Log in

View Full Version : Documentary claiming HIV is not the cause of AIDS



Pages : 1 [2] 3

sxcbbw
04-28-2010, 03:43 PM
^When vaccinations plummeted, the levels for those diseases skyrocketed.

To have a "natural immunity", you have to have the antibodies for it. Your body creates a specific antibody for a specific pathogen, but must first come into contact with that pathogen. So yes, being unexposed to germs, bacteria and viruses, through use of disinfectant, means that people don't have natural immunities. But it also means they haven't have the disease in question.

Vamp
04-28-2010, 04:18 PM
Tonnes of links? The study that got people so worried in the first place claimed there was no link - before Wakefield decided to denounce the MMR.

Vaccines are given to children around the same time they start to display delayed development. Coincidence? Not really. Autistic children that don't get vaccinated also show the signs of their autism at that age. That's just the age at which it becomes apparent.

Vaccines don't kill immune systems. Do you know how vaccines work? They put a little dead virus in you, your immune system plays beat up the virus for a while, learns the tactics, and is prepared for any time the virus really does enter your body. Immune second responses are higher. They build your immune system. They help your body know what antibodies to create. It's like you building your immune system by playing outside all day - safe exposure to nasty stuff, so your body can deal with it.

Back to the autism thing, though, being a sensitive issue -




I find it ironic that you are advocating for something that has been banned in your country. The issue that many have with childhood vaccines is a preservative called Thimerosal. It is banned in 20 different countries.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm096228.htm

Even the American Food and Drug Administration has a whole page about the additive because it is still allowed in this country. I wonder if parents even know they can request vaccines without this preservative? And if it is completely harmless why is it banned in 20 countries? Would you want any amount of mercury in your babies body? If it causes autism or not, in my opinion, is irrelevant. Do you know how many vaccines have been recalled because of adverse effects?
Vaccines are a medical miracle but it doesnt mean they are perfect. If you are going to do the research do it on the vaccine, manufacturer, and illness itself.

I have heard all kinds of ideas about HIV/Aids. Fact is people with the disease can live a production life with the illness now because of the new drug therapies available. Before people died horrible terrifying deaths from it. The research will continue until they find a cure.

Vamp
04-28-2010, 04:40 PM
Having your baby in an American hospital?

The movie “The Business of Being Born” exposes the corruption of hospital delivery rooms. This is just the trailer. The movie is somewhat graphic, but is important for any expectant mother to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DgLf8hHMgo

Having completed a rotation in such an institution, I can safely say that I will not be having a baby in such a place, unless of course, it is medically necessary. Why? Because virtually everything that goes on in the delivery room, from the positioning of the mother to the drugs used, to mechanical and surgical interventions, are not only unnecessary for a healthy labor, but detrimental to both the mother and baby. Unfortunately, not enough American women are informed of this, and put trust in their obstetricians without doing proper research.

Literature on the topic of natural birth recommends avoiding medical interventions unless there it is a medical necessity (Lothian et al, 2004) such as fetal or maternal distress, the mother is post-term in her pregnancy, has an infection or has preeclampsia (Amis, 2007).

This is what happens upon admission. They pay no mind to your wishes, especially if you prefer a natural birth. They will hook you up to an IV and start you on pitocin, which is synthetic oxytocin. Oxytocin is a naturally occurring hormone that causes contractions and promotes maternal bonding. Pitocin only induces contractions. So what is the need to induce labor? So the doc won’t miss his afternoon round of golf.

Here are the risks of induction of labor:
mechanically assisted birth (use of forceps or vacuum to remove baby from birth canal)
fetal shoulder dystocia
fever
fetal heart changes
babies born with a low weight
increase in admissions to the NICU and longer hospital stays (Amis, 2007)
amniotic fluid embolism
uterine rupture
prolonged labor
chorioamnionitis
nuchal cord
fetal death
and cardiovascular complications (MacDorman et al, 2002)

Evidence based practice recommends the following for normal, uncomplicated, positive birth outcomes: no unnecessary interventions, freedom of movement, alternating position changes that facilitate gravity, Lamaze breathing, hydrotherapy, non-supine positions [Stark, 2008].

This is just a taste of the expansive research done on hospital births in the US. I didn’t even touch on epidurals, episiotomies, c-sections, and the vicious cycle of hospital birthing.

I think alot of this has to do with the medical communties view of women. How many times have you or a woman you know go to a doctor with a symptom only to be blown off or told they need a shrink? Later finding out it is a serious medical condition.

My grandma went to doctors for 20 years with an illness. They often told her that she needed a shrink or gave her some cream. She finally found a young female doctor who immediately knew what it was. Her bladder had fallen because of a botched hystorectomy.

I have had this happen to me too with another illness. I will not go to a male doctor unless I have no choice.

The sterotype of the hysterical female still lives. It is very sad.

sxcbbw
04-28-2010, 04:56 PM
I find it ironic that you are advocating for something that has been banned in your country. The issue that many have with childhood vaccines is a preservative called Thimerosal. It is banned in 20 different countries.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm096228.htm

Even the American Food and Drug Administration has a whole page about the additive because it is still allowed in this country. I wonder if parents even know they can request vaccines without this preservative? And if it is completely harmless why is it banned in 20 countries? Would you want any amount of mercury in your babies body? If it causes autism or not, in my opinion, is irrelevant. Do you know how many vaccines have been recalled because of adverse effects?
Vaccines are a medical miracle but it doesnt mean they are perfect. If you are going to do the research do it on the vaccine, manufacturer, and illness itself.

I have heard all kinds of ideas about HIV/Aids. Fact is people with the disease can live a production life with the illness now because of the new drug therapies available. Before people died horrible terrifying deaths from it. The research will continue until they find a cure.

I'm aware it's been banned here, and that the rate of diagnosis for autism hasn't lowered. The only thing I'm advocating is listening to the differences between autism and mercury poisoning. Whether or not autism is caused by mercury poisoning is very, very relevant, considering my first post was saying that I hope this thread's issue - AIDS not being the result of HIV - is just another needess hysteria, like mercury having anything to do with autism - which it doesn't.

Please tell me precisely where I say mercury based additives have no adverse effects or that vaccines are perfect, as opposed to the paragraphs and posts solely about whether or not autism was one of those adverse effects? Because I can't see where I said that.

KS_Stevia
04-28-2010, 06:17 PM
I really don't think the diseases popping up are due to the anti vaccine 'trend'. A lot of it is people being over kill on disinfectant and not giving their bodies a chance to have natural immunities.


No, that's just not correct in regards to the illness popping up that are traditionally immunized against, like measles and rubella. Research how these illnesses are transfered and the devastating effects they have on newborns, sick children, the elderly, and those simply unlucky enough to have not fought it off.

There is no way to know who can fight measles and who it will cause mortal encephalitis to. But there is a way to prevent it and that is vaccination.

Re: flu and chicken pox.....same idea. Most kids are fine when they get it, but some do die from complications. I personally don't think they are necessary, but just because we accepted illnesses because we had them as kids doesn't mean this modern world has to. A generation ago, polio was considered a common childhood illness too.

Anyway, I'm childless so this isn't my debate. It does affect HIV/AIDS sufferers though be they become immuno-comprimized and are more likely to catch diseases that have almost been eradicted due to vaccine.

KS_Stevia
04-28-2010, 06:23 PM
My physician friend had both of her labors induced for the convenience of the doctor, so he wouldn't have to work beyond his schedule. They tried to do an emergency C-section for her second child, but both her and her doctor husband fought against it, so the hospital relented.

She, as a physician who has delivered many babies concedes that doctor's do C-sections way more than needed due to fear of malpractice litigation. Technically, C-section is safer than a natural delivery, when you compare the risks. Basically, if they are going to give you a C-section, unless you're a doctor you're self, you're going to get one.

Fucked up, isn't it? At least this is in the US, not sure about Canada and UK.

UV69
04-28-2010, 06:25 PM
Aids does not target gay people -- there is vertically NO lesbian aids epidemic (we stress breast cancer as our big cause) so for a disease to target gay people for the unclean homosexual lifestyle theory cuz then why would dykes get a break and gay men not as it makes no sense both are equally as gay.

As for clubbing , doing drugs, & having unsafe sex with multiple partners do you really believe it takes being gay to do that. If that was true then are we calling every rock band a group of aids infected fags, cuz I do believe sex drugs and rock n roll is a habit of lots of people outside of the gays in Babylon some watched on Queer as Folk to form their opinions on.

The only fact that does come to play is anal sex when barebacking does run a higher risk of contact, but that would probably explain why str8 males among minorities run the higher risk the gaymen nowadays as they seem to all enjoy doggy style, but gaymen are more likely to wear a rubber while doing so.

Not that is matters much if some1 is str8 or nearly a virgin or a new born Aids spreads through blood and other means & not through behavior as a gay prostitute who does drugs all day might not have aids or any std & a married woman who only had sex on her wedding night and never even cusses could very well have aids. Aids does not discriminate.

I am std free & goodness knows I'm gay, had lots of sex, go clubbing, did my share of almost everything. However most the people I party w/ are str8 so theories about the wild gay lifestyle are funny to me cuz I know way too many heterosexual swingers, strippers, fetish models, pornstars , bartenders, DJs, drug dealers to believe gay people own the market on a wild lifestyle. Infact even the wildest gay men parties where they fuck watermelons and pass it along are only a fraction of crazy wild dirty shit str8 people have available to them everyday out in the open.

Heck just watch tv there is hetero porn in most every primetime drama while two men kissing is not allowed in an ad during the Superbowl cuz ? Yes the bais notion that gay = the unclean unholy perverted lifestyle. Please the str8 male posting on stripper web is not gonna score any points lecturing on the lifestyle morality that puts anyone at risk for HIV. Last I checked strippers work at nights clubs naked dancing on poles to entertained men who are not there thinking about their wives more then likely. Many of those str8men do drugs, have sex with many women, and are just as perverted as any gay man I ever meet--only they tend to lack the good looks and level of respect I would have to say gay men have over the general strip club custies I have dealt with.

sxcbbw
04-28-2010, 06:55 PM
My physician friend had both of her labors induced for the convenience of the doctor, so he wouldn't have to work beyond his schedule. They tried to do an emergency C-section for her second child, but both her and her doctor husband fought against it, so the hospital relented.

She, as a physician who has delivered many babies concedes that doctor's do C-sections way more than needed due to fear of malpractice litigation. Technically, C-section is safer than a natural delivery, when you compare the risks. Basically, if they are going to give you a C-section, unless you're a doctor you're self, you're going to get one.

Fucked up, isn't it? At least this is in the US, not sure about Canada and UK.

In the UK, if you're not hurrying along in labour fast enough/not dilating fast enough, they will give you a bit of a nudge/suggest a C-section/jump up there with forceps - but if a woman put her foot down and told a doctor to get the fuck away from her with a scalpel and that she does not consent, and they did not do so? Christ, I think they'd be hanged. I have no issue wasting the time of a doctor when they're paid by the hour, to do things the way I consent to them being done, ie. getting gassed out on the days I am not feeling needle-friendly.

Kellydancer
04-28-2010, 07:02 PM
My physician friend had both of her labors induced for the convenience of the doctor, so he wouldn't have to work beyond his schedule. They tried to do an emergency C-section for her second child, but both her and her doctor husband fought against it, so the hospital relented.

She, as a physician who has delivered many babies concedes that doctor's do C-sections way more than needed due to fear of malpractice litigation. Technically, C-section is safer than a natural delivery, when you compare the risks. Basically, if they are going to give you a C-section, unless you're a doctor you're self, you're going to get one.

Fucked up, isn't it? At least this is in the US, not sure about Canada and UK.

That is scary. That's one reason I wasn't sure about giving birth, I'd be livid if I was forced to have a surgery I didn't need. I've heard some of the bad excuses for having c sections and it disgusts me.

MissShyGirl
04-28-2010, 07:56 PM
I seriously wish I could get out what im trying to say better lol. I am failing at explaining myself and my stance. I swear my brain has just stopped working.

Anyway as I said im not against ALL vaccines. Yes I am against the cocktail because there is a lot of crap in them. There are some vaccines I will do, but a lot I wont.

IMO the flu vaccine is stupid. I've had it and I got the flu worse then I did when I didn't have the vaccine, I actually ended up with pneumonia I was so sick. So pointless ones like that, no myself nor my son will have. But yes there are some I will do. I am just researching them very carefully and being very picky about what he gets and I am spreading them out.

Spankie55
04-28-2010, 08:32 PM
Id would love to watch this full length documentary on the HIV/AIDS thing..seems very interesting.
And yes..The hospitals do push C-sections..I was induced,but didn't have a C Section..I was lucky. The medical world in our country is fucked in the ass.
The insurance companies are murderers and thieves.
Doctors do things based on what the insurance companies say-
I was 38 weeks pregnant with toxemia,and my doc refused to induce me because he could be held liable if something went wrong,sure enough the following week my blood pressure went up so high they thought I was gona have a stroke (So they finally induced me) I was fucked up for 2 months after everett was born..My blood pressure was 143/92 at one point.
And I don't take medicine unless I HAVE to. I didn't take my blood pressure meds..I know it was high,dangerously high,But I know if you take it you have to ween your self off of it or else it can fuck you up really bad,not to mention my blood pressure was perfect before the last month of my pregnancy..so why mess with it.
Lots of rest and relaxation always brought it down.

This country is based on money,and nothing more. its sad and fucking disgusting.

MissShyGirl
04-28-2010, 08:38 PM
^^ Your Munchkin shares a birthday with me!!! (just saw your siggy)

Sorry you had such a rough go. Im on watch for my blood pressure skyrocketing so I know how scary it is, but I refuse to take meds. I just stick to bed rest and keeping myself relaxed. I also am having pelvic problems so there have been whispers of csection in the future which I am flat out refusing.

I know I am capable of giving birth vaginally but its all just money and turn around. Prenatal doctors have huge waiting lists here so its a matter of getting the baby out of one patient so they can move onto the next.

Im glad things worked out and your okay now though and good for you for sticking it out and not going for the meds :)

Spankie55
04-28-2010, 08:49 PM
^^Everything will be fine. You do just need to relax,drink lots of water..I'm sure your Dr. told you all of this!
and make sure you stick to your guns. Its your body,your baby-don't let any dr. or nurse sway you in any direction..and please do lots and lots of research,so you're educated,in case something comes up,you'll know exactly what their talking about and you'll be able to make good decisions!

MissShyGirl
04-28-2010, 08:52 PM
^^ Yep im drinking a small lake every day lol. Resting lots and doing my research. I have 9 weeks left till D Day so im all ready for it and have my war suit on ready to battle :D

Hopper
04-29-2010, 01:29 AM
^The article you posted claims it gives "similar" neurological damage. The research study I posted doesn't claim, it studies, oddly enough. Mercury poisoning is mercury poisoning. Developmental disorders are developmental disorders. And no one has ever misdiagnosed one for the other because they are so different. Even the "common ground" of speech and motor problems are two completely different kettles of fish, ie. displaying dyspraxia vs. ataxia. Acute mercury poisoning does indeed cause neurological damage, that does indeed affect speech and motor control. That does not mean it is "similar to autism" whatsoever.

Again, a study, not an article that reads like an editorial this time? It's one thing to provide links, it's another to provide links that don't rely on techniques better suited to a creative writing class. Its comparison of neurological damage to other, totally different neurological conditions literally makes me giggle. If I punched someone in the head I'd be giving them neurological damage - the day someone tells me that's anything like autism I think I'll scream.

And this makes vaccines okay?

Hopper
04-29-2010, 01:39 AM
Wow, a homophobic racist. At least you left women out of it (for now). Btw, not all blacks are on welfare, and not all people on welfare are black. In fact the biggest welfare frauds I ever knew were WHITE.

Which parts of my post are racist and "homophobic" and why? Did you read the post I was responding to, to get its context?

What does "homophobic" mean anyway? Are you able to explain that?

Hopper
04-29-2010, 01:50 AM
Agreed. I know a lot of gays who live very clean life styles.

Also most the stereotypical trashy welfare people I knew were white. (ftr I am NOT saying everyone on welfare is trashy... im talking about the people who use it to abuse it, not use it for what its for, getting things together. I have known many people on welfare who were very clean respectable people just having a hard time with things).

I did not say all homosexuals have dirty lifestyles. All homosexuals also do not have AIDS, which was the subject of the post I was responding to.

I also did not say that all blacks are on welfare, or that only blacks are on welfare, or that all people on welfare are trashy. I was talking about what welfare has doen for black neighbourhoods in general. The criticism was of welfare, not blacks. Welfare programmes have long existed for whites, but in the 60s special welfare programmes were created for blacks.

Seems we are getting a lot of knee-jerk reactions here. Responses which ignore the words which triggered them are evidence that they were programmed and conditionned.

Hopper
04-29-2010, 02:02 AM
I don't personally know anyone on benefits that isn't white. Or any gay people that take drugs/have multiple sexual partners. But, that's just my area and the people I know. Maybe Hopper lives somewhere different.

You mean a different planet to yours?

You know that many homosexuals - I did not say all - live the kind of lifestyle that exposes them to health hazards. Clubbing hours a night (sleep deprivation) on drugs to keep them high, keep them awake, etc on top of smoking dope, nicotine, dirinking alcohol etc. and anally penetrating or receiving ten times each night with different partners in the toilets or wherever. You know the rectal wall is liable to damage and admits bacteria and toxins more readily than our protective outer skin. Many of them go to further extremes with toys and other props.

Not all homosexuals pursue this lifestyle. But even those who don't still practice anal penetration (or receive), some likely with those who do have that lifestyle. Even if they don't, anal penetration is a disease-risk practice by it's nature and many homosexuals today, like many heterosexuals, are not using condoms.

AIDS is basically a collection of symptoms for which no definite cause has been established, but this kind of fatigueing and high-risk lifestyle certainly correlates in the case of homosexuals. We don't need to suspect that the elites have targeted homosexuals with this disease to explain the fact that it originated largely with homosexuals and that the incidence of it is propertionately higher among them than the wider population.

It would be "homophobic" or "hating" not to acknolwedge these dangers.

Deny, deny.

Hopper
04-29-2010, 02:33 AM
Aids does not target gay people -- there is vertically NO lesbian aids epidemic (we stress breast cancer as our big cause) so for a disease to target gay people for the unclean homosexual lifestyle theory cuz then why would dykes get a break and gay men not as it makes no sense both are equally as gay.

The lifestyle I was speaking of applies to male homosexuals. I was not thinking of lesbians. Homosexuals themselves think of AIDS as a specifically "gay issue" because of its predominance among them. I didn't make it up to smear them.


As for clubbing , doing drugs, & having unsafe sex with multiple partners do you really believe it takes being gay to do that. If that was true then are we calling every rock band a group of aids infected fags, cuz I do believe sex drugs and rock n roll is a habit of lots of people outside of the gays in Babylon some watched on Queer as Folk to form their opinions on.

Straights with these lifestyles are high risk too. But somewhat less so because anal penetration is not as frequent as it is (necessarily) among males homosexuals. I am aware that some homosexuals don't do anal, but those in "the lifestyle" likely do.



The only fact that does come to play is anal sex when barebacking does run a higher risk of contact, but that would probably explain why str8 males among minorities run the higher risk the gaymen nowadays as they seem to all enjoy doggy style, but gaymen are more likely to wear a rubber while doing so.


Even with a rubber, the receiver is the one whose rectal wall is suffering damage and that leads to infection and toxicity, especially because the rectum of course contains feces.



Not that is matters much if some1 is str8 or nearly a virgin or a new born Aids spreads through blood and other means & not through behavior as a gay prostitute who does drugs all day might not have aids or any std & a married woman who only had sex on her wedding night and never even cusses could very well have aids. Aids does not discriminate.


That's how it spreads to homosexuals not in the lifestyle and eventually to straights.



I am std free & goodness knows I'm gay, had lots of sex, go clubbing, did my share of almost everything. However most the people I party w/ are str8 so theories about the wild gay lifestyle are funny to me cuz I know way too many heterosexual swingers, strippers, fetish models, pornstars , bartenders, DJs, drug dealers to believe gay people own the market on a wild lifestyle. Infact even the wildest gay men parties where they fuck watermelons and pass it along are only a fraction of crazy wild dirty shit str8 people have available to them everyday out in the open.


I would say those straights are a small minority.


Heck just watch tv there is hetero porn in most every primetime drama while two men kissing is not allowed in an ad during the Superbowl cuz ? Yes the bais notion that gay = the unclean unholy perverted lifestyle. Please the str8 male posting on stripper web is not gonna score any points lecturing on the lifestyle morality that puts anyone at risk for HIV. Last I checked strippers work at nights clubs naked dancing on poles to entertained men who are not there thinking about their wives more then likely. Many of those str8men do drugs, have sex with many women, and are just as perverted as any gay man I ever meet--only they tend to lack the good looks and level of respect I would have to say gay men have over the general strip club custies I have dealt with.

None of that is as intense as the clubbing many male homosexuals do. Those straights are less likely to score as often because of that lack of good looks, and because they are married. Thedrug-taking I was talking about is the intense kind many homosexuals do in club situations.

Hopper
04-29-2010, 04:04 AM
are you allowed to post shit like this on this website? where are the mods?

Yeah, this is a stripper website - it should be scrupulously censored.

Hopper
04-29-2010, 04:12 AM
This is the kinda retarded shit you have to believe to think vaccines cause autism?

No, what they have in common is questionning authority. I don't automatically believe the establishment's line on vaccination and I don't think what I am told to think about homosexuals, welfare or whatever the media-planted bug is you have up your ass about my post.

Heavy media conditionning also causes retardation too.

princessjas
04-29-2010, 05:52 AM
Yeah, and we haven't observed HIV infecting and killing CD4 T-cells...and OF COURSE our killer T-cells, never then kill off the infected ones.

Whateves, some morons will believe anything. ::) If you're on board with this theory, then I recommend breathing through your ears. It works!! REALLY!! :O

princessjas
04-29-2010, 06:01 AM
Oh as to the vaccine issue...There was a thread a few years ago where I posted ALL the data I could find. I'm not re-writing or hunting up the links tho, so use the search function if you are interested. The ONLY sites I could find with any info to support the link between autism and vaccines were trying to sale crap...or were quoting the moron Dr who admitted he made it up.

If you aren't vaccinating your kids, then I won't have them around me or mine. I'm hoping that with the current rise of several of these diseases (yep, it's already started) they start quarantining the unvacced from the general population in the future. It isn't fair to expose the very young infants that have not had an opportunity to be vacced yet.

KS_Stevia
04-29-2010, 07:45 AM
IMO the flu vaccine is stupid. I've had it and I got the flu worse then I did when I didn't have the vaccine, I actually ended up with pneumonia I was so sick.

I also caught a really bad flu the only year I had a flu vaccine too, back in University when they recommended all students get one, particularly ones living in the dorms like me. :-\ And if I'm not mistaken, that was also the semester that my flu turned into pneumonia and I was out of classes for 2 weeks, had to drop one course, and did shitty in the others.

Yup, I'm pretty much personally against the flu vaccine as well, for myself. However, high risk people and medical workers do get it and it can help. Influenza is hundreds of different viruses though, its really hard to control. The flu vaccine really shouldn't be called a vaccine, its more of a, errr, potential preventative?

Trem
04-29-2010, 02:57 PM
No, what they have in common is questionning authority. I don't automatically believe the establishment's line on vaccination and I don't think what I am told to think about homosexuals, welfare or whatever the media-planted bug is you have up your ass about my post.

Heavy media conditionning also causes retardation too.

Of course, why would anyone believe hundreds of scientists over a former playboy model and a guy who talks out of his anus. Makes perfect sense.

UV69
04-29-2010, 03:20 PM
The lifestyle I was speaking of applies to male homosexuals. I was not thinking of lesbians. Homosexuals themselves think of AIDS as a specifically "gay issue" because of its predominance among them. I didn't make it up to smear them.



Straights with these lifestyles are high risk too. But somewhat less so because anal penetration is not as frequent as it is (necessarily) among males homosexuals. I am aware that some homosexuals don't do anal, but those in "the lifestyle" likely do.



Even with a rubber, the receiver is the one whose rectal wall is suffering damage and that leads to infection and toxicity, especially because the rectum of course contains feces.



That's how it spreads to homosexuals not in the lifestyle and eventually to straights.



I would say those straights are a small minority.



None of that is as intense as the clubbing many male homosexuals do. Those straights are less likely to score as often because of that lack of good looks, and because they are married. Thedrug-taking I was talking about is the intense kind many homosexuals do in club situations.

What do you know about gay males do to be talking as if you have a clue?? Are you fucking them or are you gay? How is clubbing the cause of spreading stds and yet str8 men can call a hooker anytime of day & that isn't just as common of a lifestyle for some. Please Aids didn't come from gay males unless you are implying that str8 men fucked gay men in order for it to have happened that way. I do believe that concept is part of why Aids was created in labs , but that's other theory all together that failed as anal sex between men is not the only way it spreads so homo genocide didn't happen as intended (according to this theory). The lifestyle btw is not a factor of getting Aids & if people use protection they can be porn stars & prostitutes and still not have a std. Protection is highly effective & many gay men I know use it every time they have sex. Infact most gay male porn include use of condoms unlike hetero porn were that is not as common as the stigma of Aids being a gay disease or the idea that a condom is not sexy is much more common among heterosexuals. Now I personally think lesbians are very lucky the risk are lower cuz there is alot of serial monogamy where its almost to common to have dated your gfs ex or yr friends gf at some point and with our non existence use of protection then it would be seriously an epidemic real quick. So yes gaymen by nature of the sex they have do run a higher risk in that light, but not cuz of clubbing or not that only gaymen have anal or even all do. Still if you look up the stas gaymen are not the highest risk group cuz over the years protection has become very much a part of gay male culture much like white party & the Aids walk.

Vamp
04-29-2010, 04:01 PM
You mean a different planet to yours?

You know that many homosexuals - I did not say all - live the kind of lifestyle that exposes them to health hazards. Clubbing hours a night (sleep deprivation) on drugs to keep them high, keep them awake, etc on top of smoking dope, nicotine, dirinking alcohol etc. and anally penetrating or receiving ten times each night with different partners in the toilets or wherever. You know the rectal wall is liable to damage and admits bacteria and toxins more readily than our protective outer skin. Many of them go to further extremes with toys and other props.

Not all homosexuals pursue this lifestyle. But even those who don't still practice anal penetration (or receive), some likely with those who do have that lifestyle. Even if they don't, anal penetration is a disease-risk practice by it's nature and many homosexuals today, like many heterosexuals, are not using condoms.

AIDS is basically a collection of symptoms for which no definite cause has been established, but this kind of fatigueing and high-risk lifestyle certainly correlates in the case of homosexuals. We don't need to suspect that the elites have targeted homosexuals with this disease to explain the fact that it originated largely with homosexuals and that the incidence of it is propertionately higher among them than the wider population.

It would be "homophobic" or "hating" not to acknolwedge these dangers.

Deny, deny.


:O OMG PARIS HILTON, LINDSAY LOHAN, AND BRITNEY SPEARS HAVE AIDS!!!:O

wait .......

Vamp
04-29-2010, 04:10 PM
I'm aware it's been banned here, and that the rate of diagnosis for autism hasn't lowered. The only thing I'm advocating is listening to the differences between autism and mercury poisoning. Whether or not autism is caused by mercury poisoning is very, very relevant, considering my first post was saying that I hope this thread's issue - AIDS not being the result of HIV - is just another needess hysteria, like mercury having anything to do with autism - which it doesn't.

Please tell me precisely where I say mercury based additives have no adverse effects or that vaccines are perfect, as opposed to the paragraphs and posts solely about whether or not autism was one of those adverse effects? Because I can't see where I said that.

The hysteria made some aware of issues with vaccines. Even though many vilified jenny mcarthy for taking a stand, I think it was honorable. If people educate themselves sometimes these hysterics can have a purpose. The problem is most people just panic or use it as something else to bitch about instead.

princessjas
04-29-2010, 05:38 PM
I also caught a really bad flu the only year I had a flu vaccine too, back in University when they recommended all students get one, particularly ones living in the dorms like me. :-\ And if I'm not mistaken, that was also the semester that my flu turned into pneumonia and I was out of classes for 2 weeks, had to drop one course, and did shitty in the others.

Yup, I'm pretty much personally against the flu vaccine as well, for myself. However, high risk people and medical workers do get it and it can help. Influenza is hundreds of different viruses though, its really hard to control. The flu vaccine really shouldn't be called a vaccine, its more of a, errr, potential preventative?

Yep, I'm pretty much on the fence about the flu vaccine because they can't make a vac for every strain, so it's composition, or which strains it protects against, is essentially an educated guess. I usually get it, because it can't really hurt (unless you are one of those RARE people that has an allergy to eggs or another ingredient) and the only time I've gotten the flu is when I've skipped the vac, but I dunno, can't get totally behind a vac that is basically hit or miss.

It really is just coincidental that you and MissShyGirl got a worse case when you took it though. Usually they guess the strains that are going to circulate pretty accurately, but sometimes they miss and it's usually a REALLY virulent strain that manages to sneak in under the radar....the severity of such strains is probably what allows them to "sneak up" on scientists, actually.

Hopper
04-30-2010, 01:38 AM
Oh as to the vaccine issue...There was a thread a few years ago where I posted ALL the data I could find. I'm not re-writing or hunting up the links tho, so use the search function if you are interested. The ONLY sites I could find with any info to support the link between autism and vaccines were trying to sale crap...or were quoting the moron Dr who admitted he made it up.

I've come across many more sources than just that in just the few books I have read on the subject, and the problems they describe are not limitted to autism.


If you aren't vaccinating your kids, then I won't have them around me or mine. I'm hoping that with the current rise of several of these diseases (yep, it's already started) they start quarantining the unvacced from the general population in the future. It isn't fair to expose the very young infants that have not had an opportunity to be vacced yet.

Anyone who is scared of diseases from others should quarrantine themselves rather than take other people's freedoms away.

I don't reject all studies out of hand, or I would have to believe the whole field of biology and medicine are invalid. But people who quote studies as if they are the last word ignore the human dimension in science - i.e. self-interest in particular - political, business and career interests.

The book "World Without Cancer" by G. Edward Griffin fully investigates and documents the extent to which the medical industry is dominated by such interests from the very top on down, with the full cooperation and protection of the government, industry bodies, FDA, etc. It is absolutely depraved - and all legal.

For example, terminal cancer patients are experimented on with with the excuse that they are dying anyway. It is done without knowledge or consent of the patients. In one study, proudly reported in the official journal Chemotherapy Reports, eight children were given an experimental, toxic, chemotherapy drug. Six of them died during the trial. The drug manifested vomiting, hypotension, oral mucous membrane changes and diarrhea. Postmortem examinations of the six who died revealed renal damage and cerebral edema.

Such experimentation is, of course, permitted by the FDA, who forbid the use of or experimentation with alternative therapies like Laetrile. Could the difference be that Laetrile is a nutrient (vitamin B17), available from food, and not a drug manufactured by Big Pharma?

If you give these psychpaths the power to impose their medicine on you, you will find yourself in a world of shit.

I laugh at anyone who throws a stack of "studies" down and sits back looking down his nose like science has automatically had the last word. There is a lot more involved in determining the truth of scientific claims than just science. Even peer journal review is no guarantee of the reliablilty of a report. The "agreement of the scientific community" is no guarantee, considering who runs the scientific community.

Hopper
04-30-2010, 01:41 AM
Of course, why would anyone believe hundreds of scientists over a former playboy model and a guy who talks out of his anus. Makes perfect sense.

Time for you to get out from in front of your TV matey. Playboy Playmate isn't far from stripper, BTW.

Hopper
04-30-2010, 02:02 AM
What do you know about gay males do to be talking as if you have a clue?? Are you fucking them or are you gay?

There are books. statistics, that kind of thing, you know? Do I need to be homosexual to know anything about them? Is your knowledge limitted to women, lesbians and strippers because you aren't in any other category or fucking anyone in them - as if doing so would make you any more informed?


How is clubbing the cause of spreading stds and yet str8 men can call a hooker anytime of day & that isn't just as common of a lifestyle for some.

The reason I mentionned clubbing is that for many it involves a number of stresses on the body all simultaneously. Calling a hooker once a week is not the same thing in this regard. And I was talking about AIDS, not STDs in general. AIDS is a collection of symptoms which are supposed by some to be the result of various stresses on a person's health. Get the picture?


Please Aids didn't come from gay males unless you are implying that str8 men fucked gay men in order for it to have happened that way. I do believe that concept is part of why Aids was created in labs , but that's other theory all together that failed as anal sex between men is not the only way it spreads so homo genocide didn't happen as intended (according to this theory).

I don't know that AIDS came from the homosexual community, though the "created in labs by elite to target gays" theory requires that it started there. But it does predominate among male homosexuals, I hope you know. Nor did I say that homosexuals are the only people who get AIDS. Such stresses can occur in other lifestyles and need not be anything to do with homosexuals as far as I know.

Some straight men (particularly bisexuals) DO fuck homosexuals, or fucked women who have fucked homosexuals (which does happen). I knew one guy who was into trannies who used to go to a local gay bar and suck dick in the toilets.


The lifestyle btw is not a factor of getting Aids & if people use protection they can be porn stars & prostitutes and still not have a std. Protection is highly effective & many gay men I know use it every time they have sex. Infact most gay male porn include use of condoms unlike hetero porn were that is not as common as the stigma of Aids being a gay disease or the idea that a condom is not sexy is much more common among heterosexuals.

I am not sure AIDS is a sexually transmittanle disease. The theory I am going on here is that it is due to severe stresses on the body and health. The idea that it is transmittable is connected with the notion that it is due to the HIV virus, which is what the documentary I posted questions.


Now I personally think lesbians are very lucky the risk are lower cuz there is alot of serial monogamy where its almost to common to have dated your gfs ex or yr friends gf at some point and with our non existence use of protection then it would be seriously an epidemic real quick. So yes gaymen by nature of the sex they have do run a higher risk in that light, but not cuz of clubbing or not that only gaymen have anal or even all do. Still if you look up the stas gaymen are not the highest risk group cuz over the years protection has become very much a part of gay male culture much like white party & the Aids walk.

Again, the main factor I am referring do is not sexual transmission via a virus or bacteria, although the penetration itself probably plays a part simply because frequent sex drains the body of resources and disturbance of the rectum exposes the body to toxins, bacteria other parasites. And I heard more than once that many homosexual men are going "bareback" in recent times.

princessjas
04-30-2010, 05:13 AM
I've come across many more sources than just that in just the few books I have read on the subject, and the problems they describe are not limitted to autism.



Anyone who is scared of diseases from others should quarrantine themselves rather than take other people's freedoms away.

I don't reject all studies out of hand, or I would have to believe the whole field of biology and medicine are invalid. But people who quote studies as if they are the last word ignore the human dimension in science - i.e. self-interest in particular - political, business and career interests.

The book "World Without Cancer" by G. Edward Griffin fully investigates and documents the extent to which the medical industry is dominated by such interests from the very top on down, with the full cooperation and protection of the government, industry bodies, FDA, etc. It is absolutely depraved - and all legal.

For example, terminal cancer patients are experimented on with with the excuse that they are dying anyway. It is done without knowledge or consent of the patients. In one study, proudly reported in the official journal Chemotherapy Reports, eight children were given an experimental, toxic, chemotherapy drug. Six of them died during the trial. The drug manifested vomiting, hypotension, oral mucous membrane changes and diarrhea. Postmortem examinations of the six who died revealed renal damage and cerebral edema.

Such experimentation is, of course, permitted by the FDA, who forbid the use of or experimentation with alternative therapies like Laetrile. Could the difference be that Laetrile is a nutrient (vitamin B17), available from food, and not a drug manufactured by Big Pharma?

If you give these psychpaths the power to impose their medicine on you, you will find yourself in a world of shit.

I laugh at anyone who throws a stack of "studies" down and sits back looking down his nose like science has automatically had the last word. There is a lot more involved in determining the truth of scientific claims than just science. Even peer journal review is no guarantee of the reliablilty of a report. The "agreement of the scientific community" is no guarantee, considering who runs the scientific community.


Oh, god, where to fucking start? lol I think I'll just go with pointing out that Amygdalin is not a Vitamin. There is no "Vitamin B17" and well, I'm too busy laughing my ass off at your ignorance to even address the rest at the moment. Jeez, thanks for the comic relief tho. B17...that is fucking priceless!! When I'm less hung over I'll start making fun of most of the rest of what you said here. :P

I do agree that medical practices aren't always ethical...and that one study is not the final word on any subject. That's the exact reason that I always find MULTIPLE studies if I'm researching anything. I DO think science is a LOT more reliable than the morons that go..."Yep, there is a problem I just KNOW it." or "God told me!" Oh, jeezus!! The stupidity of that just boggles my mind. ::)

ETA- BTW basically ALL Chemotherapy is toxic, and much of it is experimental. If you choose to take it you are informed of this. My aunt refused after this was explained to her, decided on 2 or 3 good months instead of a shitty couple of years. Many people refuse because of this. Oh, and vomitting and diarrhea are pretty standard side effects. I knew a little girl that had terminal cancer and couldn't take the chemo because...well, sadly the chemo was killing her faster than the cancer, but her parents were still insisting, trying to FORCE the Dr to give her the chemo, while it was causing massive hemorraging and vomitting/diarrhea. Some people tolerate it better than others. It's sad, but not a horrible scheme by Dr's or the pharmaceutical industry. The only evil, nefarious plot I've heard of involved a clinic cutting doses of an experimental drug in half and charging for a full dose.

ETA 2- Renal failure is very common with chemotherapy. If someone has a re-occurance of cancer, I believe they have to do a full lab to see if your body can handle any more chemo. I'm not 100% certain on this one though, I don't really know much about oncology to be honest. (What I've said here I know for certain though, I'm honest if I'm not sure about something. ;) )

Trem
04-30-2010, 06:16 AM
Time for you to get out from in front of your TV matey. Playboy Playmate isn't far from stripper, BTW.

I don't go to strippers for their scientific knowledge either.

princessjas
04-30-2010, 07:11 AM
I don't go to strippers for their scientific knowledge either.

Hey, I think there might be an insult in there somewhere! ;D

Oh, and I should explain a bit why I found that B-17 crap soooo funny, cause I'm betting only Mediocrity would know this stuff...and I don't want you all to think I was just being an ass over the B-17 mistake...

K, the mythical "B-17" is Amygdalin...which is found in bitter almonds and cherry laurels...and you guessed it, is broken down into cyanide!! lol Talking about the toxicity of Chemo and then recommending a little cyanide instead! OMG, I still can't stop cracking up and my tummy hurts! lol

camille27
04-30-2010, 08:24 AM
Jackass. This is a forum of strippers. Most of us club hours a night, don't sleep very much, use coffee/redbull/whatever else to stay awake until 4 or 5 am, smoke, drink, and yes, some of us do have sex with toys and other props. Get the fuck out with this bullshit.






you know that many homosexuals - i did not say all - live the kind of lifestyle that exposes them to health hazards. Clubbing hours a night (sleep deprivation) on drugs to keep them high, keep them awake, etc on top of smoking dope, nicotine, dirinking alcohol etc. And anally penetrating or receiving ten times each night with different partners in the toilets or wherever. You know the rectal wall is liable to damage and admits bacteria and toxins more readily than our protective outer skin. Many of them go to further extremes with toys and other props.

Hopper
04-30-2010, 08:39 AM
Oh, god, where to fucking start? lol I think I'll just go with pointing out that Amygdalin is not a Vitamin. There is no "Vitamin B17" and well, I'm too busy laughing my ass off at your ignorance to even address the rest at the moment. Jeez, thanks for the comic relief tho. B17...that is fucking priceless!! When I'm less hung over I'll start making fun of most of the rest of what you said here. :P

Please continue.

How do you classify a vitamin? Whether or not a substance is classed as a vitamin depends on whether it can be shown to perform some necessary function in the body. Have you read enough studies of amygdalin to know whether it does? Do you trust the enormously lucrative cancer treatment industry to fund and widely publicise truthful reports on it?



I do agree that medical practices aren't always ethical...and that one study is not the final word on any subject. That's the exact reason that I always find MULTIPLE studies if I'm researching anything.


You missed my point. Multiple studies is not all studies, and in many cases not all good or reliable studies. It depends on the journal publishing the report - it's biases, it's sponsors, the biases of the industry or field it covers. It depends on what studies are funded - what type of research funding is provided for, which depends on the interests of the funders.



I DO think science is a LOT more reliable than the morons that go..."Yep, there is a problem I just KNOW it." or "God told me!" Oh, jeezus!! The stupidity of that just boggles my mind. ::)


I was not saying either of those. My opinion is based on documented research.



ETA- BTW basically ALL Chemotherapy is toxic, and much of it is experimental. If you choose to take it you are informed of this. My aunt refused after this was explained to her, decided on 2 or 3 good months instead of a shitty couple of years. Many people refuse because of this. Oh, and vomitting and diarrhea are pretty standard side effects. I knew a little girl that had terminal cancer and couldn't take the chemo because...well, sadly the chemo was killing her faster than the cancer, but her parents were still insisting, trying to FORCE the Dr to give her the chemo, while it was causing massive hemorraging and vomitting/diarrhea. Some people tolerate it better than others.

That sounds like a great cure. Thank God they are not quacks.

It was not explained to the parents of the children in the example I gave that there was any experimenting. All chemo is toxic, but the purpose of that experiment was to determine the safe dose - because they did not know what that was for this new drug.



It's sad, but not a horrible scheme by Dr's or the pharmaceutical industry.


What would you call it then? Statistically chemo does not make any difference in the life expectancy of patients and it also causes the cancer to spread, because it is toxic.


The only evil, nefarious plot I've heard of involved a clinic cutting doses of an experimental drug in half and charging for a full dose.


Wow. Even people who haven't worked in medicine know of more and bigger scandals than that. Have you worked in medicine? Exactly what is your scientific background? What biology research have you conducted? What lab tech work have you done?


ETA 2- Renal failure is very common with chemotherapy. If someone has a re-occurance of cancer, I believe they have to do a full lab to see if your body can handle any more chemo.

That's good to know. But again, that experiment was performed to find the safe level for that drug.


I'm not 100% certain on this one though, I don't really know much about oncology to be honest. (What I've said here I know for certain though, I'm honest if I'm not sure about something. ;) )

Well then thanks for confirming what everyone already knows. If you don't know much about oncology, then why are you commenting on Laetrile?

Hopper
04-30-2010, 08:49 AM
Hey, I think there might be an insult in there somewhere! ;D

Oh, and I should explain a bit why I found that B-17 crap soooo funny, cause I'm betting only Mediocrity would know this stuff...and I don't want you all to think I was just being an ass over the B-17 mistake...

K, the mythical "B-17" is Amygdalin...which is found in bitter almonds and cherry laurels...and you guessed it, is broken down into cyanide!! lol Talking about the toxicity of Chemo and then recommending a little cyanide instead! OMG, I still can't stop cracking up and my tummy hurts! lol

Amygdalin breaks down into, among oter molecules, hydrogen cyanide. The cyanide is released by the pancreatic enzyme beta-glucosidase and only at the site of a group of cancer cells. A small amount of cyanide exists in the food source but not at toxic levels for the amount which would be normally consumed. Amygdalin is contained in many foods, such as sorghum, millet and cassava. In some cultures the seeds containing amygdalin are consumed with the fuit and oil is pressed from the ground seeds.

Salt - sodium choride - contains chlorine atoms. Chlorine is a toxic gas. It is also a necessary element for life. Salt is not toxic, in reasonable doses - it is food. In water - e.g. in the stomach - it dissociates into sodium and chlorine ions.

Definitely not as toxic as chemotherapy or as harmful as radiotherapy - or surgery. Laetrile has no toxic side effects. Even if it were toxic, why would it be worse than chemo, which definitely is? The purpose of chemo is precisely to poison the body in the hope that the cancer is poisonned before the good cells are. Toxicity is it's function. It is not Laetrile's function. Maybe you should read some studies on it.

Hopper
04-30-2010, 09:15 AM
Jackass. This is a forum of strippers. Most of us club hours a night, don't sleep very much, use coffee/redbull/whatever else to stay awake until 4 or 5 am, smoke, drink, and yes, some of us do have sex with toys and other props. Get the fuck out with this bullshit.

Really? Hours a night? I am talking about doing all of that, all night, with recreational drugs and anal penetration and ejaculation several times in one night. Not many strippers would do that and not often. Read my posts before responding or if you don't, don't make me the jackass.

princessjas
05-01-2010, 07:03 AM
Please continue.

How do you classify a vitamin? Whether or not a substance is classed as a vitamin depends on whether it can be shown to perform some necessary function in the body. Have you read enough studies of amygdalin to know whether it does? Do you trust the enormously lucrative cancer treatment industry to fund and widely publicise truthful reports on it?
Jeezus, do you really think I don't know what a vitamin is?

Nevermind, it's YOU...of course you think that! You are, after all, the most sexist person on the planet. Yep, when you mistakenly PM'ed D basically saying how all women were so damn stupid we should just be kept barefoot and preggo all the time, he forwarded it to me to let me know not to even TRY arguing with you, because since I am a woman, you'd automatically discount anything I had to say...that you basically have as much respect for women as most people do their pet dog. See, him and I got into it in that underage girl thread, but were actually friends, so even though he could see your point that one time, he didn't like the shit you had to say. I just can't fucking figure out why your sexist assed views are allowed to remain on a support board for women.

What function are you suggesting Amygdalin has? Does it maintain connective tissue like Vit C? No Does it help with cell differentiation like Vit A? No C'mon, c'mon tell me!?!? I'm dying to hear how this is an essential substance that we have missed in the last century of studying nutrition.


You missed my point. Multiple studies is not all studies, and in many cases not all good or reliable studies. It depends on the journal publishing the report - it's biases, it's sponsors, the biases of the industry or field it covers. It depends on what studies are funded - what type of research funding is provided for, which depends on the interests of the funders.

All studies are not relevant. No one can real ALL studies on subjects that have been researched thousands of times. Also, if you had a shred of intelligence, you wouldn't even suggest that a single deviation in a single study means anything whatsoever.


I was not saying either of those. My opinion is based on documented research.



That sounds like a great cure. Thank God they are not quacks.

It was not explained to the parents of the children in the example I gave that there was any experimenting. All chemo is toxic, but the purpose of that experiment was to determine the safe dose - because they did not know what that was for this new drug.

I'm not saying that one study was performed by ethical Dr's....but avoiding medicine because there are a few bad apples would be like me avoiding men after having a debate with you. Stupid.




What would you call it then? Statistically chemo does not make any difference in the life expectancy of patients and it also causes the cancer to spread, because it is toxic.

Statistically it doesn't? I think you may be referring to one study that reported that untreated people have longer life expectancies. Many studies show that chemo is very effiecient for extending life expectancy, many show it's not that effective. For this reason, I'm not completely behind chemo, I don't think suggesting a little cyanide in it's place is wise tho. lol



Wow. Even people who haven't worked in medicine know of more and bigger scandals than that. Have you worked in medicine? Exactly what is your scientific background? What biology research have you conducted? What lab tech work have you done?

Do you really want my resume? For real? I worked for the WVU department of Biology for years, bounced around from area to area a bit....and was taking classes the entire time of course, and then for Fisher Scientific in Pit in their cell bio dept. Besides being male, what are your creds for discussing this subject? While my knowledge may be more general, than say an oncologist's, I've at least had my fair share of cellular bio and chem...or at least I think about 7 years of higher ed pretty much all in the sciences would qualify as a decent amount. ;)



Well then thanks for confirming what everyone already knows. If you don't know much about oncology, then why are you commenting on Laetrile?

Why are you? You don't seem to have more than a passing knowledge of chemistry or biology? Does having a penis just naturally make you smarter than someone who has worked in at least a loosely related field and who spent months studying cancer research when her aunt was diagnosed? Yep, I've looked up Laetrile a time or two. It combats cancer by breaking down into cyanide....which sometimes KILLS the person taking it. Eh, actually works pretty similar to other chemotherapy drugs, but it's proved to be fatal more often and to be completely ineffective. If you'd have just suggested benzaldehyde for tumor suppression I might've been able to support that one, but amygdalin?? Then calling it a vitamin?? Yep, showing your smarts right there. ::)

ETA- Before I get called out for being an idiot, I should point out I was generalizing when I said that chemo is basically poison. It actually targets rapidly dividing cells by inhibiting mitosis and is not really toxic to ALL cells. The recent studies to shut down p-glycoprotein are really promising tho, and if it can be successfully shut down this'd make chemo much more effective. There is also some recent rays of hope about targeting the malignant cells only. Like with Imatinib for CML treatment.

sxcbbw
05-01-2010, 07:24 AM
^I fear your frustration/breath is wasted on this person.

princessjas
05-01-2010, 07:38 AM
^I fear your frustration/breath is wasted on this person.

I'm sure you're right. With his opinion of women and his obvious lack of knowledge...B-17!!! Then suggesting a little cyanide in place of standard chemo...I mean I don't really know how to even try to explain anything to someone when that is the foundation they are working with. How do you even go into the basics of anti-metabolites, taxanes or topoisomerase inhibitors? Lord some of that garbage is confusing enough in my own head. :rotfl:

Trem
05-01-2010, 08:01 AM
^I fear your frustration/breath is wasted on this person.

You can't argue with the crazy, they are immune to reason and logic. The religious crazy are the worst of all, they've had rational thought beat out of them from an early age.

Trem
05-01-2010, 08:04 AM
I'm sure you're right. With his opinion of women and his obvious lack of knowledge...B-17!!! Then suggesting a little cyanide in place of standard chemo...I mean I don't really know how to even try to explain anything to someone when that is the foundation they are working with. How do you even go into the basics of anti-metabolites, taxanes or topoisomerase inhibitors? Lord some of that garbage is confusing enough in my own head. :rotfl:

You know i might have to rethink my not going to strippers for their scientific knowledge rule.

princessjas
05-01-2010, 11:19 AM
You know i might have to rethink my not going to strippers for their scientific knowledge rule.

Spanks!! hehe I could list how each one of those inhibits mitosis, but then I'd just be showing off!! ;D

Oh and I agree about the religious fanatics being the worst of the crazies. They are scary!! They'll kill you for saying it might be okay to have an abortion or allow stem cell research...and half of em don't even know the difference between a totipotent and a pluripotent or partially differentiated stem cell. Can you say loooonies?!? If you're gonna be so opinionated about a subject at least learn the bare basics. ;)

Hopper
05-01-2010, 06:54 PM
Jeezus, do you really think I don't know what a vitamin is?

You probably do. But the issue is whether you are aware that amygdalin functions as one.



Nevermind, it's YOU...of course you think that! You are, after all, the most sexist person on the planet. Yep, when you mistakenly PM'ed D basically saying how all women were so damn stupid we should just be kept barefoot and preggo all the time, he forwarded it to me to let me know not to even TRY arguing with you, because since I am a woman, you'd automatically discount anything I had to say...that you basically have as much respect for women as most people do their pet dog. See, him and I got into it in that underage girl thread, but were actually friends, so even though he could see your point that one time, he didn't like the shit you had to say. I just can't fucking figure out why your sexist assed views are allowed to remain on a support board for women.


I checked through my sent PMs folder and there are no statements even on that topic in any of them. But I did talk about it in the threads. If that is where you got the idea, then you are reading it into my comments based on your own prejudices. The best you can say is that we have different views on the subject. I never said that women are stupid or that they should be kept bare-foot and pregnant. My views are allowed on this support board for women because many women agree with them.

If anything, your closed-minded attitude toward other POVs is a discredit to you. "Sexist" is just a label people use because they don't have any logical criticisms. It's a meaningless, zombie catch-word based on nothing more than a purely dogmatic ideology. Part of science is questionning assumptions and all you are doing here is judging me according to your own assumptions.

A mistaken PM would have still been saved to my sent folder and I never noticed one then and don't see one there now. I haven't deleted any. Or did I mistakenly delete that one after I mistakenly sent it? I don't know who "D" is. Perhaps you can get his permission to reproduce the PM here for us all to judge ourselves. Personally I think you or "D" made this up.

We were not discussing underage sex, we were discussing where the border for underage lies and people disagreed on it. I never actually advocated sex with 16-yo girls, I just said it should be left for individuals to decide, since it is such a blurry line.

But I don't see what any of this has to do with amygdalin. Obviously you are back-pedalling on this subject and vilifying me in order to divert attention from it. Even if I were a sexist pig, that would not necessarily make me stupid in the area we are discussing.



What function are you suggesting Amygdalin has? Does it maintain connective tissue like Vit C? No Does it help with cell differentiation like Vit A? No C'mon, c'mon tell me!?!? I'm dying to hear how this is an essential substance that we have missed in the last century of studying nutrition.


You missed it but not everybody else did. You know how long it took for everyone to realise that vitamin C deficiency causes scurvy, right? It took a few centuries for that to catch on.

The book I mentionned describes a number of functions, particlularly it's role in directly controlling cancer cells. When I have time to thumb back through it I will list the others here. Or you could read the book yourself. At least then when you criticise it you would know what you are talking about.

The concept of cancer presented in the book on Laetrile is the trophoblast theory of cancer, which says that cancer cells normally exist in the body and have a role in the healing process. Amygdalin is a substance required to control the division of these cells when they are called upon to do so and in the absence of sufficient quantities of amygdalin the body is unable to control this division and the cancer cells continue to multiply. I would say that function alone rates it as a vitamin. Of course, I have read alternative explanations of cancer, not all of which necessarily contradict this one.



All studies are not relevant. No one can real ALL studies on subjects that have been researched thousands of times. Also, if you had a shred of intelligence, you wouldn't even suggest that a single deviation in a single study means anything whatsoever.


I meant all relevant studies. Of course I was not including irrelevant ones. Okay, so you can't read them all. But if you can't then neither can you be certain that you have correct information from the ones you have read. I am not talking about a single deviation in a single study.

You should know what I mean from the context of what I wrote. You are evading the point or you are incapable of rational discussion. Either way it reflects on the validity of your position and your own credibility.



I'm not saying that one study was performed by ethical Dr's....but avoiding medicine because there are a few bad apples would be like me avoiding men after having a debate with you. Stupid.


I am not rejecting medicine, I am denouncing corruption and fraud in medicine. There are not just a few bad apples, medicine has been dominated by bad apples from the top for a very long time.



Statistically it doesn't? I think you may be referring to one study that reported that untreated people have longer life expectancies. Many studies show that chemo is very effiecient for extending life expectancy, many show it's not that effective. For this reason, I'm not completely behind chemo, I don't think suggesting a little cyanide in it's place is wise tho. lol


So is it one study or many? Griffin's book documents this area but I don't have time right now to quote all the references out of it. But it is not one study. Again, Laetrile is not cyanide and is not toxic. It releases cyanide at the site of cancer cells and not other cells. Chemo poisons cancer and normal cells. Breaking down Laetrile produces hydrogen cyanide, not cyanide. The cyanide is unlocked only at the cancer site by the beta-glucosidase enzyme from the pancreas.


Do you really want my resume? For real? I worked for the WVU department of Biology for years, bounced around from area to area a bit....and was taking classes the entire time of course, and then for Fisher Scientific in Pit in their cell bio dept. Besides being male, what are your creds for discussing this subject? While my knowledge may be more general, than say an oncologist's, I've at least had my fair share of cellular bio and chem...or at least I think about 7 years of higher ed pretty much all in the sciences would qualify as a decent amount. ;)

Then you know as well as I do that you are only qualified to comment on a particular area within your field if you specialise in that area. Reading textbooks and sitting in a room listennig to someone talk 30 hours a week for 7 years doesn't make you any more qualified than the rest of us to comment with certainty on a specific topic. Bouncing around from project to project doesn't sound like a consistent record in any particular area of your field - more like a smattering in several areas.

Even specialists disagree amongst themselves. With so much research being published in a single area, even specialists have difficulty keeping up. And then there is the vested interest factor, which affects what gets published and what gets widely promoted - even what gets studied in the first place. As a working scientist, you would be well aware of all of this.

This supercilious white lab-coat routine doesn't work on me. It's just conceit for someone with a degree or two to think it gives him the last word on every topic within the field. I asked about your qualifications and experience to find out whether it is in the particular field we are discussing. It sitll doesn't appear that you do.

I don't have any qualifications in biology, but I am capable of reading books which make use of work by people who do. Otherwise what use is that work to the rest of us? You believe in educating the public, don't you? You talk like we are not capable of being educated outside of a university.



Why are you? You don't seem to have more than a passing knowledge of chemistry or biology? Does having a penis just naturally make you smarter than someone who has worked in at least a loosely related field and who spent months studying cancer research when her aunt was diagnosed? Yep, I've looked up Laetrile a time or two. It combats cancer by breaking down into cyanide....which sometimes KILLS the person taking it. Eh, actually works pretty similar to other chemotherapy drugs, but it's proved to be fatal more often and to be completely ineffective. If you'd have just suggested benzaldehyde for tumor suppression I might've been able to support that one, but amygdalin?? Then calling it a vitamin?? Yep, showing your smarts right there. ::)


You "looked up" Laetrile "a time or two"? What, in a dictionary? On Wikipedia? Well I've read a whole book on it or two. Laetrile has not been proven to be fatal - the two alleged cases of that were not properly reported. The FDA characterised them as such to create a scare, to protect it's approved treatments. It always does.

The amygdalin molecule contains two units of glucose, one of benzaldehyde and one of cyanide. But you knew that, right? Because you are pretty sure it is not a vitamin and that it is toxic, so you must at least know it's chemical make-up. I think it's more a case of "a little knowledge can be dangerous".

Again, even if you had read a study (or two) on Laetrile, you are not assured of getting correct information under the circumstances. The 1953 report by Garland and MacDonald is the one mostly quotedwhen criticising Laetrile and it has been shown to be falsified. Also, both these doctors (a surgeon and a radiologist) publicly denied links between lung cancer and smoking.


ETA- Before I get called out for being an idiot, I should point out I was generalizing when I said that chemo is basically poison. It actually targets rapidly dividing cells by inhibiting mitosis and is not really toxic to ALL cells. The recent studies to shut down p-glycoprotein are really promising tho, and if it can be successfully shut down this'd make chemo much more effective. There is also some recent rays of hope about targeting the malignant cells only. Like with Imatinib for CML treatment.

Yes it targets actively dividing cells, which of course applies to normal cells also. So chemo relies on the cancer to be dividing faster than the other cells for the chemo to target them more strongly than other cells, which is not always the case.

Rays of hope - that's real scientific. If Laetrile advocates used that one they'd be laughed off the lot. Periodically the cancer industry publicly announces a new "hopeful" discovery to keep the funding coming in. Any professional biologist would be aware of that.

I could send my dog to university and give him some studies to read and I still wouldn't value his opinion. You haven't demonstrated any actual sound reasonning ability here so without that where does your education and reading get you? All you have really done is read my posts back to me and laughed in the right places and repeated the official criticisms and some technical jargon like a parrot.

Hopper
05-01-2010, 06:57 PM
I'm sure you're right. With his opinion of women and his obvious lack of knowledge...B-17!!! Then suggesting a little cyanide in place of standard chemo...I mean I don't really know how to even try to explain anything to someone when that is the foundation they are working with. How do you even go into the basics of anti-metabolites, taxanes or topoisomerase inhibitors? Lord some of that garbage is confusing enough in my own head. :rotfl:

Scientists have many times been forced to question their own foundations. If you are confused about yours then you cannot be sure about mine.

Hopper
05-01-2010, 07:18 PM
You can't argue with the crazy, they are immune to reason and logic. The religious crazy are the worst of all, they've had rational thought beat out of them from an early age.

This from someone who obviously thinks in cliches.

Hopper
05-02-2010, 04:31 AM
Spanks!! hehe I could list how each one of those inhibits mitosis, but then I'd just be showing off!! ;D

Oh and I agree about the religious fanatics being the worst of the crazies. They are scary!! They'll kill you for saying it might be okay to have an abortion or allow stem cell research...and half of em don't even know the difference between a totipotent and a pluripotent or partially differentiated stem cell. Can you say loooonies?!? If you're gonna be so opinionated about a subject at least learn the bare basics. ;)

They oppose embryonic stem cell research. Many of them are aware that there are other kinds.

Violet_Dawn
05-02-2010, 11:11 PM
Having your baby in an American hospital?

The movie “The Business of Being Born” exposes the corruption of hospital delivery rooms. This is just the trailer. The movie is somewhat graphic, but is important for any expectant mother to watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DgLf8hHMgo

Having completed a rotation in such an institution, I can safely say that I will not be having a baby in such a place, unless of course, it is medically necessary. Why? Because virtually everything that goes on in the delivery room, from the positioning of the mother to the drugs used, to mechanical and surgical interventions, are not only unnecessary for a healthy labor, but detrimental to both the mother and baby. Unfortunately, not enough American women are informed of this, and put trust in their obstetricians without doing proper research.

Literature on the topic of natural birth recommends avoiding medical interventions unless there it is a medical necessity (Lothian et al, 2004) such as fetal or maternal distress, the mother is post-term in her pregnancy, has an infection or has preeclampsia (Amis, 2007).

This is what happens upon admission. They pay no mind to your wishes, especially if you prefer a natural birth. They will hook you up to an IV and start you on pitocin, which is synthetic oxytocin. Oxytocin is a naturally occurring hormone that causes contractions and promotes maternal bonding. Pitocin only induces contractions. So what is the need to induce labor? So the doc won’t miss his afternoon round of golf.

Here are the risks of induction of labor:
mechanically assisted birth (use of forceps or vacuum to remove baby from birth canal)
fetal shoulder dystocia
fever
fetal heart changes
babies born with a low weight
increase in admissions to the NICU and longer hospital stays (Amis, 2007)
amniotic fluid embolism
uterine rupture
prolonged labor
chorioamnionitis
nuchal cord
fetal death
and cardiovascular complications (MacDorman et al, 2002)

Evidence based practice recommends the following for normal, uncomplicated, positive birth outcomes: no unnecessary interventions, freedom of movement, alternating position changes that facilitate gravity, Lamaze breathing, hydrotherapy, non-supine positions [Stark, 2008].

This is just a taste of the expansive research done on hospital births in the US. I didn’t even touch on epidurals, episiotomies, c-sections, and the vicious cycle of hospital birthing.

so what would you suggest as an alternative to hospital births? i am not trying to be rude, i am genuinely interested in it, as my sister is 7 months pregnant and was looking for alternatives to hospital birthing.