tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post7482862150122127022..comments2024-02-25T14:29:44.021-05:00Comments on Denying AIDS and other oddities: "I have no patience for people who would deny history"Seth Kalichmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01715826946361587097noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-89749607454494292442009-06-19T17:50:02.628-04:002009-06-19T17:50:02.628-04:00These are NOT married and monogamous individuals, ...<i>These are NOT married and monogamous individuals, nor are they sexually shy. Of COURSE they have sex with countless people on and off the sets. Yet they still are NOT coming up positive for HIV on their monthly tests.</i><br /><br /><br />Mikey, there is a difference between the fantasy world in films and reality. Of course these actresses have sex with boyfriends off the set. Most of these sexual contacts are also not infected with HIV. Again, just sex is not sufficient. You need to have sex with someone who is HIV positive.<br /><br />The only way that people can get infected with HIV while performing in porn films is if one of the actors is in the short window period between infection and detectable on PCR-DNA tests. Most of the actors who do test positive are detected and drop out of the industry.<br /><br />The Darren James case is an incontrovertible example of sexual transmission of HIV. There is simply no point trying to argue otherwise.Chris Noblenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-77576567477669857372009-06-19T10:15:10.312-04:002009-06-19T10:15:10.312-04:00(continued from previous post)
A look at Mikey’s ...(continued from previous post)<br /><br />A look at Mikey’s claims:<br /><br />“<i>… finding RT, findings by PCR, finding P24, all of which are used to supposedly prove infection, does not mean one is finding live infectious exogenous HIV.</i>”<br /><br />Exogenous? Actually, that actually IS confirmed (yet again) by this paper. If HIV were endogenous, ALL sperm would have come up positive for PCR (as endogenous retroviruses are a natural part of the chromosomes). This is also confirmed by the Van Voorhis paper. Had he read either paper he would know this.<br /><br />Does it mean they found live and infectious virus inside the sperm cells? Maybe and maybe not, but then the point of this paper was not to determine that but rather to determine whether HIV was capable of entering them. Remember they were looking inside the sperm, not just in the semen. Thus, whether HIV <b>inside the sperm cells</b> is infectious or not is not necessarily relevant to whether HIV can be transmitted sexually and was suggested by the authors as a topic for future research. Had he read the paper he would know this.<br /><br />“<i>Nor does it mean that even if one is finding hiv, that such HIV is causing the condition known as AIDS. </i>”<br />With all of the goalpost moving, Mikey seems to be unaware that this paper was not intended to prove HIV causes AIDS. It was meant to investigate the interaction of HIV and sperm, nothing more. Had he read the paper you would know this. <br />However, none of the negative controls (even the hundreds of samples observed over several years by the authors) ever showed any evidence of HIV, be it by microscopy, RT-PCR, p24 detection or hybridization. The <b>only</b> ones that came up positive were the ones from AIDS patients and the ones from uninfected donors incubated with a stock strain of HIV.<br /><br />“<i> Yet only a couple of the so-called "very vivid" EM photos are of the same size and only a couple even look like other EM's of what classically is considered to be EM's of hiv!</i>”<br /><br />This was covered on page 909 and 910 as being a result of the type of resin and embedding used. The control cells demonstrated the same issue. This is why controls are run. Had Mikey read the paper he would have known this.<br /><br />All in all this once again strongly suggests that Mikey either does not read the papers he comments on (save perhaps skimming the abstracts/introduction) or simply does not understand their content. But please feel free to continue Mikey.Poodle Stomperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071485010133858924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-45072760799525384832009-06-19T10:13:58.932-04:002009-06-19T10:13:58.932-04:00Since Mikey has been posting away here, I will ass...Since Mikey has been posting away here, I will assume he has already taken the time to reread the paper he commented on. So:<br /><br />Reasons why Mikey’s quoting of this paper does NOT support his denialist views.<br /><br />First, let us be clear that the paper was looking for HIV particles <b>inside</b> sperm cells, <b>not</b> free infectious virus in semen, meaning that the 8 out of 30 results he gives should not be “weird”. But is that all there was to the paper? No! The authors performed several experiments which are listed briefly below.<br /><br />1) Observation by microscopy (p. 908).<br />Results: Sperm from AIDS patients showed HIV-like particles AND sperm from uninfected donors that were exposed to a stock HIV strain showed the same particles …BUT…their negative control sperm had none. The authors also report that over the years they have looked at hundreds of sperm samples from uninfected donors and found <b>none</b> with similar particles.<br /><br />2) RT-PCR for HIV sequences in the sperm (p. 910).<br />Results: Sperm from AIDS patients were positive. Control sperm from uninfected donors were negative.<br /><br />3) Hybridization with either almost full length probe or smaller probes representing LTR, gag, and env (p910).<br />Results: Sperm from AIDS patients were positive. Control sperm from uninfected donors were negative.<br /><br />4) Detection of p24 using monoclonal antibodies in fixed sperm (p. 908).<br />Results: In 8/15 AIDS patients AND in sperm infected with stock HIV, p24 was present <b>inside</b> the sperm (remember they are <b>not</b> looking for free virus in the semen). The sperm of uninfected individuals did not show the presence of p24.<br /><br />And finally, does this paper reproduce the Voorhis results previously misquoted by Mikey? Yep! Voorhis was looking for proviral DNA in the semen. They found 1 example of such an occurance, indicating that integration of HIV in sperm chromosomes is a very rare phenomenon. Baccetti likewise found that while HIV RNA was present, DNA was not (p. 913).<br /><br />(Continued in next post due to length restriction)Poodle Stomperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071485010133858924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-35234045371838123822009-06-19T09:39:13.842-04:002009-06-19T09:39:13.842-04:00"Your little Darren James false positive case..."Your little Darren James <i>false positive</i> case that was probably going off for herpes or hepatitis or who knows what is simply silly to say the least."<br /><br />The three female performers were infected by an identical strain of HIV-1 as the index case, according to molecular analysis of the viral strains identified in this cluster. <br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16549978<br /><br />Your suggestion that these were all "probably going off for herpes or hepatitis or who knows what" displays your total ignorance of what HIV testing is, or how it works.<br /><br />We already knew this, Michael, but thanks for making it clear.<br /><br />What I don't understand is why you are so hell bent on making obviously stupid comments on a thread that is read largely by people who can instantly spot how clueless you are.<br /><br />Is your day incomplete unless you have had a thorough spanking, Mikey?Snouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00315836146914661895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-15700155219303864742009-06-19T08:53:28.320-04:002009-06-19T08:53:28.320-04:00Mikey,
I'd think it is pretty obvious to any...Mikey,<br /> I'd think it is pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that the reason HIV transmission is low in the porn industry is the same reason that transmission by blood transfusion is so low; because the "actors" (and I use the term loosely), like blood samples are tested routinely.<br /><br />Now are you done rereading that paper? Have you realized why your conclusions are incorrect or do you stand by them?Poodle Stomperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071485010133858924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-86417066042705921672009-06-18T23:39:46.396-04:002009-06-18T23:39:46.396-04:00Don't make me laugh, Chris. Surely you are not...Don't make me laugh, Chris. Surely you are not that simple minded Chris, to think that those in the porn industry ONLY have sex with each other! <br /><br />These are NOT married and monogamous individuals, nor are they sexually shy. Of COURSE they have sex with countless people on and off the sets. Yet they still are NOT coming up positive for HIV on their monthly tests. <br /><br />Your little Darren James false positive case that was probably going off for herpes or hepatitis or who knows what is simply silly to say the least.Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-27243919635330781672009-06-18T23:24:48.822-04:002009-06-18T23:24:48.822-04:00Mikey,
if all porn actors are HIV- then they can h...Mikey,<br />if all porn actors are HIV- then they can have tens of thousands of sex acts with each other and they will never get infected. <br /><br />The adult film industry maintains a very efficient screening process to ensure that all actors remain HIV-.<br /><br />Are Denialists complete idiots. Sex alone won't make you HIV+ you have to have sex with someone who is HIV+.<br /><br />In 2004 Darren James managed to infect three actresses with HIV. He was only recently infected and had tested negative days before the film shoot.<br /><br />The exact chronology of events is perfectly clear. The three actresses all have HIV test results before and after the film shoot. The case proves beyond any possible doubt that HIV can and is sexually transmitted.Chris Noblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12602904363058968259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-47633973667651370032009-06-18T23:13:59.865-04:002009-06-18T23:13:59.865-04:00And the LA Times has just reported, that since 200...And the LA Times has just reported, that since 2004, "Since then 1,357 porn performers have tested positive for gonorrhea and 15 for syphilis, according to county health data cited by the Los Angeles Times".<br /><br />But one single hiv poz test among them. And it was a false positive, just like the rest of them, says I. <br /><br />You can all go back to sleep now kiddies, and have sweet dreams instead of nightmares about sexual boogeymen. <br /><br />ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz Snore ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzMichaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-73832625477483523592009-06-18T22:44:00.618-04:002009-06-18T22:44:00.618-04:00Here Seth. This should make their day....
Last we...Here Seth. This should make their day....<br /><br />Last weeks highly publicized hiv breakout of 16 individuals since 2004 who make their living in the pornography business (where, by the way, the vast majority of the performers NEVER use condoms) has just been downgraded from 16 cases to only ONE ACTUAL CASE since 2004. And yet, the very same group had lots and lots of gono and chlamydia, but only a single hiv poz result since 2004...<br /><br />Turns out the other 15 cases were not in individuals who were actually even in the porn business but were simply walk-in customers of the testing center that does the tests for the porn industry:<br /><br />http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526850,00.html<br /><br />Think about it. Thousands of performers screened once monthly who have had tens of thousands of acts of sex of every imaginable type, and who had lots of real stds, yet only one single case of hiv in these many thousands of very sexually active individuals in the last 5 years....<br /><br />Sorry to burst your bubbles Chris et al. So much for your sexual transmission theory. If any group should be stricken with multiple cases of hiv, it should be those in the porn industry. <br /><br />Unfortunately, your belief in sexual transmission of hiv does not resemble reality at all. Not in prostitutes, and not in this most verified sexually active multi-partner grouping of people. <br /><br />ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz, snore, ZZZZZZzzzzzzzz<br /><br />Sexually transmitted? Your dreaming. Like I said, you all have very vivid imaginations when it comes to obsessing over your big old sex boogeyman of hiv. <br /><br />And, by the way, it would now eem that the best way to stay hiv negative while having lots of partners and enjoying unprotected sex with them is to get a job in porn....Michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-8374559213959198082009-06-18T21:29:55.826-04:002009-06-18T21:29:55.826-04:00Mikey,
Let me know when you have re-read the pap...Mikey,<br /> Let me know when you have re-read the paper in it's entirety. Then tell me if you see why your last post is just as much a blunder as your Voohris one. Can you redeem yourself?Poodle Stomperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071485010133858924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-18954798659517876522009-06-18T19:02:35.085-04:002009-06-18T19:02:35.085-04:00Michael
No communication between me and an AIDS De...Michael<br />No communication between me and an AIDS Denialist is ever private. <br /><br />It is the stuff that books are written from.<br /><br />Looks like you probably won’t be back for a while. <br /><br />I see no way you can contend with a thread that has the attention of Poodlestomper, Snout, Chris Nobel, IP, and JTD! Anyone of them has more brains in their left nostril than all of Rethinking AIDS has combined.<br /><br />But go ahead, make their day.Seth Kalichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01715826946361587097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-29610384380599577412009-06-18T17:57:32.034-04:002009-06-18T17:57:32.034-04:00Nor does it mean that even if one is finding hiv, ...<b>Nor does it mean that even if one is finding hiv, that such HIV is causing the condition known as AIDS.<br /></b><br /><br />Whooshhh. Goalpost shift.<br /><br />That's the beauty of never defining a consistent position. You can start off arguing that HIV isn't found in semen. When that gets too tough you can switch to arguing that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Eventually when nobody is looking you'll go back to arguing that HIV can't be found in semen.<br /><br />Anybody for another ride on the Denialist merry-go-round?Chris Noblenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-39531145018885598582009-06-18T17:09:31.775-04:002009-06-18T17:09:31.775-04:00Mikey,
“But now that I have been mercilessly torn ...Mikey,<br />“<i>But now that I have been mercilessly torn to shreds for it, I will hopefully be more careful in the future.</i>”<br /><br />And yet you have failed to do so in this very same post. I won’t “tear you to shreds” yet but will instead give you this following quote of yours:<br /><br />“<i>As if this is not weird enough, (only 8 of 30 hiv positives in this study showed any evidence of possible hiv in their sperm) they then go on to produce EM photos of supposed HIV.</i>”<br /><br />Re-read your own quote and then, for the love of God, actually read the paper you cited. I am giving you this chance to correct yourself before “tearing you to shreds”. I hope others will do the same. Tell me Mikey, after re-reading the paper can you tell us why your statement is incorrect?Poodle Stomperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071485010133858924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-52741808261341266282009-06-18T15:55:51.211-04:002009-06-18T15:55:51.211-04:00Please don't forget to let us know what happen...Please don't forget to let us know what happened to page 591. Is the website administered by someone related to Rose Mary Woods?IPnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-21087353754846954542009-06-18T15:28:13.384-04:002009-06-18T15:28:13.384-04:00Well Seth, You beat me to my own response.
Meanw...Well Seth, You beat me to my own response. <br /><br />Meanwhile, Is no private letter betwixt us private? You have robbed me of a full public disclosure of my horrendous error in saying the study found no RNA when it found no DNA. <br /><br />But now that I have been mercilessly torn to shreds for it, I will hopefully be more careful in the future. <br /><br />Up above, someone named "IP" brought up a very strange Italian study: and said: <br />"This paper has some vivid EMs of HIV in sperm cells." <br /><br />http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/reprint/127/4/903.pdf<br /><br />The study says they had a cohort of 30 hiv positives, all viremic, but only half even produced sperm. Of the remaining half, evidence of what was believed to be HIV was only found in 8 of them. <br /><br />As if this is not weird enough, (only 8 of 30 hiv positives in this study showed any evidence of possible hiv in their sperm) they then go on to produce EM photos of supposed HIV. Yet only a couple of the so-called "very vivid" EM photos are of the same size and only a couple even look like other EM's of what classically is considered to be EM's of hiv!<br /><br />I myself don't find the EM photos so "vivid". I do find "IP" to have a vivid imagination, along with the imaginations of Seth, Chris, Snout, Poodle, and "BSE". <br /><br />Furthermore, finding RT, findings by PCR, finding P24, all of which are used to supposedly prove infection, does not mean one is finding live infectious exogenous HIV. Nor does it mean that even if one is finding hiv, that such HIV is causing the condition known as AIDS. <br /><br />After 25 years and more than 250 billion research dollars, is this the best you guys can come up with?Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05529276675893724850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-16125257911631120202009-06-18T15:17:47.363-04:002009-06-18T15:17:47.363-04:00“Unfortunately, in the rush of my post, regretfull...“<i>Unfortunately, in the rush of my post, regretfully I misquoted the Voorhis work as not finding RNA when I meant DNA. Not a good thing to make such silly errors with the likes of Chris and Snout drooling at the chance to make hay out of it.</i>”<br /><br />Hilarious! He <b>meant</b> to say DNA but yet still repeated the error of:<br /><br />“<i>If 97.5% of HIV positive folks <b>don’t even have detectable HIV</b> in their semen, how on earth is it transmitted sexually to thousands of others?</i>”<br /><br />So what? Is this a double error? Did you mean DNA when you said RNA and then also forgot to mention that they were only looking at proviral DNA when you said HIV was not detectable? If you <b>knew</b> they were only looking at the proviral DNA and not infectious particles (and it was in fact just a typo) why did you suggest that the results of this paper should somehow bring doubt to the sexual spread of HIV? Methinks the evidence points to Mikey having simply copied and pasted but not bothered to actually read the paper. This reminds me of a very poor excuse posted for not knowing that Montagnier did not just use cord blood cells on Aetiology. Sorry Mikey, but your BS excuse isn’t very credible!Poodle Stomperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071485010133858924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-44053128781676213592009-06-18T14:55:21.413-04:002009-06-18T14:55:21.413-04:00Hi Seth!
Thanks for reminding me, as I have bee...Hi Seth! <br /> <br />Thanks for reminding me, as I have been meaning to respond, but have been very busy this week as a key employee is on vacation. It is 10pm here and I am just now leaving work to go home. Hopefully I will be up to getting to it tonight or at least in the AM. <br /> <br />Glad to hear Gary called you. That must have surprised you! Are you going to go on the show? <br /> <br />I think it would be great if you found the courage to do so! Everyone deserves to hear all sides of the issues, including your perspectives.<br /> <br />As for the response, I didn't quite parrot anything from HEAL or RA. One of Henry's readers brought up the Voorhis study in the comments in his most recent thread as being related to the recent Porn industry thing, so I just brought it up to poke Chris in the butt and give him something to blather about. Unfortunately, in the rush of my post, regretfully I misquoted the Voorhis work as not finding RNA when I meant DNA. Not a good thing to make such silly errors with the likes of Chris and Snout drooling at the chance to make hay out of it. They may be tipping the bottle, but they are still sharp enough to catch such errors from studies.<br /> <br />As for your statement of "And then when people who actually understand HIV and how it causes AIDS point out your faulty ideas with evidence you disappear?" Don't make me laugh. Not even Gallo or Montagnier claim to understand how HIV could cause aids. You can bet your bottom dollar that the drunks from down-under do not know the first thing about it. And even poodle is usually too adled from whiskey and also does not have a clue. And poor J Todd, well, I only hope his meds and his former drug use has not fully addled his ability to count to 10. I like Todd, but he is a mess. Did you notice how near violently jealous he got when you and I communicated politely? He almost lost it. We better be careful not to get him too rattled!<br /> <br />And surely you know that even if what has been said to be found by some researchers in semen is actually a retrovirus or is even contagious, or is even what is claimed to be HIV, well, as you must be aware, the most important aspect is whether or not whatever was found or believed to be found is proven to be the cause of aids, and considering no mechanism has ever been found for it to affect T cells, there is as yet no evidence with any high degree of probability for anything to be confidently called the cause of aids. But surely you must know that by now.<br /> <br />Anyway, thanks for the reminder about the post, and I will get to it soon without baiting or ditching or even ditching the bitch and switching. <br /> <br />And let me know if your going to go on Gary's show. I'll try to get on it myself and maybe we can do it together. You can point to me as a case of a "denialist" who just doesn't get it, and I will point to you as, ummm.... Well, I'll think of something! <br /> <br />Thanks much,<br />MichaelMikeys Replynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-15555814958581410542009-06-18T14:54:37.752-04:002009-06-18T14:54:37.752-04:00I wondered if maybe this thread was enough to snap...I wondered if maybe this thread was enough to snap Mikey out of denial. So I wrote him this email (I have his address from when he wrote my University tattling me being part of the AIDS conspiracy - see My AIDS Denialism Fan Club post below)<br /><br /><br /><br />Michael<br /> <br /><br />Will you face the fact that you are wrong about HIV and its concentrations in semen? Your comment on my blog was just flat out wrong. You parroted back what HEAL and Rethinking AIDS have said in their misuse of the study you cite. Rethinking AIDS even removed a page from the article. Will you actually just leave that post hanging with several replies? <br /><br />AIDS Denialists always cry for a debate. Gary Null even called me today asking for a debate. And then when people who actually understand HIV and how it causes AIDS point out your faulty ideas with evidence you disappear? <br /><br />I know you are reading the responses. And yet, no reply? <br /><br />I will give it another day or two and then I plan to create a post on this denialist tactic… Bait and Ditch. <br /><br />SethSeth Kalichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01715826946361587097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-54402174712678009292009-06-18T06:58:36.963-04:002009-06-18T06:58:36.963-04:00Seth said:
"What happened? My Geiger-Counter...<b>Seth said:</b><br /><br /><i>"What happened? My Geiger-Counter has gone silent?"</i><br /><br />Seth, obviously Michael has followed my advice and is now tied up with trying to get past the "Truth Barrier" (Henry Bauer's habit of deleting anything factual that refutes his bullshit) at Henry's <i>HIV Skeptic</i> website.<br /><br />On which note, I currently have a comment sitting in "moderation" there as we speak. It challenges Henry's claim that HIV cannot be a sexually transmissible infection because the median age of incident HIV diagnoses in the US is among people in their 30s.<br /><br />I suspect Henry will delete it, as he does with nearly all posts from the <b>Reality Based Community</b>.<br /><br />Fortunately, I have also posted it on <i>Reckless Endangerment</i>, and readers can see it there as well.<br /><br />http://snoutworld.blogspot.com/2009/06/post-on-henrys-blog.html<br /><br />You can delete, Henry, but you can't hide.Snouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00315836146914661895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-50924650661387894542009-06-17T23:07:46.599-04:002009-06-17T23:07:46.599-04:00Oh, since Mikey will probably be gone for a while ...Oh, since Mikey will probably be gone for a while I was looking back at his older posts on this thread. I've been officially cherry-picked. I guess I should feel honored. When he quoted me saying:<br /><br />"<i>And as you yourself have already said: "No one (including me) ever said that stress has no effect on health. It is known that it does and it is also known, at least in part, how it does. I never claimed otherwise", it seems very odd that you would expend so much time attempting to refute even your own self! </i><br /><i>So, poodle, I consider you fully refuted, even by you. You can now go have another drink, and come back and try again later when you are perhaps more sober and able to remember what you yourself have already stated.</i>"<br /><br />he seems to have ommitted that the next part of that <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2008/12/christine_maggiore_dies_from_p.php#comment-1501177" rel="nofollow">post</a> in question was:<br /><br />"<i>However, if denialists are going to claim that stress alone (or in conjunction with "holistic treatment") can cause a state of immune suppression that it can lead to disseminated herpes then the burden of proof is on you/them.</i>"<br /><br />Having been cherry-picked, I feel like an official anti-denialist. I feel so honored!Poodle Stomperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071485010133858924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-29939877479904675472009-06-17T15:47:53.630-04:002009-06-17T15:47:53.630-04:00What happened? My Geiger-Counter has gone silent?What happened? My Geiger-Counter has gone silent?Seth Kalichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01715826946361587097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-49190525804957784222009-06-17T12:54:56.756-04:002009-06-17T12:54:56.756-04:00So if we have so many X-Ray crystallographic image...So if we have so many X-Ray crystallographic images of various HIV proteins, does that mean that the X-ray is the latest frequency of EM radiation to be paid off by AIDS inc? Are -Rays now a pharma-shill? For shame!<br /><br />I am curious, however, JT whether Mikey will come back to comment. Mikey are you man enough to admit you are wrong?Poodle Stomperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071485010133858924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-59647034280920482892009-06-17T11:38:27.562-04:002009-06-17T11:38:27.562-04:00Anyone wanna take bets on Geiger not saying anythi...Anyone wanna take bets on Geiger not saying anything further? He has proven time and again when the going gets tough, the idiots go onto another thread to apply their aggressive ignorance on others!<br />It's sad. It's pathetic. It's psychotic. It's their way.<br />JTDjtdeshonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09881997315363701292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-5114805666702723812009-06-16T20:48:52.536-04:002009-06-16T20:48:52.536-04:00Awww, c'mon Seth! You should let him keep pos...Awww, c'mon Seth! You should let him keep posting if for no other reason then to give us a good laugh. Who knows, maybe one day he will realize he is wrong.<br /><br />As a nifty aside while Mikey tries to come up with a response for his blunder, the hexameric form of HIV's capsid has been resolved using x-ray crystallography. It may lead to a new target for drugs that interfere with assembly. The link to an article covering the paper can be found <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090612163537.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>Poodle Stomperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14071485010133858924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-633581663557175057.post-52672476350586245322009-06-16T20:25:08.455-04:002009-06-16T20:25:08.455-04:00Michael, come on man, you don’t have to take this ...Michael, come on man, you don’t have to take this crap. Come on, show these orthodoxy conspiring money mongers they are full of it! Get your buddies Crowe, Carter, Bauer, Goofy and Daffy to help you out. If you run away and do not respond to all of these people I will never post a crazy comment from you again!Seth Kalichmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01715826946361587097noreply@blogger.com