tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post4068445800728052650..comments2024-02-25T14:29:44.021-05:00Comments on Denying AIDS and other oddities: Kill a Child Lately? Not to Worry, Call Dr. Al-BayatiSeth Kalichmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01715826946361587097noreply@blogger.comBlogger140125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-54432760307168460362010-04-11T11:06:31.104-04:002010-04-11T11:06:31.104-04:00"Why don't you call up Robin Scovill and ..."<i>Why don't you call up Robin Scovill and ask him....about the report you so desparately seek? A phone call to California will cost you about 89 cents for that info....</i>"<br /><br />The fact that he has allowed the Al-Bayati spin on it to be disseminated throughout the internet while not releasing the original autopsy makes me doubt very much that he would ever release the original. Why waste my 89 cents? The fact that he won't release the autopsy says more than enough.Poodle Stomperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071485010133858924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-26459104597634073852010-04-11T06:22:34.609-04:002010-04-11T06:22:34.609-04:00I never dreamed that my discovery four decades ago...I never dreamed that my discovery four decades ago would lead to such a profit-driven public health disaster. The medical community must confront reality and stop the inappropriate use of P.S.A. screening. Doing so would save billions of dollars and rescue millions of men from unnecessary, debilitating treatments.<br /><br /><br />Richard J. Ablin is a research professor of immunobiology and pathology at the University of Arizona College of Medicine and the president of the Robert Benjamin Ablin Foundation for Cancer Research.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-15955920187913511562010-04-11T06:22:34.610-04:002010-04-11T06:22:34.610-04:00In approving the procedure, the Food and Drug Admi...In approving the procedure, the Food and Drug Administration relied heavily on a study that showed testing could detect 3.8 percent of prostate cancers, which was a better rate than the standard method, a digital rectal exam. <br />Still, 3.8 percent is a small number. Nevertheless, especially in the early days of screening, men with a reading over four nanograms per milliliter were sent for painful prostate biopsies. If the biopsy showed any signs of cancer, the patient was almost always pushed into surgery, intensive radiation or other damaging treatments.<br />The medical community is slowly turning against P.S.A. screening. Last year, The New England Journal of Medicine published results from the two largest studies of the screening procedure, one in Europe and one in the United States. The results from the American study show that over a period of 7 to 10 years, screening did not reduce the death rate in men 55 and over. <br />The European study showed a small decline in death rates, but also found that 48 men would need to be treated to save one life. That’s 47 men who, in all likelihood, can no longer function sexually or stay out of the bathroom for long.<br /><br /><br />Numerous early screening proponents, including Thomas Stamey, a well-known Stanford University urologist, have come out against routine testing; last month, the American Cancer Society urged more caution in using the test. The American College of Preventive Medicine also concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening.<br />So why is it still used? Because drug companies continue peddling the tests and advocacy groups push “prostate cancer awareness” by encouraging men to get screened. Shamefully, the American Urological Association still recommends screening, while the National Cancer Institute is vague on the issue, stating that the evidence is unclear. <br />The federal panel empowered to evaluate cancer screening tests, the Preventive Services Task Force, recently recommended against P.S.A. screening for men aged 75 or older. But the group has still not made a recommendation either way for younger men. <br /><br /><br />Prostate-specific antigen testing does have a place. After treatment for prostate cancer, for instance, a rapidly rising score indicates a return of the disease. And men with a family history of prostate cancer should probably get tested regularly. If their score starts skyrocketing, it could mean cancer.<br />But these uses are limited. Testing should absolutely not be deployed to screen the entire population of men over the age of 50, the outcome pushed by those who stand to profit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-75456387797158216992010-04-11T06:22:06.955-04:002010-04-11T06:22:06.955-04:00New York Times
Op-Ed Contributor
The Great Prosta...New York Times<br /><br />Op-Ed Contributor<br />The Great Prostate Mistake <br /><br />By RICHARD J. ABLIN<br /><br />Published: March 9, 2010 <br /><br /><br />Each year some 30 million American men undergo testing for prostate-specific antigen, an enzyme made by the prostate. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1994, the P.S.A. test is the most commonly used tool for detecting prostate cancer.<br />The test’s popularity has led to a hugely expensive public health disaster. It’s an issue I am painfully familiar with — I discovered P.S.A. in 1970. As Congress searches for ways to cut costs in our health care system, a significant savings could come from changing the way the antigen is used to screen for prostate cancer.<br />Americans spend an enormous amount testing for prostate cancer. The annual bill for P.S.A. screening is at least $3 billion, with much of it paid for by Medicare and the Veterans Administration. <br /><br /><br />Prostate cancer may get a lot of press, but consider the numbers: American men have a 16 percent lifetime chance of receiving a diagnosis of prostate cancer, but only a 3 percent chance of dying from it. That’s because the majority of prostate cancers grow slowly. In other words, men lucky enough to reach old age are much more likely to die with prostate cancer than to die of it.<br /><br /><br />Even then, the test is hardly more effective than a coin toss. As I’ve been trying to make clear for many years now, P.S.A. testing can’t detect prostate cancer and, more important, it can’t distinguish between the two types of prostate cancer — the one that will kill you and the one that won’t. <br />Instead, the test simply reveals how much of the prostate antigen a man has in his blood. Infections, over-the-counter drugs like ibuprofen, and benign swelling of the prostate can all elevate a man’s P.S.A. levels, but none of these factors signals cancer. Men with low readings might still harbor dangerous cancers, while those with high readings might be completely healthy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-86606902623417244972010-04-11T06:18:16.454-04:002010-04-11T06:18:16.454-04:00Why don't you call up Robin Scovill and ask hi...Why don't you call up Robin Scovill and ask him....about the report you so desparately seek? A phone call to California will cost you about 89 cents for that info....<br /><br />Then you can sleep at night knowing The Truth....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-84335558342826605862010-04-09T21:46:31.022-04:002010-04-09T21:46:31.022-04:00Anonymous idiot,
"died of “AIDS,” with more t...Anonymous idiot,<br />"<i>died of “AIDS,” with more than 10,800 absolute T-cell counts (Elisa Jane)...the tragic death is now a result of having too many T-cells when death is pronounced as “no cause of death”</i>"<br /><br />Point of correction: 10,800 was not her "absolute T-cell" count but her total lymphocyte count. I realize you don't know the difference but total lymphocyte count includes T-cells, B lymphocytes, natural killer cells, ect... It is <b>NOT</b> the same thing as total T-Cell count (or CD4 T-Cell count for that matter). How anyone that professes to know more about HIV than those who actually do the research could not know this is mind-boggling. Thank you for displaying your ignorance for the world!<br /><br /><br />"<i>died of “AIDS,” with no fibrosis or immune-deficient marker of any kind detected in any lymph node, and normal T-cell numbers, who had presented at autopsy with tubular necrosis...Christine M...</i>"<br /><br />Oh so sorry but if Maggiore had an autopsy done it was not released to the public. I wonder where it is you got this information. Could it be right from Al-Bayati's spin on it? Tell me, why would the family NOT release the actual autopsy if it truly showed that she did not die of AIDS? Thank you for showing just how easily you give your trust to those that support your ridiculous faith.<br /><br /><br />"<i>suffered the humiliation of an “HIV” diagnosis..(Audrey Serrano) for a failure of being prescribed “the standard of proper medical care”;</i>"<br /><br />The case of Audrey Serrano was won because her doctor did not did not order the necessary tests but rather went off of her word that she had HIV. This is an unfortunate case of medical malpractice.<br /><br />Anonymous does a fantastic job of showing just how readily denialists twist information to suit their own needs. Truth has no place as long as it refutes their little faith. Thank you Anonymous, for illustrating this far better than I could have.Poodle Stomperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071485010133858924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-12852507047680564462010-04-09T18:59:17.324-04:002010-04-09T18:59:17.324-04:00I know that the AIDS Deniers will say I am censori...I know that the AIDS Deniers will say I am censoring them, but I have decided not to post the other 5, yes that is right 5, long and spammy comments from Anonymous above. They are just more crap. I am not willing to let the cockroaches infest my blog. I suggest Anonymous post his rants at Rethinking AIDS where they belong.<br />SorrySeth Kalichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01715826946361587097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-33340450049619163712010-04-09T11:39:02.844-04:002010-04-09T11:39:02.844-04:00Hey Kalichman S., Stomper P.O.O.D.L.E, DeShong JT....Hey Kalichman S., Stomper P.O.O.D.L.E, DeShong JT., Noble C., Snout, et al., <br /><br />What is absolutely nauseating about you people is that while your continued noxious and malignant rants only continue to educate those who visit your “discussions” as to your sick agenda, I believe that in the near future, both public opinion, and perhaps even the law will look in horror at your long-standing, continued, loudly proclaimed grave dancing and singing catechisms and religious zealotisms that continue to malign people and their families who were misfortunate enough to have:<br /><br />1. died of “AIDS,” with more than 10,800 absolute T-cell counts (Elisa Jane) and whose morbid symptoms were scrawled in advance on all the WHO warnings and amoxicillin package inserts, and how you want us to believe that AIDS, after the tragic death is now a result of having too many T-cells when death is pronounced as “no cause of death”;<br /><br />2. died of “AIDS,” with no fibrosis or immune-deficient marker of any kind detected in any lymph node, and normal T-cell numbers, who had presented at autopsy with tubular necrosis and with evidence of an FDA contra-indicated adverse drug and calcium synergism (undoubtedly a new AIDS-indicator illness) (Christine M.) after spending her potentially productive adult lifetime battling against the personal and social consequences of a inconsistent “HIV-tests,” fictional Law and Order SVI T.V. shows depicting her as a child murderer (gee it was only yesterday it seems when I watched the family plant a tree at the heart-wrenching memorial service);<br /><br />3. suffered the humiliation of an “HIV” diagnosis and being called a whore on the witness stand by the defense attorney and her doctor after testing 6 times negatively for “HIV” and after having consumed ARV’s for 9 years which destroyed her health permanently but who won a 2 million dollar settlement (Audrey Serrano) for a failure of being prescribed “the standard of proper medical care”;<br /><br />4. been the subjects of sarcastic glee for Cornell pharma-shill professors who want to continue to smear noxious “HIV-positive”-test-increasing noxious creams of the genitals of every dark-skinned human being and non-human primates alike in what he describes before the 2006 World AIDS conference as his “Hail Mary” experiments: http://aras.ab.ca/articles/correspondence/200801-Maniotis-Moore.html;Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-86564837086320420222010-02-23T21:00:13.958-05:002010-02-23T21:00:13.958-05:00I wonder how the Denialists will spin Montagnier&#...I wonder how the Denialists will spin Montagnier's latest paper.<br /><br />We can award a Golden Leung to the best misrepresentation.Chris Noblenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-65839012128761309932010-02-23T12:08:35.665-05:002010-02-23T12:08:35.665-05:00Read Montagnier's most recent paper, Liam.
Vi...Read Montagnier's most recent paper, Liam.<br /><br />Virology. 2010 Feb 20;397(2):248-54.<br /><br />25 years after HIV discovery: Prospects for cure and vaccine.<br />Montagnier L.<br /><br />World Foundation AIDS Research and Prevention, UNESCO, Paris, France.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-58955739651232346092010-02-20T14:42:06.582-05:002010-02-20T14:42:06.582-05:00As for Montagnier “quoted out of context” – yeah, ...<i>As for Montagnier “quoted out of context” – yeah, I keep seeing that. Isn’t that why Mr Leung posted the FULL, UNABRIDGED portion of that interview on youtube or whatever before Christmas?</i><br /><br />Sadly, Leung has a pretty shitty record of taking people's comments and putting them out of context in his little crockumentary. Dr.s Weiss and Constantine received the same treatment. As for posting the "<i>FULL, UNABRIDGED portion of that interview</i>", Snout commented quite well on that in his own blog. It is clear that what Montagnier was talking about and what denialists read into it are two very different things.Poodle Stomperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071485010133858924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-79299088286343390322010-02-19T04:31:12.822-05:002010-02-19T04:31:12.822-05:00No pig-face - Pasteur did not "recant" o...No pig-face - Pasteur did not "recant" on his deathbed according to Geison - who had access to Pasteur's notes and lab books after the last male heir died. But if you read the self-confessed Pasteurphile's stodgy book, there is plenty of evidence that the "great father of medicine" was a total cheat and a fraud - and did actually document pleomorphism in his observations on fermentation. IOW - Bechamp was RIGHT!<br /><br />As for Montagnier “quoted out of context” – yeah, I keep seeing that. Isn’t that why Mr Leung posted the FULL, UNABRIDGED portion of that interview on youtube or whatever before Christmas?notafuckwitnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-46197108592283653242010-02-17T03:23:52.121-05:002010-02-17T03:23:52.121-05:00Wow, Chris, that shit-theory webpage is pretty wil...Wow, Chris, that shit-theory webpage is pretty wild. I just about choked on my meaty bites when I saw the bit about Pasteur's supposed repudiation of his discoveries "on his deathbed". Wasn't recorded by one Lady Hope, was it?<br /><br />I think it was Richard Dawkins he said he wanted his death recorded on video - not because he thought it would be significant for the world as such, but just to stop those pathetic creepy lying pseudoscientists from claiming after he died that he had a "deathbed conversion".<br /><br />Now who wants to lay money on when this manure-theory or whatever it's called becomes Liam Scheff's latest woo-de-jour?Snouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00315836146914661895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-32052568740395112782010-02-16T21:40:40.541-05:002010-02-16T21:40:40.541-05:00You have to be really dumb to sign as Maniotis. Th...You have to be really dumb to sign as Maniotis. That is an identity you do not want to be mistaken for. It could end you up in prison.<br /><br />So here we are again. Tell the AIDS Deniers to directly respond to real science or face being banned and they disappear. Billy cannot read Boily et al. on HIV transmission and Anonymous cannot respond to the ways that HIV kills T-cells. <br /><br />Back to AIDS Myth Reappraising for canned quotes.<br /><br />Oh well.Seth Kalichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01715826946361587097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-7299128685070787512010-02-16T20:54:19.364-05:002010-02-16T20:54:19.364-05:00I have a hard time believing this is truly Manioti...<b>I have a hard time believing this is truly Maniotis.</b><br /><br />The bad grammar and spelling is actually good evidence that it really is Maniotis. Likewise the reference to "soil theory". <br /><br />He's into some serious woo http://www.soiltheory.com/Chris Noblenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-84756183174788502812010-02-16T17:11:58.658-05:002010-02-16T17:11:58.658-05:00That out of context Montagnier HoN comment will be...That out of context Montagnier HoN comment will be posted for years by the denialists, just like they do with their warped, twisted version of the Padian study! We might as well just accept that they have found one more lie to add to their already overflowing repertoire.<br />JTDjtdeshonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881997315363701292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-73790583652529821362010-02-15T23:53:57.043-05:002010-02-15T23:53:57.043-05:00I have a hard time believing this is truly Manioti...I have a hard time believing this is truly Maniotis. The grammar and spelling is too atrocious for anyone with a college education. However, Montagnier has flat out stated he was taken out of context in HoN saying "<i>“My statement—taken out of its context in a film that glorifies the “Dissidents” and posted on Internet by a website that is searching for polemical debate</i>". What he was talking about is very clear to anyone with even a basic knowledge of biology.<br /><br />Of course denialists will continue to believe what they want and read what they want into pretty much anything.Poodle Stomperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071485010133858924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-39728331702356368712010-02-15T23:42:15.020-05:002010-02-15T23:42:15.020-05:00Mr. Maniotis
Nice to see you take time away from y...Mr. Maniotis<br />Nice to see you take time away from your busy schedule of interfering with family medical decisions (not in your family) and persuading sick people not take their medicine. I am so pleased to know that the 15 minutes you spent on my blog may have saved a life.<br />Please, what can I do to keep you attention?Seth Kalichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01715826946361587097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-67058904057565213362010-02-15T23:38:46.113-05:002010-02-15T23:38:46.113-05:00Dear Seth,
Here is som pseudoscience at it's ...Dear Seth,<br /><br />Here is som pseudoscience at it's best:\<br /><br />Although Essex is a scary Harvard dude, he doesn't rank as highly as a Nobelist for the disease he is recognized as discovering, unless you like cats:<br /><br />Regarding a patient’s typical acquistion of “HIV,” the Nobelist, Luc Montagnier (awarded the Nobel in 2008 for his discovery of LAV (“HIV”) claimed in an interview he had recently, that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4):<br /><br />Luc Montagnier:<br /><br />“…I believe HIV, we can be exposed to HIV many times without being chronically infected. Our immune system will get rid of the virus in a few weeks, if you have a good immune system; and this is also the problem with African people; their nutrition is not very equilibrated, they are in oxidative stress, even if they are not infected with HIV, so their immune system doesn’t work well already, so it is prone, you know, allow HIV to get in and persist. So there are many ways, not the vaccine, many ways to decrease the transmission, just by simple measures of nutrition, giving anti-oxidants, proper anti-oxidants-hygiene measures, fighting the other infections.”<br /><br />Interviewer:<br /><br />“If you have a good immune system, then your body can naturally get rid of HIV?”<br /><br />Luc Montagnier:<br /><br />“Yes.”<br /><br />This means, according to Monti, that like all infectious diseases, the expression of that disease depends upon the defenses of the host (soil), not the pathogenicity of the seed. Is there some other way to interpret this fiction?<br /><br />Like Max says, you also might want to review the following:<br /><br />Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jan 24;(1):CD003510.<br />Antiretrovirals for reducing the risk of mother-to-child transmission of HIV infection.<br />Volmink J, Siegfried NL, van der Merwe L, Brocklehurst P. Stellenbosch University, Faculty of Health Sciences, PO Box 19063, Tygerberg, South Africa, 7505. jvolmink@sun.ac.za Update of: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(2):CD003510:<br /><br />Most but not all the 18 studies end by saying the following:<br /><br />...(PETRA 'regimen A') significantly reduced HIV infection (Efficacy 63.00%; 95% CI 41.44 to 84.56) and a combined endpoint of HIV infection or death (Efficacy 61.00%; 95% CI 41.40 to 80.60) at 4 to 8 weeks <br /><br />but these effects were not sustained at 18 months.<br /><br />ZDV plus 3TC given to mothers from the start of labour until 7 days after delivery and to babies for the first 7 days of life (PETRA 'regimen B') significantly reduced HIV infection (Efficacy 42.00%; 95% CI 12.60 to 71.40) and HIV infection or death at 4 to 8 weeks (Efficacy 36.00%; 95% CI 8.56 to 63.44) <br /><br />but the effects were not sustained at 18 months.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Andrew ManiotisAndrew Maniotisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-15621938453624788652010-02-15T18:49:05.267-05:002010-02-15T18:49:05.267-05:00"Once again, how does HIV kill T cells?andAga..."<i>Once again, how does HIV kill T cells?</i>and<i>Again, how does HIV kill T Cells??? What is its mechanism????</i>"<br /><br />I already gave you two links to a post I wrote up on this topic. I'm not going to rewrite it as it took me a good week or so to put it together in an order I was ok with posting. Read and understand it (and the references) and then comment.<br /><br />"<i>Syphilis is not caused by a virus, and it is not "latent" during the latent phase. Bad example.</i>"<br /><br />HIV and HepC are not truly latent either. They are still actively replicating during the asymptomatic phase of chronic infection. I included syphilis because you seem to have a problem with diseases that go through long outwardly asymptomatic phases. I simply wonder if you apply this to all pathogens.<br /><br />"<i>Mycobacterium, again not a virus and does not remain latent...Another bad example.</i>"<br /><br />It is not a virus but again, I included it to see how your double standard applies here. Science disagrees with you on it not being latent.<br /><a href="http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v6/n12/full/nm1200_1327.html" rel="nofollow">Latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis−persistence, patience, and winning by waiting.</a><br /><a href="http://iai.asm.org/cgi/content/full/69/7/4195" rel="nofollow">Tuberculosis: <b>Latency</b> and Reactivation</a><br /><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9582936" rel="nofollow">Mechanisms of <b>latency</b> in Mycobacterium tuberculosis.</a><br /><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18393920" rel="nofollow">Host-pathogen interactions in <b>latent</b> Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection: identification of new targets for tuberculosis intervention.</a><br /><br />"<i>it's division cycle is about 30 days which is why it is pervasive and hard to cure with antibiotics.</i>"<br /><br />You're off by a lot. M. tuberculosis has a generation time of 12-18 hours.<br /><br />"<i>Chicken pox is not "latent"...</i>"<br /><br />It looks like science disagrees with you here, too(there's more but I don't care to link to more papers since you won't read them anyway).<br /><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC189772/" rel="nofollow">Configuration of <b>latent</b> varicella-zoster virus DNA.</a><br /><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12211045" rel="nofollow">Varicella-zoster virus <b>latency</b> in human ganglia.</a><br /><a href="http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/10/627" rel="nofollow"><b>Latent</b> varicella-zoster viral DNA in human trigeminal and thoracic ganglia</a><br /><br />"<i>Lamda bacteriophage.......WTF? you're clutching at straws there.</i>"<br /><br />Not at all. I'm asking if a latency period is something you dismiss altogether for all pathogens (viral or not) or if it is just for viruses or a subset of viruses. You have yet to answer this. Why?Poodle Stomperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071485010133858924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-90885024125693039292010-02-15T18:15:58.817-05:002010-02-15T18:15:58.817-05:00Ok this is where this thread likely ends.
Because...Ok this is where this thread likely ends.<br /><br />Because you AIDS Deniers are too dumb to read anything new and directly comment on medical research, as evidenced by the impossibility of Bill addressing the facts of HIV transmission in the Boily et al. review, I will no longer post your comments here that ask 'how does HIV kill T-cells?'<br /><br />You all sound so similar, I cannot tell if Anonymous is Baker, or Bill, or Geiger, Stokely, or Bauer, or Bozo. So I am afraid that all Anonymous replies will meet the same fate. I suggest you start using a nickname. Try something creative, like Joe Newton or something.<br /><br />Until you can directly address the points made at <br /><br />http://dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com/2009/12/poodlestomper-is-now-buskerbob-stomper.html<br /><br />regarding how HIV kills T-cells, I will consider the question answered to all sane minded readers.<br /><br />For the insane Denialists who refuse to see how HIV kills T-Cells and destroys the immune system, please do as JTD asks and SHUT UP!Seth Kalichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01715826946361587097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-11117289355212138342010-02-15T17:54:25.290-05:002010-02-15T17:54:25.290-05:00Anonymous, go ahead and read the links provided by...Anonymous, go ahead and read the links provided by Poodles, and then answer back! <br />This question has not been ignored, it has been answered very well by Poodle at the links...and elsewhere. It is just that you denialists, as always, ignore the facts or twist them. <br />Again, read it and respond or shut up.<br />JTDjtdeshonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881997315363701292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-21301325738451068752010-02-15T17:06:54.960-05:002010-02-15T17:06:54.960-05:00Once again, how does HIV kill T cells?
Syphilis i...Once again, how does HIV kill T cells?<br /><br />Syphilis is not caused by a virus, and it is not "latent" during the latent phase. Bad example.<br /><br />Mycobacterium, again not a virus and does not remain latent, it's division cycle is about 30 days which is why it is pervasive and hard to cure with antibiotics. Also healthy immune functions keep it in check usually. Another bad example.<br /><br />Chicken pox is not "latent" it causes a severe disease followed by immune activation and suppression, recurrence occur when immune function becomes compromised.<br /><br />Lamda bacteriophage.......WTF? you're clutching at straws there.<br /><br />It is clear Poodle Stomper you are an apologist for a crappy theory and will dredge out crap on cure to defend it.<br /><br />Again, how does HIV kill T Cells??? What is its mechanism????Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-72863646007452417242010-02-14T20:57:34.538-05:002010-02-14T20:57:34.538-05:00Anonymous,
In addition, here are a few other patho...Anonymous,<br />In addition, here are a few other pathogens with latency periods in the range of years or decades.<br /><br /><b>Syphilis</b> can remain latent after secondary syphilis for 1-10 years with some cases of 50+ years before progressing to tertiary syphilis. Meningovascular syphilis occurs on average 7 years after the primary syphilis infection. Does this latency period cause you to deny Treponema pallidum’s causality in tertiary syphilis?<br /><br /><b>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</b> can remain latent for 10 years or much longer. Does this latency period cause you to deny Mycobacterium tuberculosis’s causality in tuberculosis?<br /><br /><b>Varicella Zoster</b> (chicken pox) can remain latent after the initial infection and yet decades later cause shingles or recurrences of chicken pox. Does this latency period cause you to deny the virus’ causality in shingles and chicken pox?<br /><br />Hell, even one of the most basic viruses, the <b>lambda bacteriophage</b> (a virus that attacks bacteria) has a lytic phase where it damages the cells as well as a lysogenic phase where its genome simply integrates and remains latent in the host genome until it is triggered. Does this latency period cause you to deny the Lambda virus’ pathogenicity to its bacterial host?<br /><br />Do you take issue with any of these having latency periods? If not, do you have a logical/scientific reason why you should for HIV or HepC? If you can't even answer this simple question with a common sense answer, why would anyone here take you seriously?Poodle Stomperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071485010133858924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-28663818406925660482010-02-14T20:23:03.832-05:002010-02-14T20:23:03.832-05:00"Pathogenic? please explain to stupid me just..."<i>Pathogenic? please explain to stupid me just exactly how it is that HIV kills T Cells. One simple little answer as it is at the heart of all HIV = AIDS dogma. After all your spruiking of infinite intelligence it should be an easy ask.</i>"<br /><br />There is a short essay you can read <a href="http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/myths/harmless" rel="nofollow">here</a> that covers some of the basics if you are truly interested. Alternatively, you can read it <a href="http://dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com/2009/12/poodlestomper-is-now-buskerbob-stomper.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> on JT's blog as he was kind enough to make a post out of it. I figured I'd just give you the links rather than reposting it here and taking up too much space.Poodle Stomperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071485010133858924noreply@blogger.com