The thing that bothers me is why its vaguely called Aquired Immmune Deficiency, knowing fully well that any ailment is an aquired immune deficiency, even the common cold. A lot of people think drug companies don't make money from aids, I don't think so. Not everybody with aids becomes skinny and weak, most however look rather healthy, but have frequent headaches, cold, and influenza than normal. And they have got to take medicines to curb these symptoms. I don't know if the disease is synthetic or natural, I have absolutely no proof. There have been many disasterous ailments that have plagued empires, settlements, e.t.c. The Roman empire suffered from Malaria's death blow more than once. Its hard to say, what I do know is that certain people are taking advantage of the situation...and that is natural.
A.I.D.S. - Natural or Manmade?
- Thread starter darksidZz
- Start date
because i am not a scientist i have to rely on other things for proof besides studies.
in this case i'e already mentioned what i consider proof in this case, namely the lab animals and duesburgs refusal.
on a related note . . .
do you know who the libyan 11 are, and why they are in jail?
Well, in the latest flap about this, I started talking about how "AIDS" should not be defined as the disease that is caused by HIV. If HIV caused a type of AIDS, as in Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, it would be AIDS caused by HIV. This is just the same as calling a fever a "fever caused by a cold" or "a fever caused by the flu." An "AIDS" should be called "AIDS caused by radiation", "AIDS caused by drug use, including pharmaceutical drugs", or "AIDS caused by physical exhaustion," for examples.
The CDC website simply says that AIDS is the disease caused by HIV these days, which is downright wrong and wierd.
The CDC website simply says that AIDS is the disease caused by HIV these days, which is downright wrong and wierd.
I think its pretty much due to you offering no real evidence for your pet theory.
While the other side of *your* debate has more than enough evidence present to suggest that your theory doesn't hold water.
If you want evidence, then all you need do is ring one of the Universities worldwide that has done research into AIDS and ask a question to their lab guys about your conspiracy, however don't expect them to be easy to talk to. They might give you the run around since they are busy people and haven't the time to answer everybodies question about diseases etc.
Another reason for the thread being here is it's yet another thread on the same subject, it could of been shifted to the cesspool, however they've given you the common courtesy of keeping your topics in an active non-cesspool forum.(even if Sderenzi was responsible for the thread)
I wouldn't be suprised if they hope perhaps that you'll re-read the available scientific material and perhaps rethink what you see. Although stereotypically you'll probably feel you are in too deep and never be able to admit ever being wrong.
That is the thing though, it is merely an opinion and not actual Science.
I mean you haven't exactly got time in a lab and conducted any physical research, it's just a conspiracy theory over something that you don't have the full information on.
Most conspiracies are like that, the persons that construct them might mean well but due to not having the formal education or the opportunity to deal with experiments at a level where they can see their is no foul play that conspiracy will continue to muster.
That's why you are right to try and discuss it, you are right to try and understand it however you should draw absolute conclusions without more research, physical or academic.
One last thing, If you claim to know science then you should claim to no nothing. As true science is not conducted as a statement of "Fact" but the investigation of not knowing.
That objection doesn't even make sense. Your conclusion does not follow from your evidence. I get my evidence from people who have time in the lab and have done physical research, and their integrity was never in question until they went against the AIDS crowd.
... And these scientists are???
If they are truly credible, then they won't mind putting their names forwards so as to have people ask them questions about what evidence they have. Since after all the evidence would have to be pretty substantial to go again a planet load of scientists from different countries that have been working on the problem for a number of decades.
However I doubt I'm going to see a list emerge any time soon.
There is a long list.
From the very first, the AIDS people attacked and illegitimately discredited scientists who disbelieved in AIDS.There was plenty of legitimate reason to discredit Gallo, who was the big promoter of the HIV theory, and it somehow didn't take.
From the very first, the AIDS people attacked and illegitimately discredited scientists who disbelieved in AIDS.There was plenty of legitimate reason to discredit Gallo, who was the big promoter of the HIV theory, and it somehow didn't take.
Judging by what was written about Gallo, who's to say that his promotion of the theory was itself his theory to promote? That's pretty much the reason that you can't use Gallo to undermine the actual theory.
As in other theories, especially scientific ones, it doesn't matter who the discoverer is as long as they hold up to scientific critique.
I will promise I'll have a look through the "Against" lobbiest documents (Although Extremism in any viewpoint does have a habit of generating a negative response)
As in other theories, especially scientific ones, it doesn't matter who the discoverer is as long as they hold up to scientific critique.
I will promise I'll have a look through the "Against" lobbiest documents (Although Extremism in any viewpoint does have a habit of generating a negative response)
Reaching pretty goddam far here. Got bit by a monkey, then travelled to africa and screwed a bunch of people there? I don't buy it.
I suspect the first instances of HIV->aids happened pre 1950s in Africa, they did not know what the very few people whom got it back then , were dying from.
I suspect the first instances of HIV->aids happened pre 1950s in Africa, they did not know what the very few people whom got it back then , were dying from.
If you had been in this as long as I have, you would realize that the AIDS believers allow absolutely nothing to undermine their theory.
What "extremism"? Is it extremism to require that evidence be substantial?
Metakron. I believe this extremism is due to the fact that aids is a very real phenomon and has been created through the natural process of our lifes. I take it that this newfound evidence sits with you well... The evidence for aids is in your face. What evidence are you seeking? Death?
If it were a very real phenomenon it would not have a group of rabid fans who give people like me the run-around, who lie, disrupt, and act like five year old children.
I hear you brother!