AIDS denial is immoral

Metakron:

Many of these diseases amongst gay men are very rare outside of having HIV. There are issues with specific skin lesion cancers, for instance.

It would not seem they were misdiagnosed in this instance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

According to what?

They start with a conclusion then they go around cherry picking from the evdence, applying whatever definition would best suit their purpose, which is not science.

Who methodically counts all the suspected AIDS cases which turn out to be HIV negative?

For as long as there are AIDS cases which are not HIV positive, which there most certainly are, then per se HIV is not the cause of AIDS, possibly a cause, but not the cause.

http://www.aras.ab.ca/test-negative.html

http://aids.about.com/cs/conditions/a/kaposi.htm

Caused by HIV or caused by HHV8?

They say one thing and then they say another, a sickeningly confused mess from start to finish.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And use of amyl and butyl nitrites is very rare outside of those who are gay. Those nitrites are carcinogenic and should have been banned a long time ago.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nice way to talk your way around the truth. Montagnier doesn't believe in the one cause theory, and he is the one that the liar Gallo stole from.

 

Shame you can't show AIDS is not caused by HIV. Shame other people can show that HIV causes AIDS.

 

Metakron:

What are these used in?

Sauna:

HIV1 is only one type of HIV. HIV2 is common in Africa.

 

Why should anyone except scientists care?

And even if they did care, what good does it do? People with HIV aren't branded on the forehead with a big red 'H', so..?

Baron Max

 

Fortunately, to logically refute the thesis, there is no need to prove the negative, only that AIDS symptoms do appear but with with no trace of HIV, which is demonstrably the case.

Except to suppose that the HAART treatment causes HIV, how to explain this then?

In view of instances of seroreversion they say that the absence of antibodies does not necessarily prove that the HIV is gone.

Rather then than let them have it both ways, who is to say that HIV is not actually always present in a large proportion of the population if not in all of us, except that it never got as far as showing up in a test, let alone as far as precipitating malignant symptoms?

To prove that one way or another we need a large enough sample tested by some more searching method than the antibody tests, but as yet we see no sign of that.

Alternatively, if HIV may indeed be present but not detected, it is just not good enough, if not culpably dangerous to suppose it to be the cause.

 

Because it pretty much a disease with a mortal outcome in most cases.

Actually if you had bothered to pull the article in question as I did you would have known that the conclusion of that particular paper is:

She has HIV infection, but a specific defect in her immune system prevents the generation of antibodies. Needles to say the general population does not suffer from this defect.

Actually HIV1 infection is generally known to cause a loss in specific antibodies. Measles can cause serious problems in HIV infected children because of this, despite vaccinations or previous exposure.
The HAART treatment is aimed at reconstituting the immune system, but is always just partly successful


Persistent Humoral Immune Defect in Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy–Treated Children With HIV-1 Infection: Loss of Specific Antibodies Against Attenuated Vaccine Strains and Natural Viral Infection
PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 2

 

"May have been caused"!!!!!

"May" presumably represents a theory, not a fact, and in which way specifc?

Where is the specification?

This is where you lose the moral credibility over and over again, by presenting conjecture as if it were proved, while upon examination there is no such proof.

That is deliberate misdirection, stealth, not science.

One could just as well assume that the specific defect was caused by the treatment.

It thus continues to beg the question.

First one would have to identify the specific defect, and devise a test to apply to a sufficent sample of case studies.

Is there some evidence of that?

If not, what a shame to present fiction in the name of fact.

 

That's how scientists talk.

don't blow a valve old man.

 

So you are saying nobody knows if the people taken into the account as dead because of Aids are infected with hiv?
I don't believe that.

Nobody is saying that but let's pretend you are a bigpharma scientist and you "know" that all there is to the antihiv (antiaids) drugs is placebo effect. Would you create toxic coctails to make people sick to believ they are taking real drugs? Wouldn't that nevtralize that placebo effect "a bit"...?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I suppose it would be easier just to create a new candy every year or two.

Sorry, but the purpose of any regular company is to make profit.

Oh yes, I have forgotten, you have to poison the people, so they are sick, so they think they have aids and need to buy your poison, right? Who did that to the first cases?

I'm sorry but I don't undertstand what has your answer to do with my text you quoted.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Infected with HIV was not the issue.
The issue was the the cause of morbidity.
I am not yet convinced that HIV is not already widespread but mostly insignificant.

If you are trying to tell me that there is no psychological effect, I most certainly do not believe that.

Already they tried to us that death is inevitable; there is no recovery, and that turned out to be a lie.

What else are they going to lie about?

I see no need to suppose so.

Why propose so?

Why think these people know what they're doing?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That is childish.

To this day some still seem to think that tobacco is good for them, but the taste of it is dreadful.

It is hard to think of anything much more poisonous than to tell somebody that they've contracted AIDS, and to tell them that there no possible cure, nothing better than an expensive alleviation.

How would you feel about that?

It ruins lives, enough to worry somebody to death.

 

Then of course you understand that pharmaceutical companies would lose billions, not only in lost business, but in massive record-breaking class action lawsuits. These are the consequences of letting out the truth about AIDS.

 

If a syndrome is defined as being that syndrome only when HIV is present, it is more difficult to prove that it is not linked to HIV. It is not quite as difficult to show that HIV is not necessarily the cause, but it would be a lot less difficult if it weren't like talking to a wall when I explain that AZT does, according to the company's own literature, cause the symptoms of AIDS. Your own ignorance of the relevant material is making this much more difficult, also, and I consider much of that to be both willful and pretense.

The company that makes AZT still says this: GSK link

In an ass cover written in huge lettering, it says that AZT causes neutropenia, which is a form of immune deficiency, and that it is particularly toxic to people who have "advanced HIV disease", meaning that it is more dangerous to sick people. It is a mutagen and a carcinogen, which was known in the 1960s. Its action is to merge with a person's nuclear DNA, and it can have to effect on retroviruses without doing that. When it does do that, that person's DNA is totally fucked. Basically, if the patient lives, so can any retrovirus, and vice versa, the retrovirus has to be still living or the circumstances that killed it will kill the patient.

There is no reasonable way around the fact that AZT kills, and that the maker says so.

 

Suppose that they finally admit that AIDS isn't caused by HIV and no one has ever shown good evidence that it has. How about the fact that if you have a daughter who has sex with a man who later tests HIV positive, she doesn't have to worry about getting sick? How about the fact that we won't have to regard Africans as being any more likely to make us sick than they were in 1980? I also like the idea of GSK getting a well-deserved shot to the kneecaps.

There is also the question of sexual morality. Compulsory sexual morality, if it had any value, would not have to be backed by the threat of a supernatural being getting revenge upon you, or by the threat of a supernatural virus. Do you have to have a gun to your head to keep you from having sex with a rent boy? Of course not. I'd pay good money to someone to keep them away from me if need be. This kind of ethics by insult has always been nasty and violent. They're mostly looking for an excuse to screw us over. AIDS also helps pump the moves to take all adult materials away from adults. It sours the general attitude toward sex. It gives the busybodies far too good an excuse to make them look like they're just watching out for us. They're just watching out for us when they jail someone for 25 years for publishing a picture of two consenting adults having sex, I'm sure, and we're only a little ways away from the time that they did that.

 

This made me lawl.

Hm... Maybe it is propaganda and not a good source.

Maybe it didn't.

Such a big claim from such a little guy.

Where is this money coming from? What are they doing to get it? Are they selling something? Is someone bribing them? Is the government in on it? Can you solidly identify this AIDS industry? Where are they based? Who's the CEO? How many stocks do they have? Can I buy some? Is Osama bin Laden helping them? Are they behind Liberal Establishment Inc. and the Liberal Media™ and the Homosexual Agenda®? Are the Democrats helping them? Do they have Tupac alive and well in their basement? Did they kill JFK?

I can imagine you in bed at night, sitting in a fetal position and rocking back and forth with a tin foil hat on your head: "He's one of them... He's one of them...".

I understand the spirit behind this post. Kinda like having an open mind with all possibilities. Well that only works with valid possibilities (the key word being "valid").

Well that's because your claim is so easy to nitpick.

Sure dude.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Conspiracy theories abound!

It would be simpler to just say you don't like the chap. No need to defy scientific consensus, the mountains of proof, and indeed the validity of science itself just to stick it to him.

Why the fuck would they go through this kind of trouble? Wouldn't it be simpler to just discover that HIV leads to AIDS?

Or they may have discovered that HIV leads to AIDS. You're making multiple levels of complexity here, and you don't need to. Stop it.

And of course you assume these mice are manufactured. Your entire claim that they've never proven HIV causes AIDS now rests solely on the assumption that these scientists manufactured these mice. See what you've done? You walked yourself into a corner! It's ridiculously easy to do when you try to pass off a conspiracy theory as true. You're really slow.

Interesting claim. It must have mountains of evidence in its favor.

Sauna, do something for me:

Turn off the computer.

Go to the library.

Find a good book that explains the the elements of the scientific process.

Read it. Study it. Live it. Breathe it.

Then come back to us.

You are totally ignorant on the definition of "theory" and "fact". The two are not mutually exclusive. And they are not ranked in order of truth like rungs on a ladder. The very fact that you think they are shows me three possibilities: that you weren't well educated by your high school science teacher; that you simply didn't pay attention in your high school science class; or that you're just a stupid layman who thinks he can conquer science without even a proper understanding, who thinks he's so much smarter than scientists, who thinks he knows so much more about virology than the scientist who studied it at a university for six years and makes a career out of it.

Your fixation on "may" is a lost cause. Give it up and stop wasting intelligent people's time by arguing about something you don't understand.

 

Okay, this is annoying me:

STOP SAYING "HIV VIRUS"!!!

"HIV" stands for "human immunodeficiency virus".

When you say "HIV virus", you're saying "human immunodeficiency virus virus". Fucking stop the redundancy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Amen. Fucking stop the redundancy!

 

Probably about time to let this thread fade into the mists of oblivion, yes?
Move on to productive discussions?

Although, we are delving once more into philosophy of science and the justification of knowledge... (Why do so many discussions end here?)

As Athelwulf has said, this statement shows that you don't understand what science is.

Nothing can be proven, per se, instead science depends upon falsifiability.
...
Meh.
Why am I even bothering trying to explain to you?
You're just being contrary. Not going to learn anything anyway.
Fuck it.
Learn it yourself. Or don't. Doesn't matter either way.
I'll give you one lead.
Popper.
And I don't mean popcorn popper.