Not necessarily. Those of you who are paid are paid to do astro-turfing, pretending that your opposition comes from "grass roots", but it's artificial grass, slick, noxious, and unfulfilling.
AIDS denial is immoral
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
Not necessarily. Those of you who are paid are paid to do astro-turfing, pretending that your opposition comes from "grass roots", but it's artificial grass, slick, noxious, and unfulfilling.
Nonsense.
How ever many FUCKING times you say, the saying is not the proof.
We simply do not know what is the exception and what is the rule because HIV is not so widely tested for, and when a test does take place there is no knowing if the subject was already infected but recovered. To know that you'd have to test a large enough portion of the population randomly and regularly enough to notice the infection and the recovery and as yet we are a million miles away from that.
Health workers supposed to be at risk are not even routinely tested. There could be thousands of people out there who were infected with HIV but recovered naturally. Andrew Stimpson felt tired and feverish for a while so on his own initiative he was tested for HIV because he had a gay partner. How many others feel tired and feverish but do not have gay partners and were not tested for HIV?
It is not even a test for HIV anyway, but rather a test for the reaction to it, with one hell of a bewildering fog about the supposed incubation period.
Subjects who happen to beat off the virus are likely not to be studied in depth because they are not even going to be known about. Unfortunately, good health does not so often make the headlines.
There are key items wrong with some of the material presented here, like the idea that the P24 antigen indicates the presence of HIV. The P24 protein has also been charged with being the protein that HIV allegedly uses to "hide itself" from the immune system because it is a protein generated by the human body. Now, people here who pretend to know enough to know better will simply deny this, and later they will pretend that they just didn't know when they denied it, then they will say that it "doesn't matter." By doing this they have wasted valuable time and energy and helped make the thread less readable.
Invert, you may or may not ever learn that this thing that you dismiss as a conspiracy actually exists. I'm still not sure that you aren't part of it, even if in a minor way in which you deceive yourself that you aren't. The way that you help attack AIDS dissidence suggests to me that you are some kind of hanger-on to this street gang of internet hoodlums.
Invert, you may or may not ever learn that this thing that you dismiss as a conspiracy actually exists. I'm still not sure that you aren't part of it, even if in a minor way in which you deceive yourself that you aren't. The way that you help attack AIDS dissidence suggests to me that you are some kind of hanger-on to this street gang of internet hoodlums.
You'd also have to place people in mortal harm in controlled experiments.
Unfortunately, that's not going to happen.
As I said, the available data shows that the vast majority of hiv infections lead to aids.
Anything else is pure speculation.
Then where do all the cases that you're babbling on about come from?
Wow. What a concept.
Also, the examples I've shown from immunology textbooks.
No, Sauna, every single human on the planet is not available for aids research.
Neither is every single person on the planet available for smallpox research. And, strangely enough, smallpox was damned near eradicated off the face of the planet.
Conspiratorial thinking is dangerous as it only leads to deep paranoia. The human mind falls victim to the very thing that I have offered to teach Sauna, the problem of induction and the justification of knowledge.
Soon, everything and everyone is part of the conspiracy.
And you lose all touch with anything useful.
Learn to think pragmatically.
What works.
What doesn't work.
Conspiratorial thinking doesn't work.
Even if you're right.
metakron
you've mentioned some results do not make sense.
that is what research is all about, making sense from the sensless.
i find it almost impossible to believe that the CDC and military would fall for such a thing, especially the military.
if there is one thing the military needs more than oil it is blood.
to deny itself a source of blood based on a hoax . . ., well it isn't going to happen.
are there any virii that will infect animals but not humans?
let's take some specific animals, dogs, and mice.
the reason i ask is because you stated that the mice used in AIDS research were bio-engineered.
about AIDS denial
there is really nothing to deny, AIDS is a reality, HIV as a cause is also a reality.
you've mentioned some results do not make sense.
that is what research is all about, making sense from the sensless.
i find it almost impossible to believe that the CDC and military would fall for such a thing, especially the military.
if there is one thing the military needs more than oil it is blood.
to deny itself a source of blood based on a hoax . . ., well it isn't going to happen.
are there any virii that will infect animals but not humans?
let's take some specific animals, dogs, and mice.
the reason i ask is because you stated that the mice used in AIDS research were bio-engineered.
about AIDS denial
there is really nothing to deny, AIDS is a reality, HIV as a cause is also a reality.
There are a lot of things that you wouldn't think that people would fall for, but they do. When they tell me that I shouldn't "think conspiratorially" they are also telling me that I should rely on patently false methods for deciding scientific truth or falsity. The thinking in terms of conspiracies or at least in terms of accepting evidence that could indicate conspiracies, this clears away fallacies like the "reasonable man" fallacy or the "they would never fall for this" fallacy. Would a cabal within the military act against the military's best interests to make a buck? Oh, please. Any time we have a war someone winds up stealing from the coffers, often openly. Would a major pharmaceutical company have once made gas used to kill Jews? Yes, they did. They will behave unreasonably and they will behave stupidly. There is a reason why consumer protection laws are in place. They were necessitated by the strong tendency of big business to sell people foods, medicines, and consumer goods that were unsafe.
One simple test that invalidates much of AIDS research is whether the results depend on Robert Gallo's HIV test. Did you know that this test was never licensed for diagnostic use and carries on its label the warning that there is no standard for calibrating the test?
One simple test that invalidates much of AIDS research is whether the results depend on Robert Gallo's HIV test. Did you know that this test was never licensed for diagnostic use and carries on its label the warning that there is no standard for calibrating the test?
The mere test for HIV is harmful?
I had not heard that before.
As I had already asked, where is this data?
The apparently available data indicates an eventual antibody reaction, post incubation; it does not show if somebody is already infected but not yet seroconverted, nor does it show if somebody was infected but already seroreversed.
Anything else is pure speculation, or the spotlight fallacy:
For as long as the sickest people are predominately tested, the tests predominately correlate to sickness.
They find what they were looking for, not what they were not looking for, none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
That is the beginning and end of conspiracies, preferential perception.
The same place as the virus for herpes or the common cold: Planet Earth.
Invert has pretty much admitted that his ability to deny the AIDS dissident case depends on his acceptance of the word of SOME experts while not knowing much about it himself.
What he is talking about is the necessity for side by side testing of people who are using the AIDS drugs versus people who are drug naive. Along with that I would like a third group that was taking general purpose nutritional supplements that were aimed at preventing disease.
What has already been discovered is that a few weeks of treatment with AZT, the great white pill hope of AIDS patients, causes a life-threatening anemia. The full report is that it also causes cancer and mutagenic changes in human offspring. AZT users often have to have transfusions. The drug is life-threatening itself. Also, both AZT and Prednisone cause the same immune deficiency, neutropenia, which leaves people vulnerable to both candidas albicans and pneumocystitis carinii, among many other opportunistic infections.
On the other hand, Healthy and Alive has a lot of people who were diagnosed using the Gallo test, who refused to take the drugs, and have lived ten years and longer in perfect health. Some of them are people who took the drugs, got sick, gave up the drugs, and got well.
what do you mean by "calibrate"?
in order to calibrate something you need a standard. are there any standards in AIDS research?
No, but a full series of scientific experiments on hiv in humans would require methods which would inevitably bring the subjects under mortal harm.
However, let's just keep it simple.
Let's say that everyone in the US is tested for hiv. That his is a mandatory test.
Ok?
Now what.
We now have complete data on hiv infection in the entire country.
We're supposed to just sit on that data and not act?
Data shows that the medication is allowing hiv patients to live longer. To have longer periods before the onset of aids.
But, the experiment as designed is to cooly sit back and wait.
Not act.
Not give medication to anyone.
Sure, in some 20 years time, we'll have comprehensive data.
But, in the meantime, the deaths due to lack of action will have increased.
I know. I know.
You're trying to say that people don't die from hiv infection. That hiv infection doesn't lead to aids.
But the present data refutes that conclusion of yours.
So, by objectively observing rather than acting in a manner that has been shown to be at least somewhat effective if not a cure,...
You see where I'm going?
I'm sure you do.
You'll probably pretend you don't though.
I've already shown some charts earlier in this thread.
Here's one of them. You can either find the rest on your own or not.
Actually, the data shows that most people infected with hiv succumb to aids within a number of years. The percentage of people infected with hiv succumbing to aids increases as the length of time of infection increases.
The data shows that people without hiv don't have aids
Sorry to bust your bubble.
I suppose we should all just crawl back into our caves then, right?
You're pretty much against the use of medicine? And against the use of science?
Your arguments seem to indicate this.
I can only assume that you would fit right into scientology. You should give it a try.
Of course, that's assuming that you're not just being an ass.
I don't think you believe anything you're saying. You're just being contrary because you started an argument and refuse to back off no matter how foolish you look.
Yeah.
Science is bad, m'kay?
Fuck science.
Let's all go back to the trees.
Trees good.
Fire bad.
Do you even listen to yourself?
Your argument is that because of the limited sample size that the people who are immune to the virus for one reason or another are not being found.
Yet, they are.
Is it possible that a larger percentage of people are immune to hiv/aids than are now seen in the present data?
Absolutely.
In fact, the odds are for it.
But, here's the problem, Sauna.
We're not oracles.
We can only work with the data at hand.
I know. I know.
You want mandates from heaven. You have this hard on for absolute fact. But, you're not going to get it in this world.
Metakron,
Actually, what I admitted to is that the fact that we aren't virologists or immunologists means that we are hampered in our ability to present an orderly and sourced rebuttal for all your claims.
However, we have been able to pull up enough fragments of research to dismiss the majority of your arguments.
And, your use of the word "some" is erroneous.
"Some" simply doesn't cover it, I'm afraid.
You continue to act as though there is a huge controversy over the hiv/aids connection. There is not. There are other controversies in the field, but hiv is accepted as the cause of aids by MOST of the researchers in this field.
And there is the key to it all.
In my book, morally speaking, a cause requires a will, and the human will should not subserve to that with no wish, let alone the will to achieve.
Nor, by the way, does my will happen to subserve to any smart prick who happens to want me to feel inferior or in any way weak or dependent, so as to feed his own egotistical pride, so as better then to shit forth at will.
I have tried that before and was not too keen on the sensation, nor the result.
Vanity, vanity, all is vanity....
Only to the extent that the thesis is tautological, with HIV related cases defined per se as AIDS, hence death certificates made out to that effect.
Objectively, people with similar symptoms do not necessarily show up as HIV positive.
The symptoms are not new. They suffered from TB and KS long before HIV is supposed to have arrived.
In order to calibrate, I need a standard. No shit?
Exactly right.
Yes, Sauna.
Aids and hiv are intimately connected.
The data shows it.
The correlation is so unescapable that the two have become synonymous.
The only problem being that every case of hiv doesn't lead inexorably to aids, but every case of aids has hiv as its cause.
I'm sorry that you don't like it, but that's the way it is.
What is your point?
You haven't noted the symptoms of aids, I'm afraid. Having KS and TB isn't a symptom, merely a side effect.
The symptoms caused by aids are correlated with hiv virus to a fine degree.
Sorry you don't like it, but that's the way it is.
Presumptuous, aren't you?
You've yet to demonstrate that you understand the science enough to make a judgment on the 'standard'.
What is 'it'?
The data is overwhelming.
I'm sorry you don't like it.
Why don't you go infect yourself with hiv if you're so sure of yourself?
That chart shows clearly that people over 50 have a very limited amount of time before the onset of aids, why don't you test your luck?
Poor, Sauna.
Ever the victim, aren't you?
Should I play the violin for you or do you have your own?
Metakron,
You do realize that Sauna is only using you, don't you?
He doesn't really believe any of this. He's just being cantankerous.
Sauna hasn't asked.
Nor do I plan on fully educating him, should I be asked.
Merely explain a few things that he seems especially deficient on.
The 'rules' aren't what you think, I think I'm safe to assume that.
Maybe that's where I'm posting from.
We have your cot waiting for you.