Posts by p forrester jarvie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
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..)
-
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 -
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..
-
the question remains - did the reported "pre-existing antibody' correspond to a verifiable, isolated and nailed, 'retrovirus'?
-
'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) -
btw Emma Hart - wenn ich darf so sagen, a fearsome enough Name in itself, just drumskin-tight with tautness/tartness - i came in out of earlier context before; whole-heartedly agree with you that there is no *necessary* causal continuity at all between what happens with one as a small being and what you find you like as a bigger one... uh huh, merely being human is the only pre-requisite for entry!
me, i just saw da piccies and thought wow, that looks worth looking into, and presto, no looking back after that..
but by the looks of this discussion thus far this parenting deal looks to entail something almost ultra-human!
-
(the drugs were used natch to relax their anuses, that the ensuing sodomy-express might NOT be so foul...)
-
PS why do we assume, or rather *suspect* so readily that there must be a barrow that needs pushing, that our concern must needs be corrupted before it even gets outta the starting-gate?
i mean, why should i be anything less than purely intrigued that every last one of the orginal AIDS victims - even before that GBS (gay bowel syndrome) victims but the estate of George Bernard Shaw put paid to that handle - were heavy - and we do mean heavy - users of nitrate based drugs? IE drugs whose action interferes most catastrophiically with the nitrogen-controlled gates to the mitochondrial consitutents of the cell? And that even before them the recipients of similarly-derived drugs, ie organ-transfer patients, has immune-system breakdowns of equally disastrous consequence?
indiscriminately *yours*
p -
an excellently spirited response sir! But i am not in the business of adoring 'crushing weight' and to begin with i will attempt to link you to a legal man's perspective on the long, utterly convoluted history of - some would simply say 'interested scrum formation around' the establishment of this thing called 'HIV science'
i think this is best Sam because its the broadest possible persepective that will surely open the field right out for discussion..
(as you might have noticed, every time our boffins encounter an exception to the HIV rule, they merely invent a new name for this observed phenomenon allowing heem to join in and take his place within the bosom the jolly HIV family.. )
we are way too automatically IMPressed with capital letters, dashes and numbers, in endlessly reiterated formation in our brains..
i think the main thing to keep in mind is that 'qualified scientists' are no longer all they're cracked up to be, and that these qualifications may indicate nothing so much as their arrival at a well-paid research position that just does not permit anymore, past a certain point, of the freedom to think most surely for oneself..
just what does it mean, i mean (!) meanwhile, for it to suit any one person, an independent hitter no less, to believe? For my part i do greatly respect my nose for untruth, and my respect furthermore for whatever analogical organ might best be disposed toward sensing truth! - and i reckon that, in a world just groaning with the crushing weight of agenda, this self-respect is damn well important!
of the CDC the WHO and co, all of whom flow rather fearfully from the original Population Control orgs, the old Social Engineering boys,
i have nothing much good to say..but enough of my half-baked asseverations, i'm off to select some papers for yer perusal!
-
correction - i meant the rules for isolation = irrevocable identification of bona fide *virus* - have been in place since Pasteur Institute conferences of 1973..