Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by spuriousmonkey, Jan 2, 2007.
I gave you an entire website to read. Read it. The answers to your questions are there.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
So if the drugs are not actually beneficial, and that may be the case with some, then where or how do the symptoms originate or escalate from?
Read the site.
Eventually I suppose since you've asked.
That's the only answer you will get from me for a while.
Once again I have let one of the conspirators drive me up a wall and make me look like a nutcase. I should know better by now. I can't help it. I can't control it. They know what buttons to push.
Are my questions too difficult for you? You're certainly going out of your way to avoid them.
I keep finding misleading statements there. For example, in their "tour" alone, we have:
The implication is that HIV kills its host cells, which it does not.
AIDS is a retrovirus. I'm not a biologist, but I think that the statement above is probably deliberately misleading.
(By the way, MetaKron, are you a qualified biologist or medical scientist? What level of knowledge do you have which has led you to support this minority opinion, against the combined weight of the vast majority of medical and biochemical experts?)
The population has become less susceptible in the US, mostly due to increased awareness of the dangers of HIV. Many initial infections, for example, were among blood tranfusion recipients and intravenous drug users. Measures were introduced to screen all blood, although after a rather too lengthy delay.
This is flat-out false.
The largest "risk group" is heterosexual people having unprotected sex, and AIDS is rampant in just that group, especially in Africa.
This is largely as a result of drug treatments which control the disease.
It is not specified whether this is American data only. If it is, the explanation could be the drug treatments for AIDS, again.
HIV tests are reproducible and reliable these days.
Tell me, MetaKron: what on this site do you find persuasive?
How do you know that the information about the test is a lie, James?
If you were deemed to have some influence on them, yes, you could be held partly responsible.
As to Meta and others who deny AIDS/HIV exist or pose a danger, well the results speak for themselves don't they? Millions infected and millions dead. Now either the world has managed to pull of one of the biggest conspiracies of all time, or Meta and his ilk are just crackpots.
You don't provide any evidence. At least ToR made an effort. You have made none.
Yes Meta. He's here to get you. You better pull on a foil hat in case he starts probing your mind.
Are you for real?
What are you on? Seriously.. what is it? Because if it's that good at making you deny reality, then I want some!
Millions of people are dying because of people like you. Your words are in support for Governments who have done nothing to help educate and prevent the spread of AIDS and HIV because people like you keep pushing the myth argument. But maybe that is what you want. Maybe you are one of those crackpots who dream of killing off millions of people every year. Let me guess. You are probably one of those who thinks the earth is flat as well, aren't you?
"Them"? Who exactly is "them"?
Are 'they' out to get you? Is it foil hat time again?
Oh I think you have lost your mind.
Actually, Spurious is a sockpuppet of George Bush. It's his alternate personality coming through under Spurious. You know the personality that is intelligent.
You better put on that foil hate Meta. Mind probe incoming in 5.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No. It is generally accepted in any scientific community or any intelligent community actually (it's even expectec and accepted in high school) that you provide evidence from a reliable source to back up any claims you may be making. You have failed.
He does not have to make you paranoid. You ARE paranoid.
As you have been told countless times now, you can post your links right here. He has no moderation powers in this particular forum. So where are they?
Why do you refuse to show proof of your claims?
Oh dear lord!
He hasn't had to do anything to make you appear crazy or a liar. He hasn't really participated much in this thread. You've done the 'appearing' crazy all on your very own.
It's a forum. He can't interrupt you mid sentence. You post your whole post without interruption. He replies to it and so on. You aren't speaking in real time. You are typing out a message. It could take him a couple of minutes, hours or even days to reply. So how in the hell can he or anyone else interrupt what you are trying to say?
I think you are mistaking the drugs killing them with the actual disease killing them.
And what in the hell is that site?
Do you have something from a university or research organisation? WHO? UN? Hell even Fox news? Anything at all? Or are they "them" as well?
I'll make it easier for you. Do you have even one article from 2003 onwards which supports your claims? Because at the moment you are only relying on opinions of people from the early to mid 90's.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Meanwhile, that jerk keeps yanking messages out and making false statements. I have ceased to make any attempt to comply with what he demands because he deliberately cites non-compliance when I have complied. It's the same thing as interrupting me mid-sentence because he nitpicks.
Also, I have encountered this person before and he's pulled the same tricks.
MetaKron, Spurious has yet to even mention you in this thread. He created this thread to illuminate the real harm that AIDS Denial websites can potentially cause. It is the same as if websites claimed cancer was a hoax and it was chemotherapy that was killing people who underwent the treatment instead of cancer. Advising them to not undergo treatment as it is the treatment that will kill you. Such unbased proclaimations can likely result in the death of those uninformed, or just not too bright, people who are in a state of denial because of their disease, either cancer or HIV infection.
MetaKron, you seem to be either in a state of denial, or just not too bright. Hopefully you have not tested positive for HIV. Have you?
how strange it is to see that in the UK haemophiliacs did die from frequently than non-infected from HIV infection mostly because of AIDS. The ones not-infected with HIV didn't die from AIDS.
Repost from the great HIV/AIDS thread where all data showing that HIV causes AIDS is conveniently ignored by metakron.
Nature 377, 79 - 82 1995
Mortality before and after HIV infection in the complete UK population of haemophiliacs
DURING 1977-91, 6,278 males diagnosed with haemophilia were living in the UK. During 1979-86, 1,227 were infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) as a result of transfusion therapy (median estimated seroconversion date, October 1982). Among 2,448 with severe haemophilia, the annual death rate was stable at 8 per 1,000 during 1977-84; during 1985-92 death rates remained at 8 per 1,000 among HIV-seronegative patients but rose steeply in seropositive patients, reaching 81 per 1,000 in 1991-92. Among 3,830 with mild or moderate haemophilia, the pattern was similar, with an initial death rate of 4 per 1,000 in 1977-84, rising to 85 per 1,000 in 1991-92 in seropositive patients. During 1985-92, there were 403 deaths in HIV seropositive patients, whereas 60 would have been predicted from rates in seronegatives, suggesting that 85% of the deaths in seropositive patients were due to HIV infection. Most of the excess deaths were certified as due to AIDS or to conditions recognized as being associated with AIDS.
Not this again... the HTLV-III => AIDS hypothesis is unproven, and will likely forever be so, because there is no single pathogenic cause for the variety of observed cases of Immunological Dysfunction in the Human population, worldwide, in the past three decades. No, kiddies, HTLV-III did NOT satisfy Koch's Postulate; and no appeals to statistics can make it so. HIV, therefore, was "defined into being" by mere political convention, rather than scientific concensus.
If a person dies of pneumonia without a trace of HTLV-III, they died of (surprise) pneumonia; but if a person dies of pneumonia with "HIV" antibodies present, they died of "AIDS"... a victory for circular logic.
I happen to be a telecommunications engineer, professionally, but I posess more than a passing interest in biotechnology since the future of my field is RF transmission safety, nanofabrication, and hybrid circuitry. Some time ago, I weighed evidence for both sides of the "AIDS" debate, and I still hold the opinion that there is legitimate room for dissent among scientists on the AIDS topic. It's taken years to vindicate my industry from the popular media-myth that "Cell Phones cause Jaw Cancer"... it's simply going to take longer for *The* AIDS Myth to die.
Labelling those, such as myself, who acknowledge that evidence suggests that there is more than one variety of "AIDS" today (one type of which may very well be viral in Humans) with the blanket epithet of "denier" is hardly accurate, and if anyone was really trying to fashion the notion that good science is somehow immoral, I'd happily ask such a person to "go get jaw cancer on their cell phone"... while fucking a tainted monkey.
Could you give the reference to the source where it states that a patient with AIDS has been found without HIV infection?
Well, I don't know, Qwerty, but this whole thing is giving me ass cancer this week.
Can you give me the reference to the source that decided that all of AIDS was caused by HIV?
It's your turn. You answer my questions. Then I might answer yours.
Try chicken pox (shingles).
Try any number of other viruses that embed themselves in your body on a permanent basis and flare up from time to time.
(By the by, our genome is riddled with viroid hitchhikers from the ancient past. In fact, it's quite possible that we owe portions of our evolution to extra baggage provided by virii...)
It should be noted that initial hiv infection causes flu-like symptoms.
Invert, look at ALL of the conditions listed.
Hiv doesn't even fit all the conditions:
Hiv causes flu-like symptoms after the initial infection.
And I don't have a clue what this is about:
Yes, and you would dismiss it as anachronistic, so I'll suggest you conduct your own search for epidemiological studies, beginning with Vancouver (which at least began to investigate Duesberg's lifestyle cofactors hypothesis for USA-AIDS).
Separate names with a comma.