AIDS denial is immoral

Sputnik said:
Ad hominem .... hmmmm - your mind is now working in mysterious ways ...
Straw men - talking about ad hominem .......I guess you are saying I am part of the conspiracy .... or perhaps working with the mods .......I wish I was paid 200000 $ , but , alas , that is not the case :p
Click to expand...

:bugeye:

Not so mysterious if you bother to read what was actually written instead of superimposing yet again a straw man fantasy in the name of reality.
 
theTooth said:
Common sense and statistic of big numbers just can't be ignored. All the drug testing include placebo. If placebo would be working, then why develop xy generation of drugs instead of just giving the patients some drug looking candies?
Click to expand...

Common sense? Ask yourself, why would anyone want to verify that the drug tests were done correctly? Could it be because someone might not do the tests correctly?

John Lauritsen did some research and had to submit Freedom of Information Act requests to find out what really happened at the AZT trials, and wrote it up.

He got the information in the article from FDA researchers and FDA papers, but there are people here who would have you believe that all of this information is false because it comes from the kind of source that they don't want you to believe in. The placebo group and the drug using group got mixed. Both groups had members who had to have transfusions to treat life-threatening anemia. I haven't seen a line of BS yet to tell us that HIV also causes loss of red blood cells, but the BSers haven't read this post yet, either. One of the things that this does is confirm the fact that some of the participants were trading drugs and placebos.

It is of great concern that the federal government was OK with all of the improprieties surrounding the tests. It takes a special kind of mind to salvage any useful information from such a botched test, and that's one of the problems that some people here have with me. I don't have that special kind of mind. To me the data is too dirty to be salvaged. So are the ethics of the researchers.
 
In other words, lay off the "dangerous person" shit. It's just another ad hominen attack. If I used infractions you would have one right now.
 
Sputnik said:
Why .........., are you by any chance threatening me ???

What will happen, if I do not lay off ??
Click to expand...

If you are as intelligent as you pretend to be, you would have understood my last two message. Now, do you have any sort of information to convey that actually addresses the fucking TOPIC?
 
MetaKron said:
If you are as intelligent as you pretend to be, you would have understood my last two message.
Click to expand...

I think I have understood everything almost to well - but please feel free to elaborate - I am quite sure everyone here at Scifo is VERY interested in the deeper meanings of your last messages ........ especially in regards to whether you are a potentially dangerous person or not ............

Any further postings about this subject is pointless , since it is not possible to convince all people with scientific reasons .......... and I do not resort to unscientific reasons myself ...........
 
Sputnik, you have already resorted to unscientific reasons. It is proof that you cannot actually debate the topic.
 
It's interesting, I think, that some people here are adamant about believing the research on HIV and AIDS, yet some of those same people will NOT believe other scientific research on other topics ....such as the dangers of illegal drug use, or global warming, El Nino effects, or....

I mean, if we should believe one research subject, how can we not believe other research topics in the very same way, for the very same reason?

Baron Max
 
What are you talking about, Baron Max?

Belief or disbelief in scientific matters ought to be based on evidence. The evidence for global warming is very different from the evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Both sets of evidence must be separately assessed on their merits.

Science isn't a game of bowing to authority, and it is not "all or nothing". Believing every idea you come across is not science - it's more like religion - or conspiracy theory.
 
Baron Max said:
It's interesting, I think, that some people here are adamant about believing the research on HIV and AIDS, yet some of those same people will NOT believe other scientific research on other topics ....such as the dangers of illegal drug use, or global warming, El Nino effects, or....

I mean, if we should believe one research subject, how can we not believe other research topics in the very same way, for the very same reason?

Baron Max
Click to expand...

Some people only want to believe some research on AIDS. I want to believe what can actually be verified scientifically. Any negative impact by HIV upon anything cannot be verified. It can be speculated and inferred, which is not enough. Supporters can make mincemeat of people's reputations using lame excuses, and that is a complete non-starter with me.

Results that appear to be totally valid are rejected by supporters of AIDS Inc because they don't support the conclusion that HIV causes disease. I find this insupportable.
 
James R said:
What are you talking about, Baron Max?

Belief or disbelief in scientific matters ought to be based on evidence. The evidence for global warming is very different from the evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Both sets of evidence must be separately assessed on their merits.

Science isn't a game of bowing to authority, and it is not "all or nothing". Believing every idea you come across is not science - it's more like religion - or conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

"They" have made the belief in AIDS a matter of bowing to authority. That is just one of the ways that "they" have lost credibility.
 
MetaKron said:
"They" have made the belief in AIDS a matter of bowing to authority. That is just one of the ways that "they" have lost credibility.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree ...or so it seems. But the question is ..do they bow to that same/similar authority on any and all research? And if not, then....?

Baron Max
 
Common sense tells me to follow the money.

People think that the Nationalised Health Services are independent but that is far from the case.

Hospital Laboratories do extra work for private firms. Selected staff are paid handsomely for the weekend overtime involved (as compared to their usual rate) while their bosses are taken out for the liquid lunch. Money changes hands to gain favor.

Does anybody else here remember when one respectable scientist after another was wheeled out to parrot to the effect that tobacco was safe to smoke?

I am not going to say that it this proves anything one way or another, except to retort to some of those who poo poo at the talk of conspiracy as if to claim some sort of monopoly on the comprehension or ordinary reality. It rather appears from here that they've a lot yet to learn about the way that it really works, with doctors and other public employees desperately stretched to grab whatever they may by way of financial support.
 
Last edited:
Baron Max said:
Yeah, I agree ...or so it seems. But the question is ..do they bow to that same/similar authority on any and all research? And if not, then....?

Baron Max
Click to expand...

And if so, we are so screwed.

Do you realize that actual experiments have shown the easy way to turn mad cow proteins to normal ones? Within limits, copper supplements work by displacing the manganese. "Authority" has decided otherwise. The upside is that humans have very little chance of contracting the human version as long as they are in contact with copper.
 
Sauna said:
Common sense tells me to follow the money.

People think that the Nationalised Health Services are independent but that is far from the case.

Hospital Laboratories do extra work for private firms. Selected staff are paid handsomely for the weekend overtime involved (as compared to their usual rate) while their bosses are taken out for the liquid lunch. Money changes hands to gain favor.

Does anybody else here remember when one respectable scientist after another was wheeled out to parrot to the effect that tobacco was safe to smoke?

I am not going to say that it this proves anything one way way or another, except to retort to some of those who poo poo at the talk of conspiracy as if to claim some sort of monopoly on the comprehension or ordinary reality. It rather appears from here that they've a lot yet to learn about the way that it really works, with doctors and other public employees desperately stretched to grab whatever they may by way of financial support.
Click to expand...

Everyone says that the conspiracies aren't in place this week.
 
Baron Max said:
It's interesting, I think, that some people here are adamant about believing the research on HIV and AIDS, yet some of those same people will NOT believe other scientific research on other topics ....such as the dangers of illegal drug use, or global warming, El Nino effects, or....

I mean, if we should believe one research subject, how can we not believe other research topics in the very same way, for the very same reason?

Baron Max
Click to expand...

Jesus christ on a stick max,

I already answered you twice on this and every time you just ignore it.

You don't have to believe in the authority of scientists. You can pull their papers and judge the data for yourself. That's what real scientists do to. They don't believe something because some other scientists says so. They pull the paper and check the data to see if what the other scientist is saying is warranted by the data. No authority involved whatsoever.

So please refrain from your authority argument in the future. It don't want to write the same answer a fourth time.
 
MetaKron said:
Common sense? Ask yourself, why would anyone want to verify that the drug tests were done correctly? Could it be because someone might not do the tests correctly?

John Lauritsen did some research and had to submit Freedom of Information Act requests to find out what really happened at the AZT trials, and

He got the information in the article from FDA researchers and FDA papers, but there are people here who would have you believe that all of this information is false because it comes from the kind of source that they don't want you to believe in. The placebo group and the drug using group got mixed. Both groups had members who had to have transfusions to treat life-threatening anemia. I haven't seen a line of BS yet to tell us that HIV also causes loss of red blood cells, but the BSers haven't read this post yet, either. One of the things that this does is confirm the fact that some of the participants were trading drugs and placebos.

It is of great concern that the federal government was OK with all of the improprieties surrounding the tests. It takes a special kind of mind to salvage any useful information from such a botched test, and that's one of the problems that some people here have with me. I don't have that special kind of mind. To me the data is too dirty to be salvaged. So are the ethics of the researchers.
Click to expand...

The statistics alone tells you that obviously antihiv drugs help if you have an increase in number of infected people and decrease of mortality. And if antihiv drugs help, then even to the greatest sceptics the cause of AIDS should be clear.
Let's not get lost - if the only thing that is helping to the patients is the placebo effect, why toxic drugs? Do you really believe the reserchers in big pharma are not able to interpret their own test results correctly at least for themselves?
The ethics of the big pharma is clear - they want profit. If they create a dangerous drug, they loose a lot of money, so if all there is to antihiv drugs that work is placebo effect, then why don't make one without the side effects?
Cruising over the net I have found very interesting ideas regarding healing hiv infection, but since it's hard to make a profit on them, it's no wonder the big pharma is not working on them, after all they are business enterprises, not welfare organizations - I'm sure if you were a shareholder in on of them, you would prefer a nice dividend and a share to grow - not the red numbers and "world peace" causes.:D
If you want big pharma to do substantial things faster, you should change a bit their environment - shorten the period of patent protection and cancel the possibility to patent the same substance for more then one patent period.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top