There are at least 30 tests marketed to test for HIV. None of them are
approved by the FDA to diagnose the presence or absence of HIV. Not the
Elisa, not viral load, not Western Blot, not the P24 antigen test. The FDA
and manufacturers clearly state that the significance of testing positive
on the Elisa and Western Blot test is unknown.

AIDS researchers admit that the tests contain at least 80 percent
non-specific cellular material - they're, at best, 20 percent effective.
But in my scientific opinion, they contain no HIV at all. The medical
literature lists at least 60 different conditions that can register
positive on the HIV-test. These conditions include candidas, arthritis,
parasites, malaria, liver conditions, alcoholism, drug abuse, flu, herpes,
syphilis, other STDs and pregnancy.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 02:55:27 -0400, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

Oh, this is just fucking stupid.
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/NEW00503.html

You're taking lessons from Bush, I guess, that you can just make up
anything, lie through your teeth and presume people will believe your
nonsense.

And the idiots that MIGHT believe your shit may well wind up dead too
early, like Pasquarelli. Who I believe would still be alive if it
weren't for your pernicious horseshit.

George M. Carter

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:16:10 -0400, "PaulKing"
<aimulti@aimultimedia.com> wrote:

George M. Carter

In article <m1nn70l62j0ltqfekj7h2bs417vbnu2v6m@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:

That's a rather unfortunate comparison. Remember - Bush tried to
convince the world that Iraq had WMD, that it was allied to Al-Qaeda,
and so on. In other words, that there were a set of dangers and threats
that didn't actually exist, just as, from the point of view of AIDS
dissidents, an AIDS-virus doesn't exist. It is you who is insisting that
this alleged danger does exist.

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 16:05:43 +1200, Uiopp <uislad@faaa.co.nz> wrote:

I'm glad we agree that Bush was lying through his teeth re WMD and the
non-link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. (Problem is, now Al
Qaeda IS in Iraq because they screwed up the security situation and
created a stew of corruption.)

Anyway, obviously, I see the comparison being more that Bush has
continually remained in la-la land, making up things as he goes along,
refusing to see the grisly truth that is before him. Like denialists
do. They don't want to see that HIV exists and somehow parse the split
in their own ranks when Duesberg says it does. Bush doesn't see a
split because he turned Powell into his personal, despicable little
Step N Fetch It. Rather than heed anyone's advice or thoughts that
conflicted with Rummy and Condoleeza, he followed the psychotic path
of Rove and Wolfowitz and Perle with a vigor. Sort of like the
denialists don't look at the science that conflicts with their world
view and then folds, spindles and mutilates the science to suit the
result they want.

By contrast, I would be HAPPY if HIV didn't exist or didn't cause
AIDS. Were that the case, my world would not be so empty of so many
great people.

Again. Sorta like Bush. As he follows his pathway of delusion, lies,
self-deceptions, lots of people die.

George M. Carter

In article <jeph80tbheogpsfn4agirhepueodesv6mi@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:

Yes, but if HIV didn't exist and didn't cause AIDS, something else would
be causing AIDS. So how would that be better, from your point of view?

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:10:54 +1200, Uiopp <uislad@faaa.co.nz> wrote:

snip...
What in the world are you trying to say? First of all, I would HOPE we
could agree that people dying in their 20s, 30s and 40s (though
clearly way to many die younger or older) is pretty ghastly. So
nothing about AIDS is "better."

The point I was making was that HIV exists and in most people causes
AIDS. And in far too many, death.

What I'm saying is that Duesberg's hypothesis of "drugs" causing AIDS
is just fucking ludicrous and based on nothing. Indeed, all data
refute this notion. (I've known way too many people who have died who
never did AIDS--and lots of people who have done LOTS of drugs and
never got AIDS because they weren't HIV-infected).

So basically, denialists should come up with better explanations. The
ones they have put forward are horseshit.

George M. Carter

In article <oo9j8052lmib461k530qq8c8mf8iej968m@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:

All I am trying to say is that, clearly, something is causing AIDS. Why
would you prefer that that something be HIV rather than anything else?

As for Duesberg's insistence on drugs, specifically and only, being the
cause of AIDS, he seems to be pretty well alone in that, even among AIDS
dissidents. There are other explanations out there, as I suppose you
would know.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 14:11:27 +1200, Uiopp <uislad@faaa.co.nz> wrote:

Darling, dearest, try to understand. I don't *prefer* anything. I look
at what is happening to my friends. I look at the science--a LOT. I
read. I talk to physicians, researchers, community groups. I attend
conferences. I learn as much as I can. Neither my nor your preference
has anything to do with the reality that HIV exists and most often
causes AIDS.

I've heard some of them. None of them hold water. Malnutrition is not
AIDS (though it can certainly be fatal!) Treatment is easy: food. But
too many well-nourished people develop AIDS (though multivitamin
supplementation can definitely help). Malaria, TB, etc., are NOT AIDS.
However, when people with HIV get TB, for example, the course of the
disease is generally much, much worse.

So your turn. What do you think is causing AIDS?

George M. Carter

In article <5sck801ddhl173f4u7g1a7qgpa6020fp46@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:

I note that you are changing your story here. Previously you implied
that it was enough to refute the idea that drugs cause AIDS to vindicate
the idea that HIV must be the cause.

I have no opinion.

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:25:03 +1200, Uiopp <uislad@faaa.co.nz> wrote:

snip
The most widespread denialist notion is the Duesberg theory, which is
that "drugs" cause AIDS. It's a pathetic theory and is refuted by data
from many different datasets, from injection drug user statistics,
data from people with hemophilia, etc. Drug users that gets AIDS have
HIV. Drug users who don't have HIV don't develop AIDS.

Well, that's pretty lame.

George M. Carter

In article <vlfn80loig880qvju25ijen9dhl2lgtqs2@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:

That's as may be, but it doesn't address what I said. You wrote that
'denialists' should come up with better explanations, despite,
apparently, being well aware that there are other explanations. Btw, how
reliable do you think any of those statistics actually are, and how
would you know without becoming a full time investigator of the subject?

Ah, no, I think not. On the contrary, it's quite sensible. It's usually
good not to have an opinion on something when you've only started
investigating it. It makes much better sense than just believing (or
disbelieving) a theory because it happens to be the conventional view.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:28:44 +1200, Uiopp <uislad@faaa.co.nz> wrote:

As I say, I have indeed investigated some of the other explanations
put forward by denialists. They fail to be the slightest bit
convincing--and indeed, many of the same arguments they use in
distorted ways to argue against a role for HIV (e.g., correlation is
not causality) are even MORE applicable to their weak suggestions.

And I have been studying these issues pretty intensively for over 15
years. Perhaps I could never live up to the kind of "full time
investigator" that you have in mind--I'm not sure what that means.
However, I think I can say that I understand the issues relatively
well--enough to have a sense of how much we DON'T know.

But, as I feel confident the Earth is an oblate spheroid though I have
not yet flown into space, I am as confident HIV exists and is a
proximate cause for AIDS.

Oh, I agree. And as a new investigator into the questions, I encourage
you to continue investigating. However, you already appear to believe
that HIV does not exist, so you do have an opinion from the outset.
Apparently based on ignorance. That can be remedied--please keep
studying the issues.

George M. Carter

In article <mlup80518gl17a0ree1agdgoduibsto3t8@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:

You didn't answer my question about the statistics. I thought you
wouldn't. Ah well.

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:21:59 +1200, Uiopp <uislad@faaa.co.nz> wrote:

....snip

What statistics are you referring to?

George M. Carter

In article <u2gs80926ibvk0r97c9bgn2p4mteao1k1h@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote:

Any statistics.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:02:57 +1200, Uiopp <uislad@faaa.co.nz> wrote:

LOL. You a funny undecided fellow, aincha?

I'm beginning to suspect there is no proof of YOUR existence. Show me
the ONE PAPER that proves it!