AIDS denial is immoral

[leopold]

There were no lab animals that could be infected with HIV and develop disease until those mice that were just invented, Leopold.

this proves AIDS is a reality. it isn't a hoax or a figment of someones imagination.
it also suggests that AIDS is related to a persons genetics.

They are looking for immune deficiency, not abnormal cell growth.

i believe this to be a noble cause, don't you?

 

[invert_nexus]

There were no lab animals that could be infected with HIV and develop disease until those mice that were just invented, Leopold.

What makes you think that?

 

[MetaKron]

this proves AIDS is a reality. it isn't a hoax or a figment of someones imagination.
it also suggests that AIDS is related to a persons genetics.


i believe this to be a noble cause, don't you?

The whole system of "AIDS" that we have now is a hoax. A reasonable definition of AIDS is not a hoax, but it is pretty much redundant because "immune suppression" was already in the vocabulary.

What harm does it do? Almost every cause of immune suppression can be treated. The "AIDS children" recover when they are fed and when they recieve water. Malaria and tuberculosis are treatable and the technology for that is common. Some need bone marrow transplants. Others need simple vitamins that they can buy in almost any grocery store, Walgreens, or Walmart. Not knowing that their sickness can be treated denies a lot of people the right treatments.

The known diseases and treatments are now ignored, not that there was enough care given to them before.

And then the medications can cause illness and death in healthy people. This includes immune suppression, diabetes, strokes, and heart attacks.

What "noble cause" are we after again?

 

[leopold]

The whole system of "AIDS" that we have now is a hoax.

the lab results you mentioned seem to say differently.

A reasonable definition of AIDS is not a hoax, but it is pretty much redundant because "immune suppression" was already in the vocabulary.

could AIDS research potentially benefit thousands?

What harm does it do? Almost every cause of immune suppression can be treated.

i believe that is the basis of the research anyway. to find a cure for this "disease".

The "AIDS children" recover when they are fed and when they recieve water.

shouldn't this be prefaced by "some of . . ."?

Malaria and tuberculosis are treatable and the technology for that is common.
Some need bone marrow transplants. Others need simple vitamins that they can buy in almost any grocery store, Walgreens, or Walmart. Not knowing that their sickness can be treated denies a lot of people the right treatments.

who gives a shit about malaria and TB, the discussion is about AIDS/HIV.

The known diseases and treatments are now ignored, not that there was enough care given to them before.

And then the medications can cause illness and death in healthy people. This includes immune suppression, diabetes, strokes, and heart attacks.

can't asperin and penicillan cause death in people?
you gonna outlaw them next?

What "noble cause" are we after again?

what causes immune disease, you know, AIDS?

 

[Bells]

What harm does it do? Almost every cause of immune suppression can be treated. The "AIDS children" recover when they are fed and when they recieve water. Malaria and tuberculosis are treatable and the technology for that is common. Some need bone marrow transplants. Others need simple vitamins that they can buy in almost any grocery store, Walgreens, or Walmart. Not knowing that their sickness can be treated denies a lot of people the right treatments.

I had sworn to myself that I was going to stay away from your conspiracy theories due to their basically ridiculous nature. And then I read this little gem of yours above.

Are you for real?

So you honestly think the "cure" for AIDS is some vitamin pills and a good balanced diet? My only hope at the moment is that you are not in a position of influence over others who might be insane enough to take you seriously and ignore actual treatment and follow your "cure".

 

[MetaKron]

"AIDS research" was in better shape 20 years ago, Leopold. The best treatments for immune deficiency included treating any underlying disease like malaria or tuberculosis, or improved nutrition. You may not realize just how badly nutritional deficiencies have affected humanity. Most of humanity does not live in a modern world where you can buy a large variety of foods and food supplements at the grocery store.

 

[MetaKron]

I had sworn to myself that I was going to stay away from your conspiracy theories due to their basically ridiculous nature. And then I read this little gem of yours above.

Are you for real?

So you honestly think the "cure" for AIDS is some vitamin pills and a good balanced diet? My only hope at the moment is that you are not in a position of influence over others who might be insane enough to take you seriously and ignore actual treatment and follow your "cure".

I wish that you weren't.

 

[invert_nexus]

If wishes were fishes, we'd all cast nets...

 

[leopold]

metakron.
what possible benefit is to be had from AIDS research?
it has to be of some importance wouldn't you say?

i guess my next question would be "would medicine benefit if it knew how to control the immune system with a pill"?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Metakron

You cannot recover from AIDS at this moment.

AIDS leads to various diseases that often can be treated. But that is not the same as recovering from AIDS. In our society people it is possible not to realize you have AIDS even when you T cells have dropped really low because many infectious diseases can easily be fought with modern medicin.

There is no real recovery from AIDS at the moment. Just postponing. If you take the drugs. Otherwise it is a predictable slope downwards as can be seen in patients untreated for their HIV infection. T cells just going down to zero and opportunistic infections killing you in the end.

Your whole position is immoral. You are the perfect example of why I started this thread. You come with bullshit statements you cannot back up and pretend there is no problem.

You are the problem.

 

[theTooth]

Not possible. No one has isolated the virus.

Sorry for answering a bit late - HIV virus has been isolated long time ago, as far as I know Duisberg&Co claim that it's harmless.
Do you also deny the AIDS as such?

 

[Sauna]

You cannot recover from AIDS at this moment.
...

There is no real recovery from AIDS at the moment. Just postponing.

Alternative thesis:

That culpably ignorant belilef kills more people than the virus, with the power of suggestion:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4432564.stm

Mr Stimpson told the News of the World and Mail on Sunday that he became depressed and suicidal after being told he was HIV-positive but remained well and did not require medication.

....

He sought compensation but has apparently been told there is no case to answer because there was no fault with the testing procedure.

.....

Aids expert Dr Patrick Dixon, from international Aids group Acet, said the case was "very, very unusual".

"I've come across many anecdotal reports of this kind of thing happening in Africa, some quite recently, but it's difficult to verify them,"

How convenient then that when people do recover the morally obsessed "experts" conspire to deny it with their "belief":

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20051118/ai_n15853391

In the name of science, HIV as a cause of AIDS is proved when and only when substantial tests are conducted under proper control, double blind, with some subjects with HIV and told so, some with HIV but not told so, and some told so but not with HIV, and in each instance with HIV detected or eliminated per se, not just the antibodies.

Short of that it is all conjecture, guilt by association, and rampant speculation, with horribly obvious reasons to conspire:

Put it all together, the Politicians and Heath care workers keen to deny their own responsibility for poor social and political conditions, plus the patients keen to be excused from their own personal indaquacies, plus the mass media keen to make much of the slightest of memes, and there you go with a noxious cocktail, all but inevitably infectious.

2500 years ago it was already understood that the human mind itself is the cause and the salvation of all our suffering and all else is no more than an agent of it, while any other version of it adds only to the woe of it.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow


The role of victim or victor is a choice that we make, and the question is then as clear as this:

In all truth do these these so called experts really want to make more or less of a victim of you?

 

[Sauna]

You are indeed the problem

Life and death are what they are.

Harm is defined and done by people.

You cannot recover from AIDS at this moment.
...

There is no real recovery from AIDS at the moment. Just postponing.

Alternative thesis:

That culpably ignorant belilef kills more people than the virus, with the power of suggestion:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4432564.stm

Mr Stimpson told the News of the World and Mail on Sunday that he became depressed and suicidal after being told he was HIV-positive but remained well and did not require medication.

....

He sought compensation but has apparently been told there is no case to answer because there was no fault with the testing procedure.

.....

Aids expert Dr Patrick Dixon, from international Aids group Acet, said the case was "very, very unusual".

"I've come across many anecdotal reports of this kind of thing happening in Africa, some quite recently, but it's difficult to verify them,"

How convenient then that when people do recover the morally obsessed "experts" conspire to deny it with their "belief":

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20051118/ai_n15853391

In the name of science, HIV as a cause of AIDS is proved when and only when substantial tests are conducted under proper control, double blind, with some subjects with HIV and told so, some with HIV but not told so, and some told so but not with HIV, and in each instance with HIV detected or eliminated per se, not just the antibodies.

Short of that it is all conjecture, guilt by association, and rampant speculation, with horribly obvious reasons to conspire:

Put it all together, the Politicians and Heath care workers keen to deny their own responsibility for poor social and political conditions, plus the patients keen to be excused from their own personal indaquacies, plus the mass media keen to make much of the slightest of memes, and there you go with a noxious cocktail, all but inevitably infectious.

2500 years ago it was already understood that the human mind itself is the cause and the salvation of all our suffering and all else is no more than an agent of it, while any other version of it adds only to the woe of it.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow


The role of victim or victor is a choice that we make, and the question is then as clear as this:

In all truth do these these so called experts really want to make more or less of a victim of you?

Do they empower you or themselves?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

You were gone remember? No point talking to someone who is deleted. Or did your vile nature bring you back? Shouldn't it all be water under the bridge?


Anyway, do you know what the word 'unusual' means? Apparently not.

not usual, common, or ordinary; uncommon in amount or degree; exceptional

An exceptional case. And you want to base some kind of argument on that? One exceptional case and you want to tell people it's all ok to have HIV? That the usual route from HIV infection to AIDS to death is not a matter to worry about because there are exceptional cases when HIV can disappear?

Aids expert Dr Patrick Dixon, from international Aids group Acet, said the case was "very, very unusual".

Or as the man himself said it:

Mr Stimpson, who is originally from Largs in Ayrshire, said: "There are 34.9 million people with HIV globally and I am just one person who managed to control it, to survive from it and to get rid of it from my body.

It's very very exceptional.

But your negativity won again. Had to come back. Like an opportunistic infection in an AIDS patient.

 

[Sauna]

You were gone remember? No point talking to someone who is deleted. Or did your vile nature bring you back? Shouldn't it all be water under the bridge?
Anyway, do you know what the word 'unusual' means? Apparently not.
An exceptional case. And you want to base some kind of argument on that? One exceptional case and you want to tell people it's all ok to have HIV? That the usual route from HIV infection to AIDS to death is not a matter to worry about because there are exceptional cases when HIV can disappear?

The issue was the cause of AIDS, not the merit of HIV, which never did anything anyway but beg the question of what is the cause of HIV.

Already we knew well enough what is usual, the usual resort to ad hominem abuse and the straw man argument demonstrating yet again that your own attitude is the disease, never mind the truth of it.

It is logically invalid to argue in effect to claim to have proved the negative, that people never recover from an HIV infection, because you never know how many were infected except that it then cleared up before they were tested.

 

[Sauna]

You were gone remember? No point talking to someone who is deleted. Or did your vile nature bring you back? Shouldn't it all be water under the bridge?
Anyway, do you know what the word 'unusual' means? Apparently not.
An exceptional case. And you want to base some kind of argument on that? One exceptional case and you want to tell people it's all ok to have HIV? That the usual route from HIV infection to AIDS to death is not a matter to worry about because there are exceptional cases when HIV can disappear?

The issue was the cause of AIDS, not the merit of HIV, which never did anything anyway but beg the question of what is the cause of HIV.

Already we knew well enough what is usual, the usual resort to ad hominem abuse and the straw man argument demonstrating yet again that your own attitude is the disease, never mind the truth of it.

It is logically invalid to claim to have proved the negative, that people never recover from an HIV infection, because you never know how many were infected except that it then cleared up before they were tested.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

The issue was the cause of AIDS, not the merit of HIV, which never did anything anyway but beg the question of what is the cause of HIV.

Already we knew well enough what is usual, the usual resort to ad hominem abuse and the straw man argument demonstrating yet again that your own attitude is the disease, never mind the truth of it.

It is logically invalid to claim to have proved the negative, that people never recover from an HIV infection, because you never know how many were infected except that it then cleared up before they were tested.

Don't pretend you understand reality by using the logic strawman.

If 34 million cases of HIV infection are not reversed and one is (because of apparently some specific quality of his immunesystem) that still means HIV cannot be reversed.

You can't reverse it for the other 34 million cases. Let's send them all to your house tomorrow and you can reverse their HIV infection with your 'infallible' logic. That's called reality.

 

[Sauna]

Don't pretend you understand reality by using the logic strawman.

If 34 million cases of HIV infection are not reversed and one is (because of apparently some specific quality of his immunesystem) that still means HIV cannot be reversed.

You can't reverse it for the other 34 million cases. Let's send them all to your house tomorrow and you can reverse their HIV infection with your 'infallible' logic. That's called reality.

There we go then, as usual, one fallacy piled upon another, fantasy invoked in the name of reality.

That is what the AIDS thing was like from the start, like they'd never be happy until the entire Gay population and most of Africa was wiped out to prove them right. Too bad then that their dire predictions never actually came to pass.

As yet we have seen no particular evidence of apparently some specific quality of his immune system, that of the patient in question, and if there were we'd be right to expect to see the evidence presented, would we not?

The patient had rather come to his senses, with one frighteningly awful medical experience already under his bridge, he prefers to avoid any more of the same, so much the better for him and his own personal welfare.

The plain logic of the issue thus remains: Notwithstanding 34 billion other cases, or however many more, if but one was reversed and officially endorsed as such, then it can be reversed.

One should also be pleased to know how many HIV caces survive but are not again tested, because of the very assumption of being inevitably stuck with it, or because of the same brave reluctance to suffer from medical opinion.

Until such as a time as the testing is compulsory the issue is presumably open, not closed, and science will get to be believed, as usual, when it is seen to have told the truth, not because of its own estimation of the size of its prick.

We also patiently await the explanation of what the cause of HIV is supposed to be.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Just reread my last post if you want to see your boring repeat statement refuted.

We also patiently await the explanation of what the cause of HIV is supposed to be.

The cause of HIV?

To multiply.

 

[invert_nexus]

Yes. There are some small percentage of people who are immune to the virus because of a mutation in their ccr5 gene.

11-19. Genetic deficiency of the macrophage chemokine co-receptor for HIV confers resistance to HIV infection in vivo.

Further evidence for the importance of chemokine receptors in HIV infection has come from studies in a small group of individuals with high-risk exposure to HIV-1 but who remain seronegative. Cultures of lymphocytes and macrophages from these people were relatively resistant to macrophage-tropic HIV infection and were found to secrete high levels of RANTES, MIP-1α and MIP-1β in response to inoculation with HIV. In other experiments, the addition of these same chemokines to lymphocytes sensitive to HIV blocked their infection because of competition between these CC chemokines and the virus for the cell-surface receptor CCR5.

The resistance of these rare individuals to HIV infection has now been explained by the discovery that they are homozygous for an allelic, nonfunctional variant of CCR5 caused by a 32-base-pair deletion from the coding region that leads to a frameshift and truncation of the translated protein. The gene frequency of this mutant allele in Caucasoid populations is quite high at 0.09 (meaning that about 10% of the Caucasoid population are heterozygous carriers of the allele and about 1% are homozygous). The mutant allele has not been found in Japanese or black Africans from Western or Central Africa. Heterozygous deficiency of CCR5 might provide some protection against sexual transmission of HIV infection and a modest reduction in the rate of progression of the disease. In addition to the structural polymorphism of the gene, variation of the promoter region of the CCR5 gene has been found in both Caucasian and African Americans. Different promoter variants were associated with different rates of progression of disease.

These results provide a dramatic confirmation of experimental work suggesting that CCR5 is the major macrophage and T-lymphocyte co-receptor used by HIV to establish primary infection in vivo, and offers the possibility that primary infection might be blocked by therapeutic antagonists of the CCR5 receptor. Indeed, there is preliminary evidence that low molecular weight inhibitors of this receptor can block infection of macrophages by HIV in vitro. Such low molecular weight inhibitors might be the precursors of useful drugs that could be taken by mouth. Such drugs are very unlikely to provide complete protection against infection, as a very small number of individuals who are homozygous for the nonfunctional variant of CCR5 are infected with HIV. These individuals seem to have suffered from primary infection by CXCR4-using strains of the virus.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=imm.section.1518

So?
There are also a small percentage of people who seem to be immune to the virus through other methods:

Of particular interest are rare groups of people who have been exposed often enough to HIV to make it virtually certain that they should have become infected but who have not developed the disease. In some cases this is due to an inherited deficiency in the chemokine receptor used as co-receptor for HIV entry, as we explained in Section 11-19. However, this mutant chemokine receptor does not occur in Africa, where one such group has been identified. A small group of Gambian and Kenyan prostitutes who are estimated to have been exposed to many HIV-infected male partners each month for up to 5 years were found to lack antibody responses but to have cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses to a variety of peptide epitopes from HIV. These women seem to have been naturally immunized against HIV.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=imm.section.1518

I know that you seem to think that you're refuting aids science or something with your lone example of someone who's beaten the system.
You're not.
These people are not ignored and pushed aside. On the contrary. They're studied extensively.

The plain logic of the issue thus remains: Notwithstanding 34 billion other cases, or however many more, if but one was reversed and officially endorsed as such, then it can be reversed.

It wasn't reversed...
Are you trying to say that he simply started eating his wheaties and he cured his aids?
Get real.

But, anyway. Yes.
It is certainly hoped that a method can be found to halt the progression of the virus. Even to stop it altogether and to reverse it.
It is certainly possible.
What do you think aids research is about?
Hello...?



Heh.
Anyway.
Feel better after your little drama of deletion frenzy?
It was really relaxing for us to watch.
Heh.
Bringing home the bacon or anything?