Tuesday 27 June 2006
http://liamscheff.com/blog/2006/05/28/aids-drugs-for-hiv-negatives-the-dangerous-new-trend/
http://zork.net/dsaklad/blog

Would the antithesis of this be that if one tests a corpse
for HIV it would come back to life?

> I just want to pick up on a point Noreen made about "HIV"
> prevention. The most reliable way to prevent an "HIV infection" is
> to avoid testing. Given the Perth Group's account of the results of
> oxidative stress triggering the tests, one might assume that if they
> eliminated all stressors and established redox balance with
> antioxidants, they should be able to avoid triggering a "positive"
> test result. But, these tests are non-specific and are triggered by
> a wide range of conditions and factors, so there simply is no reason
> to assume that even without a redox imbalance something will not
> trigger the test.
>
> While I have yet to be firmly diagnosed with MS, after many months
> it looks like that is the way my doctors are headed as it is about
> the only condition that explains all of my symptoms. While I have
> done little research into MS yet, I am a bit puzzled as to why LDN
> would be used on MS patients, unless it was to treat the side
> effects of MS drugs. The problem with MS is not a low CD$ count it
> is that T-cells attack myelin. Like other auto-immune conditions it
> is a problem of T-cells attacking self, hence the standard
> allopathic treatment is to suppress the immune system. It makes no
> sense to take a drug which claims to increase T cells when they are
> part of the problem in the first place. I can see trying immune
> modulating herbal treatments, but nothing that claims to "boost the
> immune system."
>
> As for CD$ counts it should be obvious to anyone who keeps up with
> the more recent dissident critiques (see for example Dr. Matt Irwin)
> that these counts are pretty much meaningless. People get sick with
> high counts and low counts, and what is normal for one person will
> not be for another. Stopping smoking will reduce a count, but it is
> hardly evidence that smokers are healthier than non-smokers. The
> orthodoxy's latest syndrome, known as IRS, IRD or IRIS, is the most
> obvious example of the meaninglessness of these counts. Rather than
> take a drug I would suggest the most obvious way to avoid a low CD$
> count is to not take the test. Like the "HIV" test, CD$ counting is
> part of the voodoo hex.

http://liamscheff.com/blog/2006/05/28/aids-drugs-for-hiv-negatives-the-dangerous-new-trend/
http://zork.net/dsaklad/blog


Monday 12 June 2006 part 2
Links
http://notb4weknow.blogspot.com
http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/not_b4_we_know/
http://zork.net/dsaklad/notb4weknow
http://zork.net/dsaklad/blog


Monday 12 June 2006 part 1
By the way, Don, the answer to the falsifiability question - for
the next time if there is one - is: "I claim that HIV can cause
CD4+ cell death in humans."

There are plenty of studies that show it does, of course, and
leaving the word "can" in the sentance allows for the fact that
HIV doesn't kill every or all CD4+ cells in humans.

However, once you can show that HIV can kill CD4+ cells, you have
basically won the battle, since admitting it can kill them opens
the door to the fact that it does kill them and the HIV infection
leads to AIDS.

The onus is on them, then, to prove HIV cannot kill CD4+ cells,
which they can't do, because all you need is one study showing
that it does.

Just some thoughts.
Stephen Inrig
Community Relations Program Coordinator
Duke University Health System
inrig002 at mc.duke.edu
919 681-4041


Saturday 10 June 2006
dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu

http://liamscheff.com/blog/2006/05/28/aids-drugs-for-hiv-negatives-the-dangerous-new-trend/#comments
http://zork.net/dsaklad/blog

| 34. liam Says:
| June 7th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
| Donny,

I see you are at least up to date on diminishing, downgrading,
dismissing people by using the diminutive form of a person's name
to make them inconsequential. Its a kind of name calling, which
is, of course, just another way of avoiding the crucial issues
actually under discussion.

In the same vein, should I start referring to you as "twerp"?


| This isn't an AIDS Debate forum.
| Many of us here, have made up our minds,

What would you do if research over the last 10+ years
showed there was something wrong with your made up mind?


| but only after years of doing a great more-or-less nonstop
| reading, observing

Observing acquired immunodeficiency syndrome patients or lab
work?


| and research.

In a lab, in the field?


| I don't expect everyone to agree with me,
| especially if they haven't read what I've read,

How about assembling a comprehensive list of what you've read?


| seen what I've seen, or walked in my shoes.

What if your shoes are smaller than mine?
That could get to be uncomfortable.


| On the other hand, I'm not going to walk anybody
| all the way through it, hoping

There's something "faith based research" about that word.


| they can come up with the same answer. I don't care if you, or
| anyone does.

Isn't this tantamount to saying reality doesn't matter, your mind
is permanently made up?  Isn't that the definition of an
idealogue?


| I want the research to be available to persons
| given this innane diagnosis.

A comprehensive reading list, compiled by you, would go
a long way towards accomplishing that.


| I'll be posting some of the stuff I've read soon on
| the site in a dedicated section. But I have no
| doubt you're already familiar with it,

You should consider doubt, unless you are dog or omniscient.
How can I possibly know if I've read everything you have
without seeing your comprehensive list?


| and just choose to ignore it.

We can't possibly know this unless your comprehensive list
is available so I can read it. You put me in an impossible
Catch-22 position. You say I won't/haven't read everything
you have, but don't have a comprehensive list for me to see
if that is so.


| I asked you to participate in a discussion. I asked
| you to express your philosophy or hypothesis up
| front.

I thought a discussion was people talking back and forth to each
other, for example, how I try to consider each of your points,
like I'm doing right now. You will notice I've made no reference
to motorcycle helmets. That's not the topic under discussion.
I'm trying to stick with human immunodeficiency virus / acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome.


| You haven't done so, at least not directly.

I'm thinking my point of view is clear here:
what post 1995 cites is your current thinking about human
immunodeficiency virus / acquired immunodeficiency syndrome based
on. That's what I try to consider in formulating a view of this
topic.


| I don't know what you think,

I think it is important to look at post and pre 1995 research on
human immunodeficiency virus / acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
before coming to a conclusion.


| or why you think it

The why is because new information should re-inform any opinions
I have on this subject. A scientist in any field, for example,
would not be considered legitimate if they only used old data.


| I know that you want to provoke an argument,

Isn't that what anyone would do regarding a controversial
issue. You are arguing that the current view of human
immunodeficiency virus / acquired immunodeficiency syndrome is
wrong, so you propose provocative ideas. I don't see myself doing
anything different--except that I include all the data available,
including post 1995 research.


| and so, I'm going to send you along to the guys who like
| to argue this sort of thing in the minutae, tirelessly,
| and ad nauseum,

Could I be wrong in concluding that you argue,
tirelessly and ad nauseum that only pre 1995 human
immunodeficiency virus / acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
research should be considered in formulating a solution to the
human immunodeficiency virus / acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
puzzle.


| over at AME.
http://groups.msn.com/aidsmythexposed

I think you are being dismissive because you have no answer to
the core of your argument.


| I'm sure they'll be glad to walk you through the
| ten thousand miles of history,

Does their history include post 1995 research?

If not, then how could they be any different from you?


| only to still have you refuse to acknowledge any single
| minor point any of them make.

What would be one of those minor points?


| That is the style and manner of those who can't get heads
| around the blatant realities of science today. It's cooked. It
| is at least as imperfect as any other government bureuacracy.

Right now, at this very moment, do you happen to have
a piece of tinfoil wrapped around your head?

There are thousands of scientists around the world who spend
their entire lives in the pursuit of knowledge.  Most of the
people who research human immunodeficiency virus / acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome are of that sort.


| But maybe you think it's not. Maybe you hold a
| belief that science is the golden child of all
| human endevors, untouched by, well, humans.

Science is a way of getting to the truth in some small area of
the world. We know from the history of the world that a lot had
to be discovered and a lot of false beliefs had to be
uncovered. That is still going on. It is possible that some new
discovery will eventually present a completely new picture of
human immunodeficiency virus / acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome. But the years 1996-2006 will be a part of that
history. Consider adding those years to your data.


| If you hold this belief, or this sort of belief,
| you find any takers here, because is not our
| experience.

Experience as a scientist or non-scientist?


| And it's not evidenced in the record, anywhere.

What is not evidenced in the record? That scientists
can't be trusted to find cures for diseases, for example?


| And you'll just go on writing angry posts, demanding
| more and more answers to questions you could and should
| easily research yourself.

The central question is still that of why you don't include post
1995 research in your cites. I can't research your brain to find
out why that data is left out. You could just tell me why you
exclude it.


| This is my blog, this isn't an open abuse forum.

Hey, stop looking for excuses to not answer such a crucial,
central question. Its just another rhetorical trick to ignore me.


| I'm sorry that wasn't clear. I go onto blogs that
| are open, and quite informal, and quite abusive.

I guess if refusing to move on from the question of why you don't
include post 1995 data in your cites is... abusive, then call me
abusive. You can call me anything you want--as long as you don't
call me late for dinner.


| You can meet me there and post your chattery
| responses, which you are too lazy, apparently, to
| look into yourself.

Again, I can't look into your head and determine why you
don't include post 1995 cites in your research.


| And I'll probably ignore you

That's what you seem to be doing with your chattery responses.


| there too, but maybe I'll send some reading your way,

Please.


| hoping you will read it,

Yes.


| but more or less knowing you won't.

There you go, condemning me again before the facts.


| You can also read anything I've written on the
| subject, including the article in question here,

Please, again, let me beseech you to make a complete list
of cites and of your own writing.


| which you, like most apologist reductionist true-believers,
| never responded to.

I've got to have that complete list of cites to read before I can
possibly respond.


| The question, Donny,

Dismissive, yet again!


| is, would you take or give this drug - Viread - to perfectly
| healthy people?

I'll look into that, and read anything you send me.

Meanwhile, could you enlighten me about why no post 1995 cites?


| That's the question posed by the article. Is this a
| good idea, if you think so, let's here why you do.

I'm looking into it. That's why I thought something about your
technical qualifications would clarify your background on your
writing. Like any biology course, science course, other courses
you studied.


| I've cut the long re-iterations of earlier posts out of most of
| your posts, becuase it's damned annoying to have to re-read an
| entire earlier post so you can make one snarky comment.

You mean like the snarky "Donny" remarks?


| Finally, I asked you to come forward with your
| philosophy - what is it that you believe.

I believe that human immunodeficiency virus / acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome research should include all the data
from the last 20+ years, especially from the last 10+ years.


| I didn't ask you to attack my philosophy,

I suppose criticizing you for excluding post 1995 data could be
construed as an attack. Just include the post 1995 data and I'm
dead in my tracks. You can do it--I know you can.


| I asked what yours is.

I believe that all an immunodeficiency virus / acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome research data from the last 20+ years
should be considered when trying to resolve issues about the
disease. Let me know if that's not clear.


| If you want to post here, own your point of view,

Do you know where I can register my stated opinions as
my own so there is no question?  something like how one
registers real estate. Or maybe copyright would handle it.


| but don't expect others to agree with you.

It has been, I must admit, an expectation of mine that people
interested in the human immunodeficiency virus / acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome puzzle would include all data from the
last 20+ years of research. I will try to convince myself that
leaving out huge amounts of data about a subject is ok.


| See if you can keep up, and allow for the differences.

I'm doing the best I can and hope you will give me a hand.


| Leave a Reply
http://liamscheff.com/blog/2006/05/28/aids-drugs-for-hiv-negatives-the-dangerous-new-trend/#comments
http://zork.net/dsaklad/blog