Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by spuriousmonkey, Jan 2, 2007.
From the site you linked:
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
nothing's immoral. its all people and their made-up rules.
Bells, just the first part of what is wrong with that is this: One author writes in a speculative manner, then the author who writes a subsequent article treats the first article as if it is proven fact.
There is a huge problem with the syntax of this portion of a sentence also: "The progression of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to AIDS" A virus does not progress to AIDS or anything else. A virus that does certain things creates an infection that progresses to something, whatever that something may be. This is a very important thing because this is something that you present as evidence to support the affirmative claim that AIDS is caused by HIV.
The claims of the existence of HIV disease never satisfied the criteria that "outrageous claims require outrageous evidence." Anything that was even usable would have been nice, too.
that's exactly what a hypothesis is, a speculation about a mechanism.
what are you driving at? the symptoms of AIDS don't exist?
it very well may be that AIDS is caused by a group of virii instead of one.
and when this mechanism becomes corrupt the symptoms of AIDS appear right?
but let's not forget peer review.
Peer review was forgotten a long time ago, Leopold. When Duesberg attempted to write skeptical articles he was shunned by Nature, the journal that had formerly awarded him a status that allowed him to submit articles without peer review. They forced him through peer review, then still refused the article after the peer review came out clean. He may also have become the first person to lose large amounts of grant money for opposing the AIDS hypothesis.
This is one of the first stories that I read about Duesberg. If I did I can probably find it online, but this is true.
One funny thing about HIV believists is that they think that it proves their entire case if even one point of it proves true. If even one point of my case might be untrue in some setting in a far-off dimension, well, you've seen the results.
The symptoms of AIDS appear for many, many reasons. Apoptosis may be one of them. Common infections and garbage-collecting functions may deplete T-cells and they may fail to be produced in someone who has bone marrow suppression due to use of AZT. A patient may be diagnosed when he has an inversion of the ratio between T-4 and T-3, without regards to the fact that he has enough of them taken together. The immune system cells may fail to be produced if the person is deficient in selenium, and some experts consider selenium depletion to be common. Prednisone is one of the most overprescribed medications ever and it suppresses the immune system.
Then you have an unknown number of people who are exposed to both known and unknown chemical and radiological toxicities. Starving people can't have good immune systems even if the cause were simply lack of vitamin C. There is also exposure. There is recreational and prescription drug use.
It isn't right to define immune deficiency narrowly so that it only includes that which might be caused by someone's pet virus. That's just padding the bill.
AIDS is transcendent.
I feel alone without "the bug."
The disease is way too much part of people's identities right now.
Then why is the word 'isolated' used in so many legitimate references to hiv?
And just what are all the researchers testing and probing and running through their western blot and so on?
I think that your web site is misleading on this account.
The virus has been isolated.
To wit: if the hiv virus has not been isolated, identified, probed, tested, genetically read, grown, injected, infected, etc... then just what are all the scientists playing with?
They definitely have a virus with which they are able to infect all their lab animals with.
This is what we get when people didn't bother to learn this stuff before it got out of hand.
Jesus wept. I have become accustomed to the fact that no flaw, however obvious, in the HIV disease program will ever be recognized by most scientists involved. I am somewhat adjusted to the fact that if they ever did recognize it they would lose their jobs. This stupid article just said that there is reverse transcriptase activity in a cell-free "culture" and that the p24 protein is proof positive of the presence of HIV.
I hope that my new eyes arrive in the mail soon and I will be able to see the Emperor's new clothes, because I am obviously not the kind of person with the kind of insight that this society wants.
I'm not a virologist, Metakron.
And neither are you.
I don't have access to the journals in which these papers are posted.
And yet the abstracts and references to hiv are many and manifold.
Isolation this. Isolated that.
The paper I provided was merely one that came up on a pubmed search. The actual content of the paper was not important other than the portion quoted.
Where the virus came from. How they cultured it. Etc...
There is a virus, Metakron.
Scientists play with it every day.
They infect animals with it.
They culture it.
They take pictures of it.
They study its genome.
It's called hiv.
If it doesn't exist, then what are the scientists playing with?
Of course if I'm not a virologist, and they say something that obviously doesn't make sense, or is obviously or verifiably totally wrong, then they win, don't they?
They are playing with something, all right.
There really isn't a science of molecular biology anymore.
This kind of thing is so horribly moronic. The virus hunters can't see inside of whatever goop they make out of whatever samples they have, so they can't tell what's growing in it. They see p24, so they think they have HIV, even though p24 is manufactured by the human body and the virus allegedly, by some magical intelligent design, uses the protein to "disguise" itself from the immune system. And if the "culture" shows constant or declining levels of p24 that's OK too because the virus grows very slowly, especially with no cells to use to replicate.
And they can't even verify if their speculations about the structure of the virus are correct because they can't get into a virus to yank that reverse transcriptase out and prove it even came from within that little vesicle that you see in the electron micrographs.
But they passed their little dumbed-down classes and put up with the professors and did whatever they did to make it through classes, so they've got special vision that I will never have unless I gain access to instruments that haven't even been invented yet. Even if I gain that access and the instruments are accurate, and even if those instruments give you the exact molecular breakdown of whatever is in those samples, I'm still just a country hick with no qualifications so if anyone who has a degree says something that is so stupid that I will throw up on his shoes, I'm still wrong, aren't I?
what about this metakron?
does science have a virus that will induce AIDS in animals?
What I find interesting is that Meta expects peer review to prove AIDS exists, yet when his idol, Duesberg, wrote his dissent to the findings back in the 90's, he went through peer review and his proposals were proven to be wrong and the proof was there to prove him wrong. It is also interesting to note that since the 90's, when most of the articles on virusmyth.net were written, true denialists have disappeared and instead, lurk on conspiracy sites like virusmyth.
So Meta, why do you refuse to admit that he has made a mistake. Why hasn't Duesberg and the other denialists written any new theories to prove that HIV and AIDS does not exist? Why are YOU relying on information that is from the early to mid 90's, when it has been proven to be incorrect again and again.
Do you honestly think that when Duesberg came out with his theories that they were not investigated to see if they were true or not?
Why are you so intent on refusing to see the proof put directly in front of you repeatedly? Do you honestly think all the scientists around the world are in on some great conspiracy? What do you think is killing the millions in Africa, if its not AIDS? It's not the drugs as the Governments in Africa are also denialists and had turned their backs on getting their people the treatments they needed. So what disease is killing the millions in Africa?
So now you're going to look at the structure of the paragraphs in an attempt to say the disease does not exist? You posted the damn link yourself Meta. I was merely pointing out to you that even your link states that AIDS and HIV exist. You originally posted the link as evidence to your argument, but it appears you have again been caught short since the link supports the fact that AIDS and HIV do exist. So you attempt to look at the paragraph structure instead? Weak Meta, real weak.
Again, what are the people in Africa dying of if it's not AIDS as the tests have shown? After all, they aren't getting access to the medication, so AZT and prednisone is out, as well as other drugs used to keep it at bay. So what is it?
How would you know? Because 'virusmyth.net' said so? After all, you have admitted yourself you aren't a virologist or a biologist. So how do you know?
We have given you link upon link to sites disproving your claims that AIDS and HIV is a myth. All your questions have been answered repeatedly. The proof is there Meta. You just need to be willing to read through it and make up your own mind instead of relying on conspiracy sites to make up your mind for you.
I grew up in the 50s and 60s at a time when doctors and researchers alike wrote hundreds of reports with data and statistics which proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that too much salt in the diet caused high blood pressure.
Ya' know what? It took several decades for that "myth" to be overcome.
I also grew up in a time when thalidomide was touted as the new wonder drug by doctors and researchers alike. It was dispensed liberally with happiness and certainty.
Ya' know what? It took years to discover that thalidomide caused horrid birth defects.
If y'all simply believe everything that doctors and researchers say, then I feel very sorry for you. I'd also caution any of you that there is a continuing study all over the world into HIV and AIDS ...if everything were already known about it all, no one would be researching it anymore. Tomorrow, we're going to wake up to find that someone has "discovered" something new and exciting about HIV and/or AIDS. So don't count your chickens.....
"The proof is there... You just need to be willing to read through it and make up your own mind..."
Is it, Bells? ...like the research and proof about salt causing high blood pressure? Sorta' like that proof?
Science just manufactured a mouse that could get AIDS when exposed to "HIV." I know of no other models.
Actually, when Nature required the peer review, the peers found nothing wrong with his work. What you just said is a great example of either someone assuming too much or someone lying. There has been a lot of lying about AIDS, starting with Robert Gallo lying to the United States Congress about the existence of some of the samples that he claimed to have that allegedly helped prove that HIV caused disease. He should have been dismissed from the NIH right there and then, but look at him now, on the way to becoming a billionaire.
It is really strange that you have a name to call anyone who points out the flaws in the AIDS "theory." Why is that?
Separate names with a comma.