From: Richard Steven Hack (richardhack@pcmagic.net)
Date: Fri Mar 08 2002 - 20:57:34 MST
At 02:13 PM 3/8/02 -0600, you wrote:
>Richard Steven Hack wrote,
> > "People with HIV get AIDS" - 15% do not.
>
>I'm afraid this sad statistic is not provable at this time. All we can say
>is that some number have lived a long time with HIV without succumbing to
>the disease *yet*. Unfortunately, this does not disprove a cause and
>effect, as it could merely be a happy delay before the onset of disease
>symptoms.
The delay in some cases has been MANY years - not five. The mortality
statistic I mentioned is that fifty percent of HIV-infected persons die
within five years, if I remember correctly.
> > "People without AIDS symptoms don't have HIV"
>
>Where are these "quotes" coming from that you are refuting? Nobody here has
>claimed this, nor does anybody who believes in the HIV cause of AIDS.
"HIV antibody tests are remarkably accurate. False positives and false
negatives are not rare enough to state that there is not a one-to-one
correlation. People with HIV get AIDS. People with AIDS have HIV. People
without HIV don't get AIDS. People without AIDS symptoms don't have HIV."
Is that not your post from 9:05 AM this morning, March 8?
Read the last sentence from your post.
> > >One "fact" that confuses these people is that people can live so
> > long with
> > >HIV before getting AIDS. This does not mean they aren't affected.
> >
> > The point is statistical - apparently 15% of HIV infected persons NEVER
> > get AIDS. (Or at least "never" being much longer than the
> > statistical five
> > year mortality.
>
>I see. "Never gets AIDS" actually means "last five years".
No - it means that some people do not get AIDS for at LEAST the five years
- and in some cases many more years. I do not know the maximum.
Where did you get "last five years" from my sentence? I said "never being
much longer than the statistical five year mortality". Can you read without
a knee-jerk response?
> That is not the
>same thing. Arguing that people can live longer than five years with HIV
>does not prove that HIV therefore does not cause AIDS. This argument is
>just plain faulty.
Now you are claiming things that others do not. What people are claiming
is that the fact that not everyone appears to get AIDS from HIV indicates
that there MAY not be a DIRECT cause-effect between the two. I believe
that is all that has been claimed by the people making those claims.
>If we count "five years" as "never", then we can say HIV doesn't cause AIDS
>in 15% of the cases. We can also say that cigarettes don't cause cancer,
>and adolescents don't grow into adults.
Pointless response.
> > I knew a fellow with AIDS in the joint
> > did some reading on it
> > plus I've read articles on it in Spin Magazine
> > There is a book out by the fellow who does medical reporting for the ABC
>News web site.
> > He does not sound like a conspiracy theorist (I've heard him on Art Bell).
>
>I have no doubt that you can find support for this conspiracy in jail, in
>Spin Magazine, on a news website or from a guest on Art Bell. Don't you
>have any medical, biological, or scientific sources of information?
As I said, I am not that interested since I do not have either HIV or AIDS
nor do I engage in risky behavior. The material I got from the guy in the
joint was supplied him by one of the major AIDS organizations that provides
extensive documentation on the disease and the progression of research to
people who are infected. Spin Magazine published what appeared to be a
well-researched article which quoted people with, I suspect, better degrees
than yours. The individual on Art Bell was the reporter who has the job
reporting medical stories on the ABC News web site, presumably from
peer-reviewed journals and interviews with people who are doing the
research. If you have a problem with him, talk to him about it, not
me. Just because someone appears on Art Bell does not make him either an
idiot or a conspiracy theorist - I believe Bart Kosko has appeared on that
show, and a number of other prominent and well-known scientists. Your
response is an ad hominem attack and is thus "plonked"...
> > As far as conspiracy theory goes, the whole situation sounds like
> > a replay of Krebiozen decades ago. I read a book on that and it sure
>sounded like
> > the stuff worked to reduce cancer deaths.
>
>Yes, the AIDS cure has been suppressed just like the cancer cures.
There are people who believe that. I have said that I do not know whether
this is true, but it is beginning to sound that way. I reserve judgement -
unlike yourself, apparently...
> > I tend to be cynical about people who are receiving billions in research
> > dollars being really willing to turn that spigot off with a really
> > effective treatment.
>
>I dearly wish there were billions of dollars going into AIDS research....
I believe I was referring to worldwide spending. I do not know the exact
figure. You may enlighten me on the worldwide research figure if you know
it. If you don't, you're blowing smoke, too.
> > But, I'm not a molecular biologist or doctor either, so I'll drop
> > this topic.
>
>So will I, now that I see what the "evidence" is.
>
>--
>Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
>Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
Good.
Richard Steven Hack
richardhack@pcmagic.net
--- Outgoing e-mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.332 / Virus Database: 186 - Release Date: 3/6/02
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:52 MST