Oh?
And you'll be more than happy, I'm sure, to provide a source for this revelation of yours?
Or do you prefer to further the pretense by mimicking the methods as well as the message of Metakron et al?
AIDS denial is immoral
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
Oh?
And you'll be more than happy, I'm sure, to provide a source for this revelation of yours?
Or do you prefer to further the pretense by mimicking the methods as well as the message of Metakron et al?
I withdraw the comment.
There were not one but two, also this:
from the self appointed mind reader whose forte is to put words into other people's mouths while complaining should anybody else dare to do the same to him.
It is deliberately impertinent, inflammatory and insulting, the mischief of a typical troll, not ethical.
Desist.
Grow up.
This is about attitude and responsibility.
The essential facts of the matter are clear enough to anybody with a few minutes to spend on google.com
Is there something to valid to discuss, a controversy amongst the scientific community?
Yes, of course there is.
Is HIV reversible; is death all but inevitable post infection?
Google for "AIDS seroreversion".
There were not one but two, also this:
from the self appointed mind reader whose forte is to put words into other people's mouths while complaining should anybody else dare to do the same to him.
It is deliberately impertinent, inflammatory and insulting, the mischief of a typical troll, not ethical.
Desist.
Grow up.
This is about attitude and responsibility.
The essential facts of the matter are clear enough to anybody with a few minutes to spend on google.com
Is there something to valid to discuss, a controversy amongst the scientific community?
Yes, of course there is.
Is HIV reversible; is death all but inevitable post infection?
Google for "AIDS seroreversion".
Heh.
Are you at it again?
Deleting posts?
Gonna have to start calling you An>roid v.3 after the forum's other famous post deleter. He finally outgrew it though.
Well, if you decide to delete your entire post history again, at least it won't take you 4 hours, right?
I mean, the hard work is already out of the way.
(I really like how you did it twice though. That was hilarious. First going through them all and editing "deleted" into the post. Then going through them all again to delete the posts entire. Funny stuff. Especially considering your claim that none of this is important and how you only want to bring home the bacon or whatever you were rambling about... Funny guy you are. Anyway. Bye bye then.)
Are you at it again?
Deleting posts?
Gonna have to start calling you An>roid v.3 after the forum's other famous post deleter. He finally outgrew it though.
Well, if you decide to delete your entire post history again, at least it won't take you 4 hours, right?
I mean, the hard work is already out of the way.
(I really like how you did it twice though. That was hilarious. First going through them all and editing "deleted" into the post. Then going through them all again to delete the posts entire. Funny stuff. Especially considering your claim that none of this is important and how you only want to bring home the bacon or whatever you were rambling about... Funny guy you are. Anyway. Bye bye then.)
I withdraw the comment.
There were not one but two, also this:
from the self appointed mind reader whose forte is to put words into other people's mouths while complaining should anybody else dare to do the same to him.
It is deliberately impertinent, inflammatory and insulting, the mischief of a typical troll, not ethical.
Desist.
Grow up.
This is about attitude and responsibility.
The essential facts of the matter are clear enough to anybody with a few minutes to spend on google.com
Is there something to valid to discuss, a controversy amongst the scientific community?
Yes, of course there is.
Is HIV reversible; is death all but inevitable post infection?
Google for "AIDS seroreversion".
There were not one but two, also this:
from the self appointed mind reader whose forte is to put words into other people's mouths while complaining should anybody else dare to do the same to him.
It is deliberately impertinent, inflammatory and insulting, the mischief of a typical troll, not ethical.
Desist.
Grow up.
This is about attitude and responsibility.
The essential facts of the matter are clear enough to anybody with a few minutes to spend on google.com
Is there something to valid to discuss, a controversy amongst the scientific community?
Yes, of course there is.
Is HIV reversible; is death all but inevitable post infection?
Google for "AIDS seroreversion".
I withdraw the comment.
There were not one but two, also this:
from the self appointed mind reader whose forte is to put words into other people's mouths while complaining should anybody else dare to do the same to him.
It is deliberately impertinent, inflammatory and insulting, the mischief of a typical troll, not ethical.
Desist.
Grow up.
This is about attitude and responsibility.
The essential facts of the matter are clear enough to anybody with a few minutes to spend on google.com
Is there something to valid to discuss, a controversy amongst the scientific community?
Yes, of course there is.
Is HIV reversible; is death all but inevitable post infection?
Google for "AIDS seroreversion".
There were not one but two, also this:
from the self appointed mind reader whose forte is to put words into other people's mouths while complaining should anybody else dare to do the same to him.
It is deliberately impertinent, inflammatory and insulting, the mischief of a typical troll, not ethical.
Desist.
Grow up.
This is about attitude and responsibility.
The essential facts of the matter are clear enough to anybody with a few minutes to spend on google.com
Is there something to valid to discuss, a controversy amongst the scientific community?
Yes, of course there is.
Is HIV reversible; is death all but inevitable post infection?
Google for "AIDS seroreversion".
Ah.
The google scholar.
Quite.
However...you are..which means that you're a joke.
You forgot AIDS.
Kind of like what you're suggesting we do with AIDS?
I have worked for government funded establishments so I happen know something about the way that they work, or fail to work. I am thinking about staff moonlighting to do private work during the time that they were paid to be officially employed. I am thinking of whole afternoons and days absent because nobody was bothering to check, with near zero accountability apart from some BS exercise once every few months to keep up appearances. I am thinking about corner cutting and book fiddling of the sort to make the hair stand on end.
I was young then and turned a blind eye the same as everybody else around; found other things to do and got on with that, but it stayed with me and it plays on the mind, enough to put a word in every now and then about it if not to hope to change the World.
It sickens and scares me to see this poo pooing of those who might hope to keep an eye open.
The morbiditiy statistics serve well to tell me what the current fashion is, the state of opinion, but I have seen nothing yet to validate them as much more than that. Science would require a rigorous definition of AIDS, of the sort that I have not yet seen anywhere. It doesn't matter how careful the count, if what they're counting is fog, then that is the result, foggy. Health workers supposed to be at risk themselves are not even routinely tested for HIV. It is a sad farce. The study samples are small. They've barely scratched the surface.
I believe that the very question is disingenuous. If they're to be trusted so much, lets abandon any attempt to regulate governmentally, lets abandon the pretence of peer review, lets just let them get on with it and tell us whatever they like. Is that what you want?
Not so long as you allow them to blame it on something else.
They're paid for the sale of the product and BS, and not even by the patients themselves.
The tobacco companies poisoned their clients for years on end and did they go broke because of it?
Not yet.
Nobody would believe in something so easy. The effect is derived from the ritual, the contagion of belief and the art of that. The most effctive con man must first know how to fool himself.
I don't believe in any of it.
Big pharma disempowers the patient.
Good health is rather the result of an individual's own empowerment to look after himself.
I was young then and turned a blind eye the same as everybody else around; found other things to do and got on with that, but it stayed with me and it plays on the mind, enough to put a word in every now and then about it if not to hope to change the World.
It sickens and scares me to see this poo pooing of those who might hope to keep an eye open.
The morbiditiy statistics serve well to tell me what the current fashion is, the state of opinion, but I have seen nothing yet to validate them as much more than that. Science would require a rigorous definition of AIDS, of the sort that I have not yet seen anywhere. It doesn't matter how careful the count, if what they're counting is fog, then that is the result, foggy. Health workers supposed to be at risk themselves are not even routinely tested for HIV. It is a sad farce. The study samples are small. They've barely scratched the surface.
I believe that the very question is disingenuous. If they're to be trusted so much, lets abandon any attempt to regulate governmentally, lets abandon the pretence of peer review, lets just let them get on with it and tell us whatever they like. Is that what you want?
Not so long as you allow them to blame it on something else.
They're paid for the sale of the product and BS, and not even by the patients themselves.
The tobacco companies poisoned their clients for years on end and did they go broke because of it?
Not yet.
Nobody would believe in something so easy. The effect is derived from the ritual, the contagion of belief and the art of that. The most effctive con man must first know how to fool himself.
I don't believe in any of it.
Big pharma disempowers the patient.
Good health is rather the result of an individual's own empowerment to look after himself.
A gay person gets diagnosed with opportunistic infections that are part of having AIDS. A straight person gets diagnosed with the disease that is presenting itself. The straight person does not have to take the toxic drugs.
Well according to Meta, they obviously weren't taking their vitamins, eating a balanced and proper diet, used drugs and were badly affected by pollutants in the air, water and everywhere else.
That's exactly right. What planet have you been living on to not know that?
Well according to Meta, they obviously weren't taking their vitamins, eating a balanced and proper diet, used drugs and were badly affected by pollutants in the air, water and everywhere else.
That's exactly right. What planet have you been living on to not know that?
Such a picture isn't "a bit old"- it's simply irrelevant (if not worthless), and if you aren't going to yield on the simple HTLV-III/LAV -> "HIV" matter of historical record, then I can only wish continued success avoiding inconvenient facts, and, any semblance of objectivity or skepticism.
Is that counter sarcasm?
I haven't been critical of your posts, but there are rebuttals to Duesberg's co-factor hypothesis backed by case studies, and to the Perth Group's position on detection and isolation failures. The issue at hand was one of ethics, and it's clear that the anti-dissident voices rely strongly on lacks thereof.
Allow me to caution you against playing that game.
Cheers
Simple truth. In 1981 a lot was known about what impacts the immune system. Technically it could be said that we still know it, but the connections with this knowledge have suffered. One of the list was and still is drug use. Even if the effects of street drug use do not directly affect the immune system, the physical condition of the users does. People are given Even if a nutritional deficiency does not directly impact the immune system, the physical condition of the patient will. It's taken a serious lack of ethics, abetted by a lack of scientific literacy, to even find a way to blame a virus for things that were already known to cause immune system problems.
So, I have the right to ask what planet someone has been living on when he doesn't know or use what should be very common knowledge about immune system problems.
Bells
Staff member
I live on a planet that knows that there is no cure to AIDS as yet.
I also live on a planet that recognises the dangers of some having some conspirational theorists make claims that are totally unfounded and unproven, claims such as stating that the cure for AIDS is a proper diet and vitamin pills.
Well, yes, you have the right to post however you wish, thanks for clearing that up.
I'm supposing you've read or are familiar with Dr. Len Horowitz, the author of "Emerging Viruses" -? I don't believe his thesis is proven, or even provable really, but it is a matter of record that the US was trying to develop biological weapons in the late 1960's capable of immunosuppression; it's my opinion that he relies more on circumstance than cabal, but maybe that's being unduly generous... so-called "conspiracy nuts" laud his research as scientific when it's really nothing of the sort, it's merely journalism.
I lend voices of dissent a reasonable degree of attention, but have to draw the line at "conspiracy theories", because exotic postulation, even mere selective thinking- transcends anything objective; at that point it just isn't scientific, and so disinterests me.
Greetings
I'm supposing you've read or are familiar with Dr. Len Horowitz, the author of "Emerging Viruses" -? I don't believe his thesis is proven, or even provable really, but it is a matter of record that the US was trying to develop biological weapons in the late 1960's capable of immunosuppression; it's my opinion that he relies more on circumstance than cabal, but maybe that's being unduly generous... so-called "conspiracy nuts" laud his research as scientific when it's really nothing of the sort, it's merely journalism.
I lend voices of dissent a reasonable degree of attention, but have to draw the line at "conspiracy theories", because exotic postulation, even mere selective thinking- transcends anything objective; at that point it just isn't scientific, and so disinterests me.
Greetings
So all that you know about immunology is "AIDS science." This is what I term "living on another planet."
Well, Bells, all I can say is "eat right, take vitamins, and die anyway" -regardless of etiology, of deficiency or disease. One could've made the same argument for cell phones and "jaw cancer"- but good science prevailed there too.
I see AIDS/HIV as the "jaw cancer" that just wouldn't go away.
Look, the story started with five patients who had a seemingly unique set of symptoms. I have to admit that you won't see anything anywhere that much resembles what five gay guys can do to themselves and each other by staying up all night using recreational drugs including poppers, maybe seven days a week, beating their bodies up trying to achieve more and more orgasms. When they come down with the pretty much inevitable illnesses that can be attributed entirely to self abuse, any competent doctor should be able to figure out that they are physically exhausted, that the drugs have been beating them up, that their lungs are literally burned from inhaling organic solvents like amyl nytrite, and that they are totally wrung out and can't be expected to be healthy.
Look, the story started with five patients who had a seemingly unique set of symptoms. I have to admit that you won't see anything anywhere that much resembles what five gay guys can do to themselves and each other by staying up all night using recreational drugs including poppers, maybe seven days a week, beating their bodies up trying to achieve more and more orgasms. When they come down with the pretty much inevitable illnesses that can be attributed entirely to self abuse, any competent doctor should be able to figure out that they are physically exhausted, that the drugs have been beating them up, that their lungs are literally burned from inhaling organic solvents like amyl nytrite, and that they are totally wrung out and can't be expected to be healthy.
Why are you unable to make an argument? skip the vague shit. Make a case.
You make it out as if it is a secret that montagnier named the virus he discovered LAV and Gallo named it HTLV-III. It's not.
Last edited: