I was thinking about this recently, after reading a post on Bennett's
blog. I've heard the "HIV/AIDS" advocates suggest that what has been
done to this point (more than 20 years after claims about "HIV" being
the cause of "AIDS") is "reasonable" isolation, but why not just spend
the small amount of money required and do it correctly? Hypotheticals
are often useful in these cases. Let us say that I am one of these
advocates. I say to myself, "I should just agree with the 'dissidents'
and demand that 'HIV' be properly isolated, following the procedures
put forth by the Perth Group." IF I "believed" in the existence of
"HIV," I would be confident that it will be isolated, but even if I
thought that "HIV" is nonsense, but because I had a lot of stock in
certain BigPharma companies, I want to just keep things the way they
are, I would still say this. Why? Because it's probably not going to
get done just because I want it done, but I want to make people think
that I am being "objective" and "scientific." Saying that what has
been done to this point is a "reasonable isolation" (which sounds like
what a seedy politician would argue), when it is not technologically
difficult or particularly expensive to do it correctly, and more
importantly, in light of the fear that people will listen to the Perth
Group and other "dissidents," when I think that will do great harm to
these "AIDS patients," I would insist on the proper isolation.

So, no matter "how you slice it," this claim of "reasonable isolation"
just does not make any sense. Then why do so many advocates make this
kind of argument? I think the answer for at least most of them is
psycho-social. They fear the shame they would feel if isolation was
unsuccessful, and they have a nagging, yet strong doubt in their
subconsciouses that what they believe is not accurate, and that it has
cost a huge number of lives, due to the toxic "medications" given to
these people, with the idea that a "bad bug" would be eradicated.

I, on the other hand, am confident in my research and in my ability to
interpret the evidence I have said on several occasions here that I am
ready, willing, and able to take a version of the "Duesberg Challenge,"
yet nobody has shown any interest in even entering negotiations with me
on this offer.

The offer still stand, and I am still waiting for someone who is
interested in it.

oke!

why doesnt the perth group and dissdent researcher do it themself first!

because the are now just talking/discussing about it! so why do they
experiments first themself and see what they can find!

then they now for sure what the are talking about! now they are just
talking about paper that are or arent to prove the existence of "hiv"

do you know what i mean!

"montygram" <nazztrader@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1135041653.859502.324210@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
What in your opinion qualifies the Perth standard of isolation as the
"proper isolation" what qualifications do the Perth group have as scientists
to promulgate such an isolation standard? Who else in the scientific
community uses the Perth groups isolation methods when working with a
Retrovirus?

When you can address each of the above questions in detail you might then be
prepared for this argument until then your just another myth maker spouting
what someone else has taught you to regurgitate.

Gary Stein

"tsip29" <nnormen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5a279b04f716e59f5f76d236dc9a6037@localhost.ta lkabouthealthnetwork.com...
Becasue none of the Perth group would have the least idea as to how to go
about doing the actual science.

Gary Stein

As usual, you "HIV/AIDS" advocates are trying to deflect attention from
the issue. If you think your standard of isolation is best, put it
forth here and allow it to be examined.

"Gary Stein" <ge.stein@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1SXpf.7364$7f3.486@trnddc01...
Gee, using the PharmaPimps standard of science, one could only
imagine that their only proof of Santa Claus would be a steaming
pile of reindeer poop.

susie

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:56:00 -0500, "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com>
wrote:


Freddy-Sue IS a PharmaPimp!! SHE RECOMMENDS ARV FOR PEOPLE WITH
AIDS!!!

Drug selling pharmapimp-slut-thing!! Murderer!! REDRUMAZT! (oh...I
guess that sock got dropped, huh?)

Happy Xmas

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:dbcjq15qke34ue081nq7gbhojuho2tnb91@4ax.com...
Sorry, but "susie" works just fine, George Mary-Bob.

susie

On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:09:51 -0500, "Susie, age 9" <nomail@noway.com>
wrote:

More name calling! <giggle>
Such a contribution to humanity.

Another hypothetical is worth considering here. Suppose I get a bunch
of healthy, "HIV positive" college dropouts who have nothing to do
with their lives. I tell them that they are going to party like it's
1979 every day of the week, but that they have to stay within a
building, where they will be monitored all the time. They will be gay,
and will have anal sex with each other often. They will eat a junk
food diet, be exposed to CMV, EBV, etc., be given plenty of
corticosteriods and antibiotics, as well as the common rec. drugs circa
1980 (plenty of poppers). After 2 years of this, they get AZT for 3
years. Then we measure all the "AIDS" markers. Suppose we
discover that they are all "positive for HIV" and several develop
"AIDS" at this point? The "HIV/AIDS" advocates will still not
admit that this is possible. They will say that something corrupted
the process, so we repeat the experiment several times, and continue to
get the same result. The advocates will continue to accept the
scientific reality, even though we used the tests and markers they
themselves established (and with which dissidents find fault). At this
point, we would have to say that the advocates are doing anti-science.
They will not accept the scientific method, but instead are essentially
insisting that "HIV/AIDS" is exempt from the scientific method, and
is thus outside the laws of nature. And this brings us back to the
point of the original post: they must realize how ludicrous this is, at
least on some level, subconscious or however one wishes to describe it,
and there is a strong need to repress it, lest they may not be able to
"live with themselves," thinking about the huge number of people
who died but could have been saved. Many who were told they had
"HIV/AIDS" appear to have gone on to just destroy themselves in
various ways, thinking that the end was near anyway, and nobody except
a psychopath would want to feel responsible for all this misery and
death. Thus, at least at this point, "HIV/AID" is a psycho-social
phenomenon more than anything else.

Well dipshit being that you started out with ""HIV positive" college
dropouts" what would be the need to repeat the experiment they were all
positive when you started and those still alive after 2 years would still be
HIV positive what the hell's your point?

Now if you just made a typo and meant to write ""HIV Negative" college
dropouts" your still living in a fantasy filled land of ignorance. There are
tens of thousands of AIDS patients in the US who never experienced any of
the following risk factors that you listed bellow as parts of your
experiment; exposer to CMV, EBV, given plenty of corticosteriods and
antibiotics, common rec. drugs circa 1980 (plenty of poppers), how do you
explain those cases?

Gary Stein

"montygram" <nazztrader@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1135224676.197376.307700@g47g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

On 21 Dec 2005 20:11:16 -0800, "montygram" <nazztrader@lycos.com>
wrote:

Plonk.

spouting what someone else has taught you to regurgitate."

Don't get too arrogant about this now, Mr. Stein. I don't have the
impression you are an expert on the practical aspects of virus isolation.
I know, from experience, how to isolate viruses, and believe me, the
exploits on "HIV" thus far suck.
The important issue is not specifically how the Perth Group wants it done,
but how generations of virologists have done it. That means ending up
with a pure virus preparation on which you can perform physical
measurements to characterize it.

parts of your
experiment;"

I think you mean "HIV-positive" people, Mr. Stein, not "AIDS patients".
Sure, for example people who just got a flu shot, or pregnant women. Do I
have to reiterate the list of about 70 different conditions that produce a
positive serological test?
AIDS-patients? No way. Of course there will always be sick people.
There are many kinds of illness. But if you say these tens of thousands
of people who never did any partying have AIDS, then we're supposed to
believe you, right?

On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 18:58:08 -0500, "Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl>
wrote:

Neither are you.

Yes, that was an error, and the fact that you did not realize it
suggests something about your intellectual capacities. Now why don't
you consider it again, if you are able, only substituting "HIV
negative" in the second sentence. Or will your mind explode from being
overheated?

"Iconoclaster" <wgods@xs4all.nl> wrote in message

That ass-umes much.
The funny part is anyone believing they want a cure found.

Zero effort has been made by ANY grubment to contain the spread
of aids.

Laws are being passed to ensure that AIDS is spread
among the population.

and yall sit here arguing over will you melt faster
with the meds, or without them, LOL

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news4hmq19eh1b99e2ijma1237u2dlep5qard@4ax.com...
But certainly NOT you, George Mary-Bob...

susie

" Death" <Death@yourdoor.net> wrote in message
news:CcIqf.16922$kP5.11306@bignews5.bellsouth.net. ..
Death, you truly are the living embodiment of tossed salad...

susie

"The funny part is anyone believing they want a cure found."

Unless you get an artery sliced wide open or something like that, all
you need to do is to avoid cellular stressors. If you have lived a
"hard life," there is no way to know how much damage you have already
done, and "how much time you have left." In some immue system
hypotheses, there is a time limit of sorts. That is, after a certain
threshold of antigenic exposure, there is a Th1 to Th2 shift, meaning
you will get dangerous "opportunistic infections." Now, whether there
is something you can do at that point, aside from ingesting massive
amounts of extremely toxic "medicines" to act as a surrogate immune
system (and destroying your liver in the process, or something just as
bad) remains to be determined. One of the biggest problems with
"modern medicine" is that conditions are addressed when they become
critical, or nearly so. At that point, only extreme measures will
appear to "work," though they may do more harm than good, if one looks
beyond a few days, weeks, or months. Thus, it is beyond the mindset of
most "experts" to address such "chronic diseases" as "HIV/AIDS" at the
level of root cause. In fact, with "HIV/AIDS" there are a parade of
silly claims over the years about how a virus of a harmless variety
(assuming "HIV" exists for the moment) can kill in 30 different ways,
going off like a "time bomb" many years later, and for no known
scientific reason.