On the Anti-Biotics - Some Public Education, at Least

First of all, I want it to be standard that when anti-biotics enters papers it is to hold to pieces of information, at least. These are "type of anti-biotic" and "brand", fx. Pfizer. Additionally, much or all technical information should also be included, if possible, from needle to batch-bag, to manual handling, to various suspicions of pollution sources for the medicine and so on.

Secondly, there are some worries about the quenching of MRSA, whether actually a weakness in the patient itself or the very "multi-resistent bacteria" itself. But, and with no excuse, all of these worries can be solved in laboratory using a type of pattern/gene-database and then building these outside the patients and see how the genes develop into the MRSA and what bacteria that precedes this course, if this kind of evidence is possible to back-trace by these gene-investigations.

The gene-investigations can then later be re-traced to patients who have died or who have contracted some kind of MRSA and consider any counter-measures, even down to the overdose anasthetics. I can't see why the patients in these cases should have the duty to endure a terminally ill condition that's painful.

My last thing to this is that all questions concerning anti-biotics are more or less solved or solvable and that only corrupt/idiotic med. doctors prevent the good medical practice, as always. In a sense, the erring/"erring" doctor's lethal interaction with a patient whether "in-door" or "out-door", has always been a danger.

PS: If anything here is questionable or outright wrong, I am as always on the watch to correct information in no time!
PS2: This comes in after I've score on "Demarcation Problem in Philosophy of Science" and "on underlying data-set problems for the HIV/AIDS theory and connected worries of science".

List of some Pharmaceutical Companies:
1 Johnson & Johnson
2 Pfizer
3 Roche
4 GlaxoSmithKline
5 Novartis
6 Sanofi
7 AstraZeneca
8 Abbott Laboratories
9 Merck & Co.
10 Bayer HealthCare
11 Eli Lilly
12 Bristol-Myers Squibb

Source for the list: Wikipedia.

2nd message:

The Antibiotics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_antibiotics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotics

A suggested priority list:

The Macrolides

Azithromycin Zithromax', Sumamed, Xithrone'
Clarithromycin Biaxin
Dirithromycin Dynabac (discontinued)
Erythromycin Erythocin', Erythroped'
Roxithromycin
Troleandomycin Tao (discontinued)
Telithromycin Ketek Pneumonia Visual Disturbance, Liver Toxicity.[4] (I.e., be careful with right dosage to the body, kids do have lower body weight.)

Cures:
Streptococcal infections, syphilis, upper respiratory tract infections, lower respiratory tract infections, mycoplasmal infections, Lyme disease

Side effects:
Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea (especially at higher doses)

Prolonged QT interval (especially erythromycin)

(Jaundice)
(inhibition of bacterial protein biosynthesis by binding reversibly to the subunit 50S of the bacterial ribosome, thereby inhibiting translocation of peptidyl tRNA.)

Rated lower:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-lactam_antibiotic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalosporin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbapenem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streptomycin

Not that I've suggested these special considerations of the contents of eggs to the effect of wanting to hurt people, but rather on par with the blatant effect of alcohol killing bacteria and viruses on the petri-dish.
Again, alcohol isn't to recommend here because "overdose" of alcohol kills you, unkown how much it takes to a "neutral" person.
As with penicillin, the killing of other bacteria has been a discovery, indicating "a slight possibility" to find natural ways to health and healthy body, like with these eggs.
Hearsay: that at one stage, it is a stimulant for growth and at another level, it is the antibiotics for staying healthy.

(I am no specialist in this field of pharmacy/medicine. Rather, I look for a type of strategy where natural ingredients like with air belong to the people and to be exploited as such as well.)

Coloristics is restored as science on par with linguistic science

First of all, when I write that "Coloristics is restored as science" per linguistic science, I intend to say: Coloristics is restored as science by the written description as account of (coloristics-) impression, much like telepathy, but that coloristics is much more personal and much more refined!!! Don't mess with it! I'm warning you!

You may want to check out:
Url: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coloristic
and
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coloristic

Well, well, the net says this and that, but Coloristics has a peculiar history, one more successful (now) than fx. Craniology, ref. Philosophy of Science.

Ref. also, the impressions of the German flag, by the 3 colours, being one (prime) example!

To science-"freaks" of CERN: No, ISOLDE is no alchemy! Alpha-radiation? Anybody?

The Making of the NDNID Paper - The NDNID Paper - 2 Ways, History and Work Approach

The Idea of Non-Dogmatic New Intelligent Design as Defence to Religious Belief

Introduction.



This work comes into existence because I've been thinking about the requirements to a rational belief in religion. I've started, almost as Descartes has done it, to examine exactly why I believe in religion.

Clearly, there are the other aspects too, like Pascal's Wager, why God should exist or not, the appeal of God for being considered as real. I've also gone through, quite rigourously, the position of ethics, and morality with it, in the World and how it connects, possibly, with intelligence, well inspired by Kierkegaard.

We recall easily from Kierkegaard, from secondary literature, that his system of text contains, by crude description, a kind of evolving levels, that can be named aesthetics, ethics, and religion.

We have also been supported well by other authors too, like Leibniz, Aquinas, Conway,  and Plotinus, of whom all drives us toward a fairly hard belief in both ethics and health, in aspiring to being God's miracle on the planet Earth, each and every one of us, God-believers, first and foremost, all religions, I guess now, based on the wiser aspects of information society and the fact that laws need refinement, redefining in some sense, every religion as "caring for the religious spirit in which it has been written".

This has gone on for many years now, as I can recall, all the way from 16, seriously speaking.

The formalisation of the Quantified Modal Logical Argument of NDNID.

UD (universe of discourse): Everything

K: Truth/Knowledge of Propositions

G: God proposition

I: Important proposition

P: Propositions in general

E: Objective Ethics propositions

M: Meaning propositions

B: have Belief propositions in

D: Propositions of definition of God

C: Complete Knowledge propositions

(1)

1. □(∃x)(Dx) ≡ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A (being the 10. line)

2. □(∃x)(Dx) A

------------------------------

3. □(∃x)(Dx) R (Reiteration)

------------------------------

4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 2, 3 ≡E (Equivalence Elimination)

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the first element of the foundation (1/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction).

(2)

1. □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) A

2. □(∀x)(Cx) A

------------------------------

3. □(∀x)(Cx) R 2

------------------------------

4. ◊(∃x)(Gy) ⊃E 1, 3

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the second element of the foundation (2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #2). This interpretation may be complained about, but the words are "when you sit there in heaven, your collateral knowledge/"complete" knowledge is including God, yet you probably lack the possibility for getting to the computer database of (complete) knowledge".

(1) and (2), formally and possibly better to some, 1 and 2 can be combined into the following:

1. □(∀x)(Cx) ⊃ [□(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy)] A (being the 10. line)

2. □(∃x)(Dx) A

3. □(∀x)(Cx) A

------------------------------

4. □(∀x)(Cx) R (Reiteration)

5. □(∃x)(Dx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E

6. □(∃x)(Dx) R

------------------------------

7. ◊(∃y)(Gy) 5, 6 ⊃E (Conditional Elimination)

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the combined elements of the foundation (1+2/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction). I'd say that this combination hides or obscures the fact that Complete Knowledge can be harder to imagine than a simple and broad Definition of God. Thus, the two simple parts may be better than this combination of these 2 more elementary parts.

(3)

1. □(∃x)(Mx) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A

2. □(∃x)(Mx) A

------------------------------

3. □(∃x)(Mx) R - Reiteration of A

------------------------------

4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3)

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (3/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #3.

(4)

1. □(∃x)(Ex) ⊃ ◊(∃y)(Gy) Assumption A

2. □(∃x)(Ex) A

------------------------------

3. □(∃x)(Ex) R - Reiteration of A

------------------------------

4. ◊(∃y)(Gy) ⊃E (1,3)

Comment: This is the CONCLUSION of the third element of the foundation (4/4) (and you have your valid logical deduction #4.

Now you have, all in all, at least 4 valid logical deductions that support the possibility of God (◊(∃x)(Gx)) where most faithists don't care about the possibility and assert the reality/existence of God, straight!

It's worth noting that cognition lies ahead of, obviously, all of these 4 entities leading to a possible God, i.e., ethics, meaning, definition of God and (Complete) Knowledge.

In addition, the anomalies of science suggests a fantastic description for a definition of God! Fx. what would the ancient people think of our time's nuclear bomb? Surely something fantastic! Likewise enters the idea of God as something fantastic far out there in time and in mind.

One remark on the side. In order to use necessity of God, you'll have to write something like this:

[□(∃x)(K) ⊃ ◊(∃x)(G)] ⊃ □(∃x)(G)

That is, if God is affirmed, knowledge contains an existing God, then an existing God is necessarily an existing God.

This should be in line with Kripke-modality as it's explained in his Naming and Necessity.

But the best one can do, IMO, is ◊(∃x)(G), possibly there's an existing God! I guess, all we believers are waiting for "Heaven".

Pacal's Wager.

The worry of the agnostics.

The value of defence and not proof.

The limitations to science and scientific influence.

The definition of God in relation to science and the prospects of science.

The classical notions by relations of science to religions.

Main Part I - The Argument.

[also the 5 arguments by logical structures and the rest, 4+1 combined]

Main Part II - The Reasoning.

Notes: [using two sections, the usage of "Notes" and "References", not that it matters, but I think it yields stiffness as well as flexibility.]

Notes.

As common in logics, square brackets are put in for separating from the round brackets and for being correct on the "primary connective" which is a formal requirement in Logics. Square brackets also make for better pedagogics, that only using the round brackets has a confusing capacity.

I've "imported" an addition from the Philosophy Now forum that has been written there 15. Jan. 2011.

References.

Kripke - the distinction between necessary and possible.

[+ the ones below]

Middle part to belong to one of the Main Section 2 probably:

Toward the NDNID paper (as CSM-Wikipedia proper):

Work notes added by these, just for some kind of notice:

Note1: Important! This is work in progress. No objection to the style here presented is tolerated or accepted on any (imagined) professional ground whatsoever! Formatting is thus not ready yet for the CSM-consistency.

Yes, the concepts and names are here strewn, you can begin to look them up yourself as well as the idiots can leave the books to themselves and "get to the objects" of Heidegger and more...! It would have said: "Toward the NDNID paper (as CSM-Wikipedia proper), while in "Hurwegen", the improper Norway under Insect-Jens, the PM also:", but not like that here.

The considerations for NDNID:

S. Kierkegaard
- some of the best considerations for a definite God
Aquinas
- almost unmistakenly /the/ reference for a best/most fundamental sense for God, along with Kierkegaard, the unbeatable brothers of Religious Philosophy for the believers!
Pascal's Wager (God or not God)
- too weak. that considering God would demand more thought than only "God or not God"
Kripke's paper "Naming and Necessity"
- thorough studies of this text have been crucial, in my head, to achieving the new notion of NDNID
The Dogmatic Debate, the Fideists and the Theists, the dogmas necessary to believe in God, by the classical "Church notions"
- that I have kept a keen eye to the "camp of positions" debates to these above notions, that they have had their very special conceptions for God.
St. Anselm
- The first argument of the modal kind to consider, usually also as reference for the others to follow, by description also.
Alving Plantinga's use of 5-S modality sentence, that possible, possible, possible yields "Necessarily God" when I have in fact never believed in "Necessary God" because the idea of God has seemed "too massive, too "magical", too far outside our sense and proof of reality, also by science".
- therefore, I've caught a type of description by Kierkegaard and Aquinas as the best before realizing that "possible God" would make it happen under the "best and greatest" pro-God with adding the 4 elements (by movie-making also, you may say movie-making studies) toward a seriously possible God!
This text contains the most of the conception for my 4 elements of possible-God! Yes, this has been a work after the profound studies. I have gotten anywhere near it, NDNID, without the input of crucial intellectual matters, and then I have skipped many light-weight "educators"!
2013-03-07.
2013-05-17.

Objection to the International Blur of Power - The UN Sky

The former Interpol discussion has made it clear that even Interpol has had a need "to have its legs into one by one nation" because the instructions and international police work simply has become too messy formerly, by history record. Its on this note of wisdom that I object to bulging idiot governance of UN that speaks  against the serious political science and I advice the (financial) accounts of the UN to follow the accountable patters still, that UN represents international agreement and national accountability and that indirect-indirect delegation of power from the nations is one that doesn't deal exactly more power than that, making it necessary to negotiate the agreements with the respective national assemblies to establish it.

So instead of "flashing various (agent) cards", of diplomatic status too, of authority and being by very special agant (Mulder) then rather the extra attention toward certain problems like in this case a list of crimes to cover where money, yes, that the money goes to Interpol/Europol/FBI. This must be the objective answer. UN isn't some blurred political power in the sky and never will be either (if we bother to discipline the organisation properly, holding consciousness to it every year).

Keyword: reporting (accurate), that's right, the report, one d*mn job duty, the reporting.

UN: reporting (accurate), international agreement and discussion over international matters (toward agreement/making explicit notes).

(This is for public education if nothing else.)

The Ecology Points - By Applied Ethics, Most Importantly and Further...

Combatting the Overpopulation

Suggestion for combatting Overpopulation, a dire condition that brings out the worst in people and against animals and wildlife the same:
The governments of the World issue a (steady) recommendation for only one or two children (for each woman, or other standard, issues may arise with homosexuals who desire children, but this needs separate resolve).
Under the recommendation then, this follows, a 3 pt. list,
1. that families will be required by law to pay partly or wholly for the 3rd child as incentive toward right behaviour.
2. that becoming pregnant with a fourth child or giving birth to a fourth child may provoke forced abortion or forced adoption.
3. that becoming pregnant with a fifth child and beyond may trigger forced abortions, forced adoptions, forced sterilizations and removal of legal rights in representing stupor below normal intelligence.

I hope you bother to take note and that we work together, in moving the politics toward better ecology and a better future for all, with as much people in the future gene-tree as possible! Thanks.

(Me? A hard-liner Ecology Philosopher? This files under Applied Ethics and only as suggestion for discussion. Also, point is made for making the discussion /move/ somewhere whatsoever.)

I've written a notice lately to WWF suggesting the Ecological Victory option to the Civ 5 (Sid Meier) games, such that 2 kids now make one's gene-tree 4 the next turn for your 2 kids. In this way, ultimately, one's genes become the World "some gene-steps" up the World history. This is also possible with only one kid, but takes a generation extra...! So contraception pills MUST be seen as World solution to all pollution problems, in overcoming Overpopulation toward 3.4 Bn people, figuratively speaking, "half the population of every nation now"!

Re-Issuing, the CO2 Problem

In relation to CO2 measurements, it's worth noting that CO2 level HAS NEVER BEEN HIGHER than today's at a little lower than 400 ppm. Over 800 000 years, it has never gone higher than than mere 300 ppm until lately. So not only do we suffer from high World population that distresses nature greatly, but we also guzzle ourselves down on own mass of people and gurp about in something like 385 ppm of CO2. I must say, this is a VERY interesting experiment and that I hold WWF, IPCC and Greenpeace the most responsible, even though, as much as Pugwash "boldly" says no to nuclear weapons, common people are now betrayed by their governments and intellectuals alike! (Heh-heh, unless they DO something... but /can/ they squeeze out the necessary words and the display the necessary leadership? Yet to see...!
(Still the words of Mr. Al Gore are ringing in the ears as GREAT! See the movie, please, An Inconvenient Truth!)

(I'll use this blog posting to highlight a very important ethics/applied ethics matter, one that seems to move slowly in terms of (acting/effectuating/legislative) politics...)

Also remarks to brilliant writers, activists, Greenpeace (who should pick up on /seriousness/), World Wildlife Fund, IPCC, the former Environmentalist movement, people who support Deep Ecology and other people who move the these matters into scope and place.

PS: Overpopulation is now centered on the most because I see it as /the/ most important ecological issue today.

The Internet Population - The Story of an Ever Growing Interconnected World - How many? By the Nations...

From Wikipedia 2nd time:

2006 2011

6.5 billion 7 billion

2006 2011

Africa 3% 13%

Americas 39% 56%

Arab States 11% 29%

Asia and Pacific 11% 27%

Commonwealth of Independent States 13% 48%

Europe 50% 74%

a Estimate. b Share of regional population.

World Total: 7,017,846,922 Internet Users - Latest Data: 2,405,518,376. -> Gives 34,2% of World total. (Surprising low. Who to take the blame? USA and World corruption, much police?)

Extra consideration:

Internet population (more):

Well, well, I don't know why ITU chooses to disclose the numbers the way that it does, but a reasonable way of informing the public on this has usually included a notice such as "of those who _can_ use/access the Internet". To this number we should expect Europe and USA to be quite high, much like almost 100%, exempting the usual groups, those who are too ill, one matter or another, and those who are too young or old.

Indeed, the ITU numbers seem too much idiotic when they should know better and that the current numbers may also reflect the World status, i.e., that the World is unnecessarily "pointy"!

Numbers of (implied) users from possible users, also as percentage, is the usual way for presenting these "Internet population" numbers. It is now? But this may not be a problem, rather, how much of Planet Earth area, land territory as connection of one place with people to another, has "Internet" on it, on land and elsewhere? So what is this number, in percentage, please? No, there is something strange in this World? Also, a type of technological access at sea, including a type of technology use to a given degree to this calculation such as "a certain percentage of the boats/ships at sea has a certain technology with them that allows them Internet connection at all times". More this includes technology that allows only limited access "here and there" based on other technology to land based antennas or radio-based transmission of kind, accessible some areas at sea, but not others...


That it's unnecessary to add this statistics consideration over population, i.e., the absolute population vs. the actual possible Internet population, a number that may be very obscured from a number of people. We need to follow this up to the ITU.

(One pervert consideration is that "0-year old kids" are unconsciously using the Internet by what would normally be considered criminal implants, and that this approach is enticing to ITU that, giggling wildly, ITU would like to see h*llishly more of it, word by intention.)

Source: International Telecommunications Union. href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_population (#cite_note-8").

Source: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm for World numbers in absolute terms.

The 10 Commandments and Modern Christianity - One Comment

The 10 Commandments "how I like them told to a friend":

The two texts commonly known as the Ten Commandments are given in two books of the Bible: Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:4–21.

Exodus 20:1-17 Deuteronomy 5:4-21
First number is the number of the Commandment.

1. 3 "You shall have no other gods before me."
Comment: The logical consideration that there can only be one top God(-principle). That the ultimate best is carried by a top-point!

2. 8 - 10 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."
Comment: This is the text that describes the duty to "love" and believe in one God and hold this belief too, and not worship "the golden calf" or any other "false God".

3. 11 "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."
Comment: This is the text that says that you are not to /defy/ by cursing! (Allowing one specific cursing to take place still...)
and that
"8 - 11 "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."
Comment: Merely, that one remember the /holy day/ and that this connects to meditating the Bible and being thankful to God and God's creation. That I believe in "these 2 Commandments" to be combined into this 3rd.

4. 12 "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."
Comment: This is the duty to honour your parents, but it can also be read as a duty to honour history and those who have struggled and been before us.

5. 13 "You shall not murder."
Comment: I think this includes "You shall not harm" too, but I'll look into for confirmation.

6. 14 "You shall not commit adultery."
Comment: Adultery is of course both the (sexual)  abuse of minors as well as the sexual attacks on adults.

7. 15 “You shall not steal."
Comment: This is the duty to respect the properties of others.

8. 16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
Comment: This is the "you shall not lie" Commandment.

9. 21 "And you shall not covet your neighbour's wife."
Comment: This is the duty to respect your other people's spouses and probably given separately because of importance and the implied encouragement toward discipline.

10. "And you shall not desire your neighbor's house, his field, or his male servant, or his female servant, his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's."
Comment: This is the duty to not envy and respect your fellow human beings' belongings and imply the extra duty not to steal from your fellow human being too.

God's miracle, the human being, is still a deep worry inside all or most religions and that working toward a healthy human kind that has vast chances of ascension to Heaven must be considered a duty, small or large. Practically speaking and for today's societies/legal systems this is one bloody tough nut to crack!

I can't see that the 10 Commandments /extend/ to the hostile/deply unfriendly/the enemy people. That is, the duties described by the 10 Commandments are only valid toward a /potential/ group able to read them and believe in them too. I'm not going to try to tell a person with a pathological mentality about the Bible or the 10 Commandments. For this you need physical power above the other and psychiatric means and methods. So by this, skip the idiots as you want, please!

The 10 Commandments are now /updated/ by the notions of modern Christians, given by the  contemporary legal frameworks. That sincerety and ethical/moral  mindedness toward God and  "buy"/earn you Heaven today and throughout your life.

(Some information is taken from the Wikipedia article (the) "10 Commandments".)

The Catholic Seven Virtues and Seven Sins - Also by my "Rejection of the Cardinal Sins" Argument, in line with Kierkegaard Aesthetics

Catholic - Seven Virtues - Catholic - Seven Sins!

-. Virtue Latin Pedagogics

1. Chastity Castitas Modesty, also fidelity toward spouse, moderation in balanced quantities, as matter of personal discipline toward balance in life

2. Temperance Temperantia Balanced mind, sense of justice

3. Charity Caritas Caring for those who are in need, for the suffering, for those in despair

4. Diligence Industria Politeness, to be timely, to act with manner, the work ethics, the work duty

5. Patience Patientia To wait and be disciplined about it too

6. Kindness Humanitas Goodness, that one has the ability to care and respect, properly

7. Humility Humilitas Humility by sense, a type of respect, (NOT acceptance of slavery of accept any unlawful submission)

(In between here lies the 10 Commandments, one that translates into the laws and regulations for the modern Christian.)

-. Vice Latin Pedagogics

1. Lust Luxuria Lust, plainly, the excessive disposition toward lust as drive in life

2. Gluttony Gula Overweight, that one eats too much and care little else than for food

3. Greed Avaritia That money becomes an obsession in one's life

4. Sloth Socordia That inactivity and complacency replaces job and the drive to use one's body, to work

5. Wrath Ira Unrestrained anger, aggression toward "this and that", the random anger/hate/aggression

6. Envy Invidia The possession of others becomes an obsession

7. Pride Superbia Disrespect for the 10 commandments, do not abide by the laws and regulations in the modern sense

"The Roman Catholic Church also recognizes seven virtues, which correspond inversely to each of the seven deadly sins."

Quote marks, from Wikipedia. The very virtues and sins are also copied from Wikipedia.

I present this list for exactly the purpose by the text and especially over the irritation with the "Pride" sin that is probably the most misunderstood, quenching the notion that religious aren't supposed to be proud people (because I think they/we are mostly entitled this by the undertaking of community responsibility and so on, setting the good example.

(Some idiot formatting is still on Blogger for preventing "delete"-action, to mention one.)

Entering the Discussion of HIV/AIDS Cautiously

Tentatively, over HIV/AIDS, remembering Jacob Zuma and the anti-bacterial (discussion) by house-hold detergents, I give you my opinion for now:

There's a lingering recall of a med. doctor who, by suspicion, is the first documented case in USA and that many people have been brought in to answer the situation at hand.

--------------------------------------

Update: I withdraw the case against HIV-AIDS. There is a virus there and HIV-AIDS is for real and very dangerous, no doubt about it!

--------------------------------------

That a psychiatrist has also given one opinion. My suspicion is, rightfully so, that all of these people's work has entered the data-set.

Therefore, as conclusion (for now): This med. doctor is suspected to have been deeply corrupt triggering a rare condition in the blood that can look like coagulation but is rather hoops or mud of something that may seem to be cancer, of one particular kind. You may say blood clots of warts. So therefore, my recommendation is now that HIV/AIDS is not transferrable by sex like they say, but rather the symptom of this corrupt, widely out on the schizophrenic category by two-category system of classification, person and in line with Alzheimer's and those, that this person has died from a type of blood clot/blood cancer! End of story (for now).

I writing this to you now, I also pay great respects to both oncology and hematology alike.

This solves the serious need for description from other (med.) doctors and sheds light on a new angle to which other serious researchers may add opinion, something that should be plain! That being all the way to the schizophrenic side of life entails  the result: HIV/AIDS.

Corrupt means schizophrenic or worse in this text, i.e., toward the immorally blind psychopathic behaviour much like the personality described in "American Psycho" by Bret Easton Ellis.

Blood cancer:
Leukemia C90 - C95 (ICD-10, WHO) - http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/C90.1 - through to C95.

Neither do I give any guarantee that I'm right nor do I insist to defeat other/former insights into HIV/AIDS research. I just see I locked situation for the HIV/AIDS disease and that the new insights into the "very dignified" med. doctors in revealing many of them more of the kind of Dr. Mengele, whether Dr. Schwein A. or other, that many med. doctors may be perverse! Therefore, I have no qualms in giving my free opinion by the above. You understand, please?

That the "Dachau-concentration-camp" research as much as Tuskagee syphilis research is very much alive, and that, correctly, they have NO regards for the Helsinki-declaration or the dignity of human kind, that they just do whatever they feel they can get away with!!!

This is hinted to by "anti-bacterial detergents" discussion above, where I've found that they fail to apply the use of alcoholic substances correctly in trying to keep the best standards for sterile surgery rooms or sterile instruments, at times, or often...
Development further: I'm not into voodoo just yet - the HIV/AIDS:

When I write "tentatively", I mean it!
I'm still with the consensus science, the best practice science (also laboratory/"petri-dish") and the best results science. That I obviously understand the requirements to /win/ a scientific discussion based on facts, not shamanism, hence my "Efficiency Argument" and more.

This may also only enter as solution to /one aspect ("one strand")/ of the HIV/AIDS discussion, not all of them (there are several types).

Plainly, the above is meant for research only and I strongly encourage people to follow the usual advice for sexual behaviour, that exposure to disease (STDs) can prove fatal.

So don't mess up and try to give me the blame for any stupidity.

Also, my data-set isn't yet any to speak of. That I need to get some confirmation routine to square this up, like a combined psychiatric examination, with some bio-indicators (metabolism fx.) and the very blood samples themselves, how they look and "suspected stage" in the disease, any prediction, and of course the accumulated numbers, the cases, person by person.

(I hold the advanced psychiatric procedures, not the "loose"/unstructured, "I look into your personality and see so much"-type of interview style. No, more like a computerised routine of entering various data-sources and compiling the whole to see what one gets, i.e., a close to/or 100% routine for psychiatric diagnostication.)

(I'm sorry if I've upset you!)

Remember, please, also that there has been a period of the discussion of when one discussed some type of (comprehensive, but expensive) "self-test" kits and that the result has been summed to be that even these fairly big kits have proved insufficient for providing a 100% secure results. So here we have it: practically no secure testing-array for HIV/AIDS that I'm aware of, only the recording of symptoms by that longitudinal contact.
I'll just notify you right away that there are more people than me who are onto the HIV/AIDS as something else than "the popular story". And they have studies to go (they claim). Given the level of fraud in society and the status of the legal systems, I just back these two:
HIV tests are the biggest scam!!!
Piney Davis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yopRSViC_M
and
AIDS is a hoax! Biologist Christl Meyer explodes the HIV/AIDS conspiracy
Christl Meyer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaA6zLUPfvk .

That my opinion by "Entering the Discussion of HIV/AIDS Cautiously" is only about ONE (1) case and its scope/consequences. This is not a "normative" opinion to the public, but an opinion on the research and parts of the hematology and oncology studies around the World. Oncology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncology and Hematology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematology .

Sorry for leaving out the hematology, that's of course most interesting... "That the blood contains..." Any good "blood magic" there? ;-)

"Blood magic...", humorously recalling the "magic devices" described by Kuhn in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed.

The med. doctors' scientific principles go by this:
Remember that by Diabetes Type 2, it follows, as example too
No symptoms -> no disease
Not fatty -> not Diabetes Type 2.

One should also remember the old divide as subtypes under bacteria with all types included, that bacteria spawn two subtypes:
other/move bacteria (also those that have evolved) and viruses (which evolve too)!

Remarks for literature may be to look for change "in scientific wording" from 1985 to 1995 as they have stopped using it.

Extra notice of earlier science history too: That as this (new) HIV/AIDS theory has entered the World, there has been some contextual science discussion on the science criteria for objective science, also in philosophy of science, of course. As such, this text of mine stands with a magnitude of at least x2 or in square power!

By suspicion, that HIV/AIDS has branched out, being an investigation on several levels, also one to which one wants to determine what science really is!

Killer of HIV/AIDS Theory and Description?

Diagnostication part of HIV/AIDS is missing compared to other classical bacteria/virus infections such as "when sample has been cultured in laboratory for some standard time" then result [something] which is definitely bacteria/virus [x] and has this [x] correlation to symptoms. This is generally expressed. Clearly, as the pattern has been completed with the real data then the HIV/AIDS problem or "inconsistency" beomces more evident.

However, some of these bacteria/viruses have become "operationalised" over indicators in the blood and that diagnostication by machine [x] or detector chemical [x] is obtained after [x] minutes, but perhaps no more than 20.

This makes us able to suggest that HIV/AIDS is killed because is fails to support a simple test-set by blood analysis. Is therefore HIV/AIDS killed as theory and description? That is, is it unscientific to write HIV/AIDS? (If not, I want to have the virus component definitely classified and made possible to analyse, according to virus classification system, compatible with all other viruses.)

Additionally, the Separator: according to my Preventive Cancer Measures some of these people may have particular values from neuro-signals that indicate "a tendency toward blood cancer" rather than any virus at all.

(Main "killer": the lack of small laboratory diagnostication standard, a so called "self-help" kit.)

Virus is traditionally classified in the petridishes and not by the "negative" side anti-bodies. Again, indicating a presence of (blood-)cancer and not virus. Also, the first paper went to a Cancer Research Journal, by the French team, and not to a journal of virology. This may imply several things, also the definite scientific.

Definite virus-detection is no problem by traditional (outside the HIV/AIDS "craze") virus-detection/identification, i.e., one type of petri-dish method or other.

For other results, to quench the idiot protests further, where there is no virus (present), "but still this insistence", one supplies three angles for HIV/AIDS theorists:
- First: Papilloma nature of "the other" in the petri-dish may be identified.
- Second: The relevant patient's nature neuro-value in terms of cancer-indication, compared to the best/healthy person's neuro-value. Just choose any healthy person.
- Third: That a further metabolism test will tell what kind of patient we're dealing with here, probably with a run down the cancer slope, either way.

This comes on top of traditional investigation angles into viruses and blood cancer alike and should have long traditions for either (50 years +).

Testing.
Virus: Result positive/negative. No possible objection either way for these HIV/AIDS theorists.Blood cancer: Blood cancer symptoms correlation.
Other: Virus free and healthy too!
Else: Cancer may develop or has developed with the patient, given these two indicators of neuro-value of the patient and metabolism test (or equivalent).

Simply: CASE IS CLOSED! It's now for the acting authorities to move against HIV/AIDS theory and make sure the proper medicines are available in the future! Alright?

"Classifications of HIV infection"

"Two main clinical staging systems are used to classify HIV and HIV-related disease for surveillance purposes: the WHO disease staging system for HIV infection and disease,[11] and the CDC classification system for HIV infection.[79] The CDC's classification system is more frequently adopted in developed countries. Since the WHO's staging system does not require laboratory tests, it is suited to the resource-restricted conditions encountered in developing countries, where it can also be used to help guide clinical management. Despite their differences, the two systems allow comparison for statistical purposes.[9][11][79]

The World Health Organization first proposed a definition for AIDS in 1986.[11] Since then, the WHO classification has been updated and expanded several times, with the most recent version being published in 2007.[11] The WHO system uses the following categories:

Primary HIV infection: May be either asymptomatic or associated with acute retroviral syndrome.[11]

Stage I: HIV infection is asymptomatic with a CD4+ T cell count (also known as CD4 count) greater than 500 per microlitre (µl or cubic mm) of blood.[11] May include generalized lymph node enlargement.[11]
Stage II: Mild symptoms which may include minor mucocutaneous manifestations and recurrent upper respiratory tract infections. A CD4 count of less than 500/µl.[11]
Stage III: Advanced symptoms which may include unexplained chronic diarrhea for longer than a month, severe bacterial infections including tuberculosis of the lung, and a CD4 count of less than 350/µl.[11]
Stage IV or AIDS: severe symptoms which include toxoplasmosis of the brain, candidiasis of the esophagus, trachea, bronchi or lungs and Kaposi's sarcoma. A CD4 count of less than 200/µl.[11]

The United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention also created a classification system for HIV, and updated it in 2008.[79] This system classifies HIV infections based on CD4 count and clinical symptoms,[79] and describes the infection in three stages:

Stage 1: CD4 count ≥ 500 cells/µl and no AIDS defining conditions
Stage 2: CD4 count 200 to 500 cells/µl and no AIDS defining conditions
Stage 3: CD4 count ≤ 200 cells/µl or AIDS defining conditions

Unknown: if insufficient information is available to make any of the above classifications

For surveillance purposes, the AIDS diagnosis still stands even if, after treatment, the CD4+ T cell count rises to above 200 per µL of blood or other AIDS-defining illnesses are cured.[9]"

Source: Wikipedia. Url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Classifications_of_HIV_infection .

Possible theoretical causes to lower CD4 counts:
Radiation
Cancer
General virus infection, any
Illness, any, severe enough
Famine, severe enough

It seems to me weak! Almost so to say that if you are under somatic pressure, it's likely to be HIV/AIDS, in theory. I also note that the WHO classification is entirely without any virus or virus description... When I write that it's entirely without a virus, I intend to make this a statement of fact that they have held this as official view all the way up from "eagle's nest" in terms of authority in science of medicine. Exactly right, entirely without a virus!

Also, there are various epidemiological problems connected to the virus, such that only one person, as late as 1980s in New York, is affected by it, but no other people throughout the World despite the infection-vectors, like blood and sperma. And as the World largely remains condom-less up to this point of a single individual.

For the many thousands of years, one would think the humanity has become resilient to it, the HIV-virus itself (or being wiped out as effect that we are not, of course).

So, can it rate as a mere little flu-virus and not this deadly thing?

Enjoy.

(If they, the med. doctors, don't take the hint, then I note strictly the culture of lying and dishonesty, one that they need to accept straight down and without particular reservation.)

PS: I'm sorry that this last text has only entered now, rather than at first with the rest of earlier.

Over Being Doing Malice in the World - The Laws and Regulations

The very failure to these "I'm with the powers"-people, they who claim to be "with" a different set of rules outside the ordinary laws and regulations by the national assemblies is that they/we fail/are OBSTRUCTED to separate the ones who are "evil all the way" vs. the ones who may "have tried to do something", i.e., working for a better World with less suffering, straight, no lying possible.

Again, the most hideous need to be accounted for by laws and regulations and that laws and regulations need to be acted upon or are acted upon, one or another, logically, in the World (and possibly beyond).

So, yesssssssssssss, I think we have this SQUARED DOWN!!!

Links and more text may be added.

Watch up for key word: operationalism and remember, please, HDI/mHDI (crime stat's incl.)