S G U R D ... and what does that spell?

[PunkMaister]

Not the assited ones. That is a different story than the solo acts. The assisted ones can have people come back and say 'hey, maybe they changed their minds since you pulled the trigger'. I'm just talking about the solo ones. Many docs these days say 'it' my job to keep them alive at all cost'. The guy obviously said nuts to that. But, even if you said they were overly depressed or something, if they do it again, it's treated the exact same way. 'Err on the side of life'. No amount of suicide watch is gonna stop them and yet, many of the docs today have the balls to say 'fuck what you think, I'm gonna keep you alive, whether you like it or not. You didn't ign the DNR.' And some don't even care about that.

If I'm gonna take the time to plan a suicide, I don't want some stranger coming in and saying 'look how good and great and wonderful I am. I just saved his life, even though he doesn't give a shit about me or my ego driven desire to his body working; all he wants is to die, but I can't stand that'.

A person that is depressed cannot be guaranteed under any circumstances to make rational decisions just FYI. BTW a lot of people are nowadays not only committing suicide but killing their loved ones EG sons,spouses, daughters etc in the process, should that be allowed as well? How do you know if and when that line is crossed or about to be?

You see is not that simple and again this is off topic...

[Who is like God arbour]

And Arbour yes when a doctor makes the oath he is expected to follow it even more than even a politician because lives truly directly depend on how he/she conducts himself. If a doctor disses his or her oath for profits placing God only knows how many people's lives at risk yes that makes him or her just as bad a terrorist who blows himself up killing hundreds, thousands or even millions instantly in the process. In fact when it comes to something like this the only difference is that the terrorist method is far quicker. But the end results are the same lots of people hurt and dead.

And that does not happen with politicans?

Bush has lied to the American people. He has lead the American people in a war. That war has costed thousands US citizens their life, has costed billions of U.S. dollars and has ruined the U.S. economy.

In the thread »Global Warming, CO2...«, you have argued that the decisions of a politician could result in »leaving all Americans and westerners in general unemployed, homeless and quite possibly starving as well.«, »millions of Americans an Europeans [could] end up on the street jobless, homeless and starving«, that it could results in »ruining the developed world economy and bringing western civilization into the ground« and »placing millions of people's lives at risk«

To me it seems, as if politicians have the power to do far more harm than a doctor could ever do (if it is not a Josef Mengele).

Furthermore, there is the fact that I can choose to which doctor I go. If I don't trust a doctor, I go to another.

But in a democracy, you can not choose your president. You have only one vote. At the United States presidential election 2000, over 50 percent of the American people have not elected Bush but had to suffer under his government.

[PunkMaister]

And that does not happen with politicans?

Bush has lied to the American people. He has lead the American people in a war. That war has costed thousands US citizens their life, has costed billions of U.S. dollars and has ruined the U.S. economy.

In the thread »Global Warming, CO2...«, you have argued that the decisions of a politician could result in »leaving all Americans and westerners in general unemployed, homeless and quite possibly starving as well.«, »millions of Americans an Europeans [could] end up on the street jobless, homeless and starving«, that it could results in »ruining the developed world economy and bringing western civilization into the ground« and »placing millions of people's lives at risk«

What a f*cking cop out! Seriously! No politicians were discussed in that thread what was discussed was a law that you alone brainstormed of forcing the people of the developed world to change their cars, trucks etc in 5 years or less my argument as well as that of others was that it was an extremely unreasonable amount of time and thus dangerous for the economy and well being of the people living in the developed world all together.

To me it seems, as if politicians have the power to do far more harm than a doctor could ever do (if it is not a Josef Mengele).

Furthermore, there is the fact that I can choose to which doctor I go. If I don't trust a doctor, I go to another.

But in a democracy, you can not choose your president. You have only one vote. At the United States presidential election 2000, over 50 percent of the American people have not elected Bush but had to suffer under his government.

OK cut the Bush bashing already. At least he was a bonafide American Citizen born in the USA while OBama's true origins are being kept secret from the American public by a court order which is unprecedented in both American jurisprudence and history. He might be the first foreigner from Kenya most likely to occupy such a position and illegally and unconstitutionally so as only people that have been actually born in the US can aspire to become president not foreigners. I could also go on about the unprecedented campaign finances Oblongo enjoyed mostly from foreign sources such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela you name it.

And the US economy had been in a slow downturn even before 9/11 it was 9/11 that began it's rapid downward spiral as the economy was smashed against the sink. The war also contributed but it was not the main factor in this collapse. The improper practices at Wall Street and 10K companies was the actual Coup D grace.


And one just have to love how you just keep resorting to circular reasoning! What are we talking about in this thread? About doctors that sign on approvals for drugs that have not been properly tested or verified not whether you like a particular physician and his or her office etc.

And last but not least when it comes to democracy yes it comes down to a vote. As you put it I as individual cannot choose by myself alone who is to be "My president" or any elected officials for that matter. But I rather have the option to vote than to be under any kind of dictatorship which is by the looks of it what you would seem to prefer.

[GStone]

This'll be the last I say on this to keep the thread on topic.

A person that is depressed cannot be guaranteed under any circumstances to make rational decisions just FYI.

I wasn't talking about depressed people. I was talking about those that choose to die.

BTW a lot of people are nowadays not only committing suicide but killing their loved ones EG sons,spouses, daughters etc in the process, should that be allowed as well?

My original point was against the idea of what the oath has been inflatted to be these days. Life is always chosen over death, regardless of what state that life would be.

And you can also make rational judgements on who probably wasn't in line to get shot in the chest during a bank robbery. If someone can't, they shouldn't be in the position to make that decision.

How do you know if and when that line is crossed or about to be?

I said a lot of doctors don't give a shit if someone has chosen to die and some don't even care if you signed a DNR. They'll try to find some way around it and try to move the goalpost. To them, the line doesn't exist at all. They care about their own egos, their own feelings of wanting praise and being a success and thinking they know what's best just because they've got 2 letters after their name.

They take the stupid stance that only the mentally healthy would want to live with a shitty disease, deformity or injury...just because they'd be alive.

There's a long history of people killing themselves and people don't think they're mentally off. You see it with combat where someone is savig others. Japan and the samurai have had a long history of suicide for maintaining honor, to keep from being caught by the enemy. This last one also used by government agents.

For the benefit of other peoples' lives is the accepted form for many, but I say to hell with anyone that says I can't kill myself if I'm gonna live a long and painful life with a problem I don't want. It's acceptable when people are slowly killing themelves with drugs and cigs and beating themselves up in contact sports, but if my life is gonna be permanenetly fucked up and be in constant pain, fuck the rest of you. I'm going out.

[Who is like God arbour]

PunkMaister, I've to thank you for the oppurtunity to laugh. Sometimes it's simply funny to read your absurd posts.

But now to the context of your last post.

1. What I have proposed in the thread »Global Warming, CO2...« could a politician not only propose as well but he could even try to implement it.
   If Obama would follow an even stronger course in favor of the environment, he could, if what you have claimed would be true, cause exactly what I have quoted from you above.
   That's why politicians have the power to do far more harm than a doctor could ever do.
2. And your whole Obama bashing does not change the fact, that Bush has lied to the American people and has lead them in an illegal war of aggression, that has costed thousands of American soldiers their life and billions of US dollars, although he was not elected by the majority of the American people.
3. What we were originally talking about in that thread is irrelevant.
   I'm talking about your claim, that »aside from a terrorist there is nothing worse than a doctor who disses his oath for money«.
   I have shown, that that claim is stupid.
   A doctor, who has broken his Hippocratic Oath, but has not done any harm (e.g. he has refused to heal a patient because the treatment would be expensive and the patient can not afford it, but in the end, the patient was healed by another doctor) is not worse than a terrorist, a pirate, a child molester, a rapist or a mass murdering dictator.
   Then you have tried to argue, that »if a doctor disses his or her oath for profits placing God only knows how many people's lives at risk yes that makes him or her just as bad a terrorist who blows himself up killing hundreds, thousands or even millions instantly in the process. In fact when it comes to something like this the only difference is that the terrorist method is far quicker. But the end results are the same lots of people hurt and dead.«
   I have shown, that that claim is stupid.
   A politician who disses his or her oath for profits can do far more damage than a doctor could ever do.
4. To get side-tracked is not a »circular reasoning!«
5. And what you have not understood is, that you can choose your doctor and you can choose your medicaments. But you can not choose your president. If you »rather have the option to vote than to be under any kind of dictatorship« is totally irrelevant for that argument. To conclude, that because I have pointed that out, I would prefer a dictatorship, is again proof for your stupidity.

[Mr. Oragahn]

You are missing the point that the surveys' data was doctored and obscured the grave danger the products represented to human health, and was not a question of not giving a patient a prescription because of socio-economical realities. This was not a decision taken because of empathy towards the patient and his own other issues (money for example).
This was solely made for profit, by allowing products which would be given to millions (yeah, only that), and of course, it would be too simplistic to bottleneck the issue to just one man.

As for point 5, you have a choice. When the system works, it's called vote.
And you can chose a doc as far as there are docs to chose. It's fairly possible none may satisfy your requirements. Above all, these doctors, as we understand, the average every day doctor you go to see for your pains, is most likely not the one who signed the fraudulent surveys.

But I get the feeling that you're all side tracking this topic onto an irrelevant trajectory.

[PunkMaister]

You are missing the point that the surveys' data was doctored and obscured the grave danger the products represented to human health, and was not a question of not giving a patient a prescription because of socio-economical realities. This was not a decision taken because of empathy towards the patient and his own other issues (money for example).
This was solely made for profit, by allowing products which would be given to millions (yeah, only that), and of course, it would be too simplistic to bottleneck the issue to just one man.

As for point 5, you have a choice. When the system works, it's called vote.
And you can chose a doc as far as there are docs to chose. It's fairly possible none may satisfy your requirements. Above all, these doctors, as we understand, the average every day doctor you go to see for your pains, is most likely not the one who signed the fraudulent surveys.

But I get the feeling that you're all side tracking this topic onto an irrelevant trajectory.

Well you can thank Arbour for that he just loves to sidetrack and derail tthreads for his own amusement and Arbour don't go complaining now as you are the one that began throwing direct insults in this thread not me.

When I made the statement about doctors I was obviously referring to those that sign fraudulent surveys for money placing as Mr Oraghan said millions at risk.


And when Bush won last time it was a very closed election race so there was no overwhelming majority for either Republicans or Democrats, 50 percent is not a majority by any stretch of the imagination except yours.

And guess what regardless of what Bush did does not change the fact that Oblongo is nothing but a clown and an impostor.

[Who is like God arbour]

I don't think, that I'm missing the point.

I know that, if a doctor falsifies test results in the approval procedure of medicaments, many people could suffer if the medicament is harmful. And if that would have been noticed, if the tests would have been made and evaluated correctly, it is the responsibility of said doctor. But even if that happens, the question remains, how many people would have to suffer until the public authorities intervene and take the medicament off the market.

As has happened in the USA, if a president of a nation disses his oath, the public authorities usually do not intervene. I'd like to see, that as much people have died because falsified tests from one doctor as people have died because the lies of Bush.

And, if a doctor breaks the Hippocratic Oath, the death of several people is not what happens usually if a common doctor »disses his oath for money«. It is even possible for a doctor to break the Hippocratic Oath but to cause no harm (e.g. he has refused to heal a patient because the treatment would be expensive and the patient can not afford it, but in the end, the patient was healed by another doctor and no harm was done). Yes, it is not nice, if a doctor refutes to treat a patient. It could even be a crime (failure to to render assistance). But it is not always worse than what pirates, child molesters, rapists or mass murdering dictators are doing.

That's why it is wrong to say, without differentiating, that »aside from a terrorist there is nothing worse than a doctor who disses his oath for money«. But that's what PunkMaister has said and has caused my participation in that thread.

[PunkMaister]

Bull! You knew very well what I was referring too (Doctors who sign in fraudulent surveys for profit) when I made that statement and you simply jumped in to generalize (all doctors that may break their oath in one form or another) what was meant in my statement and thus derail the thread. You came in this thread with the goal to troll plain and simple and by your own admission.

[Who is like God arbour]

When I made the statement about doctors I was obviously referring to those that sign fraudulent surveys for money placing as Mr Oraghan said millions at risk.

Bull! You knew very well what I was referring too (Doctors who sign in fraudulent surveys for profit) when I made that statement and you simply jumped in to generalize (all doctors that may break their oath in one form or another) what was meant in my statement and thus derail the thread. You came in this thread with the goal to troll plain and simple and by your own admission.

That's not true.

Not only was your statement undifferentiated, but you have, after I have objected to it, defended it:

• • • Aside from a terrorist there is nothing worse than a doctor who disses his oath for money...

      What is with a president, who »disses his oath for money«
      

      • • »I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.«

      Isn't that worse than »a doctor who disses his oath for money«?
      
      What is with pirates?
      
      What is with child molesters or rapists?
      
      What is with mass murdering dictators?
      
      They are in your opinion not worse than »a doctor who disses his oath for money«?

      A doctors oath if you don't know is to do no harm!
      
      [...]
      
      Hippocratic Oath
      
      A doctor is meant to be a healer not somebody that does harm. While politicians are usually corrupt to varying degrees anyway and well dictators what else can be expected from men that they only got where they are by sheer brutality. None of the criminals you mentioned Rapists etc ever made any kind of oath so there! It is worse because he violated an oath a sacred oath to preserve life and to do no harm.

      A doctors oath if you don't know is to do no harm!
      
      [...]
      
      Hippocratic Oath
      
      A doctor is meant to be a healer not somebody that does harm. While politicians are usually corrupt to varying degrees anyway and well dictators what else can be expected from men that they only got where they are by sheer brutality.

      I know the Hippocratic Oath, thank you very much.
      
      [...]
      
      But, returning to the topic at hand, your answer shows, that it seems to be only a question of expectations. If you don't expect, that a doctor abide by the Hippocratic Oath, you'd be not surprised, if he does not. But how can it be the doctors fault, if you have wrong expectations?
      
      

      None of the criminals you mentioned Rapists etc ever made any kind of oath so there! It is worse because he violated an oath a sacred oath to preserve life and to do no harm.

      And because they have not made an oath, in which they have promised to do not the crimes, they have done, their crimes are less evil?
      
      That seems to mean, that you think, that not the result of the deed is relevant but only the fact, that an oath is broken.
      
      But that would mean, that a doctor, who has broken his Hippocratic Oath, but has not done any harm (e.g. he has refused to heal a patient because the treatment would be expensive and the patient can not afford it, but in the end, the patient was healed by another doctor) is worse than a terrorist, a pirate, a child molester, a rapist or a mass murdering dictator.
      
      That anyway would be the logical conclusion from what you have said:
      

      • »Aside from a terrorist there is nothing worse than a doctor who disses his oath for money...«

      And Arbour yes when a doctor makes the oath he is expected to follow it even more than even a politician because lives truly directly depend on how he/she conducts himself. If a doctor disses his or her oath for profits placing God only knows how many people's lives at risk yes that makes him or her just as bad a terrorist who blows himself up killing hundreds, thousands or even millions instantly in the process. In fact when it comes to something like this the only difference is that the terrorist method is far quicker. But the end results are the same lots of people hurt and dead.

      And that does not happen with politicans?
      
      Bush has lied to the American people. He has lead the American people in a war. That war has costed thousands US citizens their life, has costed billions of U.S. dollars and has ruined the U.S. economy.
      
      In the thread »Global Warming, CO2...«, you have argued that the decisions of a politician could result in »leaving all Americans and westerners in general unemployed, homeless and quite possibly starving as well.«, »millions of Americans an Europeans [could] end up on the street jobless, homeless and starving«, that it could results in »ruining the developed world economy and bringing western civilization into the ground« and »placing millions of people's lives at risk«
      
      To me it seems, as if politicians have the power to do far more harm than a doctor could ever do (if it is not a Josef Mengele).
      
      Furthermore, there is the fact that I can choose to which doctor I go. If I don't trust a doctor, I go to another.
      
      But in a democracy, you can not choose your president. You have only one vote. At the United States presidential election 2000, over 50 percent of the American people have not elected Bush but had to suffer under his government.

      And that does not happen with politicans?
      
      Bush has lied to the American people. He has lead the American people in a war. That war has costed thousands US citizens their life, has costed billions of U.S. dollars and has ruined the U.S. economy.
      
      In the thread »Global Warming, CO2...«, you have argued that the decisions of a politician could result in »leaving all Americans and westerners in general unemployed, homeless and quite possibly starving as well.«, »millions of Americans an Europeans [could] end up on the street jobless, homeless and starving«, that it could results in »ruining the developed world economy and bringing western civilization into the ground« and »placing millions of people's lives at risk«

      What a f*cking cop out! Seriously! No politicians were discussed in that thread what was discussed was a law that you alone brainstormed of forcing the people of the developed world to change their cars, trucks etc in 5 years or less my argument as well as that of others was that it was an extremely unreasonable amount of time and thus dangerous for the economy and well being of the people living in the developed world all together.
      

      To me it seems, as if politicians have the power to do far more harm than a doctor could ever do (if it is not a Josef Mengele).
      
      Furthermore, there is the fact that I can choose to which doctor I go. If I don't trust a doctor, I go to another.
      
      But in a democracy, you can not choose your president. You have only one vote. At the United States presidential election 2000, over 50 percent of the American people have not elected Bush but had to suffer under his government.

      OK cut the Bush bashing already. At least he was a bonafide American Citizen born in the USA while OBama's true origins are being kept secret from the American public by a court order which is unprecedented in both American jurisprudence and history. He might be the first foreigner from Kenya most likely to occupy such a position and illegally and unconstitutionally so as only people that have been actually born in the US can aspire to become president not foreigners. I could also go on about the unprecedented campaign finances Oblongo enjoyed mostly from foreign sources such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela you name it.
      
      And the US economy had been in a slow downturn even before 9/11 it was 9/11 that began it's rapid downward spiral as the economy was smashed against the sink. The war also contributed but it was not the main factor in this collapse. The improper practices at Wall Street and 10K companies was the actual Coup D grace.
      
      
      And one just have to love how you just keep resorting to circular reasoning! What are we talking about in this thread? About doctors that sign on approvals for drugs that have not been properly tested or verified not whether you like a particular physician and his or her office etc.
      
      And last but not least when it comes to democracy yes it comes down to a vote. As you put it I as individual cannot choose by myself alone who is to be "My president" or any elected officials for that matter. But I rather have the option to vote than to be under any kind of dictatorship which is by the looks of it what you would seem to prefer.

      PunkMaister, I've to thank you for the oppurtunity to laugh. Sometimes it's simply funny to read your absurd posts.
      
      But now to the context of your last post.

      1. What I have proposed in the thread »Global Warming, CO2...« could a politician not only propose as well but he could even try to implement it.
         If Obama would follow an even stronger course in favor of the environment, he could, if what you have claimed would be true, cause exactly what I have quoted from you above.
         That's why politicians have the power to do far more harm than a doctor could ever do.
      2. And your whole Obama bashing does not change the fact, that Bush has lied to the American people and has lead them in an illegal war of aggression, that has costed thousands of American soldiers their life and billions of US dollars, although he was not elected by the majority of the American people.
      3. What we were originally talking about in that thread is irrelevant.
         I'm talking about your claim, that »aside from a terrorist there is nothing worse than a doctor who disses his oath for money«.
         I have shown, that that claim is stupid.
         A doctor, who has broken his Hippocratic Oath, but has not done any harm (e.g. he has refused to heal a patient because the treatment would be expensive and the patient can not afford it, but in the end, the patient was healed by another doctor) is not worse than a terrorist, a pirate, a child molester, a rapist or a mass murdering dictator.
         Then you have tried to argue, that »if a doctor disses his or her oath for profits placing God only knows how many people's lives at risk yes that makes him or her just as bad a terrorist who blows himself up killing hundreds, thousands or even millions instantly in the process. In fact when it comes to something like this the only difference is that the terrorist method is far quicker. But the end results are the same lots of people hurt and dead.«
         I have shown, that that claim is stupid.
         A politician who disses his or her oath for profits can do far more damage than a doctor could ever do.
      4. To get side-tracked is not a »circular reasoning!«
      5. And what you have not understood is, that you can choose your doctor and you can choose your medicaments. But you can not choose your president. If you »rather have the option to vote than to be under any kind of dictatorship« is totally irrelevant for that argument. To conclude, that because I have pointed that out, I would prefer a dictatorship, is again proof for your stupidity.

There were many opportunities to say, that you have only referred to »Doctors who sign in fraudulent surveys for profit«. But no, you have made it more than clear, that you have meant every doctor, »who disses his oath for money« and regardless of the concrete consequences.

And now, that I have shown against a lot of resistance from you, that this statement is wrong, you are moving the goalposts by claiming that what you have defended the whole time was not what you have meant.



And I will say nothing more to Bush's election because I don't want to get sidetracked even more. I think we all know, why he has "won" the election.

But there is still one thing, I'd like to say. I enjoy it to see, how much you love your current president. Remember this debate, if he does things, you don't like. I assume, that you have not voted for him, if you have voted at all. But you will "suffer" under his government nevertheless. And the best is, that you will not only "suffer" because he does things you don't like, but because he is who he is. You'd even "suffer" if he would only things you like because that would still not change him. He would still be a black man with shady origin.

And remember it if you refuse to be treated by a doctor you don't trust, maybe only because he is a black man with shady origin. You can go to another doctor. But you can not get another president.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Well, OK, you're certainly not going to agree anytime soon! :D

Anyway, here's more stuff you might want to read. It deals with official documents about HIV and AIDS.
Oh, and this crispy bit as well.

[PunkMaister]

*Snip*

I haven't moved any fucking goalpost you are the one that misinterpreted what I was referring too and continues to do so, but hey you want to believe that I was talking about all doctors in general that's your fucking prerogative.

Could I have been a bit more specific? Sure I did not think it was necesary given the context of the fucking thread anyway except in your case. Have you noticed that you are the only one that came to that conclusion? Others came with even more off topic stuff such as the right to end your life or not but only you came up to the conclusion that I was referring to all doctors and not the ones doing what this thread has specifically charged them of doing. Do you fucking understand now?

[Who is like God arbour]

Well, OK, you're certainly not going to agree anytime soon! :D

If you are speaking to me, I don't see, that we are disagreeing.

I disagree with PunkMaister's statement from which he now claims, that he has not meant it as he has said and defended it.

I agree, that »if a doctor falsifies test results in the approval procedure of medicaments, many people could suffer if the medicament is harmful.«

I haven't moved any fucking goalpost you are the one that misinterpreted what I was referring too and continues to do so, but hey you want to believe that I was talking about all doctors in general that's your fucking prerogative.

If you have not talked about all doctors in general, why have you not said so before, e.g. after I have written that:

• • None of the criminals you mentioned Rapists etc ever made any kind of oath so there! It is worse because he violated an oath a sacred oath to preserve life and to do no harm.

    And because they have not made an oath, in which they have promised to do not the crimes, they have done, their crimes are less evil?
    
    That seems to mean, that you think, that not the result of the deed is relevant but only the fact, that an oath is broken.
    
    But that would mean, that a doctor, who has broken his Hippocratic Oath, but has not done any harm (e.g. he has refused to heal a patient because the treatment would be expensive and the patient can not afford it, but in the end, the patient was healed by another doctor) is worse than a terrorist, a pirate, a child molester, a rapist or a mass murdering dictator.
    
    That anyway would be the logical conclusion from what you have said:

    • »Aside from a terrorist there is nothing worse than a doctor who disses his oath for money...«

Have you noticed that you are the only one that came to that conclusion? Others came with even more off topic stuff such as the right to end your life or not but only you came up to the conclusion that I was referring to all doctors and not the ones doing what this thread has specifically charged them of doing. Do you fucking understand now?

In that thread have only participated Mr. Oragahn, ILikeDeathNote, Mike DiCenso, GStone you and me.
ILikeDeathNote only wanted to know, what Mr. Oragahn means with "S G U R D". Otherwise he was not interested at all in that debate.
Mike DiCens has not participated in that debate after your statement.
That means, that only Mr. Oragahn, GStone or me could have taken exception with your statement.
GStone was preoccupied with his own off topic stuff.
That's a really great statistic to assume, that my interpretation was totally absurd.

And I take note of your claim, that you have not meant all doctors. But I don't believe you.

[PunkMaister]

In that thread have only participated Mr. Oragahn, ILikeDeathNote, Mike DiCenso, GStone you and me.
ILikeDeathNote only wanted to know, what Mr. Oragahn means with "S G U R D". Otherwise he was not interested at all in that debate.
Mike DiCens has not participated in that debate after your statement.
That means, that only Mr. Oragahn, GStone or me could have taken exception with your statement.
GStone was preoccupied with his own off topic stuff.
That's a really great statistic to assume, that my interpretation was totally absurd.

And I take note of your claim, that you have not meant all doctors. But I don't believe you.[

And I do not give a flying fuck what you believe. The post was written within the context of the damn thread and that's that. If you can't accept that well that's though!

[Mike DiCenso]

Well, OK, you're certainly not going to agree anytime soon! :D

Anyway, here's more stuff you might want to read. It deals with official documents about HIV and AIDS.
Oh, and this crispy bit as well.

I'am a little bit skeptical of this article, namely because the HIV?AIDS Denial kookslove to hook onto and twist every little thing they can to prove that HIV and other patheogens don't cause disease. Among other silliness, they love to claim that Louis Pasteur recanted his Germ Theory on his deathbed nonsense.
-Mike