AIDS denial is immoral

invert_nexus said:
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.
Click to expand...

OK then, just this once I shall take the bait.
Let us feed the troll.

You are extraordinarly keen Mr. Nexus, to presume to instruct us on your own estimation of individuals etc. to put words into somebody else's mouth, especially when never yet called to do so, no matter the ethics of that

To improve your own education, may one respectfully return a question?

What with your claim to such a wonderful power of insight do you understand to be my true opinion of the merit of your self, your own attitude and intelligence, were I to be so rude as to return it in kind?
 
invert_nexus said:
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.
Click to expand...

OK then, just this once I shall take the bait.
Let us feed the troll.

You are extraordinarly keen Mr. Nexus, to presume to instruct us on your own estimation of individuals etc. to put words into somebody else's mouth, especially when never yet called to do so, no matter the ethics of that

To improve your own education, may one respectfully return a question?

What with your claim to such a wonderful power of insight, what do you understand to be my true opinion of the merit of your self, your own attitude and intelligence, were I to be so rude as to return it in kind?
 
What with your claim to such a wonderful power of insight, what do you understand to be my true opinion of the merit of your self, your own attitude and intelligence, were I to be so rude as to return it in kind?
Click to expand...

Why should I have to presume?
I believe you've said it quite openly in the past.

Anyway.
So. Still no desire to learn just where it is that you've gone astray?
Figures.
 
I know well enough where I go astray, by over estimating, never ceasing to be amazed by the depths of depravity yet to show forth.
 
metakron
you once said that the medicine used to treat AIDS was the problem.
i present the following rebuttal.

CONCLUSIONS: Episodic antiretroviral therapy guided by the CD4+ count, as used in our study, significantly increased the risk of opportunistic disease or death from any cause, as compared with continuous antiretroviral therapy, largely as a consequence of lowering the CD4+ cell count and increasing the viral load. Episodic antiretroviral therapy does not reduce the risk of adverse events that have been associated with antiretroviral therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00027352 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).
http://hiv.researchtoday.net/archive/3/11/2805.htm
 
Sauna said:
I know well enough where I go astray, by over estimating, never ceasing to be amazed by the depths of depravity yet to show forth.
Click to expand...

Evil is banal, isn't it? That's how so many people can deceive themselves. They're not evil. They don't have waxed and dyed black handlebar mustaches, they don't creep around snickering into their black leather gloves, they don't strangle kittens for fun. They just find ways to totally screw something around while deceiving themselves into believing that they are on the side of the angels.

Not that the angels were much account.
 
leopold99 said:
metakron
you once said that the medicine used to treat AIDS was the problem.
i present the following rebuttal.

CONCLUSIONS: Episodic antiretroviral therapy guided by the CD4+ count, as used in our study, significantly increased the risk of opportunistic disease or death from any cause, as compared with continuous antiretroviral therapy, largely as a consequence of lowering the CD4+ cell count and increasing the viral load. Episodic antiretroviral therapy does not reduce the risk of adverse events that have been associated with antiretroviral therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00027352 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).
http://hiv.researchtoday.net/archive/3/11/2805.htm
Click to expand...

If you want that to constitute a rebuttal, I think you need to clarify whatever it is that you are saying. There is some antibiotic effect from the ARV drugs, but it's like napalming the swamp to get rid of mosquitoes. Not only does it kill anything it touches, you have to keep it on fire.
 
MetaKron said:
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.
Click to expand...

What do you rely on? You've as much as admitted that you aren't a biologist or medical researcher yourself, so as far as I can tell you're just taking somebody's word for your conspiracy theory.
 
MetaKron said:
If you want that to constitute a rebuttal, I think you need to clarify whatever it is that you are saying.
Click to expand...
you said it was the AIDS medication that was killing people.
what i presented says antiretroviral medicine given untill CD$+ count raises above a threshold is not as effective as the drug given continuously.

it seems to me that if the anti AIDS drugs was indeed the problem the above scenario would be reversed, the people would get worse instead of improving under continuous dosing.
 
James R said:
What do you rely on? You've as much as admitted that you aren't a biologist or medical researcher yourself, so as far as I can tell you're just taking somebody's word for your conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

You may have abandoned things like "theory of mind", or you may never have had any in your makeup, and I don't know what teaching style was used where you went to school, but you sound like someone who got all of their "science" from lectures without any sort of challenge-response exchanges with anyone, even yourself. You don't sound like your mind has actually interacted with the material except to affirm whatever your professors told you to think.

That last tells me that you don't and maybe can't understand my style, which seems very clear to me. I rely on verifiable facts and logical conclusions based on those facts. You have an unreliable test. The manufacturer says on the label that it is unreliable, as in no standard for calibration, so no way to be sure what it actually says is there when it tests "positive." There is no reasonable way around the conclusion that this test is pretty much useless and cannot possibly be 99 plus percent accurate.

There are unreasonable ways around such conclusions, and that's how we got into this mess. A test that is cooked up from serum from three different patients, and then is heavily promoted by someone who has much greater skills in bullshit than in medicine, there are too many ways that this can be wrong. If those ways are not eliminated, it is not right because it "might be right." The only such elimination that was done was the elimination of protests that the procedure was not only wrong, but "crazy."

No one here has shown the capacity to build the story from the beginning and find out whether each decision was made correctly. It's a pretty short story when you haven't actually isolated a virus in the beginning and when you have no way at all to produce a valid test, which didn't stop Gallo.
 
leopold99 said:
you said it was the AIDS medication that was killing people.
what i presented says antiretroviral medicine given untill CD$+ count raises above a threshold is not as effective as the drug given continuously.

it seems to me that if the anti AIDS drugs was indeed the problem the above scenario would be reversed, the people would get worse instead of improving under continuous dosing.
Click to expand...

It depends on how you play the shell game. AZT can keep opportunistic infections away the same way that it kills the patient. Take the patient off of AZT and infections gain a foothold in the patient, who will be immune compromised for some time after withdrawal from the drug. Put him back on the drug and it will take time for the drug to kill an established infection.

It doesn't take an expert to know this.
 
So, every article published on the HIV virus is ... what? A hoax? A conspiracy?
 
You know, if it were smallpox, no one would get dinged for carefully investigating the origin of the theory. When it's AIDS, people totally get dissed for doing that.
 
So, every scientist who believes they are studying the HIV virus, and can see it under their microscope, is deluded and just imagining something that doesn't exist.

This kind of rubbish really doesn't require a response.
 
They are deceived, James, and there aren't all that many scientists "seeing" it under the microscope.
 
MetaKron said:
It depends on how you play the shell game.
Click to expand...
this isn't a "shell game", over 5,000 people participated in the study metakron.
the conclusion of the study was that less people died under continuous dosing and more died under intermittent dosing.

the above proves that antiretrovirus medicine IS NOT the cause of death in AIDS patients.

if you remember, it was you that said it was the medication that was killing people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top