Hard News: Current affairs TV in "making difference" shock!
170 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
nitrate based drugs
Ah, that.
A large prospective study followed a group of 715 homosexual men in the Vancouver, Canada area; approximately half were HIV-seropositive or became so during the follow-up period, and the remainder were HIV-seronegative. After more than 8 years of follow-up, despite similar rates of drug use, sexual contact, and other supposed risk factors in both groups, only the HIV-positive group suffered from opportunistic infections. Similarly, CD4 counts dropped in the patients who were HIV-infected, but remained stable in the HIV-negative patients, in spite of similar rates of risk behavior.
-
PS why do we assume, or rather *suspect* so readily that there must be a barrow that needs pushing,
...
(the drugs were used natch to relax their anuses, that the ensuing sodomy-express might NOT be so foul...)
Is it a bird, is it a plane... no, it's
SUPER IRONY!
-
SUPER IRONY!
Quite.
This just in: independent researcher discovers link between barrowpushing and overly muscular prose style.
-
we have indeed entered the age of the internet, where every man worth his weight in informedness is free to judge the available evidence for himself.
Oh dear. I think we're well and truly at the point where Here Comes Everybody segues inevitably into The Cult of the Amateur .
-
Does anyone think that "brickley paiste" and "p forrester jarvie" are the same entity, or different versions of similar botcode?
-
Rich - Very different prose styles. Also slightly different MOs.
Shouldn't be hard to tell from the IP address record, whoever can access those.
-
A pun-gent response to...
wordplay is for scavengers on the ever-twitching unhulled hull of truth!
Let the shelling begin...
Shucks (he said huskily) - I'm not given lightly to oaths but this is the hull truth and nothing but...
I am, proudly, a serial cultural-dumpster-diver from way back.
Luckily I am thick skinned and it goes against the grain to get into an argument on integument. So in this case I'll take it all with a single (or double) malt... that''ll barley touch the sides : ) - Shell be right ...'Ears lookin' at you kids' dept...
Hoist a glass and cheers to all those who proffered kind words - in this thread and others - it's fun to have somewhere to be more winsome than wince-some for a changeyrs
A. Pun Crock
the oi oi ois have it
PS: Emma re your well spotted SUPER IRONY!
could I subvert and divert it to get the
thread back on track - et voila
- PIG IRONY
here comes the sludge! -
- PIG IRONY
here comes the sludge!
Pigmeat Markam - Here Come De Judge! -
yrs
A. Pun Crock
the oi oi ois have it:) S'all good.
-
'super-irony' schmuper-irony!
i simply meant what i said however
and my curiosity as to why onemust believe
that before anything else
a barrow is being pushed before one
is beyond methe inclusion of the word 'foul' was merely both tribute to Sam's predictably 'ironic' deployment of ' Foul Sodomy' and in my own usage, aka 'uncomfortable'
a thrilling flurry of posts anyway and ID's especially winning
(not sure of the relevance of yr excerpt yet Sam) -
the question remains - did the reported "pre-existing antibody' correspond to a verifiable, isolated and nailed, 'retrovirus'?
-
Does anyone think that "brickley paiste" and "p forrester jarvie" are the same entity, or different versions of similar botcode?
I had my suspicions as such the other day. But then Tom Beard came up with a sugestion about Knowledge Bro. Now I suspect they are all Ian Wishart or, maybe, Cameron Slater, or maybe Cameron Slater is D4J,.
Who knows? -
Who knows?
Well, we all knew that Russell Brown was Bill Ralston ;)
-
well the most obvious thing of all is that 'Bill Ralston' is actually 'T.Boone Pickens'
but i am standing right back for the mo and marvelling, yes, simply marvelling, at the phenomenon of everyone keeping everything at arm's length, peripherally & perpetually recycled in denialdgment of how we got here, because you just know - repeat JUST KNOW - that there is a barrowful-of-agenda in everyone's desperate little moving mits EXCEPT in those paws reckoned to belong to those QUALIFIED ARMS most thoroughly buried in test-tubes, arms whose clarity of transparent tubular bellicosity can only attest to the impeccability of the priestly mission at (their hand! Zuhandenheit!)
Thus, the comment that went from 'HCE' to 'cult of the amateur' is particularly coy and despicable - call it a cult and it will go away,
and you will never have to think seriously of what is sacred & central to our present culture again, and what manner of metaphorically-generative amateur can only manage to contaminate this centre and have himself flung back out to the margins out of touch while a thousand and one legitimate HIV subjects get to re-polish their re-centralized little viralstunning shoes..hey, i'm an all-black, and i'm up against the blues, i just have to do some warming up before re-entering the field..
and my test tubicule is but this little unmarked white box where more science is possible than you have heretofore imagined..
-
But most of us carry in our hearts the Jocasta who begs Oedipus for God's sake not to enquire further.
- letter of Schopenhauer to Goethe, Nov. 11, 1815 1
love from viral bill 'ralstun
stark naked and lovin' it -
Sorry to make you feel left out, p.
Again using the web, it looks like the "pre-existing antibodies" would be CD8 T-cells, which slow HIV illness down but don't quite stop it. HIV itself seems to have a lot of variants, as you'd expect from a mutating virus, all of which seem to come down to either HIV-1 or HIV-2 varieties.
So where are those papers you were promising, and what do you think causes AIDS if HIV doesn't? I'm going to make an effort to assume good faith here, for what it's worth.
-
good faith? why should you assume anything else! Why, i'm doing wheelies with my 'barrow' out here!
but Sam, i have been thinking about just how to *approach* this matter, so the thing doesn't go BOOM to soon..
i have the strong feeling that then issue must be approached v, v slowly, in order not to capsize it
most-of-all i must re-stress that the idea of barrow-pushing is nowt but pure distraction
but meanwhile, here is the most obviously-accessible page, one that links to a whole host of highly-educated people from all around the orld who are not convinced by the science of HIV
even these contentions may bring about a BOOM situation
(it is incredible to me how swiftly folks resort to denunciation when they encounter dissent..)
-
ahh, sorry, it does not link to the expanded articles by all those people after all! But if you scroll down to the bottom of that page there is a little cluster of links that will open up a whole world of new considerations for your inspection in no time flat.. That dude Mullis is a very interesting character btw.
-
and here is a paragraph that neatly reminds of, rounds up and drives back home even, the nature of what 'inflames' my greatest curiosity.. unbarrowed variety, natch!
By the early ‘90s, it had become overwhelmingly clear that the average American ran no risk of contracting AIDS. In order to convince the average taxpayer that the risk still existed, the disease lobby had to look elsewhere for a credible threat, preferably far away, preferably a place full of already threatening diseases. In many ways, it was inevitable that once AIDS was recognized as confined to easily identifiable populations in America, it would have to be seen as threatening the general population some place else. If AIDS did not pose a threat to the general population anywhere, it was a medically insignificant event not worthy of government-funded research. Since the CDC and the rest of the medical establishment which fed at the government trough could not make a credible case that this was about to happen in America, they needed to make the case that it was happening someplace else if funding was to be saved..Enter: The Creation Of African AIDS!
-
Please define 'the general population'.
-
Or rather 'the average American/taxpayer'.
-
Yo, lil' p.
I'll admit, I haven't been following your entire argument, because it sounds long-winded and seemed to come in out of nowhere when people were talking about sow crates and the whatnot, but I digress.
Can you please, just for me, alleviate the nagging suspicion I have that your 1.56pm post is alleging that medical research types have largely invented the African AIDS epidemic (you know, that has killed more than two million people) in order to generate a bit of funding for themselves?
Because that's how I read it. Maybe I'm just tired, I don't know.
-
Hmmm. My tolerance for being a vehicle for the kind of crap lil' p is serving is stretched really thin.
-
No no! Do not engage Sam F!
-
YHBT. HTH. HAND.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.