AIDS denial is immoral

It sure settles that you are an immoral creature; prioritizing your own philosophical delusions over scientific knowledge in a matter of life or death.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
It sure settles that you are an immoral creature; prioritizing your own philosophical delusions over scientific knowledge in a matter of life or death.
Click to expand...

My priority is put morality before scientific knowledge, as I believe would most people.

Scientific knowledge is not morality.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
No, most people would actually get treatment for HIV infection.
Click to expand...

Probably, yes because they believe the lies you tell.

The official advice is rather this:

You do not necessarily need to take anti-HIV (also called antiretroviral) medications just because you are HIV positive. You and your doctor will determine the best time to start treatment. When to take anti-HIV medications depends on your overall health, the amount of virus in your blood (viral load), and how well your immune system is working.

How will I know when to start anti-HIV medications?

You and your doctor should consider three factors in deciding when to start treatment: 1) symptoms of advanced HIV disease, 2) viral load, and 3) CD4 count.

You should start treatment if:

* you are experiencing severe symptoms of HIV infection or have been diagnosed with AIDS
* your viral load is 100,000 copies/mL or more
* your CD4 count is 200 cells/mm3 or less

You may also consider starting treatment if your CD4 count is between 200 and 350 cells/mm3; this is something you should discuss with your doctor.
Click to expand...

http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/other/cbrochure/english/cbrochure_en.html#03
 
Do y'all realize that this stupid topic is 24 pages long?! Now I ask you ...how fuckin' stupid is it to continue such an argument for 24 fuckin' pages?? Are y'all nuts or somethin'?

Baron Max
 
Nickelodeon said:
I only see 12 pages, maybe your settings are different.
Click to expand...

Only 12, huh? ONLY?? Twelve fuckin' pages? ...for this stupid, idiotic thread? Only 12, huh? ...LOL!

So .....have they decided yet???? Is denying HIV immoral?? :D

Or should I wait for another, say, 12 pages of decisive argument?

Baron Max
 
The official advice is rather this:

You do not necessarily need to take anti-HIV (also called antiretroviral) medications just because you are HIV positive. You and your doctor will determine the best time to start treatment. When to take anti-HIV medications depends on your overall health, the amount of virus in your blood (viral load), and how well your immune system is working.

How will I know when to start anti-HIV medications?

You and your doctor should consider three factors in deciding when to start treatment: 1) symptoms of advanced HIV disease, 2) viral load, and 3) CD4 count.

You should start treatment if:

* you are experiencing severe symptoms of HIV infection or have been diagnosed with AIDS
* your viral load is 100,000 copies/mL or more
* your CD4 count is 200 cells/mm3 or less

You may also consider starting treatment if your CD4 count is between 200 and 350 cells/mm3; this is something you should discuss with your doctor.
Click to expand...
http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/other/cbroch...ure_en.html#03
Click to expand...

Well.
There you go.
Proof that the medication doesn't cause Aids.
Nice work, Sauna.

Happy, Metakron?
I told you long ago that there was likely some sort of protocol along these lines.
It only makes sense.
 
That doesn't prove that the medication doesn't cause AIDS.

Amazing. They have people thinking that you can poison your own genetic code safely.
 
Well, the medication isn't given until after the cd4 count is drastically lowered, or other symptoms of aids begin to occur. So, it can't be the medication causing those symptoms.

And, Metakron, again, it is known that the drugs have harmful side effects. That's why they wait until after the onset of symptoms which necessitate that the person break the deadlock in the ethical consideration of action vs inaction.
 
invert_nexus said:
Well, the medication isn't given until after the cd4 count is drastically lowered, or other symptoms of aids begin to occur. So, it can't be the medication causing those symptoms.

And, Metakron, again, it is known that the drugs have harmful side effects. That's why they wait until after the onset of symptoms which necessitate that the person break the deadlock in the ethical consideration of action vs inaction.
Click to expand...

"or have been diagnosed with AIDS"

Generally, people are diagnosed with AIDS as soon as the HIV test results come back and the doctor determines that the patient is either African, homosexual, or has been exposed to someone who is African, homosexual, or diagnosed. The pressure is very heavy on the patient to take AZT or drug cocktails, or to force the same on their babies if their baby is HIV positive.

I'll keep trying. What part of "it fucks with your fucking DNA" are you having trouble understanding?
 
Generally, people are diagnosed with AIDS as soon as the HIV test results come back and the doctor determines that the patient is either African, homosexual, or has been exposed to someone who is African, homosexual, or diagnosed.
Click to expand...

No, they're not.
You're just bullshitting now.
Yes?

I'll keep trying. What part of "it fucks with your fucking DNA" are you having trouble understanding?
Click to expand...

What part of harmful side effects don't you understand?
 
Wow.
What a comeback.

Metakron. Your statement that people are diagnosed with AIDS as soon as they are diagnosed hiv-positive is fucking STUPID.
 
No, it's not.
This thread is sinking to new depths.
About time to lock it, maybe.

Here. A reminder:
CH11F20.GIF


Aids comes on after a period of latency.
People live with hiv for years before the onset of aids.
Now you're just spewing garbage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top