STD's

Oh come on now Mr. Bill. I know you are sitting there refreshing.


Is it hard to get spanked in public? I just figured you might know.

COPY / PASTED / ALTERED FROM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misconc...t_HIV_and_AIDS
http://www.aidsonline.org/hiv-myths/

Jackie ...you're so smart ...you can search Google!!!

Goodnight ...and just think ...while you're sleeping ...thousands of people will die a horrible, chemically-induced death ...because you and millions of other mockingbirds continue to help perpetuate the lie that HIV=AIDS.

...I trust you'll sleep good knowing that.

. Originally Posted by Mr. Bill

Yes, Billy, it is copied and pasted and altered from MANY sources (actually, not just the two you mentioned), just as are 90% of your own posts on this subject, Mr. Bill. But it isn't plagiarized (as you are most often guilty of). It is, however, a coherent and cogent thought / argument, and I notice you don't refute it, the best you can come back with is that I can Google (just like you). Wow.

In all fairness, regardless WHICH of us is correct, Bill, you too are going to sleep tonight and those same thousands of people are dying while you perpetuate the myth that the pathogenesis of a virus must be fully understood prior to accepting its responsibility for a disease. I trust you'll sleep well knowing that also.

Stop trolling a SHMB and go out in the world and educate yourself to DO something about it, if you are so damn passionate about this . . . because, your armchairing and attempt to "educate us" accomplishes exactly, what?? Oh, yeah, well I guess there's that whole need it must somehow fill for you, and I would bet THAT is more "pathological" than anything discussed here so far.

Fritz (he's our moderator here in this forum, Bill), I'm going to call this guy a cunt, so if you need to point me for it, I'll certainly understand.

Bill, you're a man-cunt (you Can't Understand Normal [rational] Thinking).

Now, Bill, you come up with something to address my "Googled" statement with something other than the fact I happened to use several sources to help me put into words what I wanted to say (actually, I didn't KNOW that about TB and Hepatitis B and I was looking for an example to support what I wanted to say - I actually took the time to watch one of your longer video links on a car trip tonight and I found the statement interesting and one fact you seem to WANT to ignore).

Bill, you're the true mockingbird - you just can't see it.

I agree with Lilianna, please, kill yourself (by injecting yourself with blood from a few HIV positive individuals), the world will be a better place.

Oh god. Don't dirty up cunt by making up a whole thing for him.


He is a moron. He always will be. I know some you guys hate to admit it but some people do actually HAVE TO PAY for sex.

I couldn't help it, he IS a cunt. And not in the (good) way we both my like to use the word. At least I called him a "man-cunt" - I'm sure there's something in the Urban Dictionary that would be more succinct . . .

Thank you for your free analysis, Jackie ...I feel so much better now.

Still, all your dustmop words and grandstanding ...and all the pro-HIV websites in the world amount to crap WITHOUT that one single, defining element of disclosure ...where is the original scientific paper that proves HIV causes AIDS?

Where is it? ...I want to see it ...surely someone must have it.

.

http://www.avert.org/hiv-causes-aids.htm

Suck it.

"Interest in dissident views appears to have dwindled after the excitement surrounding Thabo Mbeki's AIDS panel and the Durban Declaration in 2000. It seems likely that new and better evidence, including the obvious benefits of modern drug treatments, has caused many former dissidents to change their minds."

Excerpt from Gallo's Egg
http://www.omsj.org/corruption/the-s...ort-gallos-egg


Because the father of the scientific method was born 1000 years ago in the Middle East, the political pressures of his religion prevented humanity from taking full advantage of the promise of science. Ibn al Haytham and Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis were both judged insane not because they were wrong, but because their ideas threatened contemporary political forces.

Prof. Duesberg and Ms. Farber aren’t alone. Economist Ben Stein reported others whose scientific inquiries are now threatened, interrupted, or corrupted by political influence. This influence results in the loss of research grants or, as in the case of Ms. Farber, industry insiders who blacklisted her in the media. In hospitals, these influences kill thousands of patients annually.


Robert Gallo, MD

When the NAS published Prof. Duesberg’s 1988 paper, Gallo and company scattered like debutants from a stentorian fart. Anthony Fauci refused comment. Maxine Singer said she was still reading earlier issues. Saying that he hadn’t “heard a single scientist discuss it for a second,” Gallo admitted that a copy was on his desk, but hadn’t read it.

Although he vowed to respond, neither Gallo nor any of his defenders ever published a rebuttal of Duesberg’s paper (or the 196 peer citations that supported it) in any peer-reviewed publication.

Instead, Gallo’s defenders created the specter of AIDS-Denialists and Denialism, epithets designed to marginalize those who questioned Gallo’s opinions as somehow denying the existence of AIDS itself. Because Gallo skeptics never questioned the existence of AIDS, this allegation is false. The fact that malnutrition, septic water, disease, environmental conditions, irresponsible drug use and self-destructive behavior can degrade a body’s ability to protect itself from infection and cause death is undeniable. What is in question is Gallo’s scientifically unsupported assertions that retroviruses cause leukemia, cancer, and AIDS.

When used around casual observers, the denialist/denialism epithet dehumanizes Gallo skeptics as flat-earthers, ufologists, Klansmen, Eugenicists, racists, homophobes, and other socially unacceptable groups. Because most people fear the stigma that comes with those associations – and are socially, politically, and professionally unprepared to defend themselves against this slur, they politely scatter and change the subject like Gallo’s debutants.

The Storm

Months after Ms. Farber published her 2006 Harper’s exposé, AIDS industry activists held this conference where those who offended the official HIV/AIDS “Party Line” were methodically and unrelentingly attacked as denialists.

Co-moderated by TAG operative Daniel Kuritzkes, MD, the 2006 HIV Science and Responsible Journalism Conference asked invited journalists “if balance was always appropriate when the evidence backs one side.” These academic “hit men” openly and unapologetically detailed how and why the attacks should be executed. A paid consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies, Dr. Kuritzkes warned journalists that denialists like Peter Duesberg still work in universities and urged that they be denied access to students and reported to authorities whenever possible.

Kuritzkes told his audience:

“If this happens in your neighborhood ask the university authorities why they allow this and then write about it.”

WSJ reporter Marilyn Chase warned reporters not to unintentionally “exalt the position of denialists by making them seem like just some sort of independent intellectual contrarian whose views really should be heeded.”

Gallo's Egg continued...
http://www.omsj.org/corruption/the-s...ort-gallos-egg

.

Wow, you really are a moron, Bill. I was right when I told Questor it was futile, I should have followed my own advice.

...I'd lay odds from this point on that you'll be the only person interested in anything you might have to say on this subject, Mr. Bill. Originally Posted by Jackie Devlin

You'd have lost that wager ...guess I'm not the only one interested afterall ...you and others keep on replying ...does that mean you're just full of crap?

Have you found the original scientific paper yet that proves HIV causes AIDS? ...the world is waiting ...keep digging ...maybe you'll find it ...I'd sure like to see it.


.

Did you really READ my previous post, Bill? Or do you just make it a habit to ignore valid arguements, even when the poster (in this case, myself) agrees with a salient point you've made.

Tell you what Bill - jump off this SHMB and spend your life in search of that paper, but we both know you'll die looking.

But that's not really the point, is it? You can't address a valid argument, you just parrot, "Show me the paper, show me the paper".

Who is REALLY the 'denialist' here? I'll give you a clue, Bill - find a mirror.

You just made "ignore", and I have never put anyone on a SHMB on ignore before.

It is quite a banner day.

Excerpt from Gallo's Egg
http://www.omsj.org/corruption/the-s...ort-gallos-egg


Panelist John P. Moore, PhD quickly rejected her assertion. Although he regularly identifies himself as a professor of microbiology and immunology at Cornell University, Moore rarely mentions the $400 million annual funding that Cornell receives for research from taxpayers and HIV drug makers that include Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Trimeris, or GlaxoSmithKline. Bristol Myers Squibb alone acknowledges more than $100 million in research funding. With billions of dollars in research grants at stake, it’s understandable why Dr. Moore and America’s most prestigious universities are reluctant to offend the pharmaceutical companies that keep their prestigious research laboratories open. Rather than present Gallo’s promised proof that HIV exists, kills cells, and causes AIDS, Dr. Moore attacks with rhetoric. A few examples:

• H.I.V. causes AIDS. This is not a controversial claim but an established fact, based on more than 20 years of solid science. It is as certain as the descent of humans from apes and the falling of dropped objects to the ground.
• To deny that HIV causes AIDS is farcical in the face of the scientific evidence.
• Although science is not an ivory tower that should never be questioned, the fundamentals of whether HIV causes AIDS are so certain that challenging them to create trouble really does harm people.
• AIDS denialism kills.
• We will not engage in any public or private debate with AIDS denialists or respond to requests from journalists who overtly support AIDS denialist causes.
• The debate has been settled. It is not our role to enlighten denialists as to their inability to understand the available information.

A few months later, Dr. Moore wrote this email to another Gallo skeptic:

From: John P. Moore, PhD <jpm2003@med.cornell.edu>
To: Michael Geiger
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Shame on you JP

Thanks Geiger! What you sent contains useful information we can use against you people! And we will!

“Dan” has it exactly right when he says:

If they are able to “justify” their actions, it’s most likely because they simply see this as WAR. War against the “denialists”. Nothing more.

When you’re in a war, there are no rules.

This IS a war, there ARE no rules, and we WILL crush you, one at a time, completely and utterly (at least the more influential ones; foot-soldiers like you aren’t worth bothering with). John (emphasis added)

Although Moore boldly threatens to “crush” those who question the role of HIV in AIDS, he avoids all invitations to engage in public debate on the HIV hypothesis of AIDS.


Gallo's Egg continued...
http://www.omsj.org/corruption/the-s...ort-gallos-egg


.

Here, you keep asking for links Bill. Sink your teeth into a small sampling of the research demonstrating HIV's action on the body.

http://www.pnas.org/content/95/8/4595.short
http://www.jbc.org/content/277/40/37820.full
http://jvi.asm.org/content/73/5/4230.full
http://jem.rupress.org/content/191/1/33.full
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrar...93/6/1906.full
http://www.jbc.org/content/275/41/32016.full

You know if we all stop posting this will go away!

How do you tell the diference between skin tags and genital warts?