 PM PST by I got the rope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Doc Savage
Fascinating.

I suppose the CIA had nothing to do with it either. LOL.

Sounds like you did tons of homework.

Impressive research and logic, to me.

THANKS.
19 posted on 01/24/2004 8:51:56 PM PST by Quix (Choose this day whom U will serve: Shrillery & demonic goons or The King of Kings and Lord of Lords)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Doc Savage
UHHHHH,

You spent a lot of time outlining what HIV/AIDS is *NOT*

. . .

What would be a relatively brief summary of your assessment of what causes HIV/AIDS

. . . WHAT *IS* IT?
21 posted on 01/24/2004 8:55:39 PM PST by Quix (Choose this day whom U will serve: Shrillery & demonic goons or The King of Kings and Lord of Lords)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Doc Savage
I highly recommend you read “The Myth of Heterosexual Aids” by Michael Fumento. The second edition came a few years after the first and had no revisions. Lots of copies available on Amazon.com. I think you might like it.

Fumento also has a page on his website http://www.fumento.com/suaids.html that links to dozens of articles on AIDS he’s written from ‘87 until last week. He is a true scholar, solid researcher, book critic, science writer, etc. Check his biography page. He apparently answers ALL his e-mail, and his website includes twenty-one pages of Hate Mail (with his replies). Maybe you can tell I really like the guy.

And always remember the real definition of A.I.D.S. .... "Anally Insterted Death Sentence".
22 posted on 01/24/2004 8:58:29 PM PST by skeptoid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Doc Savage
>>The cause of AIDS is or are: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy, and malnutrition. HIV does NOT cause AIDS, and AIDS is NOT a sexually transmitted disease. To believe otherwise in the face of fact and logic is incomprehensible to me

I don't think Ryan White proves your case. As far as we know he was properly nurished, didn't have chemo, nor take recreational drugs. He was HIV positive and died from AIDS (though I do not know what ailment actually killed him.)

I agree that there is a strong causation/correlation debate concerning the relationship of HIV to AIDS. If it's just correlative in nature, then not much has changed, other then proving that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. The bottom line would be if you are HIV positive, you have a higher chance of developing AIDS.

It's safe to assume that HIV causes AIDS. While you make good arguments, they are not infallible. They are strong enough to make an intelligent person pause and consider reconsider their beliefs.

It's not hard to make a case from half truths and credible doubts. A case built upon these may seem both logical and factual. But that doesn't mean that the position is correct.

The most damning argument against your claims is that I have failed to see where AIDS has been produced from "poppers" and other drugs in lab specimins. If this were the case, it would be a tremendous discovery and the word would be out on the street.

Bath houses would reopen (sans poppers) and anonymous orgies would once again rule the gay world. Condoms would fall by the wayside. Yet, this hasn't happened! Is this another FDA/CDC conspiracy to side with drug corporations?

Remember, that in all serious debates throughout history, two positions were presented. Typically one was right while the other wasn't -- to varying degrees of course. The point is even though one position was correct, a strong case was made for an incorrect position. Because you put together a good case doesn't mean your position is correct. And if your position is wrong, it is a deadly position to champion.

24 posted on 01/24/2004 8:59:19 PM PST by 1stFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tallhappy
perhaps you can lend your expertise to debunk this or give it credence.
25 posted on 01/24/2004 9:01:08 PM PST by Tribune7 (Vote Toomey April 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Doc Savage
Bravo! Years ago I read Rethinking AIDS by Robert Root-Bernstein. The author didn't draw any forceful conclusions about the etiology of the syndrome, but the evidence he cited seemed clear enough to me. With his observations and those of Peter Duesberg and Michael Fumento (The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS), I soon became convinced that AIDS was a political disease. My own experience in reviewing AIDS/ARC claims as a disability analyst for the Social Security Administration confirmed what I had read.

Now with kids in middle school and high school, I find myself periodically re-educating them about politics and the homosexual agenda. Public schools: sheesh!

Do you have any recommended current reading? Some new references would be useful.

Thanks again for the excellent post--I've saved it for my oldest kid.

--twk

33 posted on 01/24/2004 9:29:00 PM PST by Tawiskaro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Doc Savage
I am always willing to keep an open mind and check out all the pertinent facts before taking one side or another (at least i really strive to do so). Hence this article was rather interesting.

I do have one question however. Even IF HIV was not the transmitting factor, and there is no such thing as heterosexual aids, then how would the rampant infections in Africa and Asia be explained. I know the article alluded to 'poor nutrition' as one of the 'causes' (pardon the quotation marks please), however you cannot tell me all the cases are due to nutrition. Some of the infected cases are among segments of the population that do not fall under the whole 'poor starving African' stereotype. For example one of the hotspots of infection is South Africa, and you cannot say all those cases (some say up to 25%) are due to poor nutrition. S.Africa is not the Gambia.

And anyways, i guess my most important question is this: if not HIV what then?

38 posted on 01/24/2004 9:39:02 PM PST by spetznaz (Nuclear missiles: The ultimate Phallic symbol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Doc Savage
This was the opinion of the Homintern for some years back in the 1980s. The idea that AIDS wasn't an STD allowed them to avoid facing problems with bath houses and multiple partners. These ideas were debated all over the Usenet news groups during the 1980s.
43 posted on 01/24/2004 9:55:28 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Doc Savage
So, I suppose that is it just mere coincidence that people who don't test positive for anti-HIV Abs nor HIV viral isolation don't get AIDS. It also must be more coincidence that people who test positive for anti-HIV Abs and have a positive viral isolation DO eventually lose enough T-cells to allow for AIDS defining conditions such as KS and P. carnii peumonia. Furthering to the coincidences the people who test positive can trace they infection back to people who also test positive, and these transmissions can be positively shown to be associated with the tranference of bodily fluids, especially blood. Even more coincidental is that fact that HIV's more specific bodily tagret ligand happens to be the CD4 T-cell receptor, and that it is this particular population of T-cells that become depleted, and it is this particular population of T-cells, when lacking, that leads to the exact diseases directly associated with HIV/AIDS.

but you're right . . . NO WAY HIV CAUSES AIDS *sarcasm*

If you really believe this, then I've got some great oceanfront property in Kansas to sell you, real cheap!

59 posted on 01/24/2004 11:13:40 PM PST by realpatriot71 (legalize freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Doc Savage
MAYBE this thoery would have more "gravitas" if it were published in a legitimate medical journal....not on our beloved far-right online newsgroup. Doc Savage, where else are you published? Anywhere a bit more credible in these matters? Also, why haven't you stuck around for any replies? Just curious.
65 posted on 01/25/2004 4:10:52 AM PST by LanaTurnerOverdrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson