So true. Slippery Slope: a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn This is the most common with 'aids' believers.

I cleaned up your list for you Paul and eliminated those signatories who's educational background did not provide any basis as to the credibility of there beliefs about HIV/AIDS. I eliminated all the dentists, sociologists, students, engineers and others whose training had nothing remotely to do with medicine, virology, or biochemistry. I erred on your side in that I left nurses and MD's who really aren't trained in the sciences needed to be truly credible on the topic of virology. I also note...

Here is information about citing research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation

"Bennett" <njb35@cantab.net> wrote in message news:1113845543.534042.95620@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... Yeah, that's what I read the other day. Thnx. Really? I see. That sounds pretty funny.

No. Unless you are doing a show too.

Our point exactly. "If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document." Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. "Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing

It is very true that HIV affects the third wourld countries mostly.As you have said polygamy is not entirely responsible for that because African man have this belief that no african man should have one woman.That was done in the olden days whre the wife will know the person tha her husband is having an affair with. Now things have changed there are a lot a disease transmitted sexualy excluding HIV there are gonorrhea, STDs etc these diseases can also decrease the quality of life of patient.I...

<ml34b@hotmail.com> wrote in message... I've addressed it before. While I admit it seems unlikely, I still refuse to share a joint or pipe with anyone with HIV (and I think I won't share with anyone cuz I got a very bad bacterial respiratory infection that way a few years ago). You shouldn't share joints or pipes with ANYONE, not because of HIV but because of things like meningitis (often transmitted in college dorms where students share sodas and food), Hepatitis A (easily transmitted...

On 16 Apr 2005 16:20:20 -0700, ml34b@hotmail.com wrote: Interesting question--usually more than 10 years tho. Doesn't matter. One of the BIG differences that the AIDS activist movement engendered is the notion that your doctor is your PARTNER, not your boss. The doctor is there to facilitate access to medications, to provide care, support and diagnoses.

A problem for you and your sex partners. Before symptoms became severe enough to get antibiotics and during the two weeks after you began the treatment the infection can be passed along to your sex partners. Some people take a long time to develop annoying symptoms. Some people do not develop symptoms but the infection can be passed along to a sex partner. Here is what you wrote Two weeks and a few pills later - No problem

On 14 Apr 2005 22:54:28 -0700, dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu wrote: Obviously, this is a fraudulent posting. Right--they should be called "HIV tests" not "AIDS tests." They test for antibodies which indeed, in this case are harmless. Generally antibodies ARE harmless to the host. Unfortunately, they are sometimes harmless to the pathogen they are trying to help the body get rid of.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:48:13 -0400, "tsip29" <nnormen@hotmail.com> wrote: No. Use a water-based lubricant without nonoxynol-9. There's a variety of brands like "wet" but I haven't looked lately.

"David Canzi -- non-mailable" <dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message news:d3jun5$qn6$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca... And factually not true. Gary Stein

Show me one such study Paul. With one condition that you print the entire study abstract not your typical out of context snippets of text that you think support your statements. Make sure that you include hyper links to the source of your data and that it be at least no more then 4 years old. Gary Stein "PaulKing" <aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote in message

netsurfer802@yahoo.com wrote: We are all highly motivated by the desire for pleasure and the desire to avoid pain. The practicing druggie or alcholic is still convinced that what they are doing is pleasuable, no matter how painful an experience it really is. He or she needs to reprogramme his or her mind, to convince himself or herself that what they previously considered pleasurable is actually a pain.

"Harry" <paminifarm3@netscape.net> wrote in message news:1113333131.842982.172910@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... Hello, Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their Country. Throw yourselves on the mercy of our Government. Can you walk on hot coals? Did your ancestry fight the Mexican/American war? Mine did, and we won. Just because we won the first war doesnot mean we will win this one, because the only way to win this second invasion from Mexico is

<dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu> wrote No risky, no frisky. --oTTo--

Cumulative 'AIDS' figures in Canada What is interesting is that there have only been 65 teenage cases since 1983 in Canada. Also the 20 to 25 age group is very low too. This is similar to the U.S. and does not fit an std. Like America, people over 60 have as much 'AIDS' (611 cases) as both teenagers AND 20-24 years olds combined (65 teen cases and 573 cases in the 20-24 group).

Do Condoms Protect Against Small Viruses? The use of condoms is widely recommended to prevent sexually transmitted diseases, including those caused by such viruses as herpes simplex, hepatitis B, and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The efficacy of condoms in these circumstances, however, is unknown. The water-leak test used to ensure the integrity of condoms can detect holes as small as 3 to 4 m in diameter, but sexually transmitted viruses are much smaller, with diameters of 0.04 to 0.15...

New US government website attacked for comments on sexuality and effectiveness of condoms (telling partly the truth -ed) The wording of information about condoms on the site is also potentially misleading (they mean factual). US abstinence education programmes usually only mention condoms when referring to their potential for failure. The 4parents.com site suggests that condoms offer only “moderate” protection against HIV and gonorrhoea, “less” protection against Chlamidya, herpes and human...