author: The Queen of Cans and Jars

subject: Re: Guess my injury

text:
Delenn <[email]> wrote:

Not for the first time, I'm glad I don't live in your world.


author: tkrmecho

subject: giving away a free dell pc and flat screen monitor

text:
interested in a free dell pc, flat screen monitor, or maybe even an
ipod? well there is a company giving them away to anyone willing to
sign up for their site and get a few friends to do the same.  I've
already recieved mine, and I can guarentee its completely free...the
company was featured on CNN HEADLINE NEWS as being 100% legit.

This is no scam, you owe it to yourself to check it out.  everything
is explained here:

http://www.geocities.com/freeandeasy87/index.html


author: Dr. Lippschitz

subject: Re: Awakening Giant:  Chinese researchers urge male circumcison for their nation!

text:
"WindingHighway" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Yeah like they need more people  haha It's only the circumcised jews whose
numbers are rapidly declining  :o) btw, their HIV rates are 1/10 that of the
US and as we all know AIDS is a homosexual disease. It is virtually
impossible for a man to be infected by an infected female, so unless he's
being fucked up the arse by some AIDS infected homo or shoots it directly
into his bloodstream, his chances are nil of contracting the disease.


author: Martin

text:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 05:46:54 GMT, "Dr. Lippschitz"
<[email]> wrote:

Not only homosexuals.  HIVAIDS is a disease of blacks, drug users and
the poor too.

Most of the dregs of society are in HIVAIDS target, I mean risk,
groups.  The only dregs to escape HIVAIDS are the disabled.  Oh, my
bad:

<http://allafrica.com/stories/200803090015.html>:

----- Begin Quote -----

Mr Madada was on Friday briefing journalists on the Second Meeting of
the Africa Campaign on Disability and HIV/Aids to be held in Uganda at
Hotel Africana on Wednesday.

----- End Quote -----

And, as I pointed out in misc.health.aids yesterday, HIVAIDS is far
more prevalent in the US, where genital mutilation (aka circumcision)
is more common, than in Western Europe, where it is less common.

I must admit that as a gay man I find the circumcised penis more
attractive than the uncut version, but that's another story...


author: juanjo

subject:
Re: Awakening Giant: Chinese researchers urge male circumcison for
	their nation!

text:
On May 25, 5:30 am, Martin <[email]> wrote:

The fact that you have publicly declared what you are doing is
sufficient for you to be convicted of premeditated murder if someone
dies as a result of your actions.  The wonderful thing about the
internet is when you make a post like this it is there for all to see
and for various agencies to cache.

As for your denial of the connection between HIV and AIDS, there is an
ever increasing amount of data which indicates there is a connection.
If you look at the claims of the AIDS denial folks they posit things
like severe drug abuse as being a cause of most of the deaths
associated with HIV infection and AIDS.  However two issues show the
problems with that.  First of all there are many people without any
drug abuse in their past history who have become infected and
progressed on to AIDS.  Secondly there are numerous addicts who with
needle exchange programs have not become HIV+ and not died of AIDS
like syndromes.  In the West, this disease has moved on to infect an
increasing number of women who are not drug addicts or sex workers and
who become infected through sex with  their companions.  The number of
gay men infected is lesser percentage of the total number of HIV+ and
AIDS cases.

It is true that the initial predictions of a sweeping epidemic causing
huge numbers of deaths in the general populace did not come true and
that is a great thing.  But HIV and AIDS have been found to have
spread, notably in South Asia, the former  Soviet satellite republics
and Southeast Asia primarily among heterosexual sex workers and their
clients.  Survival rates among HIV+ people have continued to increase
with time and with developments in medical care combined with a better
understanding of how the immune system operates.  Earlier death rates
were impacted by the fact that we do not know how long the person had
been infected, many people did live a wilder life style then,
including serious drug and alcohol abuse, and treatment options were
limited and often simply shots in the dark.

It is easy for people to put together a bunch of data and assumptions
and come up with alternative theories of causation.  It is equally
true that researchers have made a number of assumptions early on which
have turned out to be untrue. Finally initial treatment options such
as AZT were initially administered in much higher amounts than  should
have been used and caused as much damage as they created benefit. But
the fact remains that HIV/Aids connection appears to be well
established and well founded in the science.


author: Husky

text:
On May 25, 8:38 am, Jake Waskett <[email]> wrote:

Absolutely!!  If what he says is true, he should be incarcerated,
forthwith! What a POS.


author: Emerson Wainwright

text:
On May 25, 8:30 am, Martin <[email]> wrote:

What you believe is irrelevant.  The scientific research clearly shows
not only that HIV exists, but it has been able to identify how it
works in the cells.

You're not a good person.

Incorrect.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12545-hiv-denial-is-costing-lives.html


author: Jake Waskett

text:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 14:32:58 +0100, Martin wrote:

This is correct of most of Europe, though I think you'll find that the
prevalence of HIV is actually greater in Spain. Unfortunately, the
prevalence in a population depends upon multiple factors (as indeed does
the measured prevalence), and so such comparisons are inherently weak and
cannot provide conclusive evidence of an effect or of no effect.
Fortunately, we have much stronger evidence, including three randomised
controlled trials, and no longer need to rely upon these ecological
comparisons.


text:
"Martin" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

When discusing AIDS, assume they we are referring to the sexual transmission
of the disease. Of course if you inject the virus diectly into your
bloodstream you may become infected unless you are a European and may have
an immunity to it.

Not only Europe but uncircumcised China too. Condoms are not necessary, use
sponges for birth control. Just washing before and after sex will eliminate
99% of disease which is why France, for example, always had very low rates
of syphilis.

You can do any body modification when you're a adult. It's not more painful
and in fact as an adult you can take some painkiller like morphine,
something you can not do with an 8 day old infant because it can depress
their breathing and kill them.


subject: Re: Awakening Giant: Chinese researchers urge male circumcison for  their nation!

text:
On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:17:38 -0700 (PDT), juanjo
<[email]> wrote:

That may well be the case where you live, however I live in the UK
where we have things called courts and juries which need to be
presented with compelling evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt of
guilt.

It works both ways. :)


text:
On Jun 30, 12:40 pm, No One <[email]> wrote:

Good one, No One!


text:
On Jun 3, 9:26 pm, No One <[email]> wrote:

You retarded imbecile!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Natural selection" happens when it happens.

There is no timeline.  Especially with respect to viruses, and
bacteria that OBVIOUSLY change when exposed to antibiotics!

You poor thing.


text:
On May 28, 9:26 pm, Martin <[email]> wrote:

Vaccines are not generally considered to be cures (though there is
some research in this area).

Doesn't matter.  With respect to your argument that scientists have
found no cure in 30 years, the point is that these afflictions have
been around much longer than HIV and AIDS, and scientists have still
not been able to cure them.


text:
On May 28, 10:28 pm, "Lippschitz" <[email]> wrote:

AIDS is not "contracted".  It "develops".  After infection with HIV.

The VAST majority of AIDS sufferers are heterosexual.

So if YOU are to believed, either these "heterosexual" men are getting
fucked in the ass by infected men, or are injecting drugs.  Where the
guys in the African bush (as it were) are getting heroin and needles
-- well, that's for you to explain to us.

And that would bring us into a different arena of discussion.


text:
On Tue, 27 May 2008 11:14:15 -0700 (PDT), Emerson Wainwright
<[email]> wrote:

What I believe is very relevant to me.

Unfortunately the vast bulk of HIVAIDS scientific research begins with
the premise that HIV causes AIDS.  However, following several recent
devastating failures, HIVAIDS researchers are claiming to be "back at
square one" and are calling for a "back to basics" approach.  Perhaps
they'll get it right the second time around.

I've been called worse.

So, you disagree with the point made earlier that I'm not sane?

Must be true: it says so in the article you mentioned. :)


text:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 16:56:12 +0100, Jake Waskett
<[email]> wrote:

<http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/05/prweb916104.htm>:

----- Begin Quote -----

Promoting male circumcision in Africa is risky and dangerous and could
lead to more HIV infections, warns a new paper published in the May
issue of Future HIV Therapy.

Lead author Dr. Lawrence Green says, "Having served on both the US
Preventive Services Task Force and the Community Preventive Services
Task Force, which do systematic reviews of research to arrive at
government-supported evidence-based guidelines for practice, I believe
the African studies on the basis of which some are promoting
circumcision as HIV prevention would be classified at best as
'insufficient evidenceï¿½ by both panels."

[...]

[Co-author John Travis, MD] says, "The African studies were conducted
in atypically sanitary clinics with highly skilled operators and
cannot be extrapolated to the general population. The studies have
been criticized for their poor science including: the men were paid to
be circumcised, received free condoms and extensive education, and the
studies were halted after only 21 to 24 month periods."

During the course of these studies, 77 fewer circumcised than
uncircumcised males contracted HIV, however, the circumcised group
needed to refrain from sex to recoup from surgery, and they were
receiving extensive monitoring and counseling about sexual behavior.
Also, hundreds of study participants were lost to follow-up. "There is
not enough evidence to conclude circumcision would offer any real
long-term benefit in the HIV battle.

[...]

The paper also cautions against neonatal circumcision for HIV
prevention, stating it is unethical to circumcise an infant for a
possible benefit 15ï¿½20 years later, if at all, to reduce the risk of
contracting an adult-acquired disease for which there are far more
effective prevention strategies available.

[...]

Many sources of data contradict the claim that circumcision protects
against HIV. The United States has one of the highest rates of
circumcision and HIV infection in the developed world. European
nations, which rarely practice circumcision, have very low rates of
HIV. Numerous regions in Africa show higher rates of HIV in
circumcised populations compared to uncircumcised populations. For
example, 2004 data from Lesotho show HIV infection of 15 percent for
uncircumcised males and 23 percent for circumcised males. A 2007 study
showed that, once commercial sex worker patterns were taken into
consideration, circumcision status was irrelevant in HIV infection
rates.

----- End Quote -----


text:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 23:58:56 GMT, "Dr. Lippschitz"
<[email]> wrote:

AIDS is not a sexually transmitted disease.  AIDS is not a virus.


author: No One

text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

Wrong - the time interval between when we had a non-trivial number of
HIV infections in the U.S. and when we discovered that some people had
a natural resistance to HIV was less than the time it takes to (a)
impregnate a woman + (b) wait 9 months + (c) wait until the baby grows
into a sexually active teenager or adult.  Also, the initial
infections were predominantly among gay men, who by and large do not
have sex with women, which makes natural selection singularly
ineffective in this case.

There was no time for natural selection to act: we simply had some
preexisting differences between individuals and found that certain
ones had characteristics that protected them against HIV.

We were talking about selecting *people* for a particular
trait, not viruses or bacteria.

You really are a complete idiot and consistently make a fool
of yourself!  So does your "friend" Dionisio.


text:
On Thu, 29 May 2008 12:32:25 -0700 (PDT), Emerson Wainwright
<[email]> wrote:

Oh yes, my fault for not reading carefully.  You switched the topic
from an HIV vaccine to a cure for flu.

The lack of a cure for flu and the common cold is not evidence that
HIV exists and causes AIDS.


author: Death

subject: Re: Awakening Giant: Chinese researchers urge male circumcison for their nation!

text:
"Emerson Wainwright" <[email]> wrote in message
*AIDS is not "contracted".  It "develops".  After infection with HIV.

Ah yes, the ole DIDS thing.

*The VAST majority of AIDS sufferers are heterosexual.

Only in the cultures that allow MSM as being heterosexual.

*So if YOU are to believed, either these "heterosexual" men are getting

I note that you used the term loosely..............

*fucked in the ass by infected men, or are injecting drugs.

Given those options, lets see where you are going.

*Where the guys in the African bush (as it were) are getting heroin and
needles
*-- well, that's for you to explain to us.

I see you doubt that one, so one reason remains as a posibility given your
options.

*And that would bring us into a different arena of discussion.

Indeed, that is why the term exclusively heterosexual is not used
when Africa, China or India are used as examples


text:
On Jun 3, 11:13 pm, No One <[email]> wrote:

So S + (b) - R * y = You're right?

You stupid motherfucker!

There IS no timeline when we are discussing viruses or bacteria
mutating!

//snip//

Most infections are in heterosexual women.  You are wrong on both
counts.

Cite?

What I said before:  there is not timeline.  If you think there is a
timeline, during which time natural selection may act, we'd love to
see it.


text:
On Jun 3, 11:13 pm, No One <[email]> wrote:

My previous reply was in error.

You are certainly an imbecile.

Natural selection does not apply only to humans who have gestated for
9 months or more.  It applies as well to any other organism that
adapts to or is somehow adapted to its invironment.

That's thy flu shots are given annually.  You DO know about flu shots,
don't you?  Different strains appear yearly...

OMG, and QED.  You are MUCH dumber than I thought.  Truly.


text:
Martin <[email]> writes:

See <http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080402/full/452516a.html> and
many other articles.  "Back to basics" referred to failures in
developing an HIV vaccine.


text:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 18:01:33 +0100, Martin wrote:

Yeah, I know. Anti-circumcision activists have made these claims for
years, on this newsgroup as well as elsewhere, so it really shouldn't
be surprising that they're making the same claims in a published
opinion piece. Nor should it be surprising that they should issue a press
release about their opinion piece.

Ryan McAllister (NOCIRC of Maryland;
http://www.nocirc.org/centers/centers.php), John Travis (Wellness
Associates, affiliated with ICGI;
http://www.icgi.org/ICGI%20Member%20Table.htm), Kent Peterson (listed as
an author of ICGI's position statement;
http://www.icgi.org/Downloads/ICGIPositionPaper.pdf)


author: Avenger

text:
"Martin" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

They why do all the homos have it from arse fucking?


text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

You are a complete and utter idiot.

<rest of this moron's vapid reply snipped - he's just ranting>


text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

No, you are the idiot - we were not talking about the virus evolving
but about people evolving via natural selection, and there just
wasn't enough time for that to occur, not to mention that only a
small fraction of the population was affected when the traits
in question were discovered.

Wainwright / ScottyFLL, you are a fool (and a liar).


text:
On May 30, 1:53 pm, No One <[email]> wrote:

But I didn't introduce a red herring or strawman.  I negated one of
his premises.

LMAO!!!  Negating a premise is NOT a red herring, you twit!  It's part
of the deconstruction of his argument!


text:
On May 30, 3:59 pm, No One <[email]> wrote:

Nope.  Show us.

He said "X is true", and I showed that "X is not true".

I negated a premise that led to a conclusion, which proves his
argument to be fallacious.

That isn't a red herring.


text:
On May 29, 7:26 pm, Martin <[email]> wrote:

No, I was addressing your argument that even after 30 years, this
viral infection cannot be cured or vaccinated against, and that
somehow that makes it not the cause of AIDS.

And I'm saying that 30 years is no time, and gave you two examples of
viral infections that have been around much longer than 30 years, that
still are not curable, and that still are known to be the cause of the
illnesses in question.

Correct.  Now you're following me.

Likewise:  lack of cure for HIV infection is not evidence that HIV
doesn't cause AIDS.


text:
On May 30, 1:01 am, No One <[email]> wrote:

Nope.

Are you really not seeing his red herring, and his application of that
to "HIV causes AIDS"?

His conclusion is "HIV does not cause AIDS".  All of his premises are
meant to lead to that conclusion.  You are very short-sighted if
you're not seeing that.

My mentioning other incurable viral diseases NEGATES HIS PREMISE that
if a viral disease isn't curable or doesn't have a vaccine, and the
viral disease has been around for a "long time" (30 years or more,
according to him), then it is not responsible for the disease.


text:
On 27 May 2008 13:38:32 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

Oh yes, the HIV vaccine: a wonderful example of failed science peddled
by HIVAIDS scientists.  They spent billion of dollars creating an HIV
vaccine that actually increased the recipient's likelihood of
contracting the virus.  Not that I believe any of the mumbo-jumbo.

Doesn't "back to basics" involve re-examining the whole HIVAIDS
theory?  No?  Shame.  Oh well, here's to another 25 years of the
HIVAIDS gravy train.


text:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 19:14:19 +0100, Jake Waskett
<[email]> wrote:

That's odd, because all this nonsense about circumcision being a way
to reduce HIVAIDS transmission is relatively new.  Highlighting flaws
in the studies that promote it (circumcision as a way to reduce
HIVAIDS transmission) is hardly "anti-circumcision."


text:
"Avenger" <[email]> writes:

The real question is whether "Avenger" is dumber than "Martin" given
that both are so completely  of touch with reality.


text:
[Followup-To: misc.health.aids]

On Thu, 22 May 2008 03:03:22 GMT, "Avenger" <[email]>
wrote:

They don't.  You have been misinformed.


text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

Idiot - your "negation" consisted of throwing out a red herring.


text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

ROTFLMAO - I *did* show you and you ignored it, troll.  I'm not going
to waste my time showing it to you again so you can ignore it again.

What you posted was a red herring.


text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

Red herring / strawman from Emerson Wainwright. :-) Now, Martin is an
idiot who seems to think that HIV has nothing to do with AIDS, but
that view of his, idiotic as it is, is independent of the difficulty
of developing a vaccine.  What Martin did do was to take a "back to
basics" comment about vaccine development and try to turn that into
an indictment of research on AIDS and HIV in general, which is just
plain silly.  But it is independent of his other "point" (for lack
of a better word).


text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

Yep, for the reasons I gave.

We were talking about *your* red herring / strawman argument, not his.

ROTFLMOA - why do you think that I called him an idiot?  You came up
with a red herring when you could have simply pointed out what was
wrong with what he actually was saying.


text:
On Jun 5, 12:06 am, Dionisio <[email]> wrote:

LOL!!


author: WindingHighway

text:
On May 31, 12:08�pm, Martin <[email]> wrote:

You are unquestionably the most obtuse, ignorant, and amoral fool ever
to visit these boards.

AIDS and premature death as a result of HIV is not a thing of the
past.   There were over 2 million deaths from the disease in 2007.
The only places where the death rate has declined are countries where
drugs designed to combat HIV are in widespread use.  Here is a graph
showing the facts:

http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol15no1/aideaths.htm

When your own immune system finally starts breaking down, you will no
doubt try at first to fix your problem with garlic, beetroot juice,
yoga, hydroponic massage, or whatever gimmick somebody sells you.
But after your first near-death experience (probably after doctors
yank you back from deaths door with pneumocystis pneumonia, but it
could be something even nastier) you will finally face reality and
take anti-HIV drugs.

At that point, I hope you give a thought to the many people you have
deliberately, contemptuously, deceptively, and callously had unsafe
sex with, as you bragged about in a previous post:

But I doubt if you will give them a thought, because you are a
sociopath.


text:
On May 31, 1:51 pm, WindingHighway <[email]> wrote:

You were too easy on him.
He's probably just trolling, but even then, he is one of the most
contemptuous person's alive. The term "Scum of the Earth" comes to
mind when I think about what he wrote.


author: Christ's Love

text:
On Tue, 27 May 2008 23:20:52 +0100, Martin <[email]>
wrote:

All attempts to make an HIV vaccine will fail. Man can not reverse the
judgement of God.

Always remember: Christ love's you, and so do I! Each and every one of you!


text:
Martin <[email]> writes:

Actually, there were several separate attempts at a vaccine that
failed in clinical trials.  One possibly resulted in a slight apparent
increase in risk of being infected, but the increase might have been a
statistical fluke.  We don't know for sure so they did the responsible
thing and warned people who were in those trials.

Idiot.


text:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 21:02:03 +0100, Martin wrote:

On the contrary, it was first proposed in 1986, and the first
observational study providing supportive evidence emerged in, as I recall,
1988. Since then, there have been more than 40 observational studies, and
the overwhelming majority of these have indicated a protective effect.

What has changed recently is that three randomised controlled trials - the
gold standard of medical research - have been conducted. The first of the
results was published in 2005, and the others followed in 2006.

The resulting body of evidence is beyond compelling. In fact, the World
Health Organisation notes that the efficacy of circumcision is now proven
"beyond reasonable doubt". (See conclusion #1 in
http://www.who.int/entity/hiv/mediacentre/MCrecommendations_en.pdf)

Anti-circumcision is anti-circumcision, unfortunately. Since the
anti-circumcision lobby emerged, they've railed against the evidence of
HIV and other benefits, refusing to acknowledge even the slightest benefit
to circumcision. If a study doesn't support their agenda, it must be
flawed, and they'll work out a plausible-sounding argument later. :) It
seems more a dogmatic than a rational position, and unfortunately it's
quite common: witness those people like Peter Duesberg who adamantly deny
that HIV causes AIDS in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The particular opinion piece we're discussing is a response to this
editorial:

http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/full/10.2217/17469600.2.1.1


text:
[Followup-To: misc.health.aids]

On 21 May 2008 20:25:44 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

Are you referring to your perceived reality that HIV causes AIDS?

In light of the large number of failures in the world of HIVAIDS
science, and calls from within to 'get back to basics' and take a
fresh look at HIVAIDS, I think you'll find your reality soon crumbling
around you.


text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote in message

Another red herring and I doubt the last.


text:
On Sat, 31 May 2008 10:51:05 -0700 (PDT), WindingHighway
<[email]> wrote:

I don't use "boards;" I use Usenet.  I note you're posting from Google
Groups, so you're not starting from a very good position.

Which countries are those?  HIV drugs aren't in wide spread use
anywhere.  It's a fallacy that HIVers in the rich countries of America
and Europe are taking 'life saving HIV drugs.'

When, when, when?  I've got some bad news for you: my last CD4 counts,
taken just over a year ago, were 100 and 97 which is low enough to get
me an AIDS diagnosis elsewhere.  Yet I've never had any symptoms of
HIV infection and lead a very normal life.

I have absolutely no interest in trying 'alternative' therapies, and
don't even take any vitamin pills or other supplements.

I will never take HIV wonder drugs.  My doctors, and others, have
already tried the 'you're going to get ill and die' line on me, but
they were wrong.  It's become a bit of a long running joke now.

It seems that everyone has a label and box for me.  Perhaps you'd like
to give us details about your medical qualifications, or are you
another HIV hanger-on talking out of their arse?


text:
On Sat, 31 May 2008 13:34:39 -0700 (PDT), Husky <[email]>
wrote:

While I remain healthy and alive I'm proof that your belief in HIV is
misplaced.

That's one of the phrases I reserve for racists and homophobes, such
as those who believe HIV causes AIDS.


subject: Re: A male circumcison

text:
On Jun 5, 12:39 am, "Death" <[email]> wrote:

He even learned to spell "idiot"!


text:
On Jun 3, 11:42 pm, No One <[email]> wrote:

LOL

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


text:
On Jun 3, 11:45 pm, No One <[email]> wrote:

Ah, but we were.  We were talking about the virus becoming less
lethal.  Because if the virus kills all its hosts, it can't continue
to infect.

According to whom?  How much time does "survival of the fittest" TAKE,
in your mind?

Only a small fraction of the population was exposed at that point.
And still, only a small fraction of the population is positive for
HIV.

Your point?


subject:
No One confused as to what constitutes a red herring.  What a
	GENIUS!!!  LOL!!

text:
On May 30, 5:37 pm, No One <[email]> wrote:

Incorrect.  You always say that you "showed" us, even when you don't.
You just claimed "Red herring!" and didn't show us exactly what that
red herring is -- because it doesn't exist.

Nope.  Back to Logic 101 with you.

The poster claimed that since HIV, which we've known about for 30
years, has not been cured and no vaccine developed, that it must not
be the cause of AIDS (that's his conclusion).

I showed that other viruses (cold and flu) have been around much
longer, and they are still around and we know them to cause their
respective illnesses.

Therefore, claiming that a virus that has been around for thirty years
and for which no cure or vaccine has been developed is NOT the cause
of the illness attributed to it, is fallacious.  One would have to
believe and prove that cold and influenza viruses do not cause colds
and influenza if one were to believe that.

QED.  (And look up "red herring" if you're having trouble.)


text:
On 27 May 2008 19:10:49 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

Yes, I know there were several vaccines and, of course, they all
failed.  It's not exactly a selling point for HIVAIDS research, is it?


text:
On Tue, 20 May 2008 21:46:57 +0100, Jake Waskett
<[email]> wrote:

That doesn't surprise me.  Just about every sort of quackery
imaginable has been proposed as a treatment or cure for HIVAIDS or a
means to prevent its transmission.

Virginal drenching with lemon juice was another preventative method
put forward, but obviously failed to live up to its promise.

The WHO also believes HIV cause AIDS, which demonstrates their lack of
understand.

Duesberg is correct: HIV does not cause AIDS.

Which begins with "Is male circumcision as good as the HIV vaccine
we've been waiting for?"

An HIV vaccine would be useless, as is circumcision in relation to
HIV.


author: Jack

text:
"Martin" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

You can't even handle your own reality.


author: Dionisio

subject:
Re: Awakening Giant: Chinese researchers urge male circumcison for
  their nation!

text:
No One wrote:

Ah, you call it "idiot." Well, that's nice. Now run along and play tag on the highway or
something, dear.


text:
On 27 May 2008 19:11:26 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

You describe yourself. HIV has been with us for almost 30 years. There
has never been a cure and there will never be a cure. God's judgements
can't be reversed. God sent HIV to punish sin in the hopes that the
homosexuals would repent and turn to Him. Who are you to want to make
them go to Hell?

Always remember: Christ love's you, and so do I! Each and every one of you!


text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

Both Emerson Wainwright/ScottyFLL and his "friend" Dioniso are
lying idiots - worthless trolls.


text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

[everything snipped]

You are an idiot.


subject: Emerson Wainwright trolling (Re: No One confused as to what constitutes a red herring.  What a  GENIUS!!!  LOL!!)

text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

Nope you trolled.

<snip>

Nope ... you are trying to weasel out of it.  Your problem is that
you misrepresented what he had said (which was idiotic anyway).


subject: Re: No One confused as to what constitutes a red herring.  What a  GENIUS!!!  LOL!!

text:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 15:25:34 -0700 (PDT), Emerson Wainwright
<[email]> wrote:

I didn't claim HIV has been known about for 30 years and I didn't say
anything about a cure for HIV.

I have stated many times that I do not believe HIV exists, so it would
be foolish of me to say it's been around for 30 years and whinge about
the lack of a cure for it.

What I actually wrote was this
<[email]>:

----- Begin Quote -----

On Wed, 28 May 2008 18:49:46 -0400, Dionisio
<[email]> wrote:

I didn't say that.

However, it's not as if it's the first time HIVAIDS researchers
haven't got it right.  And they have nothing to show for 25 years of
research and price tag of billions of dollars.

----- End Quote -----


text:
Martin wrote:

So, "If you don't get it right the first time, give up"?

While that might be rather applicable to sky diving, it's not terribly productive for most
other things.


text:
Martin <[email]> writes:

Actually it is a "selling point", particularly since what we learn
about how to develop an effective vaccine in this case might apply to
other viruses as well.


text:
Why don't you admit it, No One. You're a short little fag who can't even get
a female so you turned homo. You probably work as a bookeeper at Walmarts
haha


text:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 07:40:25 -0400, "Jack" <[email]>
wrote:

Which is what?

The reality is that HIV does not cause AIDS.


text:
Christ's Love <[email]> writes:

No, you are the idiot. Polio was a problem for much longer than 30
years and we eventually found a vaccine that could prevent it.  We can
now do a pretty good job of controlling HIV with drugs, although we
can't cure it in a reasonable time (some results show that the drugs
might in fact cure it over time but unfortunately that time is longer
than most individual's lifespan.)

The idea that there will never be a cure completely ignores the
rate of progress in biological research.  There's some hope that
we can turn cells into chemical manufacturing plants by mimicking
what DNA does, allowing us to easily create drugs that would be
far to expensive to manufacture using our current techniques.
If successful, we'll see some enormous progress over the next
30 years or so.


text:
On Wed, 28 May 2008 04:55:12 GMT, Christ's Love
<[email]> wrote:

A man who beats his wife may also use the "It's for your own good"
argument to justify his action.

Hmmm.  I don't consider something that's based on hate, revenge and
punishment to be "love."


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
On Jun 3, 4:07 pm, No One <[email]> wrote:

You've officially lost the argument.


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
On Jun 3, 6:35 am, Martin <[email]> wrote:

Not to worry.  He'll be back to call you an "idiot".


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
On Jun 3, 11:18 am, No One <[email]> wrote:

It's odd... because you have called everyone in this thread an
"idiot"... so... why are you arguing with "idiots"?

There's something very wrong with you.


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
On Jun 3, 1:42 pm, No One <[email]> wrote:

I repeat:  Why are you arguing with "idiots"?


text:
On Wed, 28 May 2008 18:49:46 -0400, Dionisio
<[email]> wrote:

I didn't say that.

However, it's not as if it's the first time HIVAIDS researchers
haven't got it right.  And they have nothing to show for 25 years of
research and price tag of billions of dollars.


text:
On 28 May 2008 08:48:57 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

Talk about always looking on the bright side....


subject:
Re: Awakening Giant: Chinese researchers urge male circumcison for
 their nation!

text:
No One wrote:

Seriously, go play Pin the Tail on the Python or something. Don't got no more crackers for
the parrot.


text:
On 28 May 2008 00:20:06 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

LOL.  ARVs cure HIVAIDS, but patients don't live long enough to prove
it?


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

An idiot trying to declare victory.


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 06:21:53 -0700 (PDT), Emerson Wainwright
<[email]> wrote:

No One's idiot club isn't very exclusive.  Everyone seems to be a
member of it except him.


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

Both of you are idiots, and the reason I'm simply calling you that
is that you are not capable of engaging in anything resembling a
serious discussion about anything.


subject:
Re: Emerson Wainwright trolling (Re: No One confused as to what
	constitutes a red herring. What a GENIUS!!! LOL!!)

text:
On May 30, 7:29 pm, No One <[email]> wrote:

Absolutely not!  I stand by what I say and it applies to his argument,
as it NEGATES HIS PREMISE.

LOL!  You silly loon.  You need premises to draw a conclusion in
logic.  Negating a premise makes the argument fallacious which makes
the conclusion invalid.

Get out of math class and take a course in logic, for Christ's sake!
Jeesh!


text:
Martin wrote:

Not quite true. They've discovered many things that don't work, and they understand the
"why" behind that for several of them.

The span of time from diagnosis to death used to be in the single digits, year-wise. Now
it can span well over a decade.

There's research involving nano particles and PCR that could be the next best thing to
running a vacuum cleaner inside your cells, provided the targets are carefully chosen.
However, that may be good only for the recently infected.


text:
Martin <[email]> writes:

Rather I was being realistic.  Just because an attempt at developing a
vaccine fails doesn't mean we didn't learn anything in the process.


text:
Martin <[email]> writes:

Yep - most cells get replaced over time. HIV can hide out in ones that
are replaced very infrequently.  I saw an article claiming that under
optimal conditions, the current drugs could eliminate HIV from a patient
but the time it would take exceeds a healthy patient's lifespan.  It
was just an interesting factoid.


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

He didn't win anything but you sure did lose creditability.
Naturally you are beyond embarrassment, I mean you take
cock up the asspussy...............
Your imitation of a woman is close but no cigar, shitlips.


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
Martin <[email]> writes:

Idiot - "everyone" seems to be about 4 individuals.  We have
"Death", "Emerson Wrainwright / ScottyFLL", sometimes "RedDog"
although I've been mostly ignoring that troll, and "Dinisio"
(whose know-nothing posts consist of mostly snide remarks).
You might also throw in "Bill Taylor" under his many aliases,
the mindless troll who posts faked data, but he hasn't posted
for a while.

None of you deserve much of a response, and you in particuliar
went on record as being the sort who lies to people about his
HIV status, which is about as low as you can go.  And I'm not
the first person to comment on that.


subject: Re: Emerson Wainwright trolling (Re: No One confused as to what  constitutes a red herring. What a GENIUS!!! LOL!!)

text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

Here's what you dishonestly snipped (part of the same two-lie paragraph):

:: Your problem is that you misrepresented what he had said (which was
:: idiotic anyway).

Idiot! your argument was bogus because you misprepresnted what he
said.

Projection frem a complete and utter idiot without a leg to sand on.


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
On Jun 3, 5:17 pm, No One <[email]> wrote:

You've officially lost the argument.


text:
On Thu, 29 May 2008 20:02:40 -0400, Dionisio
<[email]> wrote:

Why is that?  Why have the periods between HIV diagnosis, AIDS and
death continued to increase since the 1980s?


text:
On 28 May 2008 14:12:47 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

What was learned?

And why are HIVAIDS researchers talking about being "back at square
one" and "going back to basics," rather than pushing forward with the
new knowledge they've accumulated?

<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/is-it-time-to-give-up-the-search-for-an-aids-vaccine-814737.html>,
published 24 April 2008:

----- Begin Quote -----

Most scientists involved in Aids research believe that a vaccine
against HIV is further away than ever and some have admitted that
effective immunisation against the virus may never be possible,
according to an unprecedented poll conducted by The Independent.

A mood of deep pessimism has spread among the international community
of Aids scientists after the failure of a trial of a promising vaccine
at the end of last year. It just was the latest in a series of
setbacks in the 25-year struggle to develop an HIV vaccine.

The Independent's survey of more than 35 leading Aids scientists in
Britain and the United States found that just two were now more
optimistic about the prospects for an HIV vaccine than they were a
year ago; only four said they were more optimistic now than they were
five years ago.

Nearly two thirds believed that an HIV vaccine will not be developed
within the next 10 years and some of them said that it may take at
least 20 more years of research before a vaccine can be used to
protect people either from infection or the onset of Aids.

A substantial minority of the scientists admitted that an HIV vaccine
may never be developed, and even those who believe that one could
appear within the next 10 years added caveats saying that such a
vaccine would be unlikely to work as a truly effective prophylactic
against infection by the virus.

----- End Quote -----


text:
No One wrote:

Hmm... Silly me. I should have said boa constrictor.


text:
On 28 May 2008 08:47:11 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

Too bad ARVs come with a slew of side-effects, including death.

If you're an HIVAIDS believer, I suppose one way to kill the virus is
to kill the patient.  Seems a bit extreme to me, though.


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
On 03 Jun 2008 08:25:20 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

Did I say I lied?

But that's not important.  If I was to say I have HIV I would be
saying something I do not believe is true.

Is saying something I believe not to be true a lie?


subject: (Re: No One , What a GENIUS!!! LOL!!)

text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote in message

LOL, a moron calling someone else an idiot.
Looks like a 3rd grader typed that crap.


text:
Martin <[email]> writes:

Becuase the drugs used to treat it have gotten better over time,
obviously.


text:
Martin wrote:

Probably due to several items:

A) The virus is modifying itself to be more suitable to the survival of the host. After
all, killing the host before the disease can escape is not the best way for the disease to
survive long-term.

B) The hosts most susceptible may have been largely killed off; Meaning more of the
population doesn't succumb so rapidly.

C) Better therapies.

D) Earlier discovery via more sensitive detection techniques and educational efforts.


text:
Martin <[email]> writes:

Read the medical literature.

Because they were talking about vaccine development, not what they
learned about a virus.

Yawn.  This is a newspaper article.  Reporters always exaggerate and
make a difficult problem sound impossible to solve.


text:
Martin <[email]> writes:

Death from side effects is not "under optimal conditions".  Try again.


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Cum drips down your chin and you call me foul mouthed, lol.
Brushing your tooth does not rid the smell of your own shit that
you sucked off a strangers dick.


text:
On 30 May 2008 11:17:45 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

That's a nice theory, but not reflected in reality.

It's well known that HIVers are, shall we say, lax about taking their
life-saving medication.  Much of it ends up down the toilet, shipped
off to Africa or sold on the streets as protection against HIV
infection.

HIV wonder drugs aren't keeping people alive, however life expectancy
for HIVers has increased from months to a normal life-span.


text:
Dionisio <[email]> writes:

Nope ... one reason it spread so fast in the first place is that it
took years between when an infection occurred and when symptoms
appeared.

Also nonsense. See
<http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/factsheets/us_media.htm>.
About 45% of infections are in the MSM catagory (sexual contact between
men), but the straight cases seem to be more prevalent in various
racial/ethnic minorities:

        Among males, most diagnoses were for MSM. Although past
        analyses indicate this is true regardless of race, high-risk
        heterosexual contact also accounts for a considerable
        proportion of new HIV diagnoses among men of minority races/
        ethnicities [3, 4]

The result is that for Whites, the fraction of new HIV cases tend to
be above the national average in the MSM catagory, due to the
hetorsexually transmitted cases being overly present in minority
populations (even for men).

The problem with Dionisio's statement is that it is that there is
little natural selection going on due to gay men being far less likely
to have offspring than straight men, so any selection of less
"susceptable hosts" should be in the minority populations where
heterosexual HIV cases are more prevalent.  Yet, the highest per
capita incidence of HIV infection is among Blacks. Obviously there is
little or no selection going on over the course of the epedemic
(roughly 25 years in duration in the U.S. counting only years
with a significant number of cases).

That one is true.

Not really true since HIV tests became available in the 1980s (so
D is at most a minor effect).  The main effect of more testing is
to reduce the overall infection rate as people react to learning
their status.

While education has helped reduce the infection rate significantly,
it hasn't shortened the time between when someone is infected and
when AIDS symptoms start to appear.

Dionisio's score: 25% - so he gets an F.


text:
On Fri, 30 May 2008 21:38:03 -0400, Dionisio
<[email]> wrote:

That's an interesting theory, and suggests research into HIV
treatments and vaccines is a waste of time and money.  In this
scenario it appears that HIV has, itself, developed into something
quite benign.

Again, another interesting theory.  Do you know why gays were more
susceptible to HIV?

Certainly not.  Adherence to HIV pill popping is poor.

It's estimated that a third of people with HIV are undiagnosed.  And,
apparently, late diagnosis is still commonplace.

There seems to be constant calls for more and better education.  The
message is that education hasn't worked.


text:
On 28 May 2008 16:58:27 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

HIV vaccines don't work, that's what was learned.

Okay, let me rephrase that for you...

And why are HIVAIDS researchers talking about being "back at square
one" and "going back to basics," as far as HIV vaccine development is
concerned, rather than pushing forward with the new knowledge they've
accumulated?

Whereas HIVAIDS researchers publicly paint a rosy picture about HIV
vaccine research while privately having doubts.


text:
No One wrote:

No, I thought about vipers, and cobras, rattlesnakes even... They seemed too merciful.


text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Threat of world Aids pandemic among heterosexuals is over, report admits

A 25-year health campaign was misplaced outside the continent of Africa. But
the disease still kills more than all wars and conflicts

By Jeremy Laurance
Sunday, 8 June 2008

A quarter of a century after the outbreak of Aids, the World Health
Organisation (WHO) has accepted that the threat of a global heterosexual
pandemic has disappeared.

In the first official admission that the universal prevention strategy
promoted by the major Aids organisations may have been misdirected, Kevin de
Cock, the head of the WHO's department of HIV/Aids said there will be no
generalised epidemic of Aids in the heterosexual population outside Africa.

Dr De Cock, an epidemiologist who has spent much of his career leading the
battle against the disease, said understanding of the threat posed by the
virus had changed. Whereas once it was seen as a risk to populations
everywhere, it was now recognised that, outside sub-Saharan Africa, it was
confined to high-risk groups including men who have sex with men, injecting
drug users, and sex workers and their clients.

Dr De Cock said: "It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic
in other countries. Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be
a generalised epidemic in Asia - China was the big worry with its huge
population. That doesn't look likely. But we have to be careful. As an
epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be
small outbreaks in some areas."

In 2006, the Global Fund for HIV, Malaria and Tuberculosis, which provides
20 per cent of all funding for Aids, warned that Russia was on the cusp of a
catastrophe. An estimated 1 per cent of the population was infected, mainly
through injecting drug use, the same level of infection as in South Africa
in 1991 where the prevalence of the infection has since risen to 25 per
cent.

Dr De Cock said: "I think it is unlikely there will be extensive
heterosexual spread in Russia. But clearly there will be some spread."

Aids still kills more adults than all wars and conflicts combined, and is
vastly bigger than current efforts to address it. A joint WHO/UN Aids report
published this month showed that nearly three million people are now
receiving anti-retroviral drugs in the developing world, but this is less
than a third of the estimated 9.7 million people who need them. In all there
were 33 million people living with HIV in 2007, 2.5 million people became
newly infected and 2.1 million died of Aids.

Aids organisations, including the WHO, UN Aids and the Global Fund, have
come under attack for inflating estimates of the number of people infected,
diverting funds from other health needs such as malaria, spending it on the
wrong measures such as abstinence programmes rather than condoms, and
failing to build up health systems.

Dr De Cock labelled these the "four malignant arguments" undermining support
for the global campaign against Aids, which still faced formidable
challenges, despite the receding threat of a generalised epidemic beyond
Africa.

Any revision of the threat was liable to be seized on by those who rejected
HIV as the cause of the disease, or who used the disease as a weapon to
stigmatise high risk groups, he said.

"Aids still remains the leading infectious disease challenge in public
health. It is an acute infection but a chronic disease. It is for the very,
very long haul. People are backing off, saying it is taking care of itself.
It is not."

Critics of the global Aids strategy complain that vast sums are being spent
educating people about the disease who are not at risk, when a far bigger
impact could be achieved by targeting high-risk groups and focusing on
interventions known to work, such as circumcision, which cuts the risk of
infection by 60 per cent, and reducing the number of sexual partners.

There were "elements of truth" in the criticism, Dr De Cock said. "You will
not do much about Aids in London by spending the funds in schools. You need
to go where transmission is occurring. It is true that countries have not
always been good at that."

But he rejected an argument put in The New York Times that only $30m (ï¿½15m)
had been spent on safe water projects, far less than on Aids, despite
knowledge of the risks that contaminated water pose.

"It sounds a good argument. But where is the scandal? That less than a third
of Aids patients are being treated - or that we have never resolved the safe
water scandal?"

One of the danger areas for the Aids strategy was among men who had sex with
men. He said: " We face a bit of a crisis [in this area]. In the
industrialised world transmission of HIV among men who have sex with men is
not declining and in some places has increased.

"In the developing world, it has been neglected. We have only recently
started looking for it and when we look, we find it. And when we examine HIV
rates we find they are high.

"It is astonishing how badly we have done with men who have sex with men. It
is something that is going to have to be discussed much more rigorously."

The biggest puzzle was what had caused heterosexual spread of the disease in
sub-Saharan Africa - with infection rates exceeding 40 per cent of adults in
Swaziland, the worst-affected country - but nowhere else.

"It is the question we are asked most often - why is the situation so bad in
sub-Saharan Africa? It is a combination of factors - more commercial sex
workers, more ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases, a young population
and concurrent sexual partnerships."

"Sexual behaviour is obviously important but it doesn't seem to explain
[all] the differences between populations. Even if the total number of
sexual partners [in sub-Saharan Africa] is no greater than in the UK, there
seems to be a higher frequency of overlapping sexual partnerships creating
sexual networks that, from an epidemiological point of view, are more
efficient at spreading infection."

Low rates of circumcision, which is protective, and high rates of genital
herpes, which causes ulcers on the genitals through which the virus can
enter the body, also contributed to Africa's heterosexual epidemic.

But the factors driving HIV were still not fully understood, he said.

"The impact of HIV is so heterogeneous. In the US , the rate of infection
among men in Washington DC is well over 100 times higher than in North
Dakota, the region with the lowest rate. That is in one country. How do you
explain such differences?"


text:
On 28 May 2008 14:11:22 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

What are "optimal conditions" in relation to ARVs and HIV?


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Now that is Noones idea of an intelligent conversation


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
On 03 Jun 2008 10:43:41 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

Do I get a special idiot badge to wear alongside my pink triangle and
red ribbon?


subject: Re: (Re: No One , What a GENIUS!!! LOL!!)

text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote in message

 yes idiot is the word for you, thanks cunt-butt-boi.


author: David Canzi

text:
In article <[email]>,
Martin  <[email]> wrote:

"I hear there's rumors on the internets." -- George W. Bush

How many HIVers, how lax, how mucn medication discarded or sold?

What level of compliance to drug schedules is required before the
drugs can account for increased life expectancies?  What level of
compliance is actually being achieved?  If you can't give answers
to those two questions and justify them, you can't argue that the
level of compliance is insufficient to account for the increased
life expectancies.

Your innumerate little factoid above reveals no evidence that
you actually know what you're claiming to know.

I've noticed another flaw in your argument, but ...


text:
No One wrote:

Ah, but the lethality is less and takes longer.

Well, amongst the MSM crowd. For that effect to take place in the straight world, well,
that would take a while.

We were talking of the natural selection process of the *disease.* Silly. HIV does not
require human reproduction to be spread, merely humans to be present and stupid.

<pause> Who are you, and what have you done with No One?

Partially valid. Those tests you refer to could take weeks. Nowadays they can take
minutes, the subject doesn't even have to report back; They can have the results before
the bill is fully compiled and handed to the receptionist.

The sensitivity and speed largely negate the "missing test subject" phenomenon; Wherein
the test would be taken, but the subject never shows for the results. And they're cheap
enough that the sums previously spent to cover a paltry number of free tests for at-risk
populations can now cover several times more people for the same cost.

As they said in the '80s, "Like, duh."

Correct. It's lengthened it. (Which, had you been paying attention, was what the original
question was about: The lengthening.)

I'll take the word of an expert over your opinion. Thank you very much.


text:
On 31 May 2008 00:23:38 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

Indeed.  What has?

Don't say HIV wonder drugs: that's not the answer.


text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote in message

pass on the lispings of a cunt-butt-boi.


text:
Martin wrote:

Death is benign? Now there's a fascinating take.

The simple fact is that diseases that kill their hosts too soon tend to kill themselves
off too. Therefore -- and this has been documented many times with a host of other
diseases -- a disease agent which causes quick death is likely to be notable, but limited.
One that takes longer to kill the host tends to survive and spread, thus continuing to be
present.

Diseases tend to attenuate themselves to the host, or said diseases tend to be flashes in
the pan; And then gone.

Actually, as it preferentially attacks the mucus cells of the vagina, it is women who are
more susceptible. However, here in the States, its initial vector was homosexuals. There
is always an initial vector, a "risk group." And the first to experience a disease are --
coincidentally -- the first to be hard hit by it.

In the US, that group was homosexuals. And that gave it the opportunity to spread. After
all, hetero folks didn't feel the need to worry. Big mistake. It doesn't care about one's
sexuality, but rather whether folks have cells to infect.

Compliance with therapy is different from the efficaciousness of said therapy.

This touches upon a previous item, the belief that some folks don't have to worry about
getting HIV because they're not gay, or drug users, or they're sure their partner is
faithful and monogamous. "We won't get it, so we don't have to worry."

Except, now folks are starting to realize that they should have been worried.

It isn't a failure of education, per se. It is a failure to puncture the "I don't have to
worry" perception. By the time folks realize that they *do* have to worry, it's generally
too late. They're infected, they're surprised, they've spread it to others, and *then* the
ol' brain cells start firing.


text:
Martin <[email]> writes:

No, what was learned is that our initial attempts didn't work.

Because they found out what didn't work.  This may surprise you, but
finding out that you were going down a dead end is useful progress.

Conspiracy theory.


text:
On Jun 19, 1:03 am, No One <[email]> wrote:

Irony!

Irony!

Irony!

Irony!

Irony!

Isn't it ironic?


text:
Death wrote:

Sweet mercy...! Thankfully I had just finished my coffee.

Hopefully it's true, and hopefully it doesn't lead to slacking off.


text:
Martin <[email]> writes:

A drug combination that matches a patient's needs well and a patient
who tolerates the drugs well.  I saw a comment to that effect a few
years ago.  If you want to learn a little about it (the biology, not
necessarily a proposed experimental treatment), see
<http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=516449> for
some indication that it may be possible to eliminate an infection plus
in particular reference [7]:

Perelson AS, Kirschner D, de Boer R. Dynamics of HIV infection of CD4+
T cells. Math Biosci. 1993;114:81--125. doi:
10.1016/0025-5564(93)90043-A. [PubMed]


text:
On Sun, 1 Jun 2008 02:37:54 +0000 (UTC), [email]
(David Canzi) wrote:

I base my claim on what I've read and what I've been told by my HIV
consultant and other HIVers.

It's your claim that HIV wonder drugs work.  What evidence do you have
that HIVers take them?

HIV medication is claimed to be "life saving," yet HIVers don't take
it.  Compliance to HIV pill popping is so poor that machines have been
developed to check up on patients to ensure they're taking the drugs.

Oh go on, then.  What's the other flaw?


text:
On 30 May 2008 22:09:53 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

Whether or no the drugs have got better is immaterial.

In the text you snipped I highlighted that it's well known that HIVers
adherence to taking the "life saving medication" is appalling.


text:
On Jun 7, 3:25 pm, No One <[email]> wrote:

LOL!

You've been plonked at a speed that approaches the speed of light.

Because YOU, Ma'am, are the IDIOT.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


text:
Dionisio <[email]> writes:

Due to the drugs used to treat it, not because the virus has
been modifying itself to be less lethal.

Nope, you got that wrong too - what you are missing is that men are
the most sexually active, with the largest numbers of partners, when
they are in their late teens and early twenties. That population is
continually being replaced, and their straight parents are typically
at low risk, so there is no way for the "most susceptible" hosts to
be "largely killed off" in the time frame you need.

No, moron, you talked about "susceptible hosts" and that was what I
was commenting on - you made multiple statements and the ones about
natural selection of the virus were shot down previously.

Now you are trying to change the subject, following your normal
dishonest tactic of pretending that you were saying something else
when I replied (see below).

How dishonest - you were answering a statement that "The span of time
from diagnosis to death used to be in the single digits,
year-wise. Now it can span well over a decade."  Your claim was that
people seemed to be living longer because we were finding the infections
earlier.  It's silly.  People are living longer because of the drugs,
not because of an artifact of the tests.

No, it isn't lengthing it - what is lengthening it is the use of
drugs to treat the disease (i.e., to manage it since we can't yet
cure it).

You are no expert and you certainly didn't cite one, so that is yet
another of your dishonest statements.

And you wonder why I think you are an idiot.


text:
"Dionisio" <[email]> wrote in message

That's good, I like that message.


text:
"Martin" <[email]> wrote in message

The time between HIV and AIDS depends on the Type of OI
and the Time to be infected by the OI you ignorant cunt-butt-boi.

Martin it has to be all those educational pamplets.
faggots must have taken the advice of straights and shoved
them up their ass.
A dick blocker to be sure, lol.


text:
Martin <[email]> writes:

The currently available drugs are the answer to that question, and
hopefully we will have better ones to use in the future.


text:
Death wrote:

Ya know, it might be a good idea to stop giving out those passes. Eventually he's gonna
want to cash them in.


text:
On Sat, 31 May 2008 19:58:08 -0400, Dionisio
<[email]> wrote:

Your words, not mine.

As I said, it's an interesting theory.  Oddly, though, not one that
seems to have been taken up by HIV science.  And, it appears to
question the effectiveness of HIV drugs.

The argument put forward by the HIVAIDS community is that life
expectancy of HIVers has increased to almost that of a normal
life-span thanks to the HIV wonder drugs.

What about, so-called, HIV in Africa.  Has the virus lost the will to
kill there too?

Hmmm, really?

According to <http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm> there were 17,465 MSM
HIV infections diagnosed in the US in 2006, out of a total of 35,180
diagnosed infections that year.

So, even though you say "it is women who are more susceptible," almost
half of newly diagnosed HIV infections in the US in 2006 were MSM.
These raw figures don't seem to agree with your theory.  If we then
consider that MSM is not the norm, and is a minority activity, your
whole argument falls apart.

It should be noted that these figures cover 33 of the 50 US states.
The figures for the other 17 seem to be pretty insignificant.

That's nonsense.  HIV is a disease of gays and black.  Despite making
up the majority of the population, white heterosexuals don't need to
worry about HIV.

Can drugs be effective if people don't take them?

And I've already answered this point.


author: Lippschitz

text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Why not just stop the homo ass fucking then they'll be no AIDS. Men cannot
contract AIDS from a female.


text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

Complete and utter idiot, coupled with incorrect word usage.


subject: Re: Awaken

text:
"Emerson Wainwright" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
On Jun 19, 1:03 am, No One <[email]> wrote:

Irony!

Irony!

Irony!

Irony!

Irony!

Isn't it ironic?

`````````````````````````````
What's funny is, that he refuses to see it that way


text:
"Dionisio" <[email]>
http://boortz.com/more/commencement.html


text:
On 28 May 2008 14:59:12 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

That's another theory out the window, then.

The idea of HIVers (people diagnosed HIV+) tolerating and sticking to
HIV drug regimes is a fallacy.

Most, if not all, HIVers find the side-effects of the drugs so
horrendous (a term used by my previous HIV consultant) they don't take
them as prescribed.

Thanks to HIV wonder drugs the 'virus' is considered a chronic
condition nowadays.  However, the reality is that few--if any--HIVers
stick to their treatment plan.  My HIV consultant, Internet research,
and personal contact with other HIVers leads me to the conclusion that
HIV drugs don't work, and evidence they do is based on the flawed
assumption that HIVers actually take the drugs.

The notion that ARVs will "cure" HIV given an infinite amount of time
and perfect conditions is laughable.


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote

Please don't help me shitlips.
Your help is not needed or wanted.


subject: Re: Awakening

text:
"Martin" <[email]> wrote

A trip down memory-lane to the year 2002

"Death"<[email]>wrote in message

WebMD Medical NewsJuly 8, 2002 --
A growing number of people are being infected with a form of HIV that is
resistant to treatment with available medications. A new study shows one in
four San Franciscans recently infected with HIV have a drug-resistant strain
of the virus, which makes it more difficult to control and speeds the
development of full-blown AIDS.

Researchers say the finding raises concerns about the effectiveness of HIV
drugs and reveals an urgent need to develop new classes of drugs to treat
people infected with the virus.

The study, which appears in the July 10 issue of The Journal of the American
Medical Association, found 27.4% of newly infected patients from the San
Francisco area had a form of HIV that was resistant to at least one of the
three major classes of drugs used to treat HIV in 2000-2001.

Researchers say the emergence of drug-resistant HIV may be especially
troublesome in areas where HIV drugs are widely used, such San Francisco,
New York City, and other American or European cities.

For the study, researchers screened 225 newly infected and untreated
patients from June 1996 to June 2001 and tested them for drug resistance.

The most dramatic finding was an increase in the number of people with virus
resistant to a common type of HIV drug known as NNRTIs (non-nucleoside
reverse transcriptase inhibitors) -- which includes Rescriptor, Sustiva, and
Viramune. In 1996-97, none of the patients were resistant to these potent
drugs, but by 2000-01, 13% of the patients were infected with
NNRTI-resistant virus.

The number of patients infected with a strain of HIV that was resistant to
another class of popular HIV drugs called protease inhibitors also increased
from 2.5% in 1996-97 to 7.7% in 2000-01. These drugs include Crixivan,
Fortovase, Invirase, Kaletra, Norvir, and Viracept.

The effectiveness of the two most potent classes of HIV drugs is being
offset by transmission of viruses resistant to them, says researcher Robert
Grant, MD, MPH, in a news release. He is assistant investigator at the
Gladstone Institute of Virology and Immunology in San Francisco.

Resistance to a third class of drugs, called nucleoside reverse
transcriptase inhibitors, which includes the first HIV drug AZT, decreased
from 25% to 21% during the same time period.

Researchers say resistance to more than one type of drug was rare, but
increased from 2.5% of patients in 1996-97 to 13% in 2000-01.

"This is an area where our data are not yet clear," says Grant. "The good
news is that we found only one person out of more than 200 who was infected
with a virus that was resistant to all three classes of drugs."

The study also found that drug resistance can be used to predict how long it
will take for drugs to control HIV with medications. People infected with
resistant strains of the virus take longer to get their viral loads under
control when taking the standard combination of antiretroviral drugs.

In an editorial that accompanies the study, Joel D. Trachtenberg, MD, and
Merle A. Sande, MD, of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, say the
findings highlight the need to develop new classes of drugs to treat HIV
that are inexpensive and easy to produce.

"The challenges for the medical and research community are to establish
strategies to treat HIV in the individual patient and to maintain potent HIV
drugs as viable treatment options," they write.

http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20020711/drug-resistant-hiv-spreading


text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

Emerson Wainwright is a mindless troll with a long-standing grudge.
He has zero credibility.

A "plonk" from him would of course not bother me one bit, but we
know he'd never do it because he wants attention - and even single
word responses seem to suffice.


text:
No One wrote:

Hmm... Adding some more padding to your resume? Viral biologist now are ya?

LOL! Even when the time frame is "a while"? Who knew it could be so sharply defined?

Oh, and I loved the "continually being replaced." By whom? Immortal parents?

Being shot down isn't so terrible a thing when the weapon is made by Nerf...

Oh, please.

And what is an "artifact of the tests"? Could it be... Oh, I dunno, treatment?

Oh. My. Friggin'. God!


text:
"Death" <[email]> writes:

... which doesn't change the fact that Dionisio tried to rewrite history.


text:
On Sat, 31 May 2008 10:12:20 -0500, "Death" <[email]>
wrote:

The pamphlets have been a disaster.  Anyone who's been to a gay bar,
club or other event will be aware of all paper that's wasted on
getting the HIV message across.

Has it worked?  No.  HIV do-gooders are constantly asking for more
resources to be put into HIV education.

AIDS and premature death as a result of, so called, HIV infection is a
thing of the past.  Why?  Because HIV does not cause AIDS; it was a
fairy story created by gays to explain why their behaviour made them
ill.


text:
"Death" <[email]> writes:

Infantile idiot.

<rest of this moron's hate filled garbage snipped>


text:
On 31 May 2008 13:50:53 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

It's a myth that HIV wonder drugs are keeping HIVers alive.

It is true that the drugs are being prescribed, but (probably) the
majority of them aren't being taken as prescribed.

Press reports, blog entries, discussions with my HIV doctor, personal
chats with other HIVers and messages posted to HIVAIDS mailing lists
all indicate that a large proportion, probably most, of HIV wonder
drugs are not taken as prescribed.


text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Well that explains your poor use of the English language


text:
"Lippschitz" <[email]> writes:

Which is why AIDS is primarily a heterosexual problem world wide?

This may surprise you, but men *can* be infected with HIV by having
sex with a woman.  Look at the CDC data on it.


subject:
No One:  "I don't know what 'irony' means  [was: Re: Awakening Giant:
	Chinese researchers urge male circumcison for their nation!

text:
On Jun 19, 3:16 pm, No One <[email]> wrote:

Are you telling us that you don't understand what the word "irony"
means?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


text:
Death wrote:

And to think that this inspired it...

Anyone can be a Playboy and have a Penthouse, but it takes a real man to be a Hustler
--Larry Flynt, July, 1974

Well, it's not bad, for the most part. Didn't agree with the part about those on welfare
not voting. Voting is sacrosanct. (Would that more folks would do it, but that's another
discussion.) Remove a person's voice, and you do not have an individual: You have a
powerless servant at best, a slave at worst. Americans -- and humans in general -- should
be neither.

He got the envy thing dead on. As someone once said, politicians seek the money of the
rich, and the votes of the poor whilst saying that they seek to protect both from the other.

But there does need to be an addressing of greed. Should success be rewarded? Yes. But how
much? Take Exxon, for instance. The compensation of the "head honchos" *should* be more
than that of the peons. But *that* much? The cashiers risk their lives. And their
earnings? The folks responsible for overseeing the collection of the largest corporate
profits in History, can't afford to work for their own company.

Exploitation is exploitation.

Sure, they can get out and take another job. And that's the flaw. I see choices, I see
personal responsibility even in that piece. But compassion? Where was that? Moral
responsibility? If they were taking the moral choice to give back to those who have
contributed to their success, would so many Exxon employees leave as soon as they can?
Would they have to work two jobs, all the while knowing that one of the most successful
companies in the world doesn't really -- and doesn't literally -- value them?

Most of their employees can't even afford to invest in their own company's stock for
pity's sake! They'd love to, I'm sure.

What I'd like to see is legislation that basically says, "If you compensate your employees
at no less then X percent of your highest-paid person's salary, you will pay a flat tax
rate of Y percent. If you pay them more than X, Y will be lowered commensurately. But if
the difference between pay scales is more than Z, you will pay a "greed tax." (They made a
choice to be greedy, yes?)

X, Y, and Z should be subject to stringent and -- ideally -- spirited conversations.

Thoughts?

And for the record, I worked at such a place. A Honda supplier. I was in HR, and I had the
President's salary at my fingertips. Literally. And I didn't mind. We succeeded, and we
were rewarded. We failed to succeed, and we made less. At my best year there, my salary
wasn't even a two-digit multiple of theirs. (The Japanese have a habit of cycling through
Presidents every 3 to 5 years.) And I knew he earned it. They were *always* there before I
came in, 'cause I worked second shift. And here's the part I admired: It wasn't uncommon
for them to leave after 8:00 pm. Sometimes I would leave and they'd still be going at it.

Even though they did make much more than me, I didn't envy them. They literally earned it,
and they took care of us. Example: Health care? $3. Three dollars per *month.* There are
places where one can spend that much for their health care in just a fraction of a day.

But, I got fed up with one aspect of their culture. They just didn't get America. In
Japan, one does not get fired: One quits. They operated under that auspice. Four of them
almost brought the company to bankruptcy, twice! In six years. When I saw the numbers
heading south a third time, that was it. It shocked the President.

And that was something else I liked: Access to the President, and at any time that was
convenient. They all cared. They all listened, and they also went directly onto the
factory floor and *asked* the employees how they felt, what they wished could be improved,
where they were planning on going on vacation... But they couldn't get that some folks
should be fired. It was very frustrating.

Crash a forklift into a support pylon and fail a drug test? Yeah, we fired a couple folks
for that. Smash an engine mount bracket into a coworker's face 'cause they said you were
lazy? Yep. That one got fired. But bring the company to its knees by signing off on a
contract to sell parts for less than the materials required to make it? That was a
"learning opportunity."

And that is the *only* job I've ever had where I sometimes wish I'd given them another
chance. (On the up side, it was amusing to see my boss, his boss, and a coworker -- all
devout Catholics who made little secret of their disapproval of what they imagined my
"lifestyle" was -- get sacked three months after my concern over the numbers lead me to
leave. Icing on the cake. They saw the reports, they saw the numbers, all of them had seen
the pattern twice before. And then the plant production manager -- a good friend -- came
to me one day: "Did you hear? They just laid off 40% of the office staff, and all of the
temporaries!" It was nice to see the company take a baby step; For two of those who should
have been terminated ages ago were among those let go, not fired but at least out.)

Fortunately, I landed another job with a similar open culture. And my former employer
righted itself and is still in business. I hope the lesson sticks.

<steps down from soapbox>


text:
Martin <[email]> writes:

... not really.

<http://www.thewellproject.org/en_US/Treatment_and_Trials/Things_to_Consider/Side_Effects.jsp>:

        While all the HIV drugs can cause side effects, not everyone
        will experience the same effect to the same extent.

... what is really laughable is you.


author: generation

text:
On Jun 9, 12:36 am, Dionisio <[email]> wrote:

unfortunately，I am a chinese , u don't know  how terrible about
chinese gov 。


text:
Dionisio <[email]> writes:

Idiot.  If you want to claim that, then show us how HIV has become
less lethal in African countries where people can't afford anti-viral
drugs.  Without the drugs complicating the picture, the effect you
claimed should stand out like a sore thumb.

<http://ib.berkeley.edu/labs/slatkin/monty/Schliekelman_et_al2001.pdf>
suggests that in some African countries, natural selection may result
in a population more resistant to HIV, but there is no claim that the
virus is becoming any less lethal.

No, moron, by mortal parents (each person has only two).  Are you really
that stupid?

.... you still have not justified your statement.

As I said, you tried to morph the topic being discussed rather than
admit that you made a stupid statment.

No moron, people are living longer because the drugs are doing some
good, not because the infections occurred earlier than we thought.


text:
"Dionisio" <[email]> wrote in message
news:48449043$0$3393$[email]...

Stating the obvious is an aroma to be savored.
There is an old saying.....pearls before the swine
or in this case..........Noone.


text:
Martin wrote:

Oh please...

If behavior were the cause of AIDS, then AIDS would have been noted in the Old Testament
and beyond.


text:
Martin <[email]> writes:

Nope - the current drugs (nobody calls them "wonder drugs") are
keeping people alive.  Hopefully we'll get better ones over time -
ones that are more effective and that have fewer side effects.


author: Teejay

text:
No One wrote:

Westerners are pretty monogamous, apart from male homosexuals. In the
other parts of the world such as in Africa heterosexual people sleep
with many more partners than they do in the West. HIV/AIDS is only
really a problem for male homosexuals and drug users in the west, it is
extremely rare outside those groups.


subject: Emerson Wrainwright trolls (Re: No One:  [forged quote snipped])

text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

Complete and utter idiot.


text:
"Dionisio" <[email]> wrote in message

Welfare was not intended to raise 5 generations of the professional
un-employed.
A voice (vote) is like anything else, you earn it.

Take Exxon ( I don't buy their gas anyway) for an example. They are making
perhaps 4 cents
a gallon of gas. Wait, before you faint, they sell millions of gallons so
that is a tidy amount.
How many hundreds of thousands of paychecks does Exxon write each week?
How many pair of boots, pants, shirts, tools, and meals are bought by those
checks?
How many homes, cars, boats or 4wheelers?

Now lets take you as another example........you hire how many hundreds of
thousands?
If you did, would you expect a piece of the pie?

A company has to make money, my company has to make money
or I'm just beating my meat, no pun intended from an undertaker.

I worked for Esso, um, Exxon, almost 40 years ago to get my MBA from Tulane
in New Orleans.
I quit em, but that was always the plan, use em then fuck em. As I said, I
don't buy
their gas

Stocks are an option, I declined, others didn't and boy did that pay off !


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

quit whining cuntboi


text:
On Jun 7, 5:28 pm, No One <[email]> wrote:

Incorrect, Madame!

Incorrect, Madame!

Incorrect, Madame!

Google Groups does not currently allow "plonks".

Projection at its most evident.

Reason I respond to you:  Because it's fun putting you in your place.

Period.

Your "single-word responses" (notice the hypen) are usually in the
form:  "Idiot."

Which makes you the Ad Hom Queen of the Century!


text:
No One wrote:

And there's your oral fixation kicking in... Really, my dear fellow, what is it with you
wanting to put things into my mouth? Hmm...?

What I said was in answer to a question asking for speculation on why things might be.
They were not iron-clad, clinically tested to fifteen decimal places, or otherwise
guaranteed. Our resident bug-giver wanted some possibilities. I gave him some. Nothing
more nor less.

Now, as for the sore thumb and things standing out... Well there have been many documented
cases of folks living asymptotically for well past the time when others have passed on.
Curiously, they tend to be of African descent; The place where the silly thing jumped to
our species. Hmm...

And then there's the whole chicken and the egg thing; Did the HIV mutate to be better
spread, or did the immune systems develop better strategies? Folks have been studying that
for quite some time, and a definitive answer still has as yet to grace us. It could be
one, it could be the other, it could be a little of both, or it could just be chance.

Deal with it.

Well, probably not in that study. The convergence of host and virus is well known though.
Indeed, there are dozens of places in our own genome where the arrangement went positively
synergistic. Take your teeth for instance. The code that controls them isn't exactly
human; but it was integrated and the genes have flourished.

Another example of host and virus that didn't turn out too well was the pandemic of --
what was it -- 1913? It triggered such an insane response that the victims died from their
own immune system's attacks. And it was generally the prime-of-life folks who departed in
that fashion, those not in the prime of their lives tended to live. Why? The healthiest
immune systems flooded the lungs with so many T cells that there weren't enough places for
the oxygen to get to for absorption and distribution. The elderly and the youngsters
without such aggressive defensive systems tended to survive. The dead became so because
they were too healthy. How's that for irony?

When my second stimulus check comes, I'll renew my subscription to a certain database and
point you to the particulars of the study. Should be just another couple weeks. Let me
know if you're interested.

Well, let's walk through this... The parents have children. Said children -- as well as
the parents -- age. The kiddies die. The parents will now be over a decade older. Are they
in the prime of their breeding years? *Can* they even breed? Are they even still together?
Perhaps they even had the temerity to die, or become infected themselves; How rude!

*Those* parents?

To you? That's like justifying water to fish.

Ah. Someone unaware that conversation tends to be fluid. I'd act surprised, but I suspect
even you could see through that.

Maybe.

My. My. And to think that you had the temerity to call someone else stupid...

They're living longer because the disease is detected sooner, and thus treatment begins
faster.

Duh.


text:
On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:03:32 -0400, Dionisio
<[email]> wrote:

I wasn't referring to being gay itself, but things that gays were
doing throughout the 1970s which caused them to become ill.

I don't believe the God myth either and couldn't care less about
what's in the fairytale books of the Old Testament.


text:
On 31 May 2008 16:32:11 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

"Nobody?"  I, jokingly, do.

If you choose to believe that flushing pills down the toilet is
keeping HIVers alive that's up to you.  To me it simply demonstrates
how cuckoo HIV theory is.


text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

yes you have explained your reason already


text:
Teejay <[email]> writes:

What planet did you say you live on?


text:
Teejay wrote:

<LOL!>

Proved by the 50% divorce rate no doubt.


text:
Death wrote:

True. And that has finally been reformed in some places. Take Ohio for instance -- simply
because it is where I live and thus am the most familiar with. You go on the dole, and
you're told right up front that it will last just so long.

There are exceptions made for those who have legitimate chronic conditions that limit
them, and that is subject to review at various spans of time. I think it strikes a fair,
somewhat generous, balance. There's still scamming of the system, of course, but it's
vastly less.

No, a vote is *not* earned. Now we might quibble over whether it should be taken
seriously... And that's a good thing.

Now when did you do that math? 1920?

We know the cost to find the crude. We know the cost to suck it from the depths. We know
the cost to refine it to all the various grades. We know the transportation cost. The
first few have been quite stable. The second has fluctuated with the cost of transport,
due to the gas being transported via diesel. We also know that there's a markup.

I think you're talking about the amount the stations are allowed to keep.

Dear fellow, you can't buy a home for what they are paid. (And if you can, the lender is
unscrupulous.)

Cars? Now here's an easy exercise: Employees are to park in certain areas. Look at what is
parked in those areas. And before you go off an a tangent like "You expect them to drive
new limos and Ferraris?" I'll puncture that right off. No I don't.

What I'll say is quite simple: There's something wrong with a company that makes world
record profits, AND is so stingy that their own workers can't afford the very commodity
they sell. (Ask them.)

Of course. Would I be so blinded by my success that I'd treat that pie as more precious
than those who helped me make it? If it weren't for them, would there even *be* a pie? The
answer, of course, is "No."

When the modus operandi is "screw 'em, 'cause we can" there's something wrong. The Bureau
of Labor Statistics keeps track of many things. One of them is turnover. It is far less
costly to keep an employee than it is to find a new one. And Exxon finds new one, after
new one, after new one... They just don't care. They can afford to. (Big clue there.)

Hmm... Pointed question: If you were in the same place now as you were then, would you
fill out an application?

An option! <LOL!> Well, what needs asked now is "Why did you decline?"


text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

Back to calling guys "madam", are we?

Liar - you are "responding" because you are a mindless troll with a
grudge, just as I said above.  In fact, you just sort of admitted to
having a grudge or at least some sort of obsession.

Lying idiot.

Also, You might note that I'm only calling you and idiot when you
post personal attacks, ones that truly are idiotic.


text:
Dionisio <[email]> writes:

You really are an idiot - incapable of holding a civil discussion.

ROTFLMAO. You claim the virus might be evolving to be "less lethal"
(your words) when the evidence is that it was first passed to humans
around 1930 with a 15 year margin of error and spread ever since
(<http://www.avert.org/origins.htm>).  It has had over 60 years to
evolve into your "less lethal" form and quite obviuosly hasn't given
that it is nearly always fatal.

It was a silly response on your part.

... because some *people* are resistant to it (the possibility you
completely missed) due to not having the right type of receptors
on the cells that HIV normally infects.  Some Europeans are very
resistant to it too - probably the result of an adaptation to some
past epidemic that had a major impact in Europe in the distant past.

Nope, you are simply wrong.  There were simply preexisting variations
in immune systems.  That's why we discovered that some people whose
ancestors were from Eastern Europe are highly resistant (and we now
know what the trait is that explains it).  There wasn't time for
natural selection to act due to how fast the virus initially spread in
Western countries.

.... which you probably didn't ridad since they showed that you had
to wipe out a large fraction of the population to get a strong
natural selection effect.

<rest of attempt to justify a lousy argument snipped>.


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 20:53:31 -0500, "Death" <[email]> wrote:

I must admit that I'm finding 'No One's' argument a bit confusing.

I've previously highlighted how the projected life-span of HIVers has
increased from just a few months, back in the 1980s, to almost that of
non-HIVers.

'No One' labeled me as an idiot when I suggested this remarkable
development couldn't be attributed to HIV wonder drugs.  Now he
appears to agree with my point, but then backtracks.


text:
"Death" <[email]> writes:

YOu are still an idiot.


text:
"Dionisio" <[email]> wrote in message

Stocks were a long term option.
That job was only an ends to another means.

Had I gone to Michigan State I proberly would have worked
in a Ford plant.......or a coal-mine in Virginia..........

The Demo-rats sure have let prices get out of control


text:
On Jun 7, 7:21 pm, No One <[email]> wrote:

Liar.


text:
No One wrote:

And what precisely would you know of civil, "idiot"? ;-P

Wait a minute... a few posts ago you were saying that evolution was about humans, not the
virus. Can you make up your mind?

It's amusing to note that you can cite a site that clearly states that the 1930 number is
an estimate -- earliest documented evidence is 1959 -- and then use that to inflate the
time span. And the really funny thing is that you seem to want to ignore the various
strains, their appearances, and their mean time to causing death.

And the absolutely hilarious thing is that now you claim that -- when looking at the whole
of the disease's life -- you don't see evolution happening; All the while presenting us
with a web site that shows -- and documents -- just that...

Oops.

Thanks for the giggle.


text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote in message

You are an idiot and a liar to boot.
HIV is not a killer.

Yes, yes, idiots/liars like you will come back and change the description
to HIV/AIDS as if a hawk is a hand-saw.


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
Martin <[email]> writes:

The idiot Martin apparently can't read (or is being dishonest since he
snipped Dionisio's silly idea that the virus might have been evolving
to become "less lethal" in spite of the high death rate in areas where
they cannot afford drugs).


text:
On 31 May 2008 17:28:24 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

Says "No One?" LOL

I'm a "nobody" who has been diagnosed with the virus you and others
are discussing here.  Don't you think that makes my input important?


subject: Re: Awake searchers

text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

and you still have not produced a lie you claim I told
so it would seem it is you madam that is the liar and idiot.


text:
Teejay <[email]> writes:

Anyone who thinks Westerners are "pretty monogamous" must also believe
in the tooth fairy.


text:
Death wrote:

Oh please... Did a Democratic President decide to let the dollar slip? Or was it a
Republican President with a limited term left and oil ties?

It sure helped our exports, they made it to record levels. But the "attack" on the trade
deficit backfired. Oil is traded in dollars. The trade gap widened considerably and wiped
out *all* the export gains, and then some.

But, he's an "oil man," so he wouldn't know about that.


subject: Re: Emerson Wrainwright trolls (Re: No One: [forged quote snipped])

text:
On Jun 20, 9:11 pm, RedDog <[email]> wrote:

He has no credibility at all!  Yet he keeps defending himself!  And
can't seem to stop responding to those of us he calls "idiots"  (No
One's definition:  an IDIOT is a person who disagrees with No One).

I'm thinking OCD, plus he probably needs to get some sun and clip his
fingernails.


text:
On Jun 22, 3:02 am, No One <[email]> wrote:

Are you ACTUALLY ADMITTING to us -- finally! -- that you learned
nothing in high school??????

Guess who THAT surprises:  no one!


text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

Projection.


text:
Dionisio <[email]> writes:

A hell of a lot more than a lying troll like you does.

(Dionisio means that he gave the bug-giver bogus information that
Dionisio made up so the bug-giver owuld have even more excuses to
continue his behavior.)

Well, that's an example of your dissembling - someone (you or
ScottyFLL) had also brought up natural selection (of the human
population) and I had pointed out that it doesn't work here because
the time frame was too short and because of some demographic factors
related to the age of the most sexually active population and the fact
that initially in the U.S. it was mostly gays who were impacted.

I had *also* pointed out that the virus had not become "less lethal"
(your term) in Africa where you didn't have the additional factor
of anti-viral drugs due to hardly anyone being able to afford those.

*You* claimed something about the virus evolving to become "less lethal".
Perhaps you'd care to describe this "less lethal" strain - one were
people live to a ripe old age in spite of it and with no treatment.

Thanks for proving yourself to be a fool - what changes rapidly is the
protein coating, not the virus's mechanism - that's why it is hard to
develop vaccines and and hard for an immune response to kill the thing
off.

You really know nothing - you just posture.

Now, the fact is that the reason people who are infected are living
longer now is the anti-viral drugs.  Why don't you just admit that?
If you want to claim otherwise, produce one research paper that shows
that the virus is evolving into a non-lethal strain becuase it is
killing off its hosts too fast.  It *never* did that during the time
frame over which we had any experience with it - otherwise the virus
wouldn't have spread so quickly without being detected.  If you want
to claim otherwise, find a legitimate research paper that shows what
you said.


text:
"Death" <[email]> writes:

Bald-faced lying idiot.


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
On 03 Jun 2008 08:17:08 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

Nope.  I didn't snip anything Dionisio wrote; you can blame Death (who
seems to be as confused about your position as the rest of us) for
that

Your problem is that you don't have a coherent argument, so end up
shouting abuse at people when you find yourself cornered by your
flawed theories.


text:
Martin <[email]> writes:

Yep  -  you are a nobody.

Nope - not regarding medical questions as you have no expertise.
Furthermore, you went on record as saying you'd lie to sex partners
about your HIV status, didn't you?  That along is enough to discredit
someone.


subject: Re: Awake searchers

text:
"Death" <[email]> writes:

Idiot - and you've been caught lying many times and always deny it.


text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

Bald-faced lying trolling idiot.


text:
Emerson Wainwright <[email]> writes:

Bald-faced lying idiot.


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

go ahead and whine little-girl-wannabe, you amuse me.


text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Oh goodie, a movie.


text:
No One wrote:

Well, if you'd be so kind as to give warning before putting that knowledge to use, it
would be appreciated. I'm afraid that -- without a warning -- the shock of seeing you
exercise that skill might be enough to induce spontaneous heart attacks or severe seizures
in some of the reading audience.

I'd whip out a calculator and a whiteboard to show you the precise calculation that would
prove my contention, but things like that seem to be someone else's bailiwick...

Far be it from me to infringe on their domain.

<dry>
As usual, your factual analysis is impeccable.
</dry>

So, the virus doesn't evolve? At rates that humans couldn't match if they lived for 500
years for each day that the virus lived? Really?

Sorry, but evolution applies spectacularly well to something that multiplies at rates that
make the proverbial rabbits look like comatose slackers.

Now there I'll concede that it could have perhaps have been better stated that, "while
ultimately lethal, the duration between infection and death has been notably extended."
(And in nations where the availability of drugs to combat it are notoriously hard to come
by, no less.)

Oops.

LOL! "The virus doesn't change, it just changes how it hides itself..."

But that's not a change of the virus's mechanism, it's just the mechanism that the virus
uses to hide itself...

You should run for office.

(There ya be. An example of civility. Again, please warn us before you try it.)


text:
On 04 Jun 2008 17:59:17 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

You misunderstand natural selection.

Natural selection isn't solely about the reproductive process; it's
also about getting to that stage.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Types_of_selection>:

----- Begin Quote -----

Natural selection occurs at every life stage of an individual. An
individual organism must survive until adulthood before it can
reproduce, and selection of those that reach this stage is called
viability selection.

----- End Quote -----

So, the early death of those with a second-rate immune system is part
of natural selection.

Oh, and you seem to be going against the message from gay HIVAIDS
campaigners when you mention that "...initially in the U.S. it was
mostly gays who were impacted."

However, in reality, that was and still is true.  Despite making up a
minority of the population (estimated to be around a tenth), gays make
up about 50% of new HIV cases.  The only way it can be argued that HIV
has had any impact on heterosexuals is to give the, so called, virus
to blacks.

HIV is, on the whole, a disease of gays and blacks.


text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Once again I extend to you a special invitation
to point out the lie.


subject: Re: circumcison for their notion!

text:
"Martin" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Dionisio was removed from this post for obvious reasons:
to high-light quotes from a single poster flipping and flopping like
a worm on the side-walk in July.

less lethal was not my target, drugs was the landscape.

to remove confusion, which was wasted I see.

so naturally, I am dis-honest for my attempt to stay with one topic
by one poster, lol.


text:
"No One" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

That little tid-bit hasn't slowed down dr noone.
He pushes those wonder drugs as if they were candy.

He seems to forget half of the wonder drugs are placebos
so any number he used is bogus at best. Perhaps the fool
just didn't know. Idiot.


text:
On 31 May 2008 19:39:33 -0700, No One <[email]>
wrote:

I don't believe HIV causes AIDS, I don't believe a, so called, HIV
antibody test is a test for HIV, and I don't believe HIV exists.

So, for me to say I don't have HIV isn't a lie.


subject: Re: A male circumcison

text:
"Dionisio" <[email]> wrote in message

LOL


text:
Dionisio <[email]> writes:

Dionisio is trying to cover up his stupidity - he made a fool of
himself and is trying to get out of it.

<rest of this moron's post snipped out of boredom.>


text:
Martin <[email]> writes:

Wrong - not in this case. The problem is that it can take years for a
person to develop AIDS symptoms after becoming HIV+, people are the
most sexually active with the most sex partners at relatively young
ages (teens & early twenties), and there is a continual supply of
new people in that age group.  In the U.S. at the start of the
epidemic, most of the cases were gay men, who mostly don't reproduce,
so there was no shift in the newly sexually active gay population
due to any sort of selection due to the effects of this virus.

And furthermore, Dionisio was talking about the virus becoming
"less lethal" over time, not "less lethal" for people who are
exposed at a later age.

LOL - we were talking about people catching a virus!  Dionisio
raised "natural selection" as a reason for a virus becoming
"less lethal" over time, but we were not looking at infection rates
or survival rates of younger gays versus older gays, becuase of
the peak in sexual activity with multiple partners in a rather
narrow range of ages.

Once again, you got it all wrong.