Then I need to be educated too. Can you give me a hint? I don't wanna be the one who ends up wasting your time.
AIDS denial is immoral
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
Then I need to be educated too. Can you give me a hint? I don't wanna be the one who ends up wasting your time.
Did you ever try to get the big media to run with a story?
Do you think that somebody just turns up with evidence and they run with it no matter what, like the big media is some kind of trusty guardian watchdog, not just there to sell copy?
Some people really do have a lot to learn.
Then I need to be educated too. Can you give me a hint? I don't wanna be the one who ends up wasting your time.
The thread is about morality.
The applicable discipline is jurisprudence.
Except a real live AIDS scandal would be a HUGE story...
Did you ever try to get the big media to run with a story?
Do you think that somebody just turns up with evidence and they run with it no matter what, like the big media is some kind of trusty guardian watchdog, not just there to sell copy?
Some people really do have a lot to learn.
The pharmacists?
Maybe they decided that since the poisons were making people live longer, they must be working homeopathically.
I can't wait to see what the International Criminal Court does to this guy's case.
Because you just happen to believe so, or because of what evidence or experience?
Are you aware that Andrew Stimpson had to hire a publicity agent to get his story into the big media?
Unfortunately they'd already cried wolf with the HUGE Old Testament style prophesy of a 100 percent death rate, a World wide pandemic and the demise of the gay community. In the wake of that an "AIDS Myth" there was no story story would be an anti climax, not a cause for panic.
With the slightest whiff of serious opposition lawyers are on the line to the editors to intimidate with threats of legal action.
I have seen it happen, real time, a Sunday Times journalist, the only one brave enough to give it a go eventually failed to turn up to a High Court Judicial Review lodged to expose corruption; story completely pulled at the very last minute, literally. The person behind that appeal reckoned to have spent half a million GBP on the campaign but got nowhere with it because the establishment closed ranks.
How is that going to happen?
The ICC is a court of last resort. It will not act if a case is investigated or prosecuted by a national judicial system unless the national proceedings are not genuine.
The pharmacists?
Maybe they decided that since the poisons were making people live longer, they must be working homeopathically.
I can't wait to see what the International Criminal Court does to this guy's case.
Actually, the pharmaceutical companies.
Unfortunately, allopaths believe that poisons selectively kill off bad things in people and heal illness. When they started believing this they were using arsenic and mercury in their medicines. The alleged symptoms of syphilis were established when they still used arsenic and mercury to treat it, so we've got another big mystery on our hands.
I suppose that to maintain symmetry they just had to poo-poo nontoxic remedies. Ask yourself, how long can you take a medication that has absolutely no negative effects? How long can you take a medication that starts destroying your DNA from the first day?
They weren't "confirmed." They were affirmed.
There are a lot of irresponsible scientists out there who keep feeding the big media statements that they can use that way.
The reason to focus on what people said 20 years ago is that subsequent findings depended on Gallo's tests and testing criteria. This guaranteed that the data and findings would be sorted to always come out in favor of HIV disease. This kind of cheat isn't necessary when you have the real thing.
No, Leopold, I did not say that, either.
No, Leopold, I did not say that, either.
you most certainly did say that test animals show signs of AIDS when exposed to HIV. see post 120 on page 6
And? All that I "admitted" was that scientists bioengineered a mouse that could show such a response. This was after more than 20 years of failing to find a valid animal model.
We have the Monkey here saying that it doesn't even matter if Robert Gallo's work was true or false because it's since been "confirmed", a statement that is absurd. If such confirmation had taken place, it would have been rebuilt from the ground up. Using Gallo's tests and testing criteria forces us to adhere to the original hypothesis, so any "confirmation" is achieved by forcing the data to confirm with Gallo's original lies.
We have the Monkey here saying that it doesn't even matter if Robert Gallo's work was true or false because it's since been "confirmed", a statement that is absurd. If such confirmation had taken place, it would have been rebuilt from the ground up. Using Gallo's tests and testing criteria forces us to adhere to the original hypothesis, so any "confirmation" is achieved by forcing the data to confirm with Gallo's original lies.
I didn't say that.
Moreover I presented many studies proving that HIV causes AIDS. All of which you ignore.
So far you have presented NOTHING.
a short history of HIV/AIDS:
http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm
after reading the above it's easy to see how some people could be confused.
edit
The development of life-saving protease inhibitor treatments for HIV was delayed for four years by the pharmaceutical company Merck after the drugs killed laboratory dogs and rats. During those four years, tens of thousands of people with AIDS died, perhaps needlessly. Most would have benefited from the new drugs, including my dear friend Derek Jarman. He and many others might be alive now if Merck had not submitted its protease research programme to the "Russian roulette" of animal testing.
http://www.petertatchell.net/aids & animal rights/animal tests delayed protease drugs.htm
edit:
proof of animal testing of HIV
http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/page.asp?i_PageID=132&i_ToolbarID=3
http://www.avert.org/his81_86.htm
after reading the above it's easy to see how some people could be confused.
edit
The development of life-saving protease inhibitor treatments for HIV was delayed for four years by the pharmaceutical company Merck after the drugs killed laboratory dogs and rats. During those four years, tens of thousands of people with AIDS died, perhaps needlessly. Most would have benefited from the new drugs, including my dear friend Derek Jarman. He and many others might be alive now if Merck had not submitted its protease research programme to the "Russian roulette" of animal testing.
http://www.petertatchell.net/aids & animal rights/animal tests delayed protease drugs.htm
edit:
proof of animal testing of HIV
http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/page.asp?i_PageID=132&i_ToolbarID=3
Last edited:
How many studies were done to prove that tobacco smoking wasn't addictive and that it didn't cause lung cancer? So ...did that prove that the assertions were true? Huh?
Baron Max
1. Tabacco smoking is not a virus
2. You have no clue what HIV studies say. Or how thorough they are.
3. HIV causes Aids is not only show clearly by means of epidemiological studies, also the mechanisms,and details of the mechanisms are well studied.
4. there is a overwelming consensus stating HIV causes AIDS.
5. There are no scientific studies saying that HIV does not cause AIDS, only opinions. The ones that you might think are there have been refuted or are a showcase of shit science, comparable to the quality of your posts.
Yes, people might be confused into believing in HIV disease. This is what happens when people are not allowed to publish rebuttals on a level field.
Animal rights people will say anything. Notice that a lot of the dissident articles have over a hundred references. This bit if "truth" has zero references.
You're kidding me, right? Similar diseases mean that there has been animal testing of HIV? People who read enough of this stuff can start to believe strange things, and that is a strange belief.
the fact that lab animals can contract AIDS when exposed to HIV is proof that AIDS is a reality.
the fact that said animals are "bio-engineered" says the results are related by genetics.
so, the CDC is a liar?
what about these people? they liars too?
http://www.hivforum.org/
more research:
http://www.brown.edu/Research/TB-HIV_Lab/html/general/imunological.htm
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=li-04-24
the fact that said animals are "bio-engineered" says the results are related by genetics.
so, the CDC is a liar?
what about these people? they liars too?
http://www.hivforum.org/
more research:
http://www.brown.edu/Research/TB-HIV_Lab/html/general/imunological.htm
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite?page=li-04-24