AIDS denial is immoral

[Prince_James]

Metakron:

Many of these diseases amongst gay men are very rare outside of having HIV. There are issues with specific skin lesion cancers, for instance.

It would not seem they were misdiagnosed in this instance.

 

[Sauna]

Many of these diseases amongst gay men are very rare outside of having HIV.

According to what?

They start with a conclusion then they go around cherry picking from the evdence, applying whatever definition would best suit their purpose, which is not science.

Who methodically counts all the suspected AIDS cases which turn out to be HIV negative?

For as long as there are AIDS cases which are not HIV positive, which there most certainly are, then per se HIV is not the cause of AIDS, possibly a cause, but not the cause.

I finally heard back from the consultant in London: 'Yes this has all the features of Kaposi's sarcoma'…Then, a week later, I received some unexpected news from the clinic…several HIV tests had been carried out, and all were negative”

“Stored serum samples from suspected AIDS/HIV-infected patients were obtained from Kisumu in western Kenya, Nairobi, and the coast seaport town of Mombasa. All these towns have the highest number of reported cases of AIDS in Kenya…A total of 913 samples were collected…A total of 265 samples were positive for HIV-1 as indicated by both ELISA and western blot for HIV-1”

http://www.aras.ab.ca/test-negative.html

There are issues with specific skin lesion cancers, for instance.

The exact cause of KS is not entirely understood. Early on, it was thought that KS was a form of cancer. However, scientists now believe it is caused by the herpes virus HHV8.

http://aids.about.com/cs/conditions/a/kaposi.htm

Caused by HIV or caused by HHV8?

They say one thing and then they say another, a sickeningly confused mess from start to finish.

 

[MetaKron]

Metakron:

Many of these diseases amongst gay men are very rare outside of having HIV. There are issues with specific skin lesion cancers, for instance.

It would not seem they were misdiagnosed in this instance.

And use of amyl and butyl nitrites is very rare outside of those who are gay. Those nitrites are carcinogenic and should have been banned a long time ago.

 

[MetaKron]

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.

Nice way to talk your way around the truth. Montagnier doesn't believe in the one cause theory, and he is the one that the liar Gallo stole from.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Nice way to talk your way around the truth. Montagnier doesn't believe in the one cause theory, and he is the one that the liar Gallo stole from.

Shame you can't show AIDS is not caused by HIV. Shame other people can show that HIV causes AIDS.

 

[Prince_James]

Metakron:

And use of amyl and butyl nitrites is very rare outside of those who are gay. Those nitrites are carcinogenic and should have been banned a long time ago.

What are these used in?

Sauna:

HIV1 is only one type of HIV. HIV2 is common in Africa.

 

[Baron Max]

Shame you can't show AIDS is not caused by HIV. Shame other people can show that HIV causes AIDS.

Why should anyone except scientists care?

And even if they did care, what good does it do? People with HIV aren't branded on the forehead with a big red 'H', so..?

Baron Max

 

[Sauna]

Shame you can't show AIDS is not caused by HIV.

Fortunately, to logically refute the thesis, there is no need to prove the negative, only that AIDS symptoms do appear but with with no trace of HIV, which is demonstrably the case.

Shame other people can show that HIV causes AIDS.

Except to suppose that the HAART treatment causes HIV, how to explain this then?

“This is a report of an HIV-1-infected child with absent HIV-specific antibodies, in whom the appearance of HIV-specific antibodies followed after the initiation of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART)…An 11-month-old girl with a history of oral candidiasis, anaemia and failure to thrive was hospitalized for dyspnoea [difficulty breathing], tachypnoea [rapid breathing] and diarrhoea. Pneumonia was diagnosed by chest X-ray. Blood cultures were positive for Salmonella typhimurium. HIV-1 infection was considered, and enzyme immunoassay and Western blot were performed; HIV-1-specific antibodies were not detected. Shortly afterwards the child was diagnosed with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and referred to a tertiary centre. The diagnosis of HIV/AIDS was again considered, and HIV-1-specific polymerase chain reaction and p24-antigen tests were performed, which were positive…[after the child recovered from illness] HIV-1-specific antibodies could be detected for the first time after 6 months of therapy. The Western blot showed antibodies specific for gp24 and gp160…[our conclusion is that] This patient suffered from a rapidly progressive HIV-1 infection, with a striking absence of HIV-1-specific antibodies.”
Fraaij PL et al. Initation of highly active antiretroviral therapy leads to an HIV-specific immune response in a seronegative infant. AIDS. 2003 Jan 3;17(1):138-40.

In view of instances of seroreversion they say that the absence of antibodies does not necessarily prove that the HIV is gone.

Rather then than let them have it both ways, who is to say that HIV is not actually always present in a large proportion of the population if not in all of us, except that it never got as far as showing up in a test, let alone as far as precipitating malignant symptoms?

To prove that one way or another we need a large enough sample tested by some more searching method than the antibody tests, but as yet we see no sign of that.

Alternatively, if HIV may indeed be present but not detected, it is just not good enough, if not culpably dangerous to suppose it to be the cause.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Why should anyone except scientists care?

Because it pretty much a disease with a mortal outcome in most cases.

In view of instances of seroreversion they say that the absence of antibodies does not necessarily prove that the HIV is gone.

Actually if you had bothered to pull the article in question as I did you would have known that the conclusion of that particular paper is:

In conclusion, p24 antigen and HIV-1-specific polymerase chain reaction tests should always be performed in seronegative children who are clinically suspected of AIDS. The initial absence of HIV-1-specific antibodies in this child may have been caused by a selective defect in T–B cell interaction.

She has HIV infection, but a specific defect in her immune system prevents the generation of antibodies. Needles to say the general population does not suffer from this defect.

Actually HIV1 infection is generally known to cause a loss in specific antibodies. Measles can cause serious problems in HIV infected children because of this, despite vaccinations or previous exposure.
The HAART treatment is aimed at reconstituting the immune system, but is always just partly successful


Persistent Humoral Immune Defect in Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy–Treated Children With HIV-1 Infection: Loss of Specific Antibodies Against Attenuated Vaccine Strains and Natural Viral Infection
PEDIATRICS Vol. 118 No. 2

 

[Sauna]

She has HIV infection, but a specific defect in her immune system prevents the generation of antibodies.

"May have been caused"!!!!!

"May" presumably represents a theory, not a fact, and in which way specifc?

Where is the specification?

This is where you lose the moral credibility over and over again, by presenting conjecture as if it were proved, while upon examination there is no such proof.

That is deliberate misdirection, stealth, not science.

One could just as well assume that the specific defect was caused by the treatment.

It thus continues to beg the question.

Needles to say the general population does not suffer from this defect.

First one would have to identify the specific defect, and devise a test to apply to a sufficent sample of case studies.

Is there some evidence of that?

If not, what a shame to present fiction in the name of fact.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

That's how scientists talk.

don't blow a valve old man.

 

[theTooth]

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.

So you are saying nobody knows if the people taken into the account as dead because of Aids are infected with hiv?
I don't believe that.

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?

Nobody is saying that but let's pretend you are a bigpharma scientist and you "know" that all there is to the antihiv (antiaids) drugs is placebo effect. Would you create toxic coctails to make people sick to believ they are taking real drugs? Wouldn't that nevtralize that placebo effect "a bit"...? I suppose it would be easier just to create a new candy every year or two.

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.

Sorry, but the purpose of any regular company is to make profit.

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.

Oh yes, I have forgotten, you have to poison the people, so they are sick, so they think they have aids and need to buy your poison, right? Who did that to the first cases?

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'm sorry but I don't undertstand what has your answer to do with my text you quoted.

 

[Sauna]

So you are saying nobody knows if the people taken into the account as dead because of Aids are infected with hiv?
I don't believe that.

Infected with HIV was not the issue.
The issue was the the cause of morbidity.
I am not yet convinced that HIV is not already widespread but mostly insignificant.

If you are trying to tell me that there is no psychological effect, I most certainly do not believe that.

Already they tried to us that death is inevitable; there is no recovery, and that turned out to be a lie.

What else are they going to lie about?

Nobody is saying that but let's pretend you are a bigpharma scientist and you "know" that all there is to the antihiv (antiaids) drugs is placebo effect.

I see no need to suppose so.

Would you create toxic coctails to make people sick to believ they are taking real drugs? Wouldn't that nevtralize that placebo effect "a bit"...?

Why propose so?

Why think these people know what they're doing?



That is childish.

To this day some still seem to think that tobacco is good for them, but the taste of it is dreadful.

Oh yes, I have forgotten, you have to poison the people, so they are sick, so they think they have aids and need to buy your poison, right? Who did that to the first cases?

It is hard to think of anything much more poisonous than to tell somebody that they've contracted AIDS, and to tell them that there no possible cure, nothing better than an expensive alleviation.

How would you feel about that?

It ruins lives, enough to worry somebody to death.

 

[MetaKron]

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.

Then of course you understand that pharmaceutical companies would lose billions, not only in lost business, but in massive record-breaking class action lawsuits. These are the consequences of letting out the truth about AIDS.

 

[MetaKron]

Shame you can't show AIDS is not caused by HIV. Shame other people can show that HIV causes AIDS.

If a syndrome is defined as being that syndrome only when HIV is present, it is more difficult to prove that it is not linked to HIV. It is not quite as difficult to show that HIV is not necessarily the cause, but it would be a lot less difficult if it weren't like talking to a wall when I explain that AZT does, according to the company's own literature, cause the symptoms of AIDS. Your own ignorance of the relevant material is making this much more difficult, also, and I consider much of that to be both willful and pretense.

The company that makes AZT still says this: GSK link

In an ass cover written in huge lettering, it says that AZT causes neutropenia, which is a form of immune deficiency, and that it is particularly toxic to people who have "advanced HIV disease", meaning that it is more dangerous to sick people. It is a mutagen and a carcinogen, which was known in the 1960s. Its action is to merge with a person's nuclear DNA, and it can have to effect on retroviruses without doing that. When it does do that, that person's DNA is totally fucked. Basically, if the patient lives, so can any retrovirus, and vice versa, the retrovirus has to be still living or the circumstances that killed it will kill the patient.

There is no reasonable way around the fact that AZT kills, and that the maker says so.

 

[MetaKron]

Why should anyone except scientists care?

And even if they did care, what good does it do? People with HIV aren't branded on the forehead with a big red 'H', so..?

Baron Max

Suppose that they finally admit that AIDS isn't caused by HIV and no one has ever shown good evidence that it has. How about the fact that if you have a daughter who has sex with a man who later tests HIV positive, she doesn't have to worry about getting sick? How about the fact that we won't have to regard Africans as being any more likely to make us sick than they were in 1980? I also like the idea of GSK getting a well-deserved shot to the kneecaps.

There is also the question of sexual morality. Compulsory sexual morality, if it had any value, would not have to be backed by the threat of a supernatural being getting revenge upon you, or by the threat of a supernatural virus. Do you have to have a gun to your head to keep you from having sex with a rent boy? Of course not. I'd pay good money to someone to keep them away from me if need be. This kind of ethics by insult has always been nasty and violent. They're mostly looking for an excuse to screw us over. AIDS also helps pump the moves to take all adult materials away from adults. It sours the general attitude toward sex. It gives the busybodies far too good an excuse to make them look like they're just watching out for us. They're just watching out for us when they jail someone for 25 years for publishing a picture of two consenting adults having sex, I'm sure, and we're only a little ways away from the time that they did that.

 

[Athelwulf]

You have told an outright lie, Bells.

This made me lawl.

The fact is that Spurious plans to pull every trick in the book to excuse getting rid of any evidence that I do bring up. I put up the link to a website that contains a lot of well-documented information. He just says that it's a propaganda site and not a good source.

Hm... Maybe it is propaganda and not a good source.

The first source that I used was a link to Aegis, which is billed as the premiere source of information on the Internet, for the so-called establishment side of AIDS, and he claimed that I didn't give any evidence to support what I said.

Maybe it didn't.

Spurious plans to keep lying and keep playing headgames. That is all that he is here for.

Such a big claim from such a little guy.

The AIDS industry makes millions of dollars every day that this hoax continues. Every stupid delaying tactic that they can come up with makes them billions.

Where is this money coming from? What are they doing to get it? Are they selling something? Is someone bribing them? Is the government in on it? Can you solidly identify this AIDS industry? Where are they based? Who's the CEO? How many stocks do they have? Can I buy some? Is Osama bin Laden helping them? Are they behind Liberal Establishment Inc. and the Liberal Media™ and the Homosexual Agenda®? Are the Democrats helping them? Do they have Tupac alive and well in their basement? Did they kill JFK?

If they had to pay people like Spurious tens of thousands of dollars a day to do this they would still come out way ahead on the money that they gain by preventing the word from getting out. People like him are hired just for that purpose.

He has already proven to me that he is one of them, so in all honesty there is no point in trying to make nice. He's not going to make nice and I am ashamed of people who let someone run wild because he has "moderator" status and we're all supposed to suck up to authority.

I can imagine you in bed at night, sitting in a fetal position and rocking back and forth with a tin foil hat on your head: "He's one of them... He's one of them...".

If you silence alternative theories, you silence the evolution of new means to tackle it.

Whilst we must be careful of pseudo-science, crushing people's desires to figure things out well is a sure fire way to stunt intellectual growth.

I understand the spirit behind this post. Kinda like having an open mind with all possibilities. Well that only works with valid possibilities (the key word being "valid").

Spurious is deliberately giving me problems about giving the sources that he demands. He is nitpicking.

Well that's because your claim is so easy to nitpick.

He is playing games. He is making rules that only I am bound to follow.

Sure dude.

Believe me, I know him and I know his game by now. The whole thing is deliberately calculated to make me paranoid, except that paranoia is when you think that someone is out to get you who actually isn't. Spurious is and has been since this affair started.

Conspiracy theories abound!

It would be simpler to just say you don't like the chap. No need to defy scientific consensus, the mountains of proof, and indeed the validity of science itself just to stick it to him.

Science just manufactured a mouse that could get AIDS when exposed to "HIV." I know of no other models.

Why the fuck would they go through this kind of trouble? Wouldn't it be simpler to just discover that HIV leads to AIDS?

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.

Or they may have discovered that HIV leads to AIDS. You're making multiple levels of complexity here, and you don't need to. Stop it.

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.

And of course you assume these mice are manufactured. Your entire claim that they've never proven HIV causes AIDS now rests solely on the assumption that these scientists manufactured these mice. See what you've done? You walked yourself into a corner! It's ridiculously easy to do when you try to pass off a conspiracy theory as true. You're really slow.

They played a psychic act to make the prediction that HIV positives would die.

What is actually happening is that the people who are drugged progress quickly to AIDS while the people who are not drugged do not.

Interesting claim. It must have mountains of evidence in its favor.

"May have been caused"!!!!!

"May" presumably represents a theory, not a fact, and in which way specifc?

Where is the specification?

This is where you lose the moral credibility over and over again, by presenting conjecture as if it were proved, while upon examination there is no such proof.

That is deliberate misdirection, stealth, not science.

One could just as well assume that the specific defect was caused by the treatment.

It thus continues to beg the question.



First one would have to identify the specific defect, and devise a test to apply to a sufficent sample of case studies.

Is there some evidence of that?

If not, what a shame to present fiction in the name of fact.

Sauna, do something for me:

Turn off the computer.

Go to the library.

Find a good book that explains the the elements of the scientific process.

Read it. Study it. Live it. Breathe it.

Then come back to us.

You are totally ignorant on the definition of "theory" and "fact". The two are not mutually exclusive. And they are not ranked in order of truth like rungs on a ladder. The very fact that you think they are shows me three possibilities: that you weren't well educated by your high school science teacher; that you simply didn't pay attention in your high school science class; or that you're just a stupid layman who thinks he can conquer science without even a proper understanding, who thinks he's so much smarter than scientists, who thinks he knows so much more about virology than the scientist who studied it at a university for six years and makes a career out of it.

Your fixation on "may" is a lost cause. Give it up and stop wasting intelligent people's time by arguing about something you don't understand.

 

[Athelwulf]

Okay, this is annoying me:

STOP SAYING "HIV VIRUS"!!!

"HIV" stands for "human immunodeficiency virus".

When you say "HIV virus", you're saying "human immunodeficiency virus virus". Fucking stop the redundancy.

 

[qwerty mob]

Amen. Fucking stop the redundancy!

 

[invert_nexus]

Probably about time to let this thread fade into the mists of oblivion, yes?
Move on to productive discussions?

Although, we are delving once more into philosophy of science and the justification of knowledge... (Why do so many discussions end here?)

This is where you lose the moral credibility over and over again, by presenting conjecture as if it were proved, while upon examination there is no such proof.

That is deliberate misdirection, stealth, not science.

As Athelwulf has said, this statement shows that you don't understand what science is.

Nothing can be proven, per se, instead science depends upon falsifiability.
...
Meh.
Why am I even bothering trying to explain to you?
You're just being contrary. Not going to learn anything anyway.
Fuck it.
Learn it yourself. Or don't. Doesn't matter either way.
I'll give you one lead.
Popper.
And I don't mean popcorn popper.