RE: Re: What hope can be offered to AIDS patients?

[Guest guest]

Re: What hope can be offered to AIDS patients?

--- In , Idol <paul_idol@y...>

wrote:

>

> Through one of the many strange twists of fate which seem to

> eternally afflict me, the task of convincing someone newly

diagnosed

> with AIDS that proper nutrition and supplementation combined with

a

> judicious application of alternative medical procedures like IV

> infusions of vitamin C can offer a good shot at maintaining health

> has fallen to me. He seems to think that since it's inevitable

that

> he's going to completely disintegrate, he might as well avoid all

the

> suffering and the humiliation and check out early.

>

> A mixture of anecdotal journalism and lay medical journalism

> salted with only a little scholarly literature would

> probably be best, as he's neither highly educated nor

> predisposed to understand that nutrition is extremely

> powerful and that standard medical and dietary advice is

> disastrous. For much the same reasons, I don't know that

> there's any point in delving into the currently unanswerable

> questions of whether HIV really causes AIDS, whether AIDS

> might actually be the result of drugs and medicines,

> whether HIV was created by people, and so on.

> That said, I'll be grateful for anything you

> can point me to.

" Hi :

You might suggest that he stops doing whatever he has been doing to

supress his immune system. He must have been doing something. There

is no scientific study to prove either that HIV causes AIDS or that

it is even the probable cause. If he ever gets interested (or if you

want more information), he might check out virusmyth.com.

Chi "

My understanding is that it is highly, highly probable that HIV causes

AIDS, and that the few people who insist otherwise, blaming it on drug

abuse, or who knows what else, are about as credible as the flat earth

society. While, certainly, we on this list have experience with science

that isn't what it's cracked up to be, occasionally I start wondering

about this diet, given the preponderance of flaky views that exist here.

[Guest guest]

Vaguely remember running across year or so ago some

Canadian world aid group's work with vitamin A

supplementation for AIDS victims in Africa. Looked so

good that I tried to track down how to get the info to

Bono as he was arranging World Bank debt relief for

affected countries at the time. Anyway, google search

might turn it up. If I saved the link it is on my

puter in repair.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

kili94 wrote:

> ,

>

> This doesn't address why he shouldn't just throw in the towel now. I

> haven't dealt w/anyone who's had AIDS, but I'd say in general anyone

> who's just found out traumatic news isn't able to see things clearly

> and goes through a rocky emotional time for a while as they adjust to

> the news.

Greetings All!

I'm new to the list, having been directed here by a member whose

opinions I happen to hold in high esteem from another list I frequent.

, regarding your friend's recent diagnosis, I have to agree that a

healthy psychological state is paramount to long-term survival. While I

know several people with the disease, I am proud to have two friends who

have survived and flourished over twenty years since their diagnoses.

Both have adhered to proper nutrition and vitamin regimens; one swears

by a daily dose of aloe vera, the other proffers an intense connection

with nature through gardening, meditation, and what he calls 'cathartic'

writing; and both speak of the efficacy of marijuana. And realizing the

continually changing nature of the disease, they have stayed on top of

the medications and continually vary their 'cocktails.' They also thank

naturopathy, and homeopathy. While the care alone may seem like a

full-time endeavor, neither have divorced themselves from life, though,

and aside from tossing some physically damaging habits to the curb, and

modifying what they identify as the obvious sexual behavior culprits,

they have maintained a steady course of living as they did before their

diagnoses.

They live in San Francisco, where I used to reside before moving to the

Midwest, and where I used to volunteer for the San Francisco Aids

Foundation. SFAF <http://www.sfaf.org/> is an excellent resource.

UCSF, where they both receive their medical care, also has a

super-informative site on up-to-date treatments

<http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/>.

Best of luck to your friend. He will definitely need your help and

support, too!

[Guest guest]

>Greetings All!

>

>I'm new to the list, having been directed here by a member whose

>opinions I happen to hold in high esteem from another list I frequent.

Are you the from Wellpet? If so, glad to see you here!

If not, glad to see you here anyway, LOL.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

It's me, Suze! And just WHO do you think that member whose opinions I

hold in high esteem happens to be? Don't blush.

Suze Fisher wrote:

>

>

>>Greetings All!

>>

>>I'm new to the list, having been directed here by a member whose

>>opinions I happen to hold in high esteem from another list I frequent.

>>

>>

>

>Are you the from Wellpet? If so, glad to see you here!

>

>If not, glad to see you here anyway, LOL.

>

>

>Suze Fisher

>Lapdog Design, Inc.

>Web Design & Development

>http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

>Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

>http://www.westonaprice.org

>

>----------------------------

>“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

>heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

>Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

>University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

>

>The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

><http://www.thincs.org>

>----------------------------

>

>

>

>

>

><HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

><B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

><UL>

> <LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

></UL></FONT>

><PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

><B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

></FONT></PRE>

></BODY>

></HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

Re: What hope can be offered to AIDS patients?

> My understanding is that it is highly, highly

> probable that HIV causes AIDS, and that the few

> people who insist otherwise, blaming it on drug

> abuse, or who knows what else, are about as credible

> as the flat earth society. While, certainly, we on this

> list have experience with science that isn't what it's

> cracked up to be, occasionally I start wondering about this

> diet, given the preponderance of flaky views that exist here.

" Gene:

You rule the flaky thinking. "

That's interesting. I've been called many things, but this is the first

time I've been called 'flaky'.

" Are you sure when you say " it is highly,

highly probable " do you not actually mean " it is highly, highly,

highly probable " ? "

I'm 89% sure.

" As far as I know, being highly probable in science

is not actually as good as a scientific paper that proves something is

actually the case. "

Curious - I wasn't aware that science PROVED anything.

" If you can give us the scientific study that proves

HIV causes AIDS then I would consider you less flaky in your reasoning.

The lesson I learned in school about the widely held belief that the

earth was flat and the centre of the universe (it was said to

be " highly, highly probable " I think), was that just because a

majority hold a certain scientific view it does not make it right and

it only takes one person to introduce evidence to show the widely held

view (the establishment view) is wrong. "

I would venture to say that at the time when people believed that the

earth was flat, there was less credible scientific research than there

is now. There is SOME of it, you know...

And certainly I never implied in any way that all prevailing beliefs are

always true.

" If you can't find the study

that proves HIV causes AIDS (there isn't one), you might want to read

Duesberg's paper on AIDS epidemiology: Inconsistencies with

Human Immunosupressive Virus and with infectious disease. When you

read it please offer your evidence to counter the points Duesberg

makes. "

Again - this is always quite classic. When encountering a fool, you are

asked to be an expert in a subject, or become one, in order to counter a

claim that (from everything that I can understand) is not considered

seriously by an enormous majority of AIDS researchers. Far beyond the

majority that may belive that saturated fats are bad for you....but you

stated it as fact. I think that the burden of proof is on you.

Yes - it is attractive to believe that the majority of the scientific

community is wrong. But, I doubt (am I wrong?) that you are an expert in

the field yourself. You've just found someone whose views you find

attractive, you state them as fact, and anyone who doubts them is a

flake. Cool.

[Guest guest]

> [mailto: ] On Behalf Of soilfertility

>

> The lesson I learned in school about the widely held belief

> that the earth was flat and the centre of the universe (it

> was said to be " highly, highly probable " I think), was that

> just because a majority hold a certain scientific view it

> does not make it right and it only takes one person to

> introduce evidence to show the widely held view (the

> establishment view) is wrong.

Actually, that's a myth. The round-earth model has generally been accepted

since classical times.

> If you can't find the study

> that proves HIV causes AIDS (there isn't one)...

Here's what the NIH has to say. Obviously it would be unethical to inject

humans with HIV, but apparently they've done studies with lower primates and

other animals that do indeed demonstrate this as clearly as possible without

actually experimenting on humans. There have also been cases involving blood

transfusions and laboratory/medical accidents in which workers with no other

known risk factors developed AIDS and died.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

[Guest guest]

>It's me, Suze! And just WHO do you think that member whose opinions I

>hold in high esteem happens to be? Don't blush.

>

>

<blushing> ;-)

P.S. Christie Kieth is here too!

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " soilfertility " <ynos@...>

>

> >

> > " Gene:

> > You rule the flaky thinking. "

>

> > That's interesting. I've been called many things,

> > but this is the first time I've been called 'flaky'.

>

> I didn't call you flaky, I said your thinking was flaky. Whether or

> not you are flaky I have no idea. Please read what I say as I said

> it.

>

Well, I'd say that someone that you WOULD call flaky would be someone who's

thoughts and/or actions are those that you would consider 'flaky'. Therefore, I

think that my response was correct in the context.

> > " Are you sure when you say " it is highly,

> > highly probable " do you not actually mean " it is highly, highly,

> > highly probable " ? "

> >

> > I'm 89% sure.

>

> If you are diagnosed with AIDS and are about to undertake the highly

> toxic anti-viral drug treatment to deal with this proposed viral

> cause of the syndrome, AIDS, is 89% sure sufficient to make the

> decision?

Apparently you cannot diagnose a joke when you see one.

>

> > " As far as I know, being highly probable in science is not

> > actually as good as a scientific paper that proves something is

> > actually the case. "

> >

> > Curious - I wasn't aware that science PROVED anything.

>

> Good point. A scientist should always have doubt about anything that

> has been proven. It's the only way we progress from science that is

> wrong.

But, science, by definition doesn't PROVE anything. You acquiesce to the point,

and then you imply that it is presupposed.

>

> > " If you can't find the study that proves HIV causes

> > AIDS (there isn't one), you might want to read Duesberg's

> > paper on AIDS epidemiology: Inconsistencies with HIV

> > and with infectious disease.

> > When you read it please offer your evidence

> > to counter the points Duesberg makes. "

>

> > Again - this is always quite classic. When encountering a

> > fool, you are asked to be an expert in a subject, or become

> > one, in order to counter a claim that (from everything

> > that I can understand) is not considered seriously by an

> > enormous majority of AIDS researchers. Far beyond the

> > majority that may belive that saturated fats are bad for

> > you....but you stated it as fact. I think

> > that the burden of proof is on you.

>

> Are you calling me a fool?

> If you aren't a fool, you should have no trouble understanding

> Duesberg's paper. It is not a highly technical paper on viruses, it

> is about questioning the epidemiological evidence that claims to

> support HIV as the cause of AIDS. Duesberg has a website.

> If there was a paper that proved HIV was the cause of AIDS then

> there would be a burden of proof to prove it isn't so. Until then,

> the burden of proof lies with those who claim, in the absence of a

> scientific study, that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

> If the majority believe that chemotherapy is usually the best

> treatment for cancer you might want to check what percentage of

> oncologists take chemotherapy when they get cancer.

In order to really evaluate his work, I would not only have to read it, but

really check out all of his references, and also read his critics.

Reading his stuff (I've glanced at a bit of it, and also at second hand

descriptions of it), it sounds credible in the same way that a lot of conspiracy

stuff sounds credible. Knowledgeable people here in San Francisco that I've

spoken to (granted, not scientists) seem to think that his work is not held in

high repute.

My objection to your original post was that you didn't make a case for your

original statements - you simply stated them as fact.

What I would really like to see is what a knowledgeable critic of his has to

say. Surely all of his critics, and ALL of the AIDS research community cannot be

corrupt?

On the other hand, one does not have to subscribe to everything he says to

believe that e.g. AZT might actually be harmful in the long term.

>

> > Yes - it is attractive to believe that the majority

> > of the scientific community is wrong. But, I doubt

> > (am I wrong?) that you are an expert in the field yourself.

> > You've just found someone whose views you find attractive,

> > you state them as fact, and anyone who doubts them is a

> > flake. Cool.

>

> It may be attractive to believe that the majority of the scientific

> community is right.

Well, it doesn't give the same rush as believing a dissident view does.

>In order to question the view of the majority of

> the scientific community, it is necessary to review the evidence

> offered on both sides of the argument. It is not always necessary to

> be an expert to examine the evidence on both sides and to come to

> your own rational conclusion. It it certainly irrational to support

> one side or the other without reviewing the evidence from both sides.

> With respect to my looking at the HIV-AIDS situation, I have read

> Duesberg's papers and evidence from others and I own and have read a

> copy of Gallo's book, " Virus Hunting " " Aids, cancer & the

> human retrovirus: a story of scientific discovery " . I assume you

> know that Gallo is the American discoverer of HIV as the probable

> cause of AIDS.

> I don't find Deuesberg's views on any subject attractive, but I do

> find his epidemiological evidence sufficient to cause me to believe

> that HIV does not cause AIDS until someone produces a paper that

> refutes Duesberg's evidence to show that HIV does cause AIDS and

> therefore Duesberg is wrong. Gallo's book didn't prove Duesberg

> wrong.

> You can believe whatever you want, I don't care. Others reading this

> discussion, if they have any interest, may want to look at the

> evidence and make up their own minds. I never ask any fool to

> believe me.

> Chi

And, damn - I appreciate that.

[Guest guest]

On 1/16/06, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> My understanding is that it is highly, highly probable that HIV causes

> AIDS, and that the few people who insist otherwise, blaming it on drug

> abuse, or who knows what else, are about as credible as the flat earth

> society.

The problem is that your example to show the position that Chi holds

as not being credible lacks credibility itself, *despite* being widely

held. Generally speaking, no one has actually ever believed in a flat

earth during the time period normally associated with that belief.

Nonethless your point is taken.

> While, certainly, we on this list have experience with science

> that isn't what it's cracked up to be, occasionally I start wondering

> about this diet, given the preponderance of flaky views that exist here.

Is this similar to the vegetarianism=violence arguments, where

sometimes Hitler is trotted out as a prime example? Since you seem to

be suggesting that WAPing it leads to flaky views (and this isn't the

first time you have suggested such), I'm curious as to what you eat

since it is not out of the realm of the " highly, highly probable " that

some here might think some of your views are flaky.

And while I am only speculating, I would hazard to say that WAP

atttracts people (among others) who are somewhat independent in their

thinking in the first place (at least in some areas), not because

there is something inherent to the WAP " lifestyle " that can lead to

flaky thinking, but rather because, at this moment in time, following

WAP puts one decidedly outside of the nutritional mainstream. So

adopting WAP principles requires someone to be willing to go against

the grain, so to speak.

--

I first met her...in the Student Union at the University...sitting

across and down the table from each other. Our eyes met and that was

it. I was lost immediately in her soulful gaze (which I remember

vividly and tearfully even now) and was drawn inexorably from that

very moment into a love so certain that I never doubted anything about

it, other than the improbability that she would put up with me.

Things worked out. Glory to God!

-Mark Gilstrap

[Guest guest]

On 1/17/06, soilfertility <ynos@...> wrote:

> > Actually, that's a myth. The round-earth model

> > has generally been accepted since classical times.

>

> :

> I don't care if it's a myth, it's a good lesson anyway. This

> probably wasn't the only myth I learned in school.

LOL! This qualifies as the understatement of this very young century!

I am years removed from my last foray into formal education and I am

still *unlearning* a bunch of crap that I was formally taught.

Rothbard was right albeit talking in another vein, though it readily

applies to the modern nutritional orthodoxy as well:

" The result is not only that economics is locked into a tragically

wrong path, but also that the truths furnished by the great economists

of the past have been collectively *forgotten* by the profession, lost

in a form of Orwellian 'memory' hole. "

and

" ...if one believes...that the fundamental paradigms of modern,

twentieth-century philosophy and the social sciences have been

grievously flawed and fallacious from the very beginning, including

the aping of the physical sciences, then one is justified in a call

for a radical and fundamental reconstruction of all these disciplines,

and the opening up of the current specialized bureaucracies in the

social sciences to a total critique of their assumptions and

procedures. "

--

I first met her...in the Student Union at the University...sitting

across and down the table from each other. Our eyes met and that was

it. I was lost immediately in her soulful gaze (which I remember

vividly and tearfully even now) and was drawn inexorably from that

very moment into a love so certain that I never doubted anything about

it, other than the improbability that she would put up with me.

Things worked out. Glory to God!

-Mark Gilstrap

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: <slethnobotanist@...>

> On 1/16/06, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > My understanding is that it is highly, highly probable that HIV causes

> > AIDS, and that the few people who insist otherwise, blaming it on drug

> > abuse, or who knows what else, are about as credible as the flat earth

> > society.

>

> The problem is that your example to show the position that Chi holds

> as not being credible lacks credibility itself, *despite* being widely

> held. Generally speaking, no one has actually ever believed in a flat

> earth during the time period normally associated with that belief.

> Nonethless your point is taken.

>

the problem is that you cite this as an example 'to show the position that Chi

holds " is not credible, however nowhere do I say that this example SHOWS

anything. If you read what I wrote, I simply compared the credibility of this

thesis to another.

> > While, certainly, we on this list have experience with science

> > that isn't what it's cracked up to be, occasionally I start wondering

> > about this diet, given the preponderance of flaky views that exist here.

>

> Is this similar to the vegetarianism=violence arguments, where

> sometimes Hitler is trotted out as a prime example? Since you seem to

> be suggesting that WAPing it leads to flaky views (and this isn't the

> first time you have suggested such),

I have never suggested anything of the kind.

> I'm curious as to what you eat

> since it is not out of the realm of the " highly, highly probable " that

> some here might think some of your views are flaky.

>

I eat a WAP diet, as much as possible, with a few allowances for will power

failures. But, again, it isn't relevant, because you are not reading what I say

very carefully.

> And while I am only speculating, I would hazard to say that WAP

> atttracts people (among others) who are somewhat independent in their

> thinking in the first place (at least in some areas), not because

> there is something inherent to the WAP " lifestyle " that can lead to

> flaky thinking, but rather because, at this moment in time, following

> WAP puts one decidedly outside of the nutritional mainstream. So

> adopting WAP principles requires someone to be willing to go against

> the grain, so to speak.

>

And I have never suggested that there is anything against 'going against the

grain', as I generally fall into that category myself. So, again, I really don't

know what relevance your post has to what I have said.

[Guest guest]

Chi,

> Gene:

> You rule the flaky thinking. Are you sure when you say " it is highly,

> highly probable " do you not actually mean " it is highly, highly,

> highly probable " ? As far as I know, being highly probable in science

> is not actually as good as a scientific paper that proves something is

> actually the case.

I don't know anything about the AIDS controversy, but as far as I know

the view of science that most or all scientists would put forth would

be that " proof " is something mathematical and does not exist in

science, which, instead, considers probabilities, and preponderences

of evidence. In more colloquial language we would refer to something

as " proven " when it is beyond a certain threshold of probability, but

in science we usually acknowledge any uncertainties and consider the

same phenomenon more precisely as one of probability and confidence

rather than proof.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> What I would really like to see is what a knowledgeable critic of his has to

>say. Surely all of his critics, and ALL of the AIDS research community cannot

>be corrupt?

I agree, to a certain extent. Although I would want to read Duesberg's

book myself were I to engage in studying the issue, I don't think it

would be sufficient for me -- not really having any background in the

area at all -- to simply read a book from the other side and one from

Duesberg's side, unless the former were formulated specifically as a

response to Duesberg. I think it would be important to read something

from both sides, but also a selection as the refutations of each that

are held in the highest repute by each respective opposing side.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Quoting haecklers <haecklers@...>:

> Yep, I've heard that too, that people with AIDS often don't have HIV,

> and people with HIV don't always develop AIDS. Supposedly HIV is a

> relatively harmless virus, it's the stuff you get at the same time

> that makes you sick.

None of this is incompatible with mainstream thinking. AIDS stands for

" Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, " and there are things other than HIV

that will weaken or destroy your immune system. So not everyone with AIDS

is infected with HIV. And HIV has a long latency period, especially with

modern medicine, so not everyone with HIV has AIDS yet. And maybe some have

immune systems strong enough to hold it off indefinitely.

Finally, HIV is harmless in the sense that it won't kill you, or even make

you sick, directly. But it does (according to mainstream thinking) weaken

your immune system to the point where normally harmless infectious agents

can kill you.

Chi:

> > What the NIH presents as evidence on that web page is not a proof

> > that HIV causes AIDS. If there ever was a scientific study to prove

> > that HIV is the cause of AIDS or even the probable cause of AIDS the

> > NIH should have and would have provided a scientific reference on

> > that page. They didn't.

Injecting people with an HIV culture and seeing whether they develop AIDS

would be the most effective proof. Since that is, for obvious reasons, not

an option, what would you accept as sufficiently strong evidence that HIV

causes AIDS?

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

On 1/17/06, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> > The problem is that your example to show the position that Chi holds

> > as not being credible lacks credibility itself, *despite* being widely

> > held. Generally speaking, no one has actually ever believed in a flat

> > earth during the time period normally associated with that belief.

> > Nonethless your point is taken.

> >

>

> the problem is that you cite this as an example 'to show the position that Chi

holds " is >not credible, however nowhere do I say that this example SHOWS

anything. If you read >what I wrote, I simply compared the credibility of this

thesis to another.

Which is designed to *show* something, i.e. further drive home and

illustrate what you contend is the dubious nature of what *Chi* is

posting, otherwise why say it? Please don't treat us as stupid with

the idea that you simply offered that up as totally neutral statement

without any *goal* in mind that couldn't be discerned by the reader.

LOL! Be serious. You are chastising Chi's view on HIV/AIDS. To

illustrate the lack of credibility you drew an analogy between the

thesis *he* supports and has offered in a post, with the non-credible

thesis that *others* supposedly held about a flat earth, an assertion

equally dubious, which I pointed out (as did ) as the flat

earth theory itself.

But rocks don't have theories about aids and the nature of the earth,

*people* do. And you are trying to show that Chi/Dusberg aren't

credible when it comes to their views about AIDS, otherwise why even

make the comparison?? And if there was any question of what you were

trying to " show " you left no doubt with this statement at the end of

your response to Chi:

" ...occasionally I start wondering about this diet, given the

preponderance of flaky views that exist here. "

Unless you want to take issue with my assertion about your statement

regarding flat earthers, I'm not sure your point to me, although your

point to Chi is rather clear, or so it seems to me.

> > > While, certainly, we on this list have experience with science

> > > that isn't what it's cracked up to be, occasionally I start wondering

> > > about this diet, given the preponderance of flaky views that exist here.

> >

> > Is this similar to the vegetarianism=violence arguments, where

> > sometimes Hitler is trotted out as a prime example? Since you seem to

> > be suggesting that WAPing it leads to flaky views (and this isn't the

> > first time you have suggested such),

>

> I have never suggested anything of the kind.

Okay then perhaps you shoud explain what you mean here. I was

unceremoniously dressed down the other day, after offering a

compliment, about taking words in their usual sense when the person is

actually using them in a somewhat unorthodox manner (in response to my

compliment). Duly chastised, I will back up and perhaps you can help

me with what you meant by the statement below:

" While, certainly, we on this list have experience with science

that isn't what it's cracked up to be, occasionally I start wondering

about this diet, given the *preponderance* of flaky views that exist here. "

Help me here, obviously according to you I'm not reading very carefully.

If you want I would be happy to produce two other quotes with similar

sentiments. One in the distant past when you were arguing with

and another IIRC, in a more recent thread.

But maybe you could just clear up what you mean once and for all

without me having to dig around. Does WAPing lead to flaky views or

are flaky folks attracted to WAP, or do you man something entirely

different? And if so, why would you then wonder about the *diet* in

relation to the " _preponderance of flaky views_? "

> > I'm curious as to what you eat

> > since it is not out of the realm of the " highly, highly probable " that

> > some here might think some of your views are flaky.

> >

>

> I eat a WAP diet, as much as possible, with a few allowances for will power

failures. But, >again, it isn't relevant, because you are not reading what I say

very carefully.

Okay. Then help me out.

> > And while I am only speculating, I would hazard to say that WAP

> > atttracts people (among others) who are somewhat independent in their

> > thinking in the first place (at least in some areas), not because

> > there is something inherent to the WAP " lifestyle " that can lead to

> > flaky thinking, but rather because, at this moment in time, following

> > WAP puts one decidedly outside of the nutritional mainstream. So

> > adopting WAP principles requires someone to be willing to go against

> > the grain, so to speak.

> >

>

> And I have never suggested that there is anything against 'going against the

grain', as I >generally fall into that category myself. So, again, I really

don't know what relevance your >post has to what I have said.

" While, certainly, we on this list have experience with science

that isn't what it's cracked up to be, occasionally I start wondering

about this diet, given the preponderance of flaky views that exist here. "

One man's flakiness is another man's orthodoxy, or rather one man's

" going against the grain " is another man's " flakiness " .

--

I first met her...in the Student Union at the University...sitting

across and down the table from each other. Our eyes met and that was

it. I was lost immediately in her soulful gaze (which I remember

vividly and tearfully even now) and was drawn inexorably from that

very moment into a love so certain that I never doubted anything about

it, other than the improbability that she would put up with me.

Things worked out. Glory to God!

-Mark Gilstrap

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: <slethnobotanist@...>

> On 1/17/06, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > > The problem is that your example to show the position that Chi holds

> > > as not being credible lacks credibility itself, *despite* being widely

> > > held. Generally speaking, no one has actually ever believed in a flat

> > > earth during the time period normally associated with that belief.

> > > Nonethless your point is taken.

> > >

> >

> > the problem is that you cite this as an example 'to show the position that

Chi

> holds " is >not credible, however nowhere do I say that this example SHOWS

> anything. If you read >what I wrote, I simply compared the credibility of this

> thesis to another.

>

> Which is designed to *show* something, i.e. further drive home and

> illustrate what you contend is the dubious nature of what *Chi* is

> posting, otherwise why say it? Please don't treat us as stupid with

> the idea that you simply offered that up as totally neutral statement

> without any *goal* in mind that couldn't be discerned by the reader.

>

You implied that I was giving that example as an analogy. I wasn't. This is

silly. There was nothing wrong with that example.

> LOL! Be serious. You are chastising Chi's view on HIV/AIDS. To

> illustrate the lack of credibility you drew an analogy between the

> thesis *he* supports and has offered in a post, with the non-credible

> thesis that *others* supposedly held about a flat earth, an assertion

> equally dubious, which I pointed out (as did ) as the flat

> earth theory itself.

You are correct in that I was simply stating that the theory lacked credibility,

and I gave an example of another 'theory' that lacked credibility. No further

correlation was stated or implied. I'm glad you're so worked up about it though.

Some days I get the feeling that I haven't accomplished anything constructive.

>

> But rocks don't have theories about aids and the nature of the earth,

> *people* do.

Damn - you should write advertising copy. that's catchy.

>And you are trying to show that Chi/Dusberg aren't

> credible when it comes to their views about AIDS, otherwise why even

> make the comparison??

No - there is a difference between giving an example to SHOW something - in that

case the example would be expected to be a relatively good analog of what you

were comparing it to. In this case it was simply for emphasis. If this fails to

meet your strict requirements for rigor, well, I just give up.

>And if there was any question of what you were

> trying to " show " you left no doubt with this statement at the end of

> your response to Chi:

I certainly left some doubt about what I was trying to show with that example,

because I know that I wasn't trying to 'SHOW' anything. but you're strutting

very triumphantly now, and I hate to interrupt.

>

> " ...occasionally I start wondering about this diet, given the

> preponderance of flaky views that exist here. "

>

> Unless you want to take issue with my assertion about your statement

> regarding flat earthers, I'm not sure your point to me, although your

> point to Chi is rather clear, or so it seems to me.

>

This is really getting very silly. I am losing interest. In fact, I am

thoroughly bored and choose not to read further.

> > > > While, certainly, we on this list have experience with science

> > > > that isn't what it's cracked up to be, occasionally I start wondering

> > > > about this diet, given the preponderance of flaky views that exist here.

> > >

> > > Is this similar to the vegetarianism=violence arguments, where

> > > sometimes Hitler is trotted out as a prime example? Since you seem to

> > > be suggesting that WAPing it leads to flaky views (and this isn't the

> > > first time you have suggested such),

> >

> > I have never suggested anything of the kind.

>

> Okay then perhaps you shoud explain what you mean here. I was

> unceremoniously dressed down the other day, after offering a

> compliment, about taking words in their usual sense when the person is

> actually using them in a somewhat unorthodox manner (in response to my

> compliment). Duly chastised, I will back up and perhaps you can help

> me with what you meant by the statement below:

>

> " While, certainly, we on this list have experience with science

> that isn't what it's cracked up to be, occasionally I start wondering

> about this diet, given the *preponderance* of flaky views that exist here. "

>

> Help me here, obviously according to you I'm not reading very carefully.

>

> If you want I would be happy to produce two other quotes with similar

> sentiments. One in the distant past when you were arguing with

> and another IIRC, in a more recent thread.

>

> But maybe you could just clear up what you mean once and for all

> without me having to dig around. Does WAPing lead to flaky views or

> are flaky folks attracted to WAP, or do you man something entirely

> different? And if so, why would you then wonder about the *diet* in

> relation to the " _preponderance of flaky views_? "

>

> > > I'm curious as to what you eat

> > > since it is not out of the realm of the " highly, highly probable " that

> > > some here might think some of your views are flaky.

> > >

> >

> > I eat a WAP diet, as much as possible, with a few allowances for will power

> failures. But, >again, it isn't relevant, because you are not reading what I

say

> very carefully.

>

> Okay. Then help me out.

>

> > > And while I am only speculating, I would hazard to say that WAP

> > > atttracts people (among others) who are somewhat independent in their

> > > thinking in the first place (at least in some areas), not because

> > > there is something inherent to the WAP " lifestyle " that can lead to

> > > flaky thinking, but rather because, at this moment in time, following

> > > WAP puts one decidedly outside of the nutritional mainstream. So

> > > adopting WAP principles requires someone to be willing to go against

> > > the grain, so to speak.

> > >

> >

> > And I have never suggested that there is anything against 'going against the

> grain', as I >generally fall into that category myself. So, again, I really

> don't know what relevance your >post has to what I have said.

>

> " While, certainly, we on this list have experience with science

> that isn't what it's cracked up to be, occasionally I start wondering

> about this diet, given the preponderance of flaky views that exist here. "

>

> One man's flakiness is another man's orthodoxy, or rather one man's

> " going against the grain " is another man's " flakiness " .

>

>

> --

> I first met her...in the Student Union at the University...sitting

> across and down the table from each other. Our eyes met and that was

> it. I was lost immediately in her soulful gaze (which I remember

> vividly and tearfully even now) and was drawn inexorably from that

> very moment into a love so certain that I never doubted anything about

> it, other than the improbability that she would put up with me.

>

> Things worked out. Glory to God!

>

> -Mark Gilstrap

[Guest guest]

Chi,

> Even if I was satisfied that HIV was the cause of AIDS, I would

> consider it as I do any other so-called infectious agent, insufficient

> to cause a disease without a weakened condition of the victim. Reading

> NAPD should convince anyone of that.

You are awfully quick to draw enormously broad conclusions from

_NAPD_, especially ones generating an awfully narrow view of any given

thing. In this case, to exonerate the terrain as the paramount factor

in disease without affording sufficient status to the microbe would be

to ignore the implications of the 25 years of rabbit experiments Price

did inducing diseases with microbes from root canaled teeth.

The view Price took was a balanced one, that afforded significant

concern to both the microbe and the terrain, and their interaction.

As Christy pointed out, even a good terrain fertilized by perfect

nutrition can falter through circumstantial events. And historical

evidence demonstrates, there are examples of what we would think would

have been quite healthy folks succumbing to massive disease. There

are examples in NAPD of nutrition providing protection from diseases,

but there is *no clear example* conclusively showing the introduction

of a *new* microbe, resistance to which was conferred on the

population through diet. There are many things suggested by NAPD that

are not conclusively shown and leave room to consider other research.

The existence and indentity of activator X is one of them, and the

interaction between diet, previous historical populational exposure,

and current circumstantial exposure to a microbe and how they interact

to produce disease is another one. NAPD doesn't provide clear,

conclusive answers on either of them.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

> One of the things that troubles me about the syndrome known as AIDS,

> is that the presence of the virus, believed by so many to be the

> cause, is detected by the presence of antibodies, not by the presence

> of the virus itself.

I'm so happy to be able to relieve your troubles. Since this is not true,

you can relax now. Why not try googling " DNA " and " HIV " and seeing what you

find?

>> Why is it in the case of AIDS

that antibody presence does not indicate immunity, but rather you are

going to become sick or sicker? <<

This is not unique to HIV. It's common to many different viruses in a number

of species. Why not try googling FIP, and see?

> For me to believe that HIV caused AIDS, I would need to see a specific

> test created for the virus (not for antibodies) that would give almost

> zero false positives

The first part is done. I'm not sure how to answer the second. Since you

believe there IS no such thing as " AIDS " that is caused by a pathogen, to

you, they are ALL false positives. What would a TRUE positive be in your

definition?

>> I would expect that in North

America and Europe, that this so-called infectious virus would cause

AIDS equally in men and women and move outside the original and still

the main risk groups, homosexuals and intravenus drug users <<

Why? If you can't grasp that different pathogens have different modes of

infection, different terrains they find more or less hospitable, different

preferences of host, then there's really no point to discussing

epidemiology, virology, or immunology at all. You're missing a huge hunk of

the picture.

> I would

> want to see evidence that HIV, not poppers, is the prime cause of

> Kaposi's sarcoma.

You know, this type of crap is why I am so reluctant to participate in

arguments about AIDS like this one. Where do you get this stuff?

Don't bother telling me, I know. Duesberg and his minions have been

pushing this homophobic stereotype for decades now. Those of us who actually

KNOW people with HIV and AIDS, who actually ARE gay, know this is just

illogical and false.

>> Even if I was satisfied that HIV was the cause of AIDS, I would

consider it as I do any other so-called infectious agent, insufficient

to cause a disease without a weakened condition of the victim. <<

This is a straw man argument. No one has ever argued that host

susceptibility is not a factor in infectious disease, including HIV/AIDS.

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Raising Our Dogs Holistically Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

[Guest guest]

Quoting Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...>:

> There

> are examples in NAPD of nutrition providing protection from diseases,

> but there is *no clear example* conclusively showing the introduction

> of a *new* microbe, resistance to which was conferred on the

> population through diet.

Doesn't history provide a pretty good approximation of such an experiment

in, for example, the introduction of smallpox to indigenous American

populations?

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

-

>A few years ago I visited Enig at her office (she's local to me)

>and toward the end of our meeting she showed me an article that I

>believe she wrote. It was on the benefits of coconut oil for AIDS

>patients (because coconut oil is anti-viral). It was a

>research/academic paper. She was very excited about it.

Thanks. A quick google already turned up some promising links, and

when I get a moment later tonight or tomorrow I'll follow up on

it. I expect anything from Enig would be very useful even though he

hasn't heard of her and isn't research-oriented himself.

>This doesn't address why he shouldn't just throw in the towel now. I

>haven't dealt w/anyone who's had AIDS, but I'd say in general anyone

>who's just found out traumatic news isn't able to see things clearly

>and goes through a rocky emotional time for a while as they adjust to

>the news. If he could be reminded that that's the nature of

>traumatic change -- major decisions should be postponed until he can

>adjust to his new reality. Many people have found great, genuine joy

>in living in spite of serious illnesses and difficulties. There is

>still good for him to experience in life. It's understandable if he

>can't see that now and it may take a long while before he experiences

>it. But he shouldn't give up at a time when his perception is

>naturally clouded.

Unfortunately, he's very concerned about giving it to his wife, and

that's clouding his thinking further. I don't think he'd be

vulnerable to the argument that people have found great joy in life

while suffering from crippling diseases either, but maybe I just

don't know how to present that case. I don't know. Any suggestions?

-

[Guest guest]

Chi-

>You might suggest that he stops doing whatever he has been doing to

>supress his immune system.

Well, that goes without saying, but it's hard for someone who's broke

and has suffered all sorts of outrageous misfortunes to stop

stressing his immune system immediately.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>Best of luck to your friend. He will definitely need your help and

>support, too!

Many thanks. I've forwarded the resources you provided and the

stories you related.

-

[Guest guest]

>> I don't think he'd be

vulnerable to the argument that people have found great joy in life

while suffering from crippling diseases either, <<

I certainly won't argue that having HIV is a blow, emotionally, mentally,

and physically.

But it's not " crippling. "

Christie

Caber Feidh ish Deerhounds

Raising Our Dogs Holistically Since 1986

http://www.caberfeidh.com/

http://doggedblog.com/

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Again - this is always quite classic. When encountering a fool, you are

>asked to be an expert in a subject, or become one, in order to counter a

>claim that (from everything that I can understand) is not considered

>seriously by an enormous majority of AIDS researchers. Far beyond the

>majority that may belive that saturated fats are bad for you....but you

>stated it as fact. I think that the burden of proof is on you.

The demonization of saturated fat and cholesterol seems pretty darn

overwhelming to me in mainstream circles, so except for the recent

blip of low-carb advocacy, I'm not sure how possible that is. Also,

I think AIDS theory is probably earlier in its lifecycle.

>But, I doubt (am I wrong?) that you are an expert in

>the field yourself. You've just found someone whose views you find

>attractive, you state them as fact, and anyone who doubts them is a

>flake. Cool.

Accusations of flakism and foolishness definitely need to stop, but

don't we all tend to be sympathetic to views which harmonize with our

own existing beliefs?

I haven't read Duesberg (no previous incentive to research AIDS) but

I'm pretty sure I remember AIDS skepticism showing up in Red Flags

Daily, and RFD isn't a flakey publication.

That said, I'm certainly not _endorsing_ the idea that HIV doesn't

cause AIDS. I just consider it not impossible.

-