Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 47

Thread: ideas in the shadow

  1. #21
    Alessandro is offline Contributing Member (10-99 posts)
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    15

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    Quote Originally Posted by MLW View Post
    Lastly on you idea as regards 'HIV' I'm afraid that unless you can show that there is a purified protein specific isolate from an infectious tissue that can be shown to infect a non infectious tissue then there is not even any 'HIV' to to have an idea on.
    You didn't read at all what I wrote about HIV

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,181

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    I read what you wrote in post #19 and I'm sure MLW did too.
    It makes statements about 'viruses' and 'variants' of viruses as if they were clinically proven facts and they are not at all any such thing. You also make statements about 'AIDS' illnesses occurring in people without the presence of any one of many health or lifestyle factors and that's a silly statement because the CDC's own statistics from that period show that to be untrue. As well as that, until the CDC made a decision to stop collating them, statistics for people who were ill and died from one or more of the supposed 'AIDS'-indicator illnesses but who never ever tested reactive to the 'HIV' test amounted to many 1000s. And the sero-conversion statement is clinically and scientifically questionable at the very least with no real evidence for it. The only part of that post that rings true is point one, that people reacting to the proteins in the test have a higher propensity to potential ill health but that's been accepted widely for 30 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post
    You didn't read at all what I wrote about HIV

  3. #23
    Alessandro is offline Contributing Member (10-99 posts)
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    15

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    You wrote "I don't fully subscribe to it in that it still assumes that exogenous viruses exist, but I would argue it is on the less wrong track".

    No, simply HIV is an endogenous entity!

    You wrote:"If you simply control for differentiating toxicology and stress instead of a virus these things make more sense."

    No, toxicology and stress as causes of AIDS are simply bullshit!

    You wrote: "In terms of which marker, what I'm saying is ALL of what you call viruses and their signatures are markers of toxicity and stress."

    Their are markers of disease, as everybody accept, but not markers of toxicity and stress. Moreover, they have a function: they are defences against the causes of the disease (Which are not toxicity and stress!), something like antibodies. Antibodies are protein, retroviruses are clumps of protein and RNA, with the function to assault bacteria (and similar bugs), that is to say bacteriophagi. Bacteriophagi are retrovirus which target bacteria, often they kill bacteria, they are very common and are used since many years ago in biotechnologies to introduce sequencies of RNA inside bacteria to prepare OGM.

    You wrote: "In some cases like ebola you are dealing with accute toxicity coming from an specific environmental toxin, in others like 'HIV' or the HEBs you are dealing with something more long term."

    You understood that ebola HIV and Hepatites (despite maybe Hepatitis A is a different story) viruses have much in common, but after arrives the usual sistematic mistake: the toxicity, that reach the top of stupidity (excuse me) when you state that ebola is caused by an enviromental toxin.
    Even dioxine require at least 1 mg to kill a person. More rationally, probably in all the three cases, causes are bacteria, and in all the three cases viruses could be bacteriophagi developed by the human for defence. In the case of Ebola the cause could be the famous "black plague".

    You wrote: "Lastly on you idea as regards 'HIV' I'm afraid that unless you can show that there is a purified protein specific isolate from an infectious tissue that can be shown to infect a non infectious tissue then there is not even any 'HIV' to to have an idea on."

    Why? I said HIV is an endogenous defence. Wake you up!!!!!!

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,181

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    You still misunderstand even what MLW wrote.
    'HIV' is a made up name for something that has no proven existence. If you actually knew what 'endogenous' or 'exogenous' meant you wouldn't make the mistake.
    You saying stress and toxic material is 'bullshit' then you best tell that to every expert in the field including some who won the Nobel prize for their work.
    The proteins at high levels found in the misnamed 'HIV' test are a potential predictor of things that are not right in the body of the person tested.

    Let's just be honest Alesandro, you simply don't have a scientific or clinical clue about what you post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post
    You wrote "I don't fully subscribe to it in that it still assumes that exogenous viruses exist, but I would argue it is on the less wrong track".

    No, simply HIV is an endogenous entity!

    You wrote:"If you simply control for differentiating toxicology and stress instead of a virus these things make more sense."

    No, toxicology and stress as causes of AIDS are simply bullshit!

    You wrote: "In terms of which marker, what I'm saying is ALL of what you call viruses and their signatures are markers of toxicity and stress."

    Their are markers of disease, as everybody accept, but not markers of toxicity and stress. Moreover, they have a function: they are defences against the causes of the disease (Which are not toxicity and stress!), something like antibodies. Antibodies are protein, retroviruses are clumps of protein and RNA, with the function to assault bacteria (and similar bugs), that is to say bacteriophagi. Bacteriophagi are retrovirus which target bacteria, often they kill bacteria, they are very common and are used since many years ago in biotechnologies to introduce sequencies of RNA inside bacteria to prepare OGM.

    You wrote: "In some cases like ebola you are dealing with accute toxicity coming from an specific environmental toxin, in others like 'HIV' or the HEBs you are dealing with something more long term."

    You understood that ebola HIV and Hepatites (despite maybe Hepatitis A is a different story) viruses have much in common, but after arrives the usual sistematic mistake: the toxicity, that reach the top of stupidity (excuse me) when you state that ebola is caused by an enviromental toxin.
    Even dioxine require at least 1 mg to kill a person. More rationally, probably in all the three cases, causes are bacteria, and in all the three cases viruses could be bacteriophagi developed by the human for defence. In the case of Ebola the cause could be the famous "black plague".

    You wrote: "Lastly on you idea as regards 'HIV' I'm afraid that unless you can show that there is a purified protein specific isolate from an infectious tissue that can be shown to infect a non infectious tissue then there is not even any 'HIV' to to have an idea on."

    Why? I said HIV is an endogenous defence. Wake you up!!!!!!

  5. #25
    Alessandro is offline Contributing Member (10-99 posts)
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    15

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    You wrote:"I read what you wrote in post #19 and I'm sure MLW did too.
    It makes statements about 'viruses' and 'variants' of viruses as if they were clinically proven facts and they are not at all any such thing."

    You read it but you haven't undertood anything! You wrote "clinically". HIV is not cause of disease, it is an endogenous protection against the disease!

    You wrote: "You also make statements about 'AIDS' illnesses occurring in people without the presence of any one of many health or lifestyle factors and that's a silly statement...."

    "That is not silly at all, the majority of AIDS cases in the world occurred (and occurs) in Africa. We should subtract false cases intentionally and fraudolently added, we should probably also subtract cases that are caused by the anti-viral therapies. So the AIDS African cases would decrease of an order of magnitude (they would became 10 times less). However, they still remain the majority of the AIDS cases in the world. Well, most of the people who died of AIDS in Africa were malnutrished, that is true. However, many others (whose number is probably greater than the total of male homosexuals and drugs injectors died of AIDS in north America and Europe) died of AIDS despite they have eaten all their life plenty of good organic food (not the junk food that you usually eat in England and North America). And they do not know at all what is heroin, popper and usually even anal sex.

    You continued: "....because the CDC's own statistics from that period show that to be untrue."

    That statistics show nothing. Again, you use a narrow perpective because at that time (You did not say when, but I know you mean before 1984) CDC statistics included only male homosexuals and dugs injectors (maybe a little numbers of hemophiliacs)." All of them shared bacteria, in such particular ways, like anal sex (often even with the concomitant use of the powerful vasodilatative popper) and endovenous injections, to easily cross the natural barriers of the body. They didn't share only "stress toxic factors"

    You wrote: " As well as that, until the CDC made a decision to stop collating them, statistics for people who were ill and died from one or more of the supposed 'AIDS'-indicator illnesses but who never ever tested reactive to the 'HIV' test amounted to many 1000s."

    This is a well known data by Duesberg, that perfectly agree with my proposals. Simply, nature has not given the HIV gift just to everybody.

    You wrote:"And the sero-conversion statement is clinically and scientifically questionable at the very least with no real evidence for it."

    Let's consider the Padian study for example: do you think that etherosexual people who know to be involved in a study would do anal sex? Come on! That is the same as in the statistics on the percentage of people wathing different TV channels. They are partially wrong, there is a systematic mistake. If you have one of the television that is connected to the data collecting system you would not use it to watch porno programs.

    Kind regards

  6. #26
    Alessandro is offline Contributing Member (10-99 posts)
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    15

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    You wrote:"I read what you wrote in post #19 and I'm sure MLW did too.
    It makes statements about 'viruses' and 'variants' of viruses as if they were clinically proven facts and they are not at all any such thing."

    You read it but you haven't undertood anything! You wrote "clinically". HIV is not cause of disease, it is an endogenous protection against the disease!

    You wrote: "You also make statements about 'AIDS' illnesses occurring in people without the presence of any one of many health or lifestyle factors and that's a silly statement...."

    "That is not silly at all, the majority of AIDS cases in the world occurred (and occurs) in Africa. We should subtract false cases intentionally and fraudolently added, we should probably also subtract cases that are caused by the anti-viral therapies. So the AIDS African cases would decrease of an order of magnitude (they would became 10 times less). However, they still remain the majority of the AIDS cases in the world. Well, most of the people who died of AIDS in Africa were malnutrished, that is true. However, many others (whose number is probably greater than the total of male homosexuals and drugs injectors died of AIDS in north America and Europe) died of AIDS despite they have eaten all their life plenty of good organic food (not the junk food that you usually eat in England and North America). And they do not know at all what is heroin, popper and usually even anal sex.

    You continued: "....because the CDC's own statistics from that period show that to be untrue."

    That statistics show nothing. Again, you use a narrow perpective because at that time (You did not say when, but I know you mean before 1984) CDC statistics included only male homosexuals and dugs injectors (maybe a little numbers of hemophiliacs)." All of them shared bacteria, in such particular ways, like anal sex (often even with the concomitant use of the powerful vasodilatative popper) and endovenous injections, to easily cross the natural barriers of the body. They didn't share only "stress toxic factors"

    You wrote: " As well as that, until the CDC made a decision to stop collating them, statistics for people who were ill and died from one or more of the supposed 'AIDS'-indicator illnesses but who never ever tested reactive to the 'HIV' test amounted to many 1000s."

    This is a well known data by Duesberg, that perfectly agree with my proposals. Simply, nature has not given the HIV gift just to everybody.

    You wrote:"And the sero-conversion statement is clinically and scientifically questionable at the very least with no real evidence for it."

    Let's consider the Padian study for example: do you think that etherosexual people who know to be involved in a study would do anal sex? Come on! That is the same as in the statistics on the percentage of people wathing different TV channels. They are partially wrong, there is a systematic mistake. If you have one of the television that is connected to the data collecting system you would not use it to watch porno programs.

    Bye bye

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,811

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    So that you don't miss it, I just approved a post by JeremyB37 three posts back. I was out of town yesterday; I apologize for the delay.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Madrid, Spain
    Posts
    77

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post
    Let's consider the Padian study for example: do you think that etherosexual people who know to be involved in a study would do anal sex? Come on! That is the same as in the statistics on the percentage of people wathing different TV channels. They are partially wrong, there is a systematic mistake. If you have one of the television that is connected to the data collecting system you would not use it to watch porno programs.
    I put here what the Padian study exactly says (prospective results):

    At last follow-up, couples were much more likely to be abstinent or to use condoms consistently, and were much less likely to practice anal intercourse (p < 0.0005 for all). Nevertheless, only 75 percent reported consistent condom use in the 6 months prior to their final follow-up visit. Forty-seven couples who remained in follow-up for 3 months to 6 years used condoms intermittently

    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/146/4/350.long

  9. #29
    Alessandro is offline Contributing Member (10-99 posts)
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    15

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    Quote Originally Posted by JeremyB37 View Post
    You still misunderstand even what MLW wrote.
    'HIV' is a made up name for something that has no proven existence. If you actually knew what 'endogenous' or 'exogenous' meant you wouldn't make the mistake.
    You saying stress and toxic material is 'bullshit' then you best tell that to every expert in the field including some who won the Nobel prize for their work.
    The proteins at high levels found in the misnamed 'HIV' test are a potential predictor of things that are not right in the body of the person tested.

    Let's just be honest Alesandro, you simply don't have a scientific or clinical clue about what you post.
    I would like to know what MLV thinks about the content of my messages to him. You could rather reply to my message n.26, that is just a message to you. Kind regards

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    1,181

    Default Re: ideas in the shadow

    If MLW ever feels it's worth replying then they may do.

    For me, including your post #26, you are talking scientific and clinical nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro View Post
    I would like to know what MLV thinks about the content of my messages to him. You could rather reply to my message n.26, that is just a message to you. Kind regards

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •