Park Life

Planning and club and player management wise Bolton are light years ahead of us now.

Jesus. I've probably bumped into you in Uhrlaub or somewhere. Or fucked one of your friends at least. Incidentally, don't go near Rosso on Lange Reihe tonight without earplugs, there's a Eurovision event on. Tonight you say. Quite like Lange Reihe nice coffee shops and bars.....

None taken. Btw only got into this today as I was talking about it with 'a gay friend the other night'. Btw, not being an expert on viral diseases, I personally do not feel I am qualified to argue abouth them too much, but why on earth are you surprised that monkeys react differently to HIV than humans? The "H" stands for human! Loads of viruses, probably most, are species specific. It's entirely plausible for a virus to mutate, jump the species barrier, and be unable to return to the original host. What I posted was a lazy google finding and it was 7 years old, true, but I think it fairly conclusively showed the link between HIV and AIDs beyond reasonable doubt. Maybe we have different definitions of reasonable...... We probably do, but that is what makes General chat go around. The species barrier thing is a good point, but you can see that unless I picked up on the monkey thing people would assume on a cursory reading that the monkeys later developed aids. Most viruses are species specific we can agree on that sure. But it was an early myth in this tragic saga that aids initially came from the green monkey or summat and gays got it from travelling on 'leisure trips' to Africa. The mind boggles. I agree the majority of proof is leaning toward HIV.......But many out there aren't convinced and that is a good thing and how medicine etc develops... Peace.

None taken. Btw only got into this today as I was talking about it with 'a gay friend the other night'.

It still stands that there is no de facto proof that hiv is the cause of aids. If you can find this proof I'm sure hundreds of scientists around the world would welcome such info. How much proof do you need? This from a Google. http://www.thebody.com/sfaf/spring00/hiv_causes.html Personally, I prefer to take the words of the experts, not some lame-brained internet nut. .....an article riddled with innacuracy and 7 years out of date. Well done.

It still stands that there is no de facto proof that hiv is the cause of aids. If you can find this proof I'm sure hundreds of scientists around the world would welcome such info. There's no defacto proof that the earth revolves around the sun either. That doesn't mean you must err on the side of a small minority of psuedo scientists who believe in geocentricity (although I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if you do to be honest) You can take literally any position and just say "There's no proof, that's not proof. That? Not proof. Show me proof. That's not proof either, see, no proof." Good point.

It still stands that there is no de facto proof that hiv is the cause of aids. If you can find this proof I'm sure hundreds of scientists around the world would welcome such info. How much proof do you need? This from a Google. http://www.thebody.com/sfaf/spring00/hiv_causes.html Personally, I prefer to take the words of the experts, not some lame-brained internet nut. .....an article riddled with innacuracy and 7 years out of date. Well done.

It still stands that there is no de facto proof that hiv is the cause of aids. If you can find this proof I'm sure hundreds of scientists around the world would welcome such info. How much proof do you need? This from a Google. http://www.thebody.com/sfaf/spring00/hiv_causes.html Personally, I prefer to take the words of the experts, not some lame-brained internet nut. Yes Ive read that. Is that an insult?

Why would it be such a tragic situation though if in fact AIDS is nothing to do with HIV, but being down to being gay, or taking too much antibiotics, or iv narcotics, or whatever? What would you have to fear? For me, the proof is in the pudding. If you genuinely have such a low opinion of modern medicine, then I suggest you opt out and reject it. It's the only rational thing to do. You seem like a nice bloke and all that and I really don't want to fall out, but really, there is no point in arguing with people like you. Thousands of doctors and scientists have made HIV their lives work (I know a few personally), and I am sure they know vastly more about the condition than you or me. But, the bottom line is, you are accusing them all (or virtually all) of committing fraud in the name of profit. Needless to say, I find that, along with the implication that AIDs affects gays and drug users specifically for reasons other than the obvious increased risk of transmission, quite offensive. Firstly I'm not sure if you are a scientist, if you are no offence intended. I have nothing to fear from Aids whoever or however it is carried and in no way am I SINGLING OUT the gay community, but there is the data for all to look at. How could you fall out with someone on a chat room? That is just silly I think you'll agree. I'm not arguing, it just seems silly to me that threads such as this where people laugh at 'the nutter claims of Iran' have themselves NO CLUE about how much modern drugs and science in general owes to nature and infact many many DRUGS are just synthesised versions of natural remedies. You might not be aware but drugs companies spend small fortunes rooting around in the rain forest looking for plants and herbs with specific properties. I am not accusing anybody of fraud per se, just drawing attention to the fact that there are still many counter arguments to HIV. I'm not implying anything other than as you put it the 'higher risk of transmission' in the gay community is to do with lifestyle, but of course gay lifestyle has changed in accordance, I should know as I live in Hamburg in the gay district and have gay friends and yes, they are circumspect themselves for various reasons with impasse on aids with no cure in sight after 20 years. And you should hear them talking about the possible causes.......Far wilder than anythig quoted here.

It still stands that there is no de facto proof that hiv is the cause of aids. If you can find this proof I'm sure hundreds of scientists around the world would welcome such info.

The call anything they want AIDS these days. As a diesease it is FINISHED IN EUROPE look at the stats... http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm This part is still unproven Chex and you of all people should know that. HIV infections has so many contradictions. Clinical trials show what? That Azt kills t-cells faster than aids??!! What is one of the definitions for aids and I challenge you not to laugh? pneumonia = pneumonia pmeumonia + hiv presence = aids Bollocks. If HIV is present and the pneumonia is picked up by a patient who you wouldnt normally expect to get it, then that is probably a clinical symptom associated with immune deficiency. Its the start of the syndrome tbh. Causality Parky, its the cornerstone of medical research. So how does one account for the thousands with HIV presence and no illness of any kind ever? Causality my dear.....Poppycock. Getting back to your earlier point. Flooding a person with retro-virals which as you know are generally broad band in their targetting (not protein inhibitors) will stop all the viruses in their tracks not just HIV. The downside is you can't keep it up for more than a few years due to the side effects. The dissentors aren't arguing that AIDS is brought on by a virus of some kind, they are questioning whether it is the HIV virus. You see the differance. IMO the widespread over use of anti-biotics in the West is part of the picture. They are well know the fuck up the immune system as most people are well aware. Because 'protease' inhibitors (and the rest) suppress viral load so your immune system continues to work. The reason why you cant keep giving people the same drug is because the virus mutates and finds ways to replicate that the inhibition strategy cant stop. There is a section in 'Almost like a Whale' that describes the number of genetic mutations that the virus has gone through in 30 years is in fact more than the human genome has 'ever' gone through. That is interesting Chez, but so is this: "Until the latest flurry of reports from Amsterdam, patients with AIDS-indicator diseases but without HIV were not counted as AIDS cases. For reasons that are not clear, a decision has now been made to play up the "discovery" of such cases. There may have been thousands of them already. Robert Root Bernstein, a professor of physiology at Michigan State University, says that such cases were reported in the medical literature in the mid 1980s. And according to Duesberg, in about half the AIDS cases enumerated so far, patients were never actually tested for HIV. They were presumed to be positive but may not have been. I phoned the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta and asked what they thought of Duesberg's ideas. "Up to now we have said-and we still say-that HIV causes a majority of AIDS cases," said Chuck Fallis, a press officer. "The jury is still out on the new virus-whether it actually causes the other AIDS cases." "Nothing specifically on Duesberg?" "No." What was once "all" has now become "a majority." "You don't ever have polio without polio virus," Duesberg says. "A hundred cases can support a theory, but it only takes one to destroy it." Something has been attacking the immune system, he agrees. The T-cells of AIDS patients do dwindle away, and there has been an increase in such opportunistic diseases as pneumocystis in the past decade. But HIV has never been shown physically to attack T-cells. The virus in fact is very difficult to find, even in patients dying of AIDS. Usually only antibodies can be detected-which is why an antibody test is used for HIV. Indications are that HIV is swiftly neutralized by the body's defenses. Yet it is said to kill after a ten-year (average) latency period. This has been lengthened to account for the failure of AIDS cases to keep pace with projections. Another oddity: researchers still have no "animal model" for AIDS. Over one hundred chimps have been infected with HIV since 1985 -- and the virus does "take," or replicate within them-but none has yet come down with AIDS. Routine testing of army recruits shows the HIV-positive percentage of the population has remained constant since 1985, and AIDS remains largely confined to risk groups-homosexuals and drug-users. Neither finding is consistent with a new virus spreading in the population."

The call anything they want AIDS these days. As a diesease it is FINISHED IN EUROPE look at the stats... http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm This part is still unproven Chex and you of all people should know that. HIV infections has so many contradictions. Clinical trials show what? That Azt kills t-cells faster than aids??!! What is one of the definitions for aids and I challenge you not to laugh? pneumonia = pneumonia pmeumonia + hiv presence = aids Bollocks. If HIV is present and the pneumonia is picked up by a patient who you wouldnt normally expect to get it, then that is probably a clinical symptom associated with immune deficiency. Its the start of the syndrome tbh. Causality Parky, its the cornerstone of medical research. So how does one account for the thousands with HIV presence and no illness of any kind ever? Causality my dear.....Poppycock. Getting back to your earlier point. Flooding a person with retro-virals which as you know are generally broad band in their targetting (not protein inhibitors) will stop all the viruses in their tracks not just HIV. The downside is you can't keep it up for more than a few years due to the side effects. The dissentors aren't arguing that AIDS is brought on by a virus of some kind, they are questioning whether it is the HIV virus. You see the differance. IMO the widespread over use of anti-biotics in the West is part of the picture. They are well know the fuck up the immune system as most people are well aware. Because 'protease' inhibitors (and the rest) suppress viral load so your immune system continues to work. The reason why you cant keep giving people the same drug is because the virus mutates and finds ways to replicate that the inhibition strategy cant stop. There is a section in 'Almost like a Whale' that describes the number of genetic mutations that the virus has gone through in 30 years is in fact more than the human genome has 'ever' gone through. I refer the good gentleman to the post above his with quotes from some of the leading minds in the world. I await his kind response. Once again many sceptics aren't saying it isn't a virus (IMO it probably isn't) they are saying there just isn't enough proof it IS the HIV virus.

Other nutters on the topic: Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry: "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." (Sunday Times (London) 28 nov. 1993) Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München. Robert Koch Award 1978: "Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology." (Letter to Süddeutsche Zeitung 2000) Dr. Serge Lang, Professor of Mathematics, Yale University: "I do not regard the causal relationship between HIV and any disease as settled. I have seen considerable evidence that highly improper statistics concerning HIV and AIDS have been passed off as science, and that top members of the scientific establishment have carelessly, if not irresponsible, joined the media in spreading misinformation about the nature of AIDS." (Yale Scientific, Fall 1994) Dr. Harry Rubin, Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California at Berkeley: "It is not proven that AIDS is caused by HIV infection, nor is it proven that it plays no role whatever in the syndrome." (Sunday Times (London) 3 April 1994) Dr. Richard Strohman, Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology at the University of California at Berkeley: "In the old days it was required that a scientist address the possibilities of proving his hypothesis wrong as well as right. Now there's none of that in standard HIV-AIDS program with all its billions of dollars." (Penthouse April 1994) Dr. Harvey Bialy, Molecular Biologist, former editor of Bio/Technology and Nature Biotechnology:

The call anything they want AIDS these days. As a diesease it is FINISHED IN EUROPE look at the stats... http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm This part is still unproven Chex and you of all people should know that. HIV infections has so many contradictions. Clinical trials show what? That Azt kills t-cells faster than aids??!! What is one of the definitions for aids and I challenge you not to laugh? pneumonia = pneumonia pmeumonia + hiv presence = aids Bollocks. If HIV is present and the pneumonia is picked up by a patient who you wouldnt normally expect to get it, then that is probably a clinical symptom associated with immune deficiency. Its the start of the syndrome tbh. Causality Parky, its the cornerstone of medical research. So how does one account for the thousands with HIV presence and no illness of any kind ever? Causality my dear.....Poppycock. Getting back to your earlier point. Flooding a person with retro-virals which as you know are generally broad band in their targetting (not protein inhibitors) will stop all the viruses in their tracks not just HIV. The downside is you can't keep it up for more than a few years due to the side effects. The dissentors aren't arguing that AIDS is brought on by a virus of some kind, they are questioning whether it is the HIV virus. You see the differance. IMO the widespread over use of anti-biotics in the West is part of the picture. They are well know the fuck up the immune system as most people are well aware.

The call anything they want AIDS these days. As a diesease it is FINISHED IN EUROPE look at the stats... http://www.avert.org/eurosum.htm This part is still unproven Chex and you of all people should know that. HIV infections has so many contradictions. Clinical trials show what? That Azt kills t-cells faster than aids??!! What is one of the definitions for aids and I challenge you not to laugh? pneumonia = pneumonia pmeumonia + hiv presence = aids Bollocks.

This kind of thing is controversial, but notwithstanding still very intersting... http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdafrica.htm To paraphrase: "Likewise the American and European AIDS epidemics: (i) rose steadily, not exponentially, (ii) were completely non-randomly biased 85% in favor of males, (iii) have followed first the over-use of recreational drugs, and then the extensive use of anti-AIDS-viral drugs (Duesberg & Rasnick, 1998), (iv) do not manifest in one or even just a few specific diseases typical of microbial epidemics, (v) do not spread to the general non-drug using population. AIDS manifests in a bewildering spectrum of 30 non-specific, heterogeneous diseases. This is consistent with the heterogeneity of the causative toxins. There is no evidence for AIDS-immunity in 18 years, but the American/European AIDS epidemics are now coming down slowly as fewer people use recreational drugs (Duesberg & Rasnick, 1998). The above summary indicates that American and European AIDS epidemics exhibit the characteristics of diseases caused by non-contagious, chemical or physical factors NOT viruses."

15 to 20% of people with 'AIDS' have no presence of HIV. ??? source?!?!? Just put HIV doesn't cause aids into google....100's of pages will come up. There is doubt around the whole aids/hiv issue since the early 90's. Not saying I beleive it, but it is interesting how thw WHO and drugs companies have steamrollered all the contradictory research. would any of this be credible research? I only say this as I'm pretty sure if you Google 'moon landings faked', you get 100's of pages... Well you should see the carefully constrcted parameters of what constitutes aids then - you couldn't make it up. HIV fails many long standing scientific tests that constitute what a disease causing virus is. For instance monkeys have been injected for 20 years with live HIV and something like 9/10 never develop aids. Ever. part of the reason why a cure is so far off is that HIV isn't a readily identifiable disease. It has many many iterations and mutations IIRC. Alos, it is these non-progressing HIV cases that are being studied for some vaccine leads. HIV is an old virus and has been around for 100's of years....Why it would suddenly start giving people 'aids' is part of the mystery I agree. IIRC HIV the monkey version is old. It was never present in humans until AIDS was noticed, the transition from monkeys to humans is thought to be from tribesmen eating monkeys? or having sex with them (all of this is from memory before someone starts pulling me up on it) Humans getting aid from monkeys is utter cobblers for a start. Closer would be the high use of anti-biotics combined with the gay lifestyle. It has been suggested that the very active sections of the gay community who 'also' use high doses of various anti-biotics to counter the 'results' of this lifestyle (especially in the 90's) MAY have mutated their immune system to exhibit 'aids like' symptoms. This is one theory that has been passed over as it wasn't deemed politically palatable. Of course in fairness there are different types of aids as 'they say' now. The African version behaves totally differently as infection rates and footprint shows it infects men and women equally as against the Western conterpart which is still found predominantly in males. 90% in some areas. The whole HIV aids thing is so wracked with politics and money for Africa, it is difficult IMO for dissenting research (and there are dissenting voices from A grade scientists) to gain a foothold in the public domain. I have no firm opionon but as they have got nowhere in 20 years with HIV perhaps they should look elsewhere. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...st_uids=1349680 like I say this is from memory, google aids monkeys and it's 50/50 for and against " The African version behaves totally differently as infection rates and footprint shows it infects men and women equally as against the Western conterpart which is still found predominantly in males. 90% in some areas." -didn't understand this - are you talking AIDs or HIV?? There isn't much controlled and monitored testing for HIV in Africa cause of the expense and certain local factors. So we are essentially talking about 'people who display aids like symptoms' yes.

Perhaps I have been less than fair with 'science' in the past Alexus.

15 to 20% of people with 'AIDS' have no presence of HIV. ??? source?!?!? Just put HIV doesn't cause aids into google....100's of pages will come up. There is doubt around the whole aids/hiv issue since the early 90's. Not saying I beleive it, but it is interesting how thw WHO and drugs companies have steamrollered all the contradictory research. would any of this be credible research? I only say this as I'm pretty sure if you Google 'moon landings faked', you get 100's of pages... Well you should see the carefully constrcted parameters of what constitutes aids then - you couldn't make it up. HIV fails many long standing scientific tests that constitute what a disease causing virus is. For instance monkeys have been injected for 20 years with live HIV and something like 9/10 never develop aids. Ever. part of the reason why a cure is so far off is that HIV isn't a readily identifiable disease. It has many many iterations and mutations IIRC. Alos, it is these non-progressing HIV cases that are being studied for some vaccine leads. HIV is an old virus and has been around for 100's of years....Why it would suddenly start giving people 'aids' is part of the mystery I agree. IIRC HIV the monkey version is old. It was never present in humans until AIDS was noticed, the transition from monkeys to humans is thought to be from tribesmen eating monkeys? or having sex with them (all of this is from memory before someone starts pulling me up on it) Humans getting aid from monkeys is utter cobblers for a start. Closer would be the high use of anti-biotics combined with the gay lifestyle. It has been suggested that the very active sections of the gay community who 'also' use high doses of various anti-biotics to counter the 'results' of this lifestyle (especially in the 90's) MAY have mutated their immune system to exhibit 'aids like' symptoms. This is one theory that has been passed over as it wasn't deemed politically palatable. Of course in fairness there are different types of aids as 'they say' now. The African version behaves totally differently as infection rates and footprint shows it infects men and women equally as against the Western conterpart which is still found predominantly in males. 90% in some areas. The whole HIV aids thing is so wracked with politics and money for Africa, it is difficult IMO for dissenting research (and there are dissenting voices from A grade scientists) to gain a foothold in the public domain. I have no firm opionon but as they have got nowhere in 20 years with HIV perhaps they should look elsewhere. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...st_uids=1349680

15 to 20% of people with 'AIDS' have no presence of HIV. ??? source?!?!? Just put HIV doesn't cause aids into google....100's of pages will come up. There is doubt around the whole aids/hiv issue since the early 90's. Not saying I beleive it, but it is interesting how thw WHO and drugs companies have steamrollered all the contradictory research. would any of this be credible research? I only say this as I'm pretty sure if you Google 'moon landings faked', you get 100's of pages... Well you should see the carefully constrcted parameters of what constitutes aids then - you couldn't make it up. HIV fails many long standing scientific tests that constitute what a disease causing virus is. For instance monkeys have been injected for 20 years with live HIV and something like 9/10 never develop aids. Ever. part of the reason why a cure is so far off is that HIV isn't a readily identifiable disease. It has many many iterations and mutations IIRC. Alos, it is these non-progressing HIV cases that are being studied for some vaccine leads. HIV is an old virus and has been around for 100's of years....Why it would suddenly start giving people 'aids' is part of the mystery I agree.

15 to 20% of people with 'AIDS' have no presence of HIV. ??? source?!?!? It's another pet project of internet kooks, missiles brought down the WTC, world leaders are lizard men, the global warming myth is a eurotrash conspiracy to bring down the US, AIDS isn't caused by HIV and cannot infect straight people who don't use drugs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_reappraisal This is the main dissentor. Some internet geek obviously: Peter H. Duesberg Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA Born: December 2, 1936 http://www.duesberg.com/

15 to 20% of people with 'AIDS' have no presence of HIV. ??? source?!?!? Just put HIV doesn't cause aids into google....100's of pages will come up. There is doubt around the whole aids/hiv issue since the early 90's. Not saying I beleive it, but it is interesting how thw WHO and drugs companies have steamrollered all the contradictory research. would any of this be credible research? I only say this as I'm pretty sure if you Google 'moon landings faked', you get 100's of pages... Well you should see the carefully constrcted parameters of what constitutes aids then - you couldn't make it up. HIV fails many long standing scientific tests that constitute what a disease causing virus is. For instance monkeys have been injected for 20 years with live HIV and something like 9/10 never develop aids. Ever.

15 to 20% of people with 'AIDS' have no presence of HIV. ??? source?!?!? Just put HIV doesn't cause aids into google....100's of pages will come up. There is doubt around the whole aids/hiv issue since the early 90's. Not saying I beleive it, but it is interesting how thw WHO and drugs companies have steamrollered all the contradictory research.

15 to 20% of people with 'AIDS' have no presence of HIV.