AIDS denial is immoral

http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/Chem101/hiv/tcells-hiv.jpg

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Huwy, aren't you glad that we have people with special eyes that can look at such pictures and tell us exactly what those particles are and what they are doing?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Chemotherapy often does kill people instead of the cancer. Are you aware of how many people are prescribed chemotherapy for cancers that aren't helped by chemotherapy? Are you aware of how dangerous those drugs are?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

this would seem to prove that AIDS is a reality, not a figment of someones imagination.

 

Immune deficiency I've never had a problem with. It's HIV as a cause that I have a problem with.

 

you say this, then you say this:

it seems that AIDS is a reality, that scientists can produce AIDS in animals on command with the HIV virus.

 

That is IF these animals actually contract AIDS because of the virus. They may have discovered a way to manipulate gene expression so that it is keyed to something in whatever it is they give them that they think is the HIV virus.

The biggest problem is that they never discovered a natural response to the alleged virus that occurred consistently. The reason that they have to manufacture these mice is because they never proved that the alleged virus causes any sort of illness consistently.

 

is all of this lie?
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2004report/default.htm

 

Unfortunately, it is.

 

Unfortunately we have to take Metakron's word for it. Which seems to contradict the evidence.

 

It's actually because mice don't express cd4, ccr5, and cxcr4.
Mice are nice lab animals to work with because of their size and short generation size. Many discoveries using mice are able to be utilized in human research.
Unfortunately for aids research, mice are poorly susceptible to hiv, thus other methods have had to be used to study the virus.

Personally, I'm a touch leery about the aids infectable mice... if the mutated gene should get out in the common population... yikes.
But, then again, I don't suppose people often swap body fluids with mice so it seems worse than it is. One fears rat-spread illness with a shudder for the memory of the bubonic plague. But, the means of communicability were a bit different in that circumstance.

 

The whole HIV thing has been manufactured, so why not some mice to go with it?

 

There was no technology to manufacture HIV back then. You could check that out for yourself if you weren't trapped in your own beliefs.

 

There was technology back then to manufacture bullshit stories.

 

Well - this is the final answer I will give you .....
I am getting a bit tired of reading about this topic, in different threads here
on Scifo ...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The resistance against HIV causing Aids , started slowly, but got momentum in 1995 , when the Nobel Prize winner in chemistry 1993: Karry Mullis , claimed that HIV was NOT the cause of AIDS ....

Later that year, he was one of the expert wittnesses , that got O.J.Simpson off the hook in 1995, when Simpson stood trial for a doublemurder , with his DNA tests ....... Simpson was later found liable for their deaths at civil court ....

Kary also says that " humans do not contribute to global warming "

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Most links about "HIV not causing Aids" , that I have seen, is from the period from 1995 to 2002 ........ I do not recall any links after 2002 , but I am sure there might be some ...

In the beginning , they actually had a point , but lost ground steadily - and after JANUARY 2004 , where scientists at Florida State University NOT ONLY ISOLATED HIV, but ALSO got THE FIRST REALLY GOOD LOOK AT THE HIV - by rotating it, in an Electron Microscope and taking 35 pictures of it at different angels , suddenly getting the first perfect and true understanding of its surface structure - then suddenly scientists, for some reason - stopped doubting ....

Except apparantly for a few die hards ............

End of story - next topic, please :m:

http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/29/mullis/

http://www.fsu.com/pages/2004/01/21/aids_virus_research.html

Please notice , that the video link on last link , is about another discovery about HIV in 2003 (not 2004) ...

 

all this stuff also a lie?
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/cgi... Testing&topic=HIV Testing Rate - Ever Tested

 

Even if I granted that they isolated it in 2004, which I don't, what about the claims for the validity of a test that was in use for about twenty years before that?

 

They could be telling the truth about who reported being tested.

 

bio-engineering, dontcha just love it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You're a real genius, Sputnik. Look at what you've brought into the conversation as proof of the existence of HIV disease. It's a hatchet job by some hack writer who calls himself "William Speed Weed."

And now there are boundaries of professional knowledge that should be respected?

Science can't afford to step out on limbs of revolutionary thought? Oh, please. People love that stuff.