Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

AIDS Patients Face Downside of Living Longer (effects of AIDS drugs "worse than having AIDS")
New York Times ^ | January 6, 2008 | JANE GROSS

Posted on 01/15/2008 6:18:55 AM PST by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-281 last
To: Hildy
So..people who get ill by behavior you find offensive, are less than human? I thought we’re all God’s children.

That's rich, coming from someone who thinks pre-born children are "less than human."

251 posted on 01/16/2008 2:10:52 PM PST by shhrubbery! (Max Boot: Joe Wilson has sold more whoppers than Burger King)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: shhrubbery!

Speaker of behavior, check out post #247


252 posted on 01/16/2008 2:22:37 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: All
jas3 claims to be a scientist, and yet refuses to debate Duesberg.

No credible scientist will debate Duesberg for the same reason that no credible Republican will debate David Duke.

Further, he has no interest in the truth IMHO.

Correction, I post only the truth. My only goal on this thread is to counter the Conspiracy Theory being peddled as science.

He tells lies, employs diversionary tactics, makes "facts" up out of thin air, engages in character assassination, and uses a scattershot approach designed to keep FReepers chasing their tales.

The Conspiracy Theorists on this thread are good at telling tall tales, but not at telling the difference between "tales" and "tails." Or at telling the difference between actual science and Conspiracy Theories such as AIDS being caused by drug use.

My advice is to first find out what Duesberg et al are saying, then learn about the science, and then make up your own mind.

My advice is to read the scientific literature and to talk to your family physician before considering as fact any statements that HIV/AIDS Conspiracy Theorists post here or anywhere else.

People like jas3 work overtime to make sure you never find out about the other side of the AIDS debate.

There is no debate. Debating whether HIV causes AIDS is like debating whether Vitamin C deficiency causes Scurvey.

If you are a conservative and you believe there is such thing as the truth, then you should be able to make up your own mind by finding out what these scientists yourselves.

I've no clue what that means.

Many conservatives have already done this respect to “human caused” global warming, and I submit it can be done with AIDS as well.

The difference between the two is that very few meteorologist or climate scientists believe that anthropogenic global warming is settled science, despite what some POLITICIANS may claim. If Duesberg thinks that he is correct, he just has to post his lab work on his website. If he's right, the scientific community will accept his papers. Unfortunately, he has published, and his work is so poor that he's destroyed his own career and marginalized his work on anueploidy.

jas3

PS I debated jas3 in a 500+ reply thread. When I finally learned to pin him down and limit him to one point at a time, instead of allowing him to engage in endless destractions via his scattershot approach, I began winning the debate hands down. Unfortunately, the mods pulled the thread because it turned into a flame war.

It wasn't really a debate at all, and there was nothing to pin down. Your Conspiracy Theory lost in the court of the scientific community, so you're trying to get the public to support it by posting long discredited theories. FACT: HIV causes AIDS, not drugs. End of story.
253 posted on 01/16/2008 2:29:15 PM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: jas3
Well thank you, I think. I was aiming for "ha ha" funny, but even if you meant "How did this weirdo get on the internet?" funny, I will take what I can get. But there's really nothing funnier--and I mean that in both senses--than the elaborate webs of conspiracy theories, half-truths, and non sequiturs used to prop up popular pseudoscience on the internet, so let's all give Dr. Duesberg and his troupe a hand. Aren't they a great act, folks? Come back next week, we've got anti-vaccinationists opening for creationists, and drinks are just three ameros each during happy hour. It'll be a blast. Good night!
254 posted on 01/16/2008 2:46:53 PM PST by Caesar Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

By showing your “intolerance” for people or groups you deem “intolerant”, aren’t you in actuality committing the same act(s) you accuse others of.....................?


255 posted on 01/16/2008 3:06:09 PM PST by AwesomePossum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Unfortunately, the mods pulled the thread because it turned into a flame war.

Actually Jim Robinson pulled the thread because you started pinging him to report me, and I responded in kind. There's not much he hates more than moderating science threads. You may notice when you post a new thread that science is not one of the accepted categories.

But the thread is not lost. It's easily available in the google archives.

256 posted on 01/16/2008 3:34:30 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze
I did mean "ha ha" funny. That was hillarious.

I do think it is "aha" funny that this AID Conspiracy Theory stuff is rearing its ugly head on FR. Normally this type of stuff pops up in leftist magazines like Harper's or LA City Beat or on radical black power sites.

How in the world some posters here got it into their head that this is a conservative v. liberal issue is perplexing.

It makes me wonder whether the posters are who they claim to be or whether they are trying to denigrate Free Republic by posting kooky theories by Loch Ness Monster promoters like Henry Bauer. I wish I were joking !!!

jas3
257 posted on 01/16/2008 3:36:06 PM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: jas3
There is no debate. Debating whether HIV causes AIDS is like debating whether Vitamin C deficiency causes Scurvy.

You must be new to FR. Vitamin C is a hot topic among the science deniers. Some of GGG's buds are bound to step up to the plate on that one.

258 posted on 01/16/2008 3:37:05 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: js1138
But the thread is not lost. It's easily available in the google archives.

I also have a copy of the complete thread. If anyone wants it, just PM me.

jas3
259 posted on 01/16/2008 3:38:04 PM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts; jas3
Wow, you are still at it. You sir, should attempt to get a life.

jas3 claims to be a scientist, and yet refuses to debate Duesberg. Further, he has no interest in the truth IMHO. He tells lies, employs diversionary tactics, makes "facts" up out of thin air, engages in character assassination, and uses a scattershot approach designed to keep FReepers chasing their tales

Sorry ggg, you seem to be displaying a severe case of projection here.

My advice is to first find out what Duesberg et al are saying, then learn about the science, and then make up your own mind.

If I tell you that I have read some of your posted materials and still think you are full of shnitzle, will you go away? I'm usually pretty laid back for much of the stuff on FR, but you have lost it on this topic. It is apparent that you have some major conflict of interest on the subject, or a severe personality disorder.

Come on, ggg, you can let us in on your secret...
260 posted on 01/16/2008 3:43:07 PM PST by rusty millet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: js1138
You must be new to FR. Vitamin C is a hot topic among the science deniers. Some of GGG's buds are bound to step up to the plate on that one.

I've been here a looong time, so I presume you are joking, right?

jas3
261 posted on 01/16/2008 3:47:13 PM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: rusty millet
Come on, ggg, you can let us in on your secret...

On the pulled thread, it took about 405 posts, but GodsGunsGuts finally revealed his bias when he wrote:

You won’t debate Duesberg because for some reason you have an unnatural need to defend the fast-track, drug-induced, gay lifestyle.

In his mind, he's confused the question of how AIDS is transmitted with approval of "the fast-track, drug-induced, gay lifestyle." He went on and on about bathhouse gays.

Approval of the lifestyle of gays has nothing at all to do with transmission of HIV. For some reason he's got a mental block on that.

So instead of trying to learn a little about HIV/AIDS, all he does is repost the same loooooong disproven theories again and again. He seems like he has a decent work ethic. He might consider using it in the library of his nearest medical school instead of accepting the word of one discredited scientist as gospel.

jas3
262 posted on 01/16/2008 3:55:06 PM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze; rusty millet

Why would’t this issue pop up in publications that span the entire political spectrum? The point is, each political group decides how to apply the facts in their own way, just as they do on any other issue. For instance, liberals try to convince the public that global warming is human caused, whereas conservatives point to the data that suggests that it is caused by solar cycles. Which one are we to believe? In order to make an informed decision you have to look into the matter yourself and make up YOUR OWN MIND. In the case of Duesberg et al’s alternative theory about what causes AIDS, well respected conservative publications and publishers have taken up this issue and presented it to their readers. If this was really just some crackpot “conspiracy theory” do you really think Policy Review (respected conservative think-tank), National Review (conservative), American Spectator (conservative), Reason Magazine (libertarian), or Regnery publishing (conservative) would allow this issue to besmirch their hard-earned reputations? Obviously, they looked into the story for themselves and recognized the need to get it out to their repective readerships. So you can ignore this issue if you like, but you would do well to refrain from mocking conservative issues that you have yet to fully consider and appreciate. If you would like to look into the issue, I suggest you read the introductory articles I posted. They are a bit dated, but they are the best layman’s articles I know of. If you are still interested, I will send more articles and papers that take the issue all the way up to the present.

All the best—GGG


263 posted on 01/16/2008 4:09:49 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: AwesomePossum

No.


264 posted on 01/16/2008 4:12:51 PM PST by Hildy (You know you're in love when you can't fall asleep cause reality is finally better than your dreams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Caesar Soze; rusty millet
Why would’t this issue pop up in publications that span the entire political spectrum?

Not anymore. It's like Cold Fusion. It "pops up" only in fringe publications because it turned out (at least in the form claimed by Pons and Fleischman) to be a fiction. Respectable magazines like the American Spectator, the National Review, and Policy Review wrote about the controversy in the late 80s/early 90s.

When the rather limited controversy and highly unlikely alternative theory was resolved by overwhelming and irrefutable evidence, there was nothing for them to report on or write about.

The point is, each political group decides how to apply the facts in their own way, just as they do on any other issue. For instance, liberals try to convince the public that global warming is human caused, whereas conservatives point to the data that suggests that it is caused by solar cycles. Which one are we to believe? In

This confuses facts with opinions. The fact that HIV causes AIDS is a fact. How it is applied is not relevant to me. I know some posters here seem to think that it is a nasty fact that HIV causes AIDS because it implies endorsement of the gay lifestyle. But it does not imply anything one way or the other. It is just a simple fact.

If you are still interested, I will send more articles and papers that take the issue all the way up to the present.

Thanks, but there is no new "evidence" that AIDS is caused by drugs. If you new articles are as poorly researched as your old articles, you'll have no luck convincing anyone in the scientific community or medical research communities that your Conspiracy Theory is anything other than just that: A kooky Conspiracy Theory.

jas3
265 posted on 01/16/2008 4:27:17 PM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: jas3; GodGunsGuts

The only thing I can figure is that ggg is either Duesberg himself (no citation of anyone else’s work, but constantly pimping Duesberg), or he has a hatred of homosexuality and is attempting to accelerate the death of sinners by any subversive means possible.

Come on ggg, you can let us in on your secret....


266 posted on 01/16/2008 4:35:23 PM PST by rusty millet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: rusty millet

No secret here. I’m not Peter Duesberg. If “fast-lane” homosexuals would simply stop doing massive amounts of toxic drugs to facilitate their wildly promiscuous lifestyles, and stay off cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs, they would have a decent chance at living into old age. But they are not my primary concern. What I’m really concerned about are all the otherwise innocent and healthy HIV+ heterosexual men, women, children, and yes, even children in the womb, who are put on extremely toxic chemotherapy drugs, all in the name of fighting the wrong cause of AIDS.


267 posted on 01/16/2008 4:42:39 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Sorry Dues... uh, ggg.

You are way too emotionally invested in this to not have a conflict of interest.

Come on, you would feel better if you got it off your chest....


268 posted on 01/16/2008 4:45:44 PM PST by rusty millet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: rusty millet
What I’m really concerned about are all the otherwise innocent and healthy HIV+ heterosexual men, women, children, and yes, even children in the womb, who are put on extremely toxic chemotherapy drugs, all in the name of fighting the wrong cause of AIDS.

Free Republic hardly seems like an effective place to save all thes innocent "children, and yes, even children in the womb..."

Incidentally AZT was never a chemotherapy drug. It was created by a researcher in chemotherapy, but proved entirely non-toxic (i.e. it killed zero cells) to cancer.

AZT is a reverse transcriptase inhibitor.

The bottom line is that next to nobody here on Free Republic is dumb enough to believe Conspiracy Theories on HIV/AIDS.

And the only people who do post silly nonsense on AIDS being caused by drugs (or Loch Ness Monster stuff) have already indicated that they don't read any science journals and have no professional or academic credentials to actually evaluate Duesberg's silly claims

jas3
269 posted on 01/16/2008 4:52:15 PM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: rusty millet
I have already explained that I used to intern for Congressman William Dannemeyer. One of my jobs was to scour the MSM and the scientific literature re: AIDS. Back then we were all convinced that AIDS was going to be the next black plague, and we believed the AIDS establishment which was predicting that tens to hundreds of millions of people would be dead by the turn of the century. Then one of my scientist friends (not Duesberg) called me up and said they got the wrong cause of AIDS. I argued with him for hours and finally agreed to read up on the subject. He sent me a large package full of scientific literature highlighting all the facts that didn’t add up. He also included a couple of scientific papers and articles by and about Peter Duesberg. After reading through all the material, and spending many long hours researching the issue further on my own, I finally concluded that the evidence suggested that the AIDS establishment had got the wrong cause of AIDS, and that Duesberg’s drug/risk-AIDS hypothesis fit the facts perfectly. Some years later, I put together a packet of information for Congressman Dannemeyer and put it directly into his hands when he was running for the senate. A friend of mine, who was his driver, told me that he and his wife discussed it all the way home. Sometime later he obviously changed his mind about AIDS because he wrote an endorsement of Peter Duesberg’s book, Inventing the AIDS Virus. Here is what he wrote:

“The information set forth in this book should be read by anyone interested in the AIDS issue. The government has evolved an enormous scientific bureaucracy which may be premised on chasing the wrong horse. I suggest a full-scale Congressional investigation be conducted to dig out the answers.” —Congressman Bill Dannemeyer

270 posted on 01/16/2008 4:59:46 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: jas3; GodGunsGuts

There is more than conspiracy theories here. ggg, you express a lot of the same sentiments as a scientist that thinks people don’t understand the importance of their work.

And you are right. Much research is done by anonymous, dedicated people who invest so much of themselves into their work, only to not be appreciated.

How much harder is it to be a media darling at one point, and then fall from grace.

Come on. Everyone else has left the building. Romney won MI last night, you know? It’s only us here. You kept pinging me back. I’ll listen to your story....


271 posted on 01/16/2008 5:00:30 PM PST by rusty millet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Nope, you’ve got to do better than that. You are too emotionally involved.

Just us chickens here...


272 posted on 01/16/2008 5:03:35 PM PST by rusty millet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: rusty millet

That pretty much sums it up. I have been following the Duesberg saga ever since, and I have arranged for him (and some other dissenting scientists) to speak at numerous forums, to include Young Americans For Freedom National Convention (YAF), the CATO institute and the American Enterprise Institute(through a friend), various radio interviews (such as Duffy and Co., Marlon Maddox, Concerned Women for America, and numerous other conservative/religious right radio programs). I also arranged many university speaking engagements, and numerous debates with AIDS establishment scientists, who all issued lame excuses and backed out at the last minute in their turn (except one, but he wasn’t one of Generals in the “War on AIDS” and he was utterly destroyed by Duesberg...which probably explains why all the others backed out...word gets around fast in the scientific community). Too many other things to list.


273 posted on 01/16/2008 5:20:13 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

I am an agricultural scientist, and the battle of ideas is alive and well in science, as well as politics. Sometimes we can convince others to ally themselves in our cause, other times the evidence does not support the facts. When support dwindles, there is a reason for it. I have been accused of tilting at windmills in my work, but an increasing alliance of respected professionals speaks otherwise.

Theories of the “Establishment” aside, I also know that there are two ways of getting funding for my work. Convincingly argue that the civilized world as we know it will end unless my research is funded, or simply, have a good idea. Some organization will fund research if it falls into one of those categories.

You, um, I mean Duesberg, is not gaining alliances or funding. It is obvious he is not winning in the war of ideas. Time to come up with a better idea, or definitively demonstrate your belief in the harmlessness of the virus by intentionally infecting yourself with HIV.

Barry Marshall demonstrated that bacteria caused ulcers by ingesting come cultures of the causal agent. I doubt that you will be willing to demonstrate the harmlessness of HIV by this method. Chasers with behavioral disorders may want to be infected for their own bizzare gratification, but if you can cite for me one person who has been courageous enough with their own belief in the harmelessness of HIV to intentionally infect himself, and live, then we can talk further.

You are probably the last of the Mohicans for this cause ggg. Across your multiple posts, you seem to express quite a bit of both pride and hurt over this topic. I hope you can find peace and a ready cause for good that will make a difference in people’s lives.

I must travel early in the morning, so, good night.


274 posted on 01/16/2008 5:57:28 PM PST by rusty millet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: rusty millet
Good night, Rusty Millet. Duesberg and other AIDS Rethinker scientists are still alive and well, and continue to make progress. New books and articles are being written about him (and them) all the time. It has been a long, tough, and at times, excruciating battle. But I still think they will prevail in the end. It’s only a matter of time.

All the best to you and yours—GGG

275 posted on 01/16/2008 6:04:25 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: rusty millet

Why would a debate in front of Concerned Women for America which describes itself as “the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization with a rich 29-year history of helping our members across the country bring Biblical principles into all levels of public policy” be an even slightly appropriate place to hold a scientific debate?

jas3


276 posted on 01/16/2008 6:10:41 PM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: rusty millet

It wasn’t a debate, Rusty. They published an aricle about the controversy, and they invited one of the AIDS rethinkers to come on as a guest on their radio show.


277 posted on 01/16/2008 6:15:24 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: rusty millet

Hey Rusty:

Ask GodsGunsGuts why he’s afraid to post directly to me and has to post all his replies to me to your username.

jas3


278 posted on 01/16/2008 6:37:34 PM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: jas3
I've been here a looong time, so I presume you are joking, right?

I'm not joking. We had quite a flame war over vitamin C and scurvy.

279 posted on 01/16/2008 7:36:47 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: jas3
I've been here a looong time, so I presume you are joking, right?

I'm not joking.

280 posted on 01/16/2008 7:37:30 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Jiminy Cricket, that’s ridiculous.

jas3


281 posted on 01/16/2008 7:54:20 PM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-281 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson