State Origin: The Evidence of the Laboratory Birth of AIDS

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


The link that was broken had to do with "HAART" treatment, all H.I.V./ AIDS drugs are toxic to EXTREMELY TOXIC, from AZT to ddI to ddc, clean through to every single solitary drug on the chart in the link below and every one thats to come PERIOD !

www.omsj.org...

AZT, ddI & ddC KILLED QUICK, the new crap just takes abit longer (MAYBE) and thats the bottom line.

Anemia gets severe = HEART ATTACK = DEAD

www.omsj.org...

I have actually held the hand of people with had no family or friends as they took their last breath & died from AIDS, you better bet. The treaments kill and just like cancer chemo treatments that kill get chaulked uP to cancer, ditto goes for AIDS. Cancer patients were not given chemo every single day until they died, but H.I.V. positives were from the word GO.

MAGIC JOHNSON ? THE JOKE WAS---> "There is NO magic in AZT & theres "NO" AZT in Magic, Tony Fauci & David Ho were the very first to contact his personal doctor, Ho pushed AZT like a MOE FOE & magic took it and got sick as Hell, it was in the paper that he got VERY sick, a person I know contacted him through a person they both knew at Michigan State University and he told Magic what to do & what not to was painfully obvious to everyone involved. There was nothing but AZT in 91, do you think he could have played in the olympics in 92 if he were on AZT ?"

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Anyway...Essex took up the research on the "so called lol" leukemic kitty retrovirus which is obviously called "Feline Leukemia Virus" (FeLV) after other researchers had already decreed that young lab cats (kittens) could become leukemic after months of continous infection with the virus. In the real world though however many, many cats catch FeLV sooner or later and their immune systems quickly & permantly neutralize the virus, due to the fact that unlike the lab cats/kittens who are for the most part inbred and sickly and immune defient already real word cats are not. Leukemia in cats is VERY rare, it strikes only about 4 in 10,000 normal healthy cats every year. Essex tried to talk smack that FeLV could even be contracted by cat owners and they could ACTUALLY CATCH LEUKEMIA "CATCH CANCER!" from their pet cats ! Thats a jOkE !

Due to media being sold on it & reporting it, many dumb-bell veternarians bought into it and then told cat owners scaring the crap out of them ! The infectious feline to human end of died off, but the crap regarding the virus causing leukemis in cats lives on. Essex founded his own biotech company (Cambridge Bioscience Corporation) >GREAT COMPANY TO ! < so he could develope & produce vaccine against the virus on the grounds of his ToP NoTcH tripe riddled research. ( Did I mention Essex tacked on a phoeny LATENT PERIOD between the time of FeLV and the cancer explosion in the cats ? HE DID ! )

www.bizjournals.com...

findarticles.com...

One year after the vaccine was approved in 89, he sold it to just about every cat owner in France.
Those people of course had no idea (AND STILL DON"T) that cats have natural immunity against FeLV and nor do they know that vaccines DO NOT WORK AGAINST A VIRUSES THAT BECOMES LATENT AFTER TIME OF INFECTION. They also were not and are still not aware that one third of all leukemic cats were NEVER even found to actually ever been infected with FeLV.

Hello HTLV, SAYS DR.GALLO ! HE & HIS GOOD BUDDY (GOOD & CROOKED) MAX ESSEX BOTH SAY HELLO TO HTLV-III = H.I.V !

BEFORE THAT THOUGH, BEFORE FRENCHIE ISOLATED LAV=H.I.V., GALLO & ESSEX WERE GOING TO USE PRESENT GALLOS HTLV-1 TO THE WORLD AS THE AIDS VIRUS, UNTIL GALLO FOUNDOUT ABOUT FRENCHIE & HIS BRAND SPANK'IN NEW HUMAN RETROVIRUS ANYWAY !

Essex told Galo "Hey why bother looking for a new virus to blame AIDS on when we can blame it on the VERY FIRST human retrovirus ever found, YOUR discovery BoB, your HTLV-1 ?

Gallo bit hook, line & sinker ! Didn't even notice the fact that he already said it caused HUMAN LEUKEMIA and then went & said that it also killed those same cells as H.I.V. !
PRICELESS !

Well, lots of good information in the OP's post. It is of no surprise at all that the researchers of old would tamper with an area of medicine that we as humans aren't up to speed with, (don't screw with mother nature).
Lots about AIDS is very coincidental. I remember thinking back in the early 80's that we would segregate Leprosy victims, but not those with AIDS. It might have seemed heartless, but it might have saved a few million lives. What disease ever only attacks hookers, IV drug users, homosexuals and blacks to start with? Not to mention the huge coincidence that the vaccine parallels the emergence of AIDS (syndrome)

In most of the 911 threads as well as other controversial threads there always seems to be a few posters that completely derail the thread. They don't really add to the discussion, but attack other posters that contribute. They tend to deride and insult, which forces others to defend themselves, ignoring the real topic of the thread. They seem to focus on the smallest details rather than the point. ie: "sure they found nano thermite in dust everywhere..but I saw planes!!...on the news."

In this case, as a reader, I don't care about the subtle difference between "transmission" and "Contagious". I do care that the A to B to C that the OP presents does make a clear line, (at least to me) or the human interference in generating a virus which leads to the condition known as AIDS. I was also aware that cancer can starve cells and kill some cells as it ravages the body, as I was also aware that this isn't the main function of cancer but a by product of ravenous growth. So to further define the point that cancer will kill some cells is essentially pointless to the average person as cancer is generally defined as uncontrolled growth and not as ancillary cell death.

My point is that although clarification of nuance details is nice to a point, it is nicer when it pertains to the actual topic of the thread. I have no doubt that both VneZonyDostupa and alpha68 are knowledgeable in bioengineering, however it was VneZonyDostupa that first suggested the technical flaws in the OP's post and then challenged alpha68 on his credentials. I believe the writer put those interpretations there to help the average reader understand the topic. (Yes AIDS isn't a disease it is a syndrome, but to joe average..it's a disease)..

Overall the OP is probably correct, it is my belief that the root cause of AIDS is far too elegant to happen naturally, and grew far too quickly in too many places for it to have been "sex with a monkey" that caused it.
Although "sex with a monkey" could spread the disease or precursor to AIDS, there would have to be some Monkey orgies going on to make it spread as quickly as it did (one guy?..i think not.). It is far more likely that the precursor was spread through the vaccination program as stated in the OP.

So can we please find a way to inform, not attack other posters. Of course we are all passionate about those areas we are familiar with, but it is possible that from some perspective everyone has some good information. To the OP, thanks for posting this topic in the first place.

..Ex

reply to post by v3_exceed


I challenged Alpha on his credential because in this thread and many others, he has demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge in the very field he claims to be an expert in. Claiming to be an expert and doling out advice that could kill people ("don't take HAART therapy for AIDS") is immoral, unethical, and in some instances, illegal. That's why I don't give medical advice on these boards, despite being an MD. It is inherently unethical to advise a patient through a message board, especially without seeing them or their medical records.

As for not being bothered with the "nuances", that is utterly ridiculous, and it the root of America's societal problems with science. Did you know America's schoolchildren have been plummeting in the science education rankings wordlwide? It's because too many people "don't care about the nuances" and instead just want the "concepts". This sort of attitude leads to things like "syndrome vs. disease" and "contagious vs. transmissible". It creates a culture of ignorance and laziness, the things this forum exists to combat.

Originally posted by alpha68
The link that was broken had to do with "HAART" treatment, all H.I.V./ AIDS drugs are toxic to EXTREMELY TOXIC, from AZT to ddI to ddc, clean through to every single solitary drug on the chart in the link below and every one thats to come PERIOD !

Oddly, they aren't nearly as "toxic" as the candida, penumonia, edema, and myocarditis that results from untreated HIV infection.

AZT, ddI & ddC KILLED QUICK, the new crap just takes abit longer (MAYBE) and thats the bottom line.

Again, not true. AZT is still a mainstay of HAART therapy, and HIV patient lifespans increase every year. How do you account for this?

[quote[Anemia gets severe = HEART ATTACK = DEAD

Of course unmanaged anemia is bad. That's why HIV patients receive regular physicals and lab work, to be sure they aren't near a level of anemia that could cause hypoxemia. If it seems like their body reacts too strongly to a given med, their HAART therapy is modified. Happens all the time.

I have actually held the hand of people with had no family or friends as they took their last breath & died from AIDS, you better bet.

No one dies from AIDS. You die from opportunistic infections. HIV infection alone won't kill.

The treaments kill and just like cancer chemo treatments that kill get chaulked uP to cancer, ditto goes for AIDS. Cancer patients were not given chemo every single day until they died, but H.I.V. positives were from the word GO.

Of course the timing of the therapies differ: they're fighting two different conditions with two different outcomes. Stopping anti-virals during an acute opportunistic infection will further depress the immune system and almost certainly kill the patient. Keeping the patient on HAART during an acute infection keeps their immune system at least in the current state (rather than decreasing) and gives them a fighting chance.

Chemotherapeutics, however, serve no purpose once shown not to decrease tumor size or severity. Again, different mechanism, different goals, different therapy. Not that hard to see.

MAGIC JOHNSON ? THE JOKE WAS---> "There is NO magic in AZT & theres "NO" AZT in Magic, Tony Fauci & David Ho were the very first to contact his personal doctor, Ho pushed AZT like a MOE FOE & magic took it and got sick as Hell, it was in the paper that he got VERY sick, a person I know contacted him through a person they both knew at Michigan State University and he told Magic what to do & what not to was painfully obvious to everyone involved. There was nothing but AZT in 91, do you think he could have played in the olympics in 92 if he were on AZT ?"

Oh, of course "someone you know" contacted "someone who knew someone".

What an absolute joke you are.

Originally posted by alpha68
Anyway...Essex took up the research on the "so called lol" leukemic kitty retrovirus which is obviously called "Feline Leukemia Virus" (FeLV) after other researchers had already decreed that young lab cats (kittens) could become leukemic after months of continous infection with the virus. In the real world though however many, many cats catch FeLV sooner or later and their immune systems quickly & permantly neutralize the virus, due to the fact that unlike the lab cats/kittens who are for the most part inbred and sickly and immune defient already real word cats are not. Leukemia in cats is VERY rare, it strikes only about 4 in 10,000 normal healthy cats every year. Essex tried to talk smack that FeLV could even be contracted by cat owners and they could ACTUALLY CATCH LEUKEMIA "CATCH CANCER!" from their pet cats !

Thats a jOkE !

Source for any of this, please.

Due to media being sold on it & reporting it, many dumb-bell veternarians bought into it and then told cat owners scaring the crap out of them ! The infectious feline to human end of died off, but the crap regarding the virus causing leukemis in cats lives on. Essex founded his own biotech company (Cambridge Bioscience Corporation) >GREAT COMPANY TO !

< so he could develope & produce vaccine against the virus on the grounds of his ToP NoTcH tripe riddled research. ( Did I mention Essex tacked on a phoeny LATENT PERIOD between the time of FeLV and the cancer explosion in the cats ? HE DID ! )

Again, source for any of this, please. Your sources below don't mention anything about feline leukemia latent periods, Essex....anything that you've claimed.

One year after the vaccine was approved in 89, he sold it to just about every cat owner in France.
Those people of course had no idea (AND STILL DON"T) that cats have natural immunity against FeLV and nor do they know that vaccines DO NOT WORK AGAINST A VIRUSES THAT BECOMES LATENT AFTER TIME OF INFECTION. They also were not and are still not aware that one third of all leukemic cats were NEVER even found to actually ever been infected with FeLV.

Vaccines absolutely do work against vaccines with a latent period. Even when a virus is latent, it can alter the MHC-I experssion of it's host cell. When it becomes active, it certainly changes this expression.

This is why the HPV vaccine works against the strains it is geared towards. It creates immunity to a virus capable of latent infection by sensitiizing the immune system to viral antigen.

Hello HTLV, SAYS DR.GALLO ! HE & HIS GOOD BUDDY (GOOD & CROOKED) MAX ESSEX BOTH SAY HELLO TO HTLV-III = H.I.V !

BEFORE THAT THOUGH, BEFORE FRENCHIE ISOLATED LAV=H.I.V., GALLO & ESSEX WERE GOING TO USE PRESENT GALLOS HTLV-1 TO THE WORLD AS THE AIDS VIRUS, UNTIL GALLO FOUNDOUT ABOUT FRENCHIE & HIS BRAND SPANK'IN NEW HUMAN RETROVIRUS ANYWAY !

I've already pointed this out. The HTLV virus that is now known as HIV was removed from the HTLV naming convention when it was renamed HIV. Since it was removed, another virus was able to use that moniker. I don't see why this is hard for you to understand.

Gallo bit hook, line & sinker ! Didn't even notice the fact that he already said it caused HUMAN LEUKEMIA and then went & said that it also killed those same cells as H.I.V. !

PRICELESS !

Leukemia is a common sequelae to HIV infection. You would know this if you had ever read HIV case studies or patient reviews.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Your obviously not even truely capable of speaking the truth on drugs you actually prescribe, all you do is write prescriptions for "HAART" and call yourself a "GENETISIST" put others down like your so superior & their stupid, because thats all you can do. You should apply to be the poster girl for the AIDS establishment, or Gallos personal press rep, take your pick !
You stick uP for the drugs simply because passing them out like Halloween candy is whats paying your bills, who do you think your kidding ? Retrovirologist stare down a microscope at the cape wearing HIV-1 & 2 super viruses like either are actually going to magically sprout an "AIDS GENE" or somthing right before their blind eyes or something. Thats what pays their bills though, so why not right ? You can relate can't ya ?

H.I.V. conatains NOTHING different from any single other natually occuring retrovirus, human or animal that it would cause it to do what absolutely no other retrovirus has ever been known to do and thats "KILL CELLS" period !

You don't know squat about any retroviruses, let alone H.I.V., because if you actually did you would have already KNOWN that absolutely NO retrovirus has ever been known to KILL the cells that they infect, they intergrate themselves into the cells for reproduction and become apart of their structure.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by v3_exceed

 

As for not being bothered with the "nuances", that is utterly ridiculous, and it the root of America's societal problems with science. Did you know America's schoolchildren have been plummeting in the science education rankings wordlwide? It's because too many people "don't care about the nuances" and instead just want the "concepts". This sort of attitude leads to things like "syndrome vs. disease" and "contagious vs. transmissible". It creates a culture of ignorance and laziness, the things this forum exists to combat.

Good Day,

I agree American education standards are plummeting. That in itself is another conspiracy, but not one that we are currently discussing. When I come to a thread like this it's because I'm interested in what the subject matter of the thread is about. I agree that nomenclature is both important and specific to each industry to avoid confusion but in the context of an internet forum such as this, being that specific is lost to most of the readers.

I work in a technical industry that is full of acronyms and technical jargon. The nomenclature within my industry is also very specific to what we do. When I visit threads that are related to my industry, I am careful to not delve too far into the nuances as it could serve only to derail the thread. I often see people claiming to be experts, people making rudimentary errors. Now I could call them on it, but for the most part that would be pointless.

To keep the thread on point, none of what we are discussing actually pertains to the topic of this thread. Is AIDS a man made syndrome to curb the world population of undesirables? Have those professionals that we rely on to fight contagious or transmissible disease turned their backs on the very species they belong to? Have those that are supposed to find the cures become the harbingers of Death? If that is indeed the case, then everyone in those medical fields really needs to have a look at what they are willing to live with.

..Ex

Originally posted by v3_exceed
I agree that nomenclature is both important and specific to each industry to avoid confusion but in the context of an internet forum such as this, being that specific is lost to most of the readers.

I work in a technical industry that is full of acronyms and technical jargon. The nomenclature within my industry is also very specific to what we do. When I visit threads that are related to my industry, I am careful to not delve too far into the nuances as it could serve only to derail the thread. I often see people claiming to be experts, people making rudimentary errors. Now I could call them on it, but for the most part that would be pointless.

There's a difference between jargon/acronyms and plain old incorrect information. Calling something the "AIDS virus" is not jargon, it's incorrect. There is no such thing as an "AIDS virus". Calling HIV contagious is not only incorrect, it's a dangerous myth. This is what led (and still leads, in some cases) people to think HIV positive individuals can spread the virus by kissing, sharing drinks, things like this. It ostracizes the victim, and contributes to a culture of fear and ignorance.

To keep the thread on point, none of what we are discussing actually pertains to the topic of this thread. Is AIDS a man made syndrome to curb the world population of undesirables? Have those professionals that we rely on to fight contagious or transmissible disease turned their backs on the very species they belong to? Have those that are supposed to find the cures become the harbingers of Death? If that is indeed the case, then everyone in those medical fields really needs to have a look at what they are willing to live with.

..Ex

If HIV were created to cull the population, then the people who created it are easily the most incompetent scientists on the planet. It not only fails to kill quickly, it fails to kill effectively. In a short timespan (considering how recent the virus is, less than 60 years from what we know now), we have managed to take what was at first considered a death sentence and turn it into a chronic, but manageable, condition, not unlike diabetes.

Originally posted by alpha68
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

Your obviously not even truely capable of speaking the truth on drugs you actually prescribe, all you do is write prescriptions for "HAART" and call yourself a "GENETISIST"

I actually don't write prescriptions for HAART, I have any newly HIV positive patients I see go to an infectious diseases specialized internist, so that they receive an appropriate treatment and counseling session.

Also, it's "geneticist", dear.

put others down like your so superior & their stupid, because thats all you can do.

You're really the only person I put down, mostly because of your ridiculous claims and fake credentials.

You should apply to be the poster girl for the AIDS establishment, or Gallos personal press rep, take your pick !

Hurr hurr hurr!

Grow up.

You stick uP for the drugs simply because passing them out like Halloween candy is whats paying your bills, who do you think your kidding ?

I work in public health facilities. I receive the same salary whether I write one thousand prescriptions per month or no prescriptions.

Retrovirologist stare down a microscope at the cape wearing HIV-1 & 2 super viruses like either are actually going to magically sprout an "AIDS GENE" or somthing right before their blind eyes or something.

Thats what pays their bills though, so why not right ? You can relate can't ya ?

More ad hominems mixed in with nonsense, what a shock.

H.I.V. conatains NOTHING different from any single other natually occuring retrovirus, human or animal that it would cause it to do what absolutely no other retrovirus has ever been known to do and thats "KILL CELLS" period !

Every retrovirus kills cells it infects. You should read some basic virology texts sometime. I'm sure some of your teachers or professors have some.

You don't know squat about any retroviruses, let alone H.I.V., because if you actually did you would have already KNOWN that absolutely NO retrovirus has ever been known to KILL the cells that they infect, they intergrate themselves into the cells for reproduction and become apart of their structure.

*Yawn*

More nonsense. Here are a few papers about retrovirus mechanism, as it relates to killing cells.

Protein release during cytopathic apoptosis in HIV-1 infection

Compound that may target gene/protein responsible for cytopathic effect of HIV-1

Levels of apoptosis-related proteins increased in Jurkat cells infected with HIV-1 and HIV-2

GVT reduces cytopathic effect of T-tropic retrovirus in infected mice

Murine leukemia virus induces apoptosis through envelope expression alone

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
If HIV were created to cull the population, then the people who created it are easily the most incompetent scientists on the planet. It not only fails to kill quickly, it fails to kill effectively. In a short timespan (considering how recent the virus is, less than 60 years from what we know now), we have managed to take what was at first considered a death sentence and turn it into a chronic, but manageable, condition, not unlike diabetes.

Well that depends on what the purpose of the syndrome really is. Sure if immediate death was the objective then yes it is a failed attempt. If the purpose is to allow an individual a certain "fixed" lifespan in which to propagate the syndrome while using up all of that persons resources in an effort to stay alive then ultimately killing that person. Then it would not be entirely a failed attempt.

Consider, in a war the objective is not to kill your opponent, but to wound him. A dead guy simply drops his rifle to be picked up by the person behind him. A wounded man, will not only retain his rifle, but whole squads of medical personnel, drugs and other resources.

It seems to me that both AIDS and Cancer have a similar end result. Mostly fatal, but not after bleeding the host out of their financial and emotional resources. The main difference being that AIDS is brought on by a virus that can be transmissible. (for clarity I am aware that cancer is not aids related nor does it function in the same manner etc etc..) Once again, in the broader scope how effective something is becomes entirely dependent what the initial objective was. Perhaps it wasn't mean to cull "The" population, but to cull "A" population.

I can think of no other "diseases" that are so financially intensive (to the victim) as Cancer and AIDS (syndrome)

..Ex

Originally posted by v3_exceed
Well that depends on what the purpose of the syndrome really is. Sure if immediate death was the objective then yes it is a failed attempt. If the purpose is to allow an individual a certain "fixed" lifespan in which to propagate the syndrome while using up all of that persons resources in an effort to stay alive then ultimately killing that person. Then it would not be entirely a failed attempt.

Again, you're not making complete sense, given the actual nature of HIV. The virus itself doesn't kill. At all. It only allows opportunistic infections to set in, and only if those people are exposed to those infections. There is no way someone could have cooked up a virus and then just assumed those infected would be exposed to candida or myocobacterium. The odds are just so incredibly low. That's not to mention that the technology needed to create a virus didn't exist for about four decades AFTER the first HIV cases. How do you explain that?

Consider, in a war the objective is not to kill your opponent, but to wound him. A dead guy simply drops his rifle to be picked up by the person behind him. A wounded man, will not only retain his rifle, but whole squads of medical personnel, drugs and other resources.

That's not the point of war at all, really, it's just something you've made up to fit your analogy. If the point of war were to wound rather than kill, the world's armies wouldn't currently be developing more powerful guns, larger bombs, more accurate missiles, or precision-kill rifles. Wouldn't we, instead, be focused on non-lethal weaponry? That seems to be in massively short supply in every military in the world.

It seems to me that both AIDS and Cancer have a similar end result. Mostly fatal, but not after bleeding the host out of their financial and emotional resources.

No one is forced to take any treatment, honestly. I've had plenty of patients refuse chemotherapy because they see it as an expensive means of delaying, rather than preventing, death, which it of course is in some circumstances.

The main difference being that AIDS is brought on by a virus that can be transmissible. (for clarity I am aware that cancer is not aids related nor does it function in the same manner etc etc..) Once again, in the broader scope how effective something is becomes entirely dependent what the initial objective was. Perhaps it wasn't mean to cull "The" population, but to cull "A" population.

Again, if it was meant to cull "A" population, then the scientists who developed it must be the most incompetent scientists in human history. How could you possibly target a given part of the population by using a virus that spreads through the one activity EVERY MEMBER OF THE HUMAN SPECIES participates in, given they survive to maturity? You honestly think some scientist thought, "now, how do we eliminated the undesirables? Oh! I know! We'll use one of the most basic human activitiess, that one that WE do all the time, too!"

I can think of no other "diseases" that are so financially intensive (to the victim) as Cancer and AIDS (syndrome)

Are you serious?

Here's a short list of diseases that are as or more expensive, financially and emotionally, as cancer and AIDS:

- Pompe disease
- Multiple sclerosis
- Paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria
- Hunter's syndrome

Those are just the first few that came to mind that I've seen in the last few months. The treatments for these conditions range from ~$15k per year to almost $100k per year in the case of Hunter's syndrome (obviously, insurance takes a huge chunk out of this, but the patient is still left with what is often a punishing amount of costs).

Just because YOU haven't heard of a disease more financially/emotionally costly doesn't mean they don't exist. You aren't entitled to your own facts.

..Ex

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
That's not the point of war at all, really, it's just something you've made up to fit your analogy. If the point of war were to wound rather than kill, the world's armies wouldn't currently be developing more powerful guns, larger bombs, more accurate missiles, or precision-kill rifles. Wouldn't we, instead, be focused on non-lethal weaponry? That seems to be in massively short supply in every military in the world.

Ok, it's painfully obvious you have never studied war, or you are just naive. So I'm not going to argue the point. I wish I were the person to have made that strategy up. If totally wiping out the enemy was the objective, rest assured VX gas would do a whole lot better job than ground forces.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
No one is forced to take any treatment, honestly. I've had plenty of patients refuse chemotherapy because they see it as an expensive means of delaying, rather than preventing, death, which it of course is in some circumstances.

Of course, those with the means spend as much as is necessary to get the treatment. Those with out..well they were going to die anyway. To imply that cancer and AIDS haven't proven to be extremely lucrative diseases is disingenuous.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
Again, if it was meant to cull "A" population, then the scientists who developed it must be the most incompetent scientists in human history. How could you possibly target a given part of the population by using a virus that spreads through the one activity EVERY MEMBER OF THE HUMAN SPECIES participates in, given they survive to maturity? You honestly think some scientist thought, "now, how do we eliminated the undesirables? Oh! I know! We'll use one of the most basic human activitiess, that one that WE do all the time, too!"

Not only can't you be reasonable, you can't even be civil. Your arrogance is only surpassed by your ignorance. Quite frankly if you are indeed an MD, and I find that unlikely, you are the problem with the medical industry in the USA. I don't have the patience nor the want to explain to you why you have proven yourself to be without logic or common sense. You have shown you can't debate on merit, only on technicalities which may or may not actually be pertinent. Of course HIV can be spread via intravenous injections, just ask the red cross, but from you it's only via sex unless you have just admitted to being an intravenous drug user.
Either way, you are not worth the effort of arguing with.

..Ex

Originally posted by v3_exceed
Ok, it's painfully obvious you have never studied war, or you are just naive. So I'm not going to argue the point. I wish I were the person to have made that strategy up. If totally wiping out the enemy was the objective, rest assured VX gas would do a whole lot better job than ground forces.

Except VX gas in hard to manufacture in the quantities needed, hard to transport, and has the tendency to carry back toward your own troops with the wind. This is why mustard gas wasn't used very often in WWI and II.

[

Of course, those with the means spend as much as is necessary to get the treatment. Those with out..well they were going to die anyway. To imply that cancer and AIDS haven't proven to be extremely lucrative diseases is disingenuous.

Can you show me where I implied cancer and HIV therapies weren't costly? I'd really like to see it, because otherwise, you'll have to admit to putting words in my mouth. Either is fine.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
I don't have the patience nor the want to explain to you why you have proven yourself to be without logic or common sense.

In other words, you can't find an explanation and are going to try to mischaracterize my arguments.

Gotcha.

You have shown you can't debate on merit, only on technicalities which may or may not actually be pertinent.

So, showing published data, providing references, and pointing out medical fact to correct gross errors is arguing "on technicalities" now? Wow, I'd hate to see what sorts of debates you've attended.

Of course HIV can be spread via intravenous injections, just ask the red cross, but from you it's only via sex unless you have just admitted to being an intravenous drug user.

I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to imply, as it's oddly worded. Of course HIV can be spread through IV drug use, but the vast majority of cases arise from sexual contact. Why is this hard for you to follow?

ive only herd this but they recon aids was manufactured in american navy labs, an they have a vacine for it. as i siad of only herd it, an it was manufactured to help keep the population down

Originally posted by scott,aussie
ive only herd this but they recon aids was manufactured in american navy labs, an they have a vacine for it. as i siad of only herd it, an it was manufactured to help keep the population down

And yet, the population increases every year.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Your nothing but a slave to the game, when I first got here you came at me like some know it all that could teach professors a thing or two. I say "BLACK" you SAY white, I say day you say "NIght". All I got from you were insults. You don't know SH!T.

You went to a school (OR WISHED YOU DID) that gets grants for fraud AIDS research, (I should know because mine did as well.) after you get through asking one of those monkeys at Vanderbilt who are actually doing said 'F' research whats going on with retroviruses (HUMAN OR ANIMAL) & their true fuction in vivo, make sure to go stand outside the jail that O.J. is being held in on release day & see if you can also get him to confess to killing his ex-wife Nicole & Ron Goldman. It would be MUCH easier than getting any of todays retro-boys out of the closet, I assure you.

If you can't understand why retroviruses were the #1 target for cancer researching virologists back in the day, your just simply way toooooo pig-headedly ignorant for anyone to even try & contened with. Why don't you try look'in in a dish.

I will in-fact crush you as Dr. Duesberg crushes Gallo, Frenchie, Fauci, Ho, Weiss & plenty more jack-asses you've never even heard of. "Believe That"

reply to post by alpha68


So you aren't going to address the fact that I have given you plenty of papers demonstrating that retroviruses do, in fact, have cytopathic activity as a common feature?

You're just going to try to side-step the fact that, once again, you have been proven wrong on very basic virology and thus have no real frame of reference to discuss the ins and outs of medical research?

reply to post by


Actually ! The only thing thats common I detect, is you.

You talk about how you only post research of a "PEER REVIEWED" nature when the true fact of the matter is that what your really posting is nothing more than "CRONIE REVIEWED" researched & signed-off on tripe.
Your drug-store interpetation of what "PEER REVIEW" actually means and whats actually going on in that department at the "GALLO" level as it differs from the ground level are truely two different animals indeed.

You quite simply don't know, or just simply refuse to listen to reason on no other grounds than "WHAT YOU BELIEVE" medical science to be, not what truely in-fact actually is, and what it actally is my friend, is a buisness like any single other buisness out there, no more, no less. I was trying to show other people here, more so than you actually what kind of people Gallo, Essex, Fauci, Weiss and Frenchie actually are.
I feel that there really is NO WAY to even put a dent in your "oh so worldly" veiws.

I mentioned in some of my very first posts on ATS, that what medical students are taught in the university, comes from human beings "NOT GoDs", human beings by nature are greedy, money grubbing, sinners.
Gallo and the "BoB CluB" took just about everyone to the cleaners for the $ and the glory, and theres plenty enough for everyone who chooses to follow. Sh!T aways runs down hill, always remember that.

www.healtoronto.com...

reply to post by alpha68


So, just more empty ad hominems and no substance...again? Do you ever tire of dodging questions?

Why don't you look at my sources and show me where the bad science, cronyism, or false data is?