D
durhamplumber
"""""Vernon Coleman is an English conspiracy theorist, anti-vaccination activist, AIDS denialist"""This Vernon Coleman?
Mask burning in Boise Idaho.
- Thread starter sooey
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,395
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
And you don't/can't deny your racist behaviour.
Are you suggesting I've been banned for calling out your racism?
D
durhamplumber
"""""Vernon Coleman is an English conspiracy theorist, anti-vaccination activist, AIDS denialist"""This Vernon Coleman?
This Dr Vernon Coleman..... Though this was before he started calling out all of the liars who are now calling him a quack.
"Britain's leading health care campaigner" (The Sun)
"Dr Vernon Coleman is one of our most enlightened, trenchant and sensible dispensers
of medical advice." (The Observer)
"Sharpest mind in medical journalism." (Daily Star)
"His message is important." (The Economist)
"King of the media docs." (The Independent)
"Perhaps the best known health writer in the world today" (The Therapist)
"Probably one of the most brilliant men alive." (Irish Times)
"The patient's champion." (Birmingham Post)
"Britain's leading medical author." (The Star)
"An articulate and prolific medical author." (Sunday Times)
"He writes lucidly and wittily." (Good Housekeeping)
"Coleman is a very funny writer." (This England)
"Marvellously succinct, refreshingly sensible." (The Spectator)
"Compulsive reading." (The Guardian)
"The doctor who dares to speak his mind." (Oxford Mail)
"It's impossible not to be impressed." (Western Daily Press)
"His advice is optimistic and enthusiastic." (British Medical Journal)
"He's the Lone Ranger, Robin Hood and the Equalizer rolled into one." (Glasgow Evening Times)
"Vernon Coleman writes brilliant books." (The Good Book Guide)
"...no thinking person can ignore him. This is why he has been for over 20 years one of the world's leading advocates on human and animal rights in relation to health. Long may it continue!" (The Ecologist)
"The man is a national treasure" (What Doctors Don't Tell You)
"The revered guru of medicine" (Nursing Times)
"Superstar" (Independent on Sunday)
"Rogue elephant" (Sunday Times)
"Gentle, kind and caring" (Western Daily Press)
"His trademark is that he doesn't mince his words. Far funnier than the usual tone of soupy piety you get from his colleagues" (The Guardian)
"I would much rather spend an evening in his company than be trapped for five minutes in a radio commentary box with Mr Geoffrey Boycott" (Peter Tinniswood, Punch)
"Dr Coleman is one of our most enlightened, trenchant and sensitive dispensers of medical advice" (The Observer)
Sponsored Links
D
durhamplumber
Yip ..the same nutcase who thinks AIDS a con too.
Unlike you, thinking about the anti-racist industry doesn't fill my every waking hour. And anyway, I just don't care. 'Racist' is only a name like ji***boo. Sticks and stones.................
Like most on here, if the government told you to paint your nose bright red and walk around all day with a clothes peg on the end of it, you'd do it.
You're that stupid.
edit @durhamplumber
You're that stupid.
edit @durhamplumber
D
durhamplumber
"" cIn 2005, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned an advertisement for a book published by Coleman entitled How to Stop Your Doctor Killing You which claimed doctors were "the person most likely to kill you"""
Sooeys source has a top class CV.You and Coleman are properly not wired up right...How long have you suffered these persecusion issues??
Sooeys source has a top class CV.You and Coleman are properly not wired up right...How long have you suffered these persecusion issues??
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,395
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
This precisely proves my point that you exploit any and every opportunity to use racist terms.
Will johnny2007 defend your behaviour?
Will the mods allow you to persist with your racially offensive posting?
And you believe that the advertising standards authority have the medical expertise to judge a qualified and very experienced medical doctors output do you?
I said you were stupid.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 14,503
- Reaction score
- 2,103
- Country
So relying on the MSM for quotes, the good Doc., not you, when it suits. You all couldn't be anymore fake.
D
durhamplumber
I am sure the ASA asked around a bit before judgement!!..The list is endless Sooey of sources discrediting him..The guy is wrong.Sooey are you.
D
durhamplumber
""""Writing for The Sun newspaper in the 1980s, Coleman denied that AIDS was a significant risk to the heterosexual community. He later claimed AIDS is a hoax, writing, "it is now my considered view that the disease we know as AIDS probably doesn't exist and has never existed""""
The main source of your info Sooey..Coleman is wrong about AIDS too...or are you going to tell me otherwise?
Here is a quote concerning aids from Dr Vernon Coleman's website, he explains his reasoning here.
If you read it you might learn that things are never as black and white as you seem to think.
The full transcript is here
http://www.vernoncoleman.com/aids.htm
AIDS was first noted in 1981 in the US. At the time it was described as GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) because it only seemed to affect gay men. And it seemed most prevalent among promiscuous gay men. One early survey showed that the first 100 men with the disease had had, on average, no less than 1,120 sexual partners each. (Though how they each remembered the precise figure I can't imagine.)
None of the diseases associated with GRID were new. Some had previously occurred in drug addicts. And some observers wondered if the new syndrome had developed among these gay men because of their promiscuous, drug taking lifestyle.
But at the same time as doctors had identified the existence of what they thought was a new syndrome scientists had developed a technique to classify and count different types of lymphocytes – white blood cells – and researchers noticed that some GRID patients had low numbers of particular types of white blood cell. It was, therefore, assumed that GRID was infectious and caused by some sort of organism. And thus the AIDS syndrome was born. AIDS was never a new disease but merely an artificial syndrome consisting of several already existing diseases.
Surprisingly, it was upon this fragile theory that the whole AIDS industry has been built.
Naturally, everyone wanted to find the organism responsible for causing AIDS. When HIV was allegedly identified it was given this dubious honour, despite the fact that it was originally isolated in no more than around a third of AIDS patients. (Even today most AIDS patients do not have an HIV infection.)
The strange fact is that despite the billions that have been spent on research the world is still waiting for someone to prove that AIDS really does exist. There is not and never has been any solid research linking HIV to AIDS – let alone proving that HIV causes AIDS.
So, the big question now may appear to be 'What causes AIDS?'
But, in fact, I suspect that in truth that isn't the big question at all.
In reality, I suspect that the big question is: 'Does AIDS actually exist?'
And I suspect that the answer is that it doesn't.
As I have already pointed out AIDS is a syndrome which does not consist of any new symptoms or diseases.
And in order to justify the huge expenditure of time and money on research into finding a cure many of those involved in helping to maintain the AIDS industry have for years been busily changing the rules about the way that AIDS is defined. These days if you die of influenza or tuberculosis there is a good chance that you will be included in the AIDS statistics. (Including TB victims in the AIDS statistics is one of the ways in which the alleged AIDS plague in Africa has been created. This type of 'bending' of the statistics is nothing new. When the authorities wanted to give the impression that smallpox had been conquered by the vaccination programme they attributed many deaths caused by smallpox to chickenpox – even though chickenpox is very rarely a fatal disease.)
I suspect that the immune system breakdown which, in 'developed' countries usually leads to a diagnosis of AIDS, is probably a result of any one of a number of factors.
The use of illicit and recreational drugs has been offered as one explanation but I suspect that the over use of prescription drugs (including, I fear, some of those which may be recommended for the 'treatment' of AIDS) is probably just as significant.
Nutritional deficiencies, constant stress and a steady exposure to carcinogenic chemicals all probably help to explain why AIDS (and other immune system problems) are now so commonplace.
The AIDS syndrome is still commonest among gay men, drug users and haemophiliacs – many of whom are probably exposed to drug use of one sort or another. The available evidence – such as it is – supports my hypothesis as well as any other.
It is my view that the best treatment for AIDS is a powerful immune system reinforcement programme – similar to the one I recommend for avoiding and treating cancer and for avoiding and treating infectious diseases.
There is no doubt that the original predictions for AIDS have all been proved utterly wrong.
In the 1980s a spokesman for the British Medical Association warned that by 1991 every family in Britain would be touched by AIDS and attacked me viciously when I quoted evidence supporting a less scary point of view. Other medical establishment groups jumped on the 'AIDS is going to kill us all so give us lots of money to try and find a cure' bandwagon and the official line was defended with unprecedented ferocity and an astonishing amount of self righteous, sanctimonious venom.
The World Health Organization forecast that 100 million people might be infected by the year 1990 and the Royal College of Nursing in the UK forecast that one in fifty people in Britain would have the disease by the early 1990s. As far as I know none of these groups have apologised for their absurd scaremongering and none have provided an explanation for the size of their error.
In addition numerous organisations and individuals have, when applying for grants, made dramatic promises of 'miracle breakthroughs' and 'wonder vaccines' perhaps because they know that the bigger the promise the larger the grant will probably be.
If you read it you might learn that things are never as black and white as you seem to think.
The full transcript is here
http://www.vernoncoleman.com/aids.htm
AIDS was first noted in 1981 in the US. At the time it was described as GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) because it only seemed to affect gay men. And it seemed most prevalent among promiscuous gay men. One early survey showed that the first 100 men with the disease had had, on average, no less than 1,120 sexual partners each. (Though how they each remembered the precise figure I can't imagine.)
None of the diseases associated with GRID were new. Some had previously occurred in drug addicts. And some observers wondered if the new syndrome had developed among these gay men because of their promiscuous, drug taking lifestyle.
But at the same time as doctors had identified the existence of what they thought was a new syndrome scientists had developed a technique to classify and count different types of lymphocytes – white blood cells – and researchers noticed that some GRID patients had low numbers of particular types of white blood cell. It was, therefore, assumed that GRID was infectious and caused by some sort of organism. And thus the AIDS syndrome was born. AIDS was never a new disease but merely an artificial syndrome consisting of several already existing diseases.
Surprisingly, it was upon this fragile theory that the whole AIDS industry has been built.
Naturally, everyone wanted to find the organism responsible for causing AIDS. When HIV was allegedly identified it was given this dubious honour, despite the fact that it was originally isolated in no more than around a third of AIDS patients. (Even today most AIDS patients do not have an HIV infection.)
The strange fact is that despite the billions that have been spent on research the world is still waiting for someone to prove that AIDS really does exist. There is not and never has been any solid research linking HIV to AIDS – let alone proving that HIV causes AIDS.
So, the big question now may appear to be 'What causes AIDS?'
But, in fact, I suspect that in truth that isn't the big question at all.
In reality, I suspect that the big question is: 'Does AIDS actually exist?'
And I suspect that the answer is that it doesn't.
As I have already pointed out AIDS is a syndrome which does not consist of any new symptoms or diseases.
And in order to justify the huge expenditure of time and money on research into finding a cure many of those involved in helping to maintain the AIDS industry have for years been busily changing the rules about the way that AIDS is defined. These days if you die of influenza or tuberculosis there is a good chance that you will be included in the AIDS statistics. (Including TB victims in the AIDS statistics is one of the ways in which the alleged AIDS plague in Africa has been created. This type of 'bending' of the statistics is nothing new. When the authorities wanted to give the impression that smallpox had been conquered by the vaccination programme they attributed many deaths caused by smallpox to chickenpox – even though chickenpox is very rarely a fatal disease.)
I suspect that the immune system breakdown which, in 'developed' countries usually leads to a diagnosis of AIDS, is probably a result of any one of a number of factors.
The use of illicit and recreational drugs has been offered as one explanation but I suspect that the over use of prescription drugs (including, I fear, some of those which may be recommended for the 'treatment' of AIDS) is probably just as significant.
Nutritional deficiencies, constant stress and a steady exposure to carcinogenic chemicals all probably help to explain why AIDS (and other immune system problems) are now so commonplace.
The AIDS syndrome is still commonest among gay men, drug users and haemophiliacs – many of whom are probably exposed to drug use of one sort or another. The available evidence – such as it is – supports my hypothesis as well as any other.
It is my view that the best treatment for AIDS is a powerful immune system reinforcement programme – similar to the one I recommend for avoiding and treating cancer and for avoiding and treating infectious diseases.
There is no doubt that the original predictions for AIDS have all been proved utterly wrong.
In the 1980s a spokesman for the British Medical Association warned that by 1991 every family in Britain would be touched by AIDS and attacked me viciously when I quoted evidence supporting a less scary point of view. Other medical establishment groups jumped on the 'AIDS is going to kill us all so give us lots of money to try and find a cure' bandwagon and the official line was defended with unprecedented ferocity and an astonishing amount of self righteous, sanctimonious venom.
The World Health Organization forecast that 100 million people might be infected by the year 1990 and the Royal College of Nursing in the UK forecast that one in fifty people in Britain would have the disease by the early 1990s. As far as I know none of these groups have apologised for their absurd scaremongering and none have provided an explanation for the size of their error.
In addition numerous organisations and individuals have, when applying for grants, made dramatic promises of 'miracle breakthroughs' and 'wonder vaccines' perhaps because they know that the bigger the promise the larger the grant will probably be.
D
durhamplumber
As said...The guy is nuts.Thankyou for your confirmation Sooey.
- Status
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
