AIDS denial is immoral

When you say that Duesberg has "no research" you sound stupid, Invert. Do you even understand the words that are coming out of your mouth? Duesberg did a lot of research, and he pulled the original studies and showed everyone where those studies failed to meet standards.

"Basic reality" my ass. The only thing that you accept is the kind of "research" that backs one side of this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Funny.
I thought he wasn't getting funded...
Wasn't that a huge part of his complaint? That all his funding was cut out from under him?

Or are you talking about before the funding got cut out from under him?
Because that was way way back in the depths of time, wasn't it?

You do understand that Duesberg doing research and his reviewing other people's research are two completely different things?
Laymen often confuse research with review.

Anyway.
Funny how the research that Duesberg seems to be able to invalidate so easily passes peer review time and time again...
I know. I know.
It's all this huge conspiracy that all the scientists are in on.
They have to accept the hiv/aids connection or be hounded out of the business with no funds for research...

But, again, that leads back to the point that there is no (or little) research disputing the hiv/aids connection. Even if only for lack of funding.
You seem to want your cake and to eat it too.

Then, if he has legitimate research in peer-reviewed journals which back up your claims... then why haven't you shown them?
All you've shown us is his website.

Do you even understand the words coming out of your mouth?
Seems to me that you're just parroting things without any concept of what the words actually mean.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's what you're doing, Invert. That's what you're doing.

I doubt that humanity has the intelligence to survive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Should I happen to pray to a God, that would be when and why, on the impossibility of believing that mankind has survived for so long but without divine intervention.

 

And that's what you always come back to whenever you're asked for more substantial references than a conspiracy website.
Resort to some trite, short post.
Saying nothing.

And then.
After some posts have gone by.
You'll once more resume your same tired tirade.
Until once more faced with the same request.
To which you'll once more post a short post utterly lacking in any relevant point whatsoever.

And so on.
And so forth.
Ad infinitum.
Debating.
The Metakron way.

And, of course, interspersed with your peculiar form of 'debate' we have Sauna who does his damndest to squirm about between science and metaphysics. Whenever it seems we have pinned down to actually saying something, he squirms and squirms and squirms and tells us he was saying something else altogether and that we've been putting words in his mouth....

Ah. What a debacle.
What a gorgeous illustration of the Absurd.

Metakron, could you perhaps be the reincarnation of Camus?


Seriously though.
Look into scientology.
I think you'd really dig it.

And Sauna. The great and bitter one.
Buddhism is supposed to be the middle road. A way of peace. Nirvana.
And yet Sauna exudes everything that is foul on this earth.
The bitterest of cynics.
He names himself victim and blames all of humanity for his inferiorities.

He longs for the death of man. For that will finally validate his entire existence.

Ah.

 

You are our density, Invert.

 

Ah.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Putting words into other people's mouths proves nothing but the inability to deal with what they had actually said.

 

Just one of the things that gives me the impression that they listen to what they want to listen to.

 

Though that be all they hear, still they fail to comprehend.

 

They don't even understand their own sources, Sauna. Even when their own sources plainly say something different, they hear what they want to hear.

 

They're a bunch of dicks.



(By the way, Metakron. I know you hate the infraction system. And rightly so. It's up for a vote. You might care to cast your ballot: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=62360
Sauna has voted to keep it but to turn it on the mods. Unfortunately, I don't know if he realizes that he might as well have just voted to keep it. His 'if only' means nothing when it comes to tallying the votes. He basically voted to keep the infraction system as is.)

 

bunch of....Chaneys

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's hard to be aware of something that doesn't exist, Dragon.

 

Still sticking to the meaningless oneliners?

Everything you stated so far has been refuted with scientific data. That's the cold hard truth. Still you go on like nothing happened.

 

To comprehend what has previously been said it has to be related to the theme of the thread.

The original posting asserted there is no scientific controversy around AIDS.

The most effective way to prove that would then be to shut up about it. Otherwise, the argument means that there is a controversy.

 

There would only be a scientific controversy if scientists think there is.

Whether someone talks about this subject on an internet forum means shit to there being a controversy or not.

There simply is none. If there was one you could show it by pulling a few recent HIV papers. You will read about a controversy in the introduction or discussion section.

It's dead simple. But you rather talk about nothing. Evade taking responsibility. be bitter.

Your opinion frankly doesn't count on the subject if there is a scientific controversy.

 

Such were my first thoughts about this thread:

".. and he expects us to count him as a need, to pronounce like that?"

 

another empty post by sauna.

 

I thought this thread was supposed to be about the morality of AIDS denial, not an act of it?