I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - May 19 2015 : 7:53PM
The discussion started in another thread here but I didn't want to derail that thread any farther, instead I'm hoping this is a more appropriate forum for the discussion. That said...That is an outright lie. You're making completely indefensible claims, that are outright fabrications. You're right that there is no serious debate on the subject because scientists agree that it is transmitted through heterosexual contact. From the CDC:
[Link]
Maxxx Stirner Deactivated User
319 Posts 11/14
Posted - May 19 2015 : 10:55PM
Murdock...confinement to the risk groups does not mean that there aren't hetero cases. Those numbers (even without getting into the ambiguous nitty gritty of the numbers) are actually quite pathetic when one considers the predictions of a heterosexual epidemic. Also, part of the risk group makeup can configure itself within the heterosexual population.This is without taking into consideration 'down low' activity. I have already said that I don't deny a sexual transmission link. Whether that is infectious is the issue. Again, not all sexual transmission is infectious. Again, the hetero info we have is heavily unidirectional in an inserter to reciever direction where the converse is never beyond noise levels. Also, anal sex tends to be the dominant factor. Edited by - Maxxx Stirner on 5/19/2015 11:08:38 PM
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - May 20 2015 : 1:54AM
You can't stop contradicting yourself...But it's nice that you reference "down low" activity, implying that people in the numbers I referenced might lie but you seem to believe that everyone in the study you reference was completely honest? That's convenient. And i'm not sure why you keep beating the "unidirectional" dominance of transmission because that has no bearing on the discussion. 50/50 distribution of fucker/fuckee transmission isn't a requirement for something to be considered sexually transmitted. It could be 100% in one direction but if it is spread through sexual contact it is still sexually transmitted. It also doesn't matter if it is more likely to be spread through anal penetration as opposed to vaginal penetration or oral. If it is spread through sexual contact (which it unequivocally is then it is a sexually transmitted disease. That's why they call it "sexually transmitted" because of that whole sexual transmission thing. I feel like I shouldn't have to explain that. You're starting to remind me of the "young earth" creationist derpers that continue to make claims that "science says..." even though science says no such thing. What you have is a theory that is vaguely plausible of you simply ignore a few widely accepted facts. And if you could bother to dispute those widely accepted facts with anything other than outright lies I might take some of your posts seriously, but right now since you seem so intent on completely ignoring reality, that's my only recourse at the moment. but I think I can sum up your position thus far by saying that HIV isn't sexually transmitted through heterosexual contact because a group of people that say HIV doesn't exist in the first place, says that AIDS is caused by oxidative damage exclusive to the high risk groups. And you also reference a study with little scientific merit, and completely uncontrolled conditions, that didn't conclude that transmission of HIV through heterosexual sex was impossible, (and in fact states quite clearly that it is in fact a legitimate, observed phenomenon) to try and bolster you point further. Did you bother to actually look at any of the stuff you're referencing, or are you just regurgitating the rantings of other lunatics without bothering to do the slightest bit of due diligence?
[Link]
Maxxx Stirner Deactivated User
319 Posts 11/14
Posted - May 20 2015 : 3:13AM
^Murdock are you bothering to read what I'm saying? I'm not denying that something is being sexually transmitted that is generating a Gallo positive test. I'm rejecting that it's INFECTIOUS! For fucks sake. If all you have is unidirectional movement that is backdoor dependant entry only with a paltry transmission percentage then you can scratch 'HIV' being INFECTIOUS. I'm not denying sexual transmission as such. Usually sexually transmitted entails infection meaning some two way movement which again doesn't have to be equal or even symetrical but at least above NOISE level coming from the minority direction with no ambiguity (A word that Padian herself used to describe the few cases of F2M transmission). A bitch can give you herpes, but not, as the data shows, HIV. As to the down low point it is something to consider as a potentially unknown variable. Even if the Padian data has some unknowns within it based on couples being non forthright, the data still does not help the official position. Neither does the data you present. I'm not the one acting like a creationist. Virology as a whole has a history of infering viruses that are not directly verified. I don't believe in non verified entities which 'HIV' most definately is. Once again, I'm not denying that there is hetero sexual transmission, just infection for reasons already stated. I've looked at the study, I'm just honest about the implications of the data however flawed it was obtained. Edited by - Maxxx Stirner on 5/20/2015 3:21:54 AM Edited by - Maxxx Stirner on 5/20/2015 3:24:02 AM Edited by - Maxxx Stirner on 5/20/2015 3:26:11 AM
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - May 20 2015 : 5:46AM
You're not honest in the least regarding the data presented. You've continued to misrepresent the conclusions. HIV is a virus that has been identified by science. Your unwillingness to acknowledge that doesn't change that fact. It is indeed an infectious agent and the means for transmission (and general likelihood of each) have been identified, and that includes heterosexual contact, that doesn't necessarily involve any high risk groups. While the method for actual cellular infection is fairly complex, the method of transmission from person to person is fairly well understood and not particularly complex. It's a bloodborne pathogen that can also be present any several other bodily fluids including but not limited to semen, vaginal secretions saliva and tears. The concentration in those fluids varies considerably. (and with those variations so goes the risk of transmission) The points of entry also represent varying levels of transmission risk, and finally the likelihood of contact have to be considered as well. Pretty sure there aren't any known cases of eyeball to eyeball transmission because the concentration of the virus in tears is very low, the eye is also not particularly susceptible point of entry for the virus, and of course the likelihood of eyeball to eyeball contact is pretty low. If you want to call that zero risk I wouldn't argue with you, but when you try to do that with heterosexual activity which accounts for tens of thousands of deaths (that you evidently refuse to acknowledge) then you are wrong. The HIV virus is present in significant quantities in semen to make it a significant risk factor for transmission via several types of sexual contact, including, boring old hetero, penis in the vagina, guy on top girl on the bottom vanilla missionary sex among exclusively straight partners that aren't shooting up heroin when they aren't too busy bumping uglies. This is basic common sense (infectious agent + known point of infection = means of transmission) that is backed up by THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTED CASES. The symmetry or lack there of has no bearing on the discussion. Just because the virus is present in vaginal fluid in much lower concentrations, and the penis (sans abrasions or open sores) is a pretty poor point of entry for the disease, that doesn't make it impossible to transmit, and even if it did, that still doesn't change the virus's status as a sexually transmitted disease. If I can go firing of my meat cannon in some chick and infect her with a disease, that is by definition a sexually transmitted disease, whether she can give it back to me or not. Period. Reciprocity isn't a requirement. According to the Padian study:You say that "a bitch can't give you HIV" yet the very study you continue to point to says otherwise. The only thing you have to lean on is some fictitious definition of STDs that involves reciprocity (even though no definition I can find includes such a requirement) And if their primary data is only 7-9 time higher than their noise floor, that's a pretty shitty study, by most standards. (and the terms "noise floor" and "ambiguity" (or any derivation there of) do not show up anywhere in the Padian study despite what you claim) You started of by saying that HIV isn't infectious. That is categorically wrong. You then moved the goalposts to say that it isn't infectious outside of high risk groups. That is categorically wrong. You then moved the goalposts again to claim that HIV isn't sexually transmitted because it can't be transmitted from a woman to a man That is categorically wrong (both the premise and the "proof" behind it) And lets not forget that gem of a link you provided that according to you proved that HIV isn't infectious, that is just a blog post with no scientific basis whatsoever by some asshole named Henry that doesn't understand the difference between causation and correlation, who apparently concluded that HIV isn't infectious because a bunch of pornstars (who didn't have HIV made a shitpile of films with a bunch of other pornstars who didn't have HIV, and nobody spontaneously got HIV. Brilliant fucking conclusion, Henry. Simply brilliant. I think you might fit in better over here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org
[Link]
Maxxx Stirner Deactivated User
319 Posts 11/14
Posted - May 20 2015 : 12:05PM
^I new you would eventually begin to sound like aidstruth Murdock. HIV has never been directly isolated or purified and neither have any if the medically relevant viruses which are in reality toxicological disorders that have been miss termed by science/scientists. Unlike you, I don't just accept the Latin that's been read to me. I verify the info for myself. I'm aware for instance that Padian is a believer in the virus. I'm not and conclude accordingly. It's not infectious. I've made the point why ad nauseam. Whatever hiv is, it is something that is sexually contracted more then anything. It's closer to being something like pregnancy in that it's just sticking to a host that is already toxic and playing the role of a disease marker for a body already in the process of disease and it's coming from one sexually penetrating direction. The lack of symmetry or even two way asymmetry means everything whether you want to admit it or not. It shows that your non purified/isolated, non directly verified virus is nothing dynamic at all as it relates to powers of infection. The simple fact is there is no body of evidence for hiv coming from eyeballs or vaginas. That's as good as no evidence at all. There is no hiv presence anywhere beyond an indirect sensitivity test. Also small note Murdock, virus and disease are not the same thing(go look up Joe Sonnabend's extended House Of Numbers interview). You're not giving someone a disease by giving them toxic seman that makes an unspecific test react. Again, to be an infectious agent requires 2 way movement. That's not moving the goal posts, that's defining infection the way its traditionally been defined. I'm not wrong about confinement to risk groups, you simply misunderstand what this means. Documented Gallo positivity in non risk groups as such is not spreading outside the risk groups. It's about the rates, and the rates show that HIV/AIDS, whatever it is, remains a risk contraction(not infection)/disease phenomenon. Again, there is no debate about hiv remaining within the risk groups, the debate is public awareness vs hiv being a paper tiger and a phoney construct which is my position. The history of hiv in porn is largely within risk groups as the data going back to 1998 shows. You're not reading Bauer's point honestly. You also don't understand that science largely operates on weighted correlates forming a repetitive body of evidence. A repetitive body of evidence is what is lacking for hiv infection in porn as well lacking as a whole. That in 30+ years you only have two documented cases of lesbian seroconversion for example speaks to the overall lack of repetitive body based data that hiv has. Lastly Murdock, try to be independent minded of what scientists say and stop treating them like a modern day priestly class. Be an unfiltered advocate of facts (cause goodness knows it needs them) and stop relying on intermediaries. Scientific consensus has been wrong before, it will be wrong again. On hiv it is wrong now. Edited by - Maxxx Stirner on 5/20/2015 12:42:06 PM Edited by - Maxxx Stirner on 5/20/2015 12:47:52 PM
[Link]
Maxxx Stirner Deactivated User
319 Posts 11/14
Posted - May 20 2015 : 12:58PM
I think I do have to make an addendum and adjustment to my point and say that sexually acquired is a more accurate term then sexually transmitted. Otherwise the main points still stand. http://tinevandermaas.com/blog/dissenting-views/sex-race-hivaids-and-the-african-problem/ Edited by - Maxxx Stirner on 5/20/2015 1:15:15 PM
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - May 20 2015 : 2:45PM
I have no idea who aidstruth is but he sounds like a reasonable, rational human being, so thank you I guess. To your points.. Now you're claiming that viruses don't exist, or just that they aren't medically relevant? Either way... bullshit. You say you verify the info yourself? What the fuck have you done to verify that HIV, HPV, Herpes (and all of its cousins) Influenza, rabbies, et all are toxicological disorders, besides read a bunch of poorly thought out theories on the internet and decided you liked them better than scientific data? Because the closest thing you've brought to the discussion that has any merit at all is the Padian Study (which we both seem to think is highly flawed but for different reasons evidently) but you outright reject not only the conclusion of the study, but the premise too. And this all centers around your made up definitions for words. If you're going to insist that a virus have heterosexual transmission reciprocity then cite a definition from a credible source (not from some asshat conspiracy wingnut blogger) that agrees with you. If that's what the accepted/traditional definition is, you shouldn't have any difficulty finding a credible reference. "Again, to be an infectious agent requires 2 way movement. " No it doesn't. How many reported cases can you point to of a dog contracting rabies from a human? Yet it is considered infectious. Changing the definitions of words to make yourself appear correct is not the same thing as actually being correct. "That's not moving the goal posts, that's defining infection the way its traditionally been defined." Again... show me the traditional definition that says that. I'll be here. " It's about the rates, and the rates show that HIV/AIDS, whatever it is, remains a risk contraction(not infection)/disease phenomenon." Again, show me the data that says it is confined to risk groups. Not some asshat blogger saying it. Where is the data? What study was done that shows this? How does that study account for the TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTED CASES of the disease spreading outside of the risk groups. For whatever reason (I'm guessing because it helps to reinforce your delusions) you seem to be confusing a significantly lower rate of transmission among non-risk groups with zero transmission among no-risk groups. Sorry but that's not an error that I'm just willing to concede to you. You're wrong about that and the CDC as well as every reputable study backs that up. I'm willing to concede that sometimes science is wrong about things, and sometimes they make mistakes. Science allows for that. It's a self correcting process. I'll acknowledge when science was wrong about something when it is dis-proven (or a competing theory is proven). You nor any one of your crackpot conspiracy theorist sources has dis-proven that HIV is sexually transmitted virus that can cause AIDS, nor have they proven a competing theory. All they've done is provide a competing theory and act like that's good enough. It isn't.
[Link]
Maxxx Stirner Deactivated User
319 Posts 11/14
Posted - May 20 2015 : 4:26PM
My god you're obtuse. Firstly on viruses my position is that none have been directly verified to be what they are claimed to be, exogenous agents. In all my research of the medically relavent viruses show that there are always toxicological, inflammatory, environmental endogenous and cellular terrain based factors. If you want good research I would suggest Jim West and Janine Roberts. So what if they come from non traditional sources like the internet. That's most likely where novel and less wrong info will come from. The Padian study failed to show any bidirectional movement, that's enough to undermine the sexual transmission/infection hypothesis. Also if you read the link I posted the lack of bidirectional movement is a recurring theme. And no Murdock, I don't have to cite a source for a common corresponding definition. And again it's not even about reciprocity as recievers will always get more from inserters. It's about bidirection as such even from a minority direction, something hiv has failed to do beyond noise levels that can be worked out by propper controls. Also rabies is not a sexual infection. Analogy fail. Once again you fail to understand the risk group point. There's a reason they are called risk groups. It's not enough to show documented non risk Gallo positivity. You would have show infection rates approaching pandemic levels. Scientists predicted that would happen at the end of the 80s and their predictions(as most hiv predictions do) failed miserably. It's public data for you to read for yourself. I'm not confusing anything. What I am saying, regardless of risk/nonrisk group, is that there is no sexual transmission. Only sexual acquiring linked to certain groups and certain acts and positions relating to sex. The reason the rates are the sams now as they were in the 80s is because people in the risk groups are already predisposed to sexually acquiring what is said to be hiv because of already weakened or altered homeostatic states of condition. Again, all the data demonstrates is sexually acquired agents that make an unspecific test test positive. As to science, science is only as self correcting as the current paradigm allows it to be. If the paradigm is bad (in this case greater microbiology) then you look to independent research from the outside.
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - May 20 2015 : 5:54PM
What sort of proof do you need? What would convince you? This looks suspiciously like one of those cases where you have an extraordinarily high burden of proof for the opposition, but are relying on nothing more than coincidence and hypotheticals for your own stance. Despite the fact that viruses have been accepted as exogenous infectious agents by the vast majority of the scientific community for the last several decades, and they have been identified as the cause of several diseases based on mountains of indirect evidence. But evidently because we don't have a microscope capable of: Observing a virus replicate inside of another cell and observing that virus spread to other cells and observing it leave the host organism and entering a new host organism and replicating again inside of that new organism ...even though we do have the technology to do all of those things (and have done all of those things) individually, you demand further evidence. (despite bringing any of your own to the table) I hate to break it to you, but science hasn't proven (with the same level of proof you're expecting from science regarding viral infections) that gravity exists either. Do you deny the existence of such a force in nature too, or are you just waiting for someone to write a blog post about how it's actually a result of zero-point energy (again without providing anything other than a theory to support their point) before you join the antigrav'ers?Do you not understand the principals of causation and correlation, or do you just ignore them when it is convenient for you? The presence of these factors in no way implies they are the cause. 100% of speeding citations cited involved a "speed camera" or police officer. Conversely, in the absence of police officers and speed cameras not a single speeding citation has been given. By your logic, I can conclude the presence of speed cameras and police officers cause people to drive fast. That's why I continue to say your logic is shite.Two peoples names aren't research. They are simply two people. If they've done conclusive research themselves, then point me to it, but if you expect me to just accept the word of a person writing a blog post, I can assure you the burden of proof I'm requiring of your argument is far, far less than you seem to be demanding from science.It will be "less wrong" because it's on the internet? Seriously?Nope. Read the conclusions again. (not some shitheel blog post about it, the actual study) It confirmed bidirectional movement.A) You're wrong that it failed to show bidirectional movement. B) You're wrong that a lack of bidirectional movement in the study is enough to conclude that bidirection movement doesn't happen C) Even if A and B were true, it doesn't mean HIV isn't a sexually transmitted disease by any accepted definition I can find.No it isn't a recurring theme in any research done. It is a recurring theme in the opinions of blog posters. I don't care how many bloggers say it, if the data doesn't bear it out.Actually yes you do. That's how debate works. If we can't settle on common definitions for relevant terms, the rest of the argument is literally meaningless.You'll note: No requirement of bidirectional infection anywhere in those definitions. If you expect me to accept your alternate definition you need to provide something more than just your word.I'm aware that rabies isn't an STD. I was replying to your statement about infectious agents, not just STDs. I quoted you directly when doing so. Even if you had said STD's the analogy is still fine. An analogy isn't an exact representation, nor is it supposed to be. If it was identicle it wouldn't be an analogy, it would be an example. And you have the audacity to call me obtuse?Yes, the predictions were wrong. They often are. That doesn't mean the underlying science behind them is wrong. Anything that attempts to predict human behavior is never going to be 100% accurate anyway. And your presumption makes no sense. You don't have to have pandemic levels in non-risk groups. If non-risk groups had infection rates that high, then they would be high risk as well. It's like you're trying to reaffirm what science has said all along (that high risk groups will have a significantly higher infection rate than low risk groups) but try to use that as proof that they are wrong about it.Yet again YOU FAIL TO ACCOUNT FOR THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTED CASES of infection in people outside of the risk groups. Don't get me wrong.. I know why you continue to ignore this point (because it renders your whole premise moot) but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop bringing it up.Science is science regardless of who is practicing it. I don't care in general if the science comes from some shitheel blogger, but it still has to be science and not some crackpot theory. Don't confuse the two. Just because somebody is an "outsider" on the internet, that doesn't make the credible. The data speaks for itself. so far you're long on crackpot bloggers and short on data.
[Link]
Maxxx Stirner Deactivated User
319 Posts 11/14
Posted - May 20 2015 : 11:42PM
I've been studying viruses long enough to know that they haven't directly isolated or purified viruses. There was actually a method that they used to do that they abandoned for more indirect methods such as reverse transcriptase which has inherent problems of unspecificity. The unobservable issues of gravity are not comparable to the unobserved issues of virology. What virology does is akin to imputing the existence of abominable snowmen, going into the the arctic and claiming existence based on bear trails and genetic markers. There used to be a purifying method that was actually specific and electron microscope based, but it was abandened for reverse transcriptase and other more indirect means. Unlike gravity particles and atoms this older technique could differentiate between a snowman and a polar bear. I understand correlation and causation plenty. The factors I listed are actually integral to understanding what viral processes actually are. I'm not denying that there are viral processes. I just don't chalk it up to an exogenous agent. You obviously haven't looked into toxicological or other factors that can better explain some of these diseases. Polio is a good example, it's primarily a disease of central nervous system poisoning that has been mistaken as a virus. If virologists actually accounted for these things they would have to reframe their science. I've already brought up West and Roberts. If you read them you eventually read the other sources as well. At the end of the day it's up to you Murdoch. I'm not going to point you to everything I've read which is more then these 2. Bidirectionality is a common characteristic of STIs. A dictionary is not going to list every last charateristic. Also we are talking specifically about sexual intercourse and sex specific infections. Not rabies. As to predictions. Bad predictions usually mean bad science. And the underlying science of the hiv hypothesis is quite bad. When it comes to Padian, I'm no a slave to HER conclusions, I make my own. The evidence against infection and sexual transmission is clear to read from her data and others such as the PG link I left. I don't think I should waste time on this point further. And again you don't understand what confinement to risk groups mean. The failed predictions mentioned earlier are part of that fact.
And yes science is science and the data speaks for itself. I think the stuff I've presented speaks for itself. Edited by - Maxxx Stirner on 5/21/2015 12:21:17 AM
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - May 21 2015 : 12:56AM
They've isolated the virus to the point where they have pictures of the individual viruses taken with a scanning electron microscope. Are you dismissing that as witchcraft? What's your psuedo-science response to that?Not based on anything you've said this far.So you don't think that diseases transmitted by sexual contact are sexually transmitted disease, and now you seem to be under the impression that viral processes are happening in the absence of viruses. Do you know what any words mean? Or are you just randomly flailing at the keyboard at this point.Point me to some hard evidence.fascinating theory. Again, point me to the hard evidence and I'll be onboard with you. Without evidence, your theory is just that.. a theory.Scientists reframe their science all the time. It's part of the process. When new evidence is discovered that that disproves old models, the old models are thrown out and new models are researched. Show me the data (not some crackpot theory based on bullshit logic) and I'll be on board with it.Dropping two names isn't presenting proof. It isn't meaningful data. I don't care about any names you want to drop. Link me to the proof, or STFU. You CLEARLY have NO proof and are relying exclusively on word games, shitty logic, and self delusion to keep this going. And as long as you continue to do that, I'll continue to call you out on it. So far I've done all of the actual research for me and you. If you want to continue to make assertions that are contrary to the accepted scientific consensus you're going to need proof. Don't bother giving me more names to more people, because the inevitible conclusion to that is i'll google their names, find whatever bullshit blog they've posted on (since that's been the source of every actual link you've provided thus far) disprove what they've said with logic, reason, and data, and then you'll say "well I wasn't talking about that I was talking about something else. (just like you've done repeatedly with the Padian Study) So save the keystrokes and don't tell me names to look up. If the proof is there link to it.Again, you can't just define things the way you want. There is a difference between a defining characteristic and a common one. STI's aren't defined by bidirectionality. I know that because I looked up the definition and posted it here from several reputable sources. No amount of bullshit from your end is going to change that. not that it really matters because the only source you've mentioned that has any actual data to review concluded that HIV is transmitted bidirectionally via hetero sexual contact (at a significantly lower rate for female to male transmission)False. Clearly your understanding of probability and statistics is as tenuous as your grasp on basic logic and reason.Based on what? What data did you look at to draw your own conclusions and why do you think yours are more credible than hers?That link doesn't have any data in it, and I'll be darned if I can find any links to the data. They just quote a bunch of numbers that they very well could have (and by all accounts) made up, massaged, or outright invented. Pretty much everything the Perth Group has published has been debunked and discredited. but if you'll be so kind as to point out the specific piece of information you're referencing in that link, I'll be happy to tackle it for you.Finally! Something we agree upon!I don't think you understand what it means. TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTED CASES that disprove that theory are part of that fact.You haven't presented anything other than an demonstration of you lack of basic logic and reasoning, as well as a couple of peoples' names. I suppose the former does speak for itself (but not the way you intended) but not so much for the latter.
[Link]
Maxxx Stirner Deactivated User
319 Posts 11/14
Posted - May 21 2015 : 1:39AM
I'm on phone Murdock and a long response isn't worth my time right now. I've actually given you data that you can look at for yourself.Jim West for example has been providing evidence against the polio hypothesis for years. Janine Roberts has a well reviewed book that has evidence and sources to back it up. Bidirectionality IS a common characteristic not just a defining one. You don't need an exogenous agent to explain viral processes. There are endogenous explanations combined with environmental toxic and poisoning processes that can suffice and unlike viruses, these things can be verified. And once again tens of thousands of hiv cases does not mean what you think it does. Again hiv has remained tied to the risk groups. Confinement simply means no hetersexual epidemic, not that there are no cases. Funny this all started with Sheena Shaw, someone who is not infecting anyone even if she has so called hiv. Edited by - Maxxx Stirner on 5/21/2015 2:07:09 AM
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - May 21 2015 : 6:07AM
That's okay. Find a computer. I'll wait. I'm in no hurry. Take your time and get all the links together to make a good case and get back to me.No you haven't. You've linked to a couple of blog posts that lacked any data whatsoever. You've dropped a few names, and I've already explained why I'm not doing your legwork for you. If those people have conclusive proof, then link to it, otherwise just admit they don't.Good for him. Then it should be no trouble for you to provide links to it.Good for her. Then it should be no trouble for you to provide links to it.That's the closest to correct you've been since you started all of this nonsense. Drop the "just" and you're exactly right. It isn't "just" a defining one, it isn't a defining one at all. If it was a defining characteristic it would be in the definition. THAT'S WHAT A DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC MEANS.Yes. You do. That's why it's called a viral process. Unless you have some reputable source that can define "viral process" that doesn't involve a virus, I'm sticking with the traditional definition.Super. Link to the verification.I'm shocked... SHOCKED that you're playing more bullshit wordgames. (just kidding, I'm not shocked at all, it's your main m.o. at this point) If you're using any accepted definition of the word "confinement" then yes, it means exactly what I've said all along that if the disease is "confined" to high risk groups it is exclusive to them. If you're saying it doesn't mean that, then it would be just awesome if you could provide a link to a credible source that has a definition that fits your use. And while your at it, then you could remind me what the point is of bringing it up if it isn't exclusive to high risk behavior groups. And when you continue to deny that the virus has spread bidirectionally among heterosexual couples, YOU'RE IGNORING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTED CASES.
[Link]
Maxxx Stirner Deactivated User
319 Posts 11/14
Posted - May 21 2015 : 11:19AM
Murdock A lot if this just comes down how you interpret the data. In that a sense my current links do the talking. The virus disscussion for example isn't something you just find on pubmed. . :Not all defining characteristics appear on a written definition, don't be silly. :There's no evidence for exogenous viruses anyway. How about you provide me with evidence that is not based on indirect means such as reverse transcriptase. Industial poisoning and accute and intermediate toxicity can cause the viral effects attributed to a virus. Katherine Humphries videos on polio/ddt come to mind. :HIV is by and large based on risk behavior Murdock. What has usually happened is a long term break down of one's homeostatic system. Numerous people within the heterosexual data most likely have underlying risk factors. Gallo positivity usually means the damage has been done.
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - May 21 2015 : 1:47PM
What data are you interpreting? You keep talking about this mysterious data, and what is says, but you don't link to it, you don't quote it. Show me the data.I can find tons and tons of peer reviewed studies on HIV that support the accepted theory of the HIV virus. That's why I'm so comfortable standing behind it. All I can find that supports your theory is a bunch of crackpot bloggers making unsubstantiated claims.Yes they do. THAT'S WHAT A DEFINING QUALITY IS!!!!How about you provide me with direct evidence to support your claim first. What direct evidence is there to support your claim? (there is none of course, which brings me back to me earlier point that you've set a much higher bar for evidence for competing theories than you have your own)I don't care what can happen. That's just hypothetical bullshit. Tell me what did happen. Tell me what was observed, what was measured, what was witnessed. Not what you suspect can happen. SHOW ME THE DATA!Sounds fascinating. Links would be nice.Moving the goalposts again. You've been harping how this is confined to high risk groups, and now you've lowered your own bar again to say that "by and large" they are, which now gives you a ton more wiggle room. Okay fine. By and large it is confined to risk groups. What about the exceptions? WHAT ABOUT THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTED CASES THAT AREN'T CONFINED TO RISK GROUPS?Fascinating theory. It would be great if you could provide some evidence to back it up.
[Link]
Maxxx Stirner Deactivated User
319 Posts 11/14
Posted - May 21 2015 : 2:15PM
Murdock How about you show me some data. You have more to prove then I do:) :Show me a virus purified beyond debris. No appeal to consensus allowed:) :Again not all defining characteristics appear on a definition. :Search the links for yourself:) I'm not going to spoon feed these things to you. Independant research isn't akin to a controled experiment. :Risk groups are defined by risk activity. Heterosexual data alone does not eliminate the risk factors. Technically Cameron Bay and her boyfriend could be part of those numbers. You should see the obvious problem there.And at the end of the day it's all moot because you're utimately dealing with an unspecific test and an unverified virus. YOU can get back to me on that:) You show me yours first or we detonate this discussion:)
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - May 21 2015 : 2:37PM
You've already summarily dismissed any data I would show by proclaiming that I need to provide direct evidence for everything. So I'm demanding the same of you. Show me direct empirical data to prove your case. If that's the standard you'll accept from me, that's what I demand of you.Show me direct empirical evidence to prove your case.Not sure why you're so hung up on that because it doesn't matter. You can't point to anything that says bidirectionality is a requirement to be considered an STD, yet you continue to posit that it is. Show me something to backup your statement.I'm not doing your research for you. You're making the claims, you back them up. That's how this works. If you can't backup your claims, then refrain from making them.Show me direct empirical evidence to prove your case.The data I provided preciously was broken down by risk factors. The numbers I quoted were from outside of the risk groups. Nice try.Ultimately you've yet to establish any of that, so until you do it isn't moot at all.You're the one who established the standard of direct empirical evidence. You want to set the rules, then you abide by them.
[Link]
Maxxx Stirner Deactivated User
319 Posts 11/14
Posted - May 21 2015 : 3:37PM
Oh Murdock this is going nowhere. The burden of proof is on you not me. The point I made going back to Sheena Shaw's thread is that there is no hiv or infection to be concerned about if there is no verified virus. I don't have to make any point beyond this. Not sure what your CDC link was trying to prove either. It relays info that dissidents have known about all along. Most of the new infections remain with the same groups going back 30 years. And there is nothing in that data that controls for risk factors within the hetero cohorts.
[Link]
Canadian_Cindy Deactivated User
1102 Posts 2/15
Posted - May 21 2015 : 5:46PM
Great. I would love to arrange a gangbang for you on a TI set with 6 HIV positive performers, and they will all cream pie you. Let me know how that works. Put your beliefs where your mouth seems to be when ti comes to catching HIV.
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - May 21 2015 : 6:07PM
Agreed, since you refuse to provide the same level of proof that you are requiring of me. If you can't back up what you claim, this will never go anywhere.Lookup HIV if you want proof. See how helpful I am now.Interesting theory. If only you had any empirical evidence to back it up.Well when you can't support your initial point with any empirical evidence, I don't suppose there is any point in going further anyway.Most, but not all. YOU STILL HAVEN'T EXPLAINED THE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTED CASES that are contrary to your point. If AIDS is a result of some sort of toxic lifestyle, how do you account for the TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOCUMENTED CASES where those toxic lifestyles weren't present? Oh, that's right... you can't. What about the millions of people that participate in those "toxic lifestyles" that don't end up HIV+? When your theory can't account for all of the positives or all of the negatives, it's a pretty crappy theory.Don't bother. He just likes to watch guys fuck... sorry... binormative porn. He's not interested in being fucked.
[Link]
Maxxx Stirner Deactivated User
319 Posts 11/14
Posted - May 21 2015 : 6:19PM
There are bug chasers that do exactly that Cindy. They actually want to get hiv and are unsucessful in a lot of attempts. For one thing I'm not a bottom and I don't like entertaining taking loads of oxidized semen from men loaded on meth n' poppers as is the case with numerouse TI men. I also don't discount the possibility that I might test positive under certain circumstances. Though as I said, a Gallo test is essentially an unspecific sensitivity test. It wouldn't be the end of the world for me from my perspective. It's the scarlet lettering that's the issue. At the end of the day however I don't see why any of these burdens should be on someone pointing out the fact and problem of a missing virus. I would have no issues working in today's bareback gay porn world if you must know. I've actually made posts here about cleaning up the industry via health based testing. It might be constructive to talk about that as it would pave the way for a symetrical bisexual wide industry for girls AND boys.
[Link]
Maxxx Stirner Deactivated User
319 Posts 11/14
Posted - May 21 2015 : 6:32PM
Oh Murdock...'most' is what people like me tend to mean. You seem hooked on the word confined and how I used it. I don't hold to the Deusberg hypothesis just so you know. He tends to blame it all on drugs and lifestyle. People die of auto immune diseases without hiv 'infection'. Anyway, I agree this has run its course.
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - May 21 2015 : 10:54PM
Unsuccessful in a lot of attempts or all attempts? If they aren't unsuccessful in all attempts, doesn't that mean they were successful in some attempts? How do you explain that?You keep claiming it is a fact. You' haven't proven it as such. That's why the burden is on you. You can't claim something as fact and then expect everyone else to just accept it as such, or prove it for you. That's not the way the world works. You want to be taken seriously, instead of some gullible mouth-piece? Then stop acting like a gullible mouth-piece and start acting seriously.
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - May 22 2015 : 3:32AM
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/aids_denialism_vs._science/ Looks like those pesky science lemmings and their predictions of your behavior were pretty damned accurate.
