We pulled the following e-mail out of the W I T bin (Worldwide Internet Trash) recently (wow, what a find) as we thought the conversation created an interesting rainbow effect on what we all had believed to be bonifide, well proven, well documented, unequivocally true statements presented regarding STD mad science which we later found to be absolutely unfoundedly untried and true.

........in light of our conversation about so called "sexually" transmitted diseases, i found something rather interesting

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/journals/3202400.html

those pushing testing and treatments are always scaring people about how people could die from "STD's" yet in Romania, only 7 in 100,000 even get syphillis AT ALL, let alone die from it. 

i fail to see a problem.  they fail to show a problem.

further study would likely show that choices CREATE the disease.  i don't see people catching viruses with a mitt (as in baseball) and having caught them being the cause of the end of the game, nor do i see any proof that the specific act of sex is the solitary way of throwing it, when the air picks up and throws everything that is microscopic, thus anyone that breathes is exposed to every virus there is.  catching viruses is no more the problem in life than catching a baseball.

i'm sure that the USA would show bigger numbers of people who caught the syphillis ball, yet it would be easy to correlate scientifically the equally bigger number of grease/sugar ingesters here as compared to Romania.  bacteria thrives in such environments.

i just don't see the consistency in the claim that a miniscule particle that is dead (virus) causes all the havoc they claim.  i see environment as the cause.  environment as in ingested grease, coating cells, making them move slow, have a harder time "breathing", eliminating, etc., and the effects of sugar, giving bacterias, and fungus, a feeding frenzy.

a friend swore up and down he had "HIV".  he had some awful problems.....when he was his raging alcoholic self that is.  when he got off the alcohol, started eating healthy, went to the gym, and when the doctor gave him steroids, he became so buffed he looked better than some guys in their 20's.  he was 65.  

what ended up KILLING HIM was not a harmless passenger retro-virus the call "HIV", it was a diagnosis of cancer from a doctor, that scared him so bad, that he couldn't stand the thought of withering away slowly, so he killed himself.

imagine that.  he didn't die of HIV he died of suicide at 65.

anyway, back to "STD's here's a quote from the experts

"Present-day syphilis tests, such as the Rapid Plasma Reagin (RPR) and Venereal Disease Research Laboratory (VDRL) tests, while useful, are still not completely specific, as many other conditions can cause a positive result."

what?  many other conditions can cause a positive result????  i thought syphilis tests were specific.  it is a surprise to me to hear now, with only a little research, that these tests are not specific.  i already know this about so called "HIV" tests which only find RANDOM antibodies, which is pretty much like finding random USMC soldiers in a city that are there to defend when needed.

so why on earth get tested for specific things like syphilis, a "specific disease condition" when testing is not specific??  hello?  is there a doctor in the house who knows anything specific??  apparently not.

i smell the snake oil yet again.  it's all about making money.  they did this same thing in hacking off my foreskin for cash, telling my mother that it was something that could cause disease of my penis.  what horseshit.  now i live without a wonderful part of my body that i never ever will get to experiece.

back to the STD horseshit, all i ever heard my whole life about this "STD" was that it was specific.

now, with a little research, i learn that it's just as bad as the HIV nonsense where on one hand they all claim to get tested for a specific thing, yet when you look deeper into the reality of what these tests do, you find out that none of them are actually specific at all.

LIES, LIES, LIES. 

not many people dig on this subject like i have.  they just take information that is handed down.  i have been digging since it started.  i keep seeing contradictions constantly. 

KONSTANTLY (was that spelling inconsistent?)  

the constant contradictions these people present is the only consistent thing presented.

scientific theories get discarded for this reason.

specificity is rather important.  try building a house without a specific unit of measure.  try treating a pluming problem with out specific measuring tools.  plumber says "well, i can't specifically know which size the pipe is, but i'll work with what i have".  so he uses a 1 inch pipe over a 1/2 inch pipe and puts tape inbetween.  sure that will work he says.  duh.  this is what testing science does and it is starting to look like that a majority of "tests" are not specific, yet they claim they are, yet they aren't.

when i hear such contradictions i discard it as being sold things i don't need.  this happened with my old fundamentalist christian religion, they said....God loves me.....then they said.....God will send your soul to hell if you keep sinning. 

that had my head spinning for years until i realized it was baloney, when i asked myself.....if God loves me more than my own father on earth, he would not make me 'burn in hell' for simply 'missing the mark' as they always call it.

yet try to tell this to these fundies.  no, save your energy.  they are lost.  same with the fundies in science.  they claim it's one way, then when you ask questions, and show them their contradictions, they will throw their scientific bibles at you, call you a charlatan, and say they are the experts not you.

another problem is that the popular STD science completely ignores a full chemical analisys of the blood.  where are the assays that show a complete evaluation of EVERYTHING that is going on in the blood STREAM?  they don't do this.  they just look at one or two or three things when there thousands to look at.  i haven't yet found one study showing any research that included testing for sugar levels in the blood, and the relationship this might have on a STD.  yet it's common knowledge to most that bacteria thrives on simple sugar.

imagine a scientist that tests a river running through the countryside that is polluted (not apparent) and all he has for testing is an aquarium PH test kit to work with, so he tests the water, which comes out fine and says "it's healthy" (yet it's got arsenic in it) then goes to another stream  that is pristine, and uses his test which shows the water too alkaline, and he says "the water is polluted" simply because the result is not where it should be.  that's kinda what we have here with STD testing protocols.

so should we believe his results simply cuz he's a scientist or because we keep hearing the mantra repeated "goooooo gettttt tesssstttteeedddddd"

i liken it all to a CULT.

take a look at these stats:

Table 1:

Number of reported AIDS Cases with Associated Exposure Categories (%) for Individuals 10 to 24 Years of Age in Canada, Diagnosed up to June 30, 2002. Totals for all cases since 1983 (20 + years).

Category:

10 -19 years of age - 87. Percentage of total 0.5%.
Cases per year - 3.35
Only 7% or 6 teen hetero cases in TWENTY YEARS. SOME EPIDEMIC!

20-24 years of age - 540. Percentage of total 2.9%.
Cases per year - 27

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/publicat/epiu-aepi/hiv-vih/youth_e.html

this entire website carries the gay community seal of approval

u home 0