reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
Sixth link: Same article, just summarised. The scientist also dismissed an HIV isolate because he didn't like how they looked in a sucrose gradient,
showing his obvious ignorance to the fact that the process of getting such a particle in a sucrose gradient can affect the membrane and protein
projections. Maybe he should have spent a little more time in the lab and less time on conspiracy sites.
Of course, this summary is of the dissertation written by four different scientists, one of whom is female, and yet you still insist on referring to
that paper and now the summary as being written by "he", and we are supposed to believe you were paying attention when you "read" this paper and
As to your claim that "the process of getting such a particle in a sucrose gradient can affect the membrane and protein projections", this didn't
seem to be a problem for the Collaborative Research Group on Multiple Sclerosis, in their paper Molecular identification of a novel retrovirus
repeatedly isolated from patients with multiple sclerosisMolecular identification of a novel retrovirus repeatedly isolated from patients with multiplesclerosis
Extracellular virion purification and sucrose density gradients were performed as described (9–11). From each sucrose gradient, 0.5- to 1-ml
fractions were collected; 60 μl was used for RT activity assay, and the rest was mixed with 1 volume of buffer containing 4 M guanidinium
thiocyanate, 0.5% N-lauroyl sarcosin, 25 mM EDTA, and 0.2% 2-mercaptoethanol adjusted to pH 5.5 with acetic acid. These mixtures were frozen at
−80°C for further RNA extraction or were directly processed according to Chomczynski (13). RNA was dissolved in 20–50 μl of
diethyl-pyrocarbonate-treated water in the presence of 1–2 μl of recombinant RNase-inhibitor (Promega) and 0.1 mM DTT. Aliquots (10 μl) were used
for each RT-PCR.
Maybe you should spend some more time in a lab instead of on conspiracy sites, unless you now want to claim that the Collaborative Research Group on
Multiple Sclerosis spends too much time in a conspiracy site. Of course, we know who is spending all their time in a conspiracy site when it comes to
doctors, and it isn't The Perth Group or the Collaborative Research Group on Multiple Sclerosis, it's...why, it's you!
Seventh link: A discussion board post (really?) that claims proteins don't crystallize in the human body (false) and that they function through
vibration (false). If your source has two lies back to back, I toss it. Sorry.
Oh...okay, so now John Moore, Senior Scientist, Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center, Rockefeller University, New York, NY is a liar. Yeah you're a
real piece of work, you who spends an awful lot of time in a conspiracy site.
So, I've addressed all seven of your articles. Can you address a single one of mine, now?
Okay, let's review; you diagnosed Etienne de Harven as being insane, you lied about the second link and mis-characterized what that author wrote by
claiming that author mis-characterized the two papers that were referenced, you dismissed the third link because it was a press release that gave some
information on who Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos is, even though you insist on calling her, he. You dismissed the fourth also for being a press
release, even though it made the claim then, (1998), that HIV has never been successfully isolated, and it still hasn't, you dismissed the fifth link
by lumping the four scientists of the Perth Group who authored that dissertation, and took that more than 50 page paper and reduced it to a claim that
the Pasteur rules were not used, then insisting that those rules were too "cumbersome", you dismissed the summary that followed making the
outlandish claim that sucrose gradients were not appropriate for isolating retroviruses, and concluded with calling John Moore, Senior Scientist of
the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center, a liar.
I, of course, posted all those links to have these insane and lying scientists address your points, but what you really want is for me in my own words
to address your points, isn't that right? And why are baiting me in this way? Let's analyze a little further and see what you have to say about
I learned at a medical school, a university hospital, and now a public hospital.
Uh-huh. And, of course, you continue with this nonsense:
Statistics are absolutely vital to diagnosis. Nothing is as simple as "oh, the patient has these three symptoms, it must be this disease". Every
single patient is a veritable stew of conditions, diseases, infections, and unique responses. You have to look at the data you can gather from
physical exams, bloodwork, and imaging, and then decide what, statistically, is most likely to be wrong with them. If five of the symptoms point to
esophageal cancer, but four also point to strep throat, you order an imaging study to rule out esophageal cancer immediately, rather than waiting a
month to see if antibiotics clear up what might be strep.
Why do I call your blather nonsense? Well it is not because I am a doctor, and to be sure, what I am about to relay to you is partially anecdotal,
but it is an experience that led me down path of taking medical matters into my own hands in learning to never trust a doctor just because they
declare themselves knowledgeable. In the '90's I was a bartender who had quite an active social life, and dated many women of whom I met in the
bars I worked. Because of this active lifestyle, and because at some point I began having a burning sensation when I urinated, that I went to the
doctor and after answering truthfully the questions asked of me, and a test was taken, I was diagnosed with chlamydia.
The pain of chlamydia was not nearly as painful of the fact that I had to go to all the women I had sex with and relay this information, as well as
take an HIV test, wait several days for an answer, and then listen to the lecture of how just because it came back negative did not mean I was in the
clear. Of course, the women of whom I relayed this embarrassing information to in the interest of disclosure stopped talking to me and their friends
would look at me funny, but this is what I got for being sexually active, or so the doctor told me. I slowed down on the sexual activity, made damn
sure to sue a condom the next time I had sex, but lo and behold, the next time I had sex, the burning sensation came back!
I went to the doctor, swore up and down to my skeptical doctor that I wore a condom, and he suggested that maybe the condom was defective, tested me
again, confirmed it was chlamydia, insisted I take another HIV test, and that I tell the girl I had sex with that she had chlamydia. The HIV test
came back negative, but again I listened to the lectures of how I should test every three months for the next year, and the girl of whom I diligently
told about the unfortunate chlamydia came marching into the bar a week later, slapped me in the face and told me she was clean and did not test
positive for chlamydia, and asked me what kind of game I was playing with her.
I went back to my doctor and relayed this story. He nonchalantly shrugged his shoulders and told me that she was probably lying and was embarrassed,
or that maybe she wasn't lying and I simply had a relapse because maybe I didn't take the penicillin regiment as prescribed, or the dosage wasn't
strong enough. A lot of maybe's if you ask me, but I stupidly accepted this offer, and nodded my head obediently when he reminded me not to forget
to come back in a few months for another HIV test. I then sort of took on a self imposed celibacy for a time, went back for that stupid HIV test,
which were costing me almost $100 a pop, and looked for a nice girl I could settle down with and be monogamous.
I finally met this nice girl, of whom we dated several weeks before consummating our passion for each other, and lo and behold, a few days later, the
burning returned! I agonized for a few days before going to the doctor. When I went I insisted that I had been abstinent up until that moment of
consummation, and just couldn't believe that the last three girls I had sex with all had chlamydia. This didn't seem to be of any concern to my
nonchalant doctor who simply tested me again, both for chlamydia and HIV, came back positive for the chlamydia, negative for the HIV, listened to the
standard lecture about HIV, and diligently, albeit reluctantly, told my new girlfriend I had chlamydia. She was naturally upset, but I went to her
doctor with her only to discover she did not have chlamydia! She was furious with me and thought that I had been having indiscriminate sex with
other girls and put her at risk for HIV.
Needless to say that relationship was over. I went and found a doctor to get a second opinion about what was going on with me. She listened to me
patiently, and after hearing my story decided that maybe I should be tested for a bladder infection. Lo and behold! It was a bladder infection I
had, not chlamydia!! I was furious and relayed my anger to my new doctor about my old doctor, but she defended him telling me that he never tested me
for a bladder infection because of my sexual activity and that the tests for bladder infections were more costly. More costly? I asked my doctor if
she could fathom the cost I had taken by telling all these girls I had chlamydia, the stress I had gone through. While she was not nearly as
nonchalant as my old doctor, she seemed to be more sympathetic to my old doctor than me.