AIDS denial is immoral

spuriousmonkey said:
Yes, there are. You can see it under the electronmicroscope. I already showed you a picture of it in this thread that was in the very first HIV publication. You merely ignored it, like the rest of reality.

HIV.gif


I posted this picture after you claimed falsely that there were never scalebars in HIV pictures. After which I pulled the very first HIV publication, and...it had a scalebar. Like all pictures in scientific publications.

You claim things. We show you are wrong. That's how immoral you are. You have faith in your own believes in conspiracies in a matter that affects the lives of real people.
Click to expand...

"Immoral" is manufacturing a disease where none exists and clamping down on anyone who points out the obvious flaws in the theory, the way they did to Duesberg. "Immoral" is feeding people a very poisonous medication and pretending that it is good for them, all the while the information is out there that it is a poison and that the drug trials were a farce.
 
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1000

n 2006, a very few African nations (Botswana, for example) finally managed to limit the spread of HIV/Aids. Elsewhere, little or nothing has been done. Zimbabwe has a stratospheric level of infection, and ignores it. South Africa's health minister, Mrs Manto Tshabalala-Msimang (left), advocates vegetables in preference to anti-retrovirals, while President Mbeki has infamously denied the link between Aids and HIV.

Many African men proudly reject 'European' condoms (which 'don't fit'). Others rape infants, believing this constitutes a cure. And by pathetically insisting that abstinence is the only solution, churches - especially American ones - actively encourage the spread.

HIV/Aids is not going away. Three million died in 2006; four million were newly infected.

If Holocaust-deniers deserve to be punished, so do Aids-deniers. It is high time African governments outlawed denial of the epidemic, and prosecuted those who perpetuate misinformation about Aids or in any way undermine efforts to tackle it.
Click to expand...

In response to
"Immoral" is feeding people a very poisonous medication and pretending that it is good for them, all the while the information is out there that it is a poison and that the drug trials were a farce.
Click to expand...
 
MetaKron said:
"Immoral" is feeding people a very poisonous medication and pretending that it is good for them, . . .
Click to expand...
enough of this metakron.
i produced a study that proves the above statement absolutely false.

sauna
i've found some double-blind studies.
what in particular are you looking for?
 
Leopold, that one is easily explainable by a couple of things, and I have already explained them. The article you linked to says "opportunistic disease or death." Unfortunately, it doesn't give enough detail. As I already mentioned, AZT has some antiviral and antibacterial effects. You may not be able to get some common diseases because AZT kills EVERYTHING. This includes your nuclear DNA.

I will repeat the truth about AZT that certain posters here want to gloss over and hide from the rest of the world. The truth is that for it to have any effect on the alleged RNA virus it has to bond with a person's own nuclear DNA. It also bonds with any DNA. If it did this efficiently enough to stop the replication of an RNA virus, or even to slow it down, it would kill the patient after a period during which the patient would have absolutely no immune system and no ability to form new memories. A lot of the people involved in this will say that it only affects viral RNA replication, and this is a bunch of hooey, as Duesberg, who has a Ph.D. and several awards as a distinguished scientist, has pointed out. It is flat impossible to put a simple chemical like AZT into someone's system and tell it to "go and get HIV."

This antibiotic action of AZT, is a bit like the antibiotic action of Ciprofloxacin, which interferes with the superuncoiling of DNA in bacteria. Cipro is another drug that scares the hell out of me, because how can it possibly be targeted at bacteria and leave human nuclear DNA untouched?

By the way, the smell of chickenshit in that article starts where they say that there were so many cases of "opportunistic disease or death."
 
Last edited:
SouthStar, notice that the author said that AIDS "denialists" should be punished as harshly as those who refute the holocaust. Look up the word "refute" in the dictionary. No qualifiers will be accepted that were not in the original statement.
 
MetaKron said:
Leopold, that one is easily explainable by a couple of things, and I have already explained them.
Click to expand...
really?
alright metakron explain the conclusions of the study.
explain why more people died under intermittent dosing as opposed to continuous dosing.
 
"significantly increased the risk of opportunistic disease or death from any cause,"

It didn't say that more people died. They very carefully didn't say that more people died. In four months I can sign on and get the rest of the text of the article, but what it said was that more people got sick OR died during the test period. They are imputing a greater risk of death from the greater incidence of alleged opportunistic infections, none of which they named in the brief. The same medication that could reduce the number of infections suffered by a population might also kill those people. A really good example of another medication that does this is Vancomycin, which is considered a medicine of last resort. Also, of course, there is a list of medications that are only supposed to be taken for brief periods for the same reason, that they kill the bacteria but they also kill the patient.

AIDS has been a godsend for the pharmaceutical companies because now there is no such thing as overmedication. No such thing anymore as a medication that you have to discontinue because it is more likely to kill the patient than the very slow infection that is being treated. There is also no such thing as the medication killing the patient. Of course, all of these no such things are fictional, but they work as if they were true.
 
leopold99 said:
what in particular are you looking for?
Click to expand...

Anything with methodological detail would be a start.

Without the resources to second guess every move they make the need is to assess the checks and balances, the rules and standards, who has to answer to who.
 
Sauna said:
So you know what most people say so much better than most people do, not as if what they say would suffice to say for itself?
Click to expand...

No, I know that most people know better what you say than you do yourself. I don't know what most people say so much better than most people do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top