AIDS denial is immoral

[MetaKron]

I gave you an entire website to read. Read it. The answers to your questions are there.

 

[Meanwhile]

Did you ever analyze Pascal's wager? That it's safer to believe that a God exists even if he doesn't? I think that all the people who were killed by God-fearing Christians and Moslems may disagree.

The drugs are lethal. The tests say right on the package that they are unreliable. It is possible for someone to send the same blood sample to several clinics and get as many results, no two of which resemble each other. Babies have been forced to take drugs that make them very sick and that are extremely dangerous to them.

www.virusmyth.net

So if the drugs are not actually beneficial, and that may be the case with some, then where or how do the symptoms originate or escalate from?

 

[MetaKron]

Read the site.

 

[Meanwhile]

Read the site.

Eventually I suppose since you've asked.

 

[MetaKron]

That's the only answer you will get from me for a while.

Once again I have let one of the conspirators drive me up a wall and make me look like a nutcase. I should know better by now. I can't help it. I can't control it. They know what buttons to push.

 

[James R]

The typical conspiracy nutter has grown very sick of the way that people treat anyone who thinks outside of the very narrow confines of whatever it is that you substitute for thought, James.

Are my questions too difficult for you? You're certainly going out of your way to avoid them.

I gave you an entire website to read. Read it. The answers to your questions are there.

I keep finding misleading statements there. For example, in their "tour" alone, we have:

Retroviruses do not typically kill their host cells. On the contrary, they depend on continued replication of the host for their own survival.

The implication is that HIV kills its host cells, which it does not.

Viruses typically cause disease shortly after infection, before the immune system of their host can respond. There is no other example of a viral pathogen which causes primary disease only after long and unpredictable latent periods, only in the presence of neutralizing antibodies, and in the virtual absence of gene expression, as HIV is said to do.

AIDS is a retrovirus. I'm not a biologist, but I think that the statement above is probably deliberately misleading.

(By the way, MetaKron, are you a qualified biologist or medical scientist? What level of knowledge do you have which has led you to support this minority opinion, against the combined weight of the vast majority of medical and biochemical experts?)

The number of HIV carriers in the U.S. has remained constant at one million since 1985, when widespread antibody testing was introduced, yet new viruses spread exponentially in a susceptible population.

The population has become less susceptible in the US, mostly due to increased awareness of the dangers of HIV. Many initial infections, for example, were among blood tranfusion recipients and intravenous drug users. Measures were introduced to screen all blood, although after a rather too lengthy delay.

AIDS has remained confined to the same risk groups since it was first identified as a new disease syndrome, and there are many fewer cases than predicted.

This is flat-out false.

The largest "risk group" is heterosexual people having unprotected sex, and AIDS is rampant in just that group, especially in Africa.

Approximately 75% of American hemophiliacs have been infected with HIV for more than 10 years. According to the HIV hypothesis at least 50% should have died of AIDS by now, yet mortality among hemophiliacs has not increased and only 2% of HIV-positive hemophiliacs develop AIDS indicator-diseases annually.

This is largely as a result of drug treatments which control the disease.

The same diseases are found in similar frequencies in HIV positive and HIV negative intravenous drug users, and the overall mortality in the two groups is the same.

It is not specified whether this is American data only. If it is, the explanation could be the drug treatments for AIDS, again.

The HIV antibody tests are not standardised. No gold standard has been used and may not even exist to determine specificity. The tests are also not reproducible.

A lie.

HIV tests are reproducible and reliable these days.

Tell me, MetaKron: what on this site do you find persuasive?

 

[MetaKron]

How do you know that the information about the test is a lie, James?

 

[Bells]

Actions, yes ...a bunch of words? No! If we started doing that, half of the human race would be held in jails somewhere!!

I'd also ask you, as the prosecuting attorney, to prove to me that my words led directly to the actions of others.

If I tell someone that jumping from a bridge from fifty feet above the water, that the water will be soft, would you hold me responsible if the idiot tried it?

If you were deemed to have some influence on them, yes, you could be held partly responsible.

As to Meta and others who deny AIDS/HIV exist or pose a danger, well the results speak for themselves don't they? Millions infected and millions dead. Now either the world has managed to pull of one of the biggest conspiracies of all time, or Meta and his ilk are just crackpots.

And besides, don't he have "moderator" authority here? Even if he's a moderator on some other forum?

Nope.

The fact is that Spurious plans to pull every trick in the book to excuse getting rid of any evidence that I do bring up. I put up the link to a website that contains a lot of well-documented information. He just says that it's a propaganda site and not a good source. The first source that I used was a link to Aegis, which is billed as the premiere source of information on the Internet, for the so-called establishment side of AIDS, and he claimed that I didn't give any evidence to support what I said.

You don't provide any evidence. At least ToR made an effort. You have made none.

Spurious plans to keep lying and keep playing headgames. That is all that he is here for.

Yes Meta. He's here to get you. You better pull on a foil hat in case he starts probing your mind.

The AIDS industry makes millions of dollars every day that this hoax continues. Every stupid delaying tactic that they can come up with makes them billions. If they had to pay people like Spurious tens of thousands of dollars a day to do this they would still come out way ahead on the money that they gain by preventing the word from getting out. People like him are hired just for that purpose.

Are you for real?

What are you on? Seriously.. what is it? Because if it's that good at making you deny reality, then I want some!

Millions of people are dying because of people like you. Your words are in support for Governments who have done nothing to help educate and prevent the spread of AIDS and HIV because people like you keep pushing the myth argument. But maybe that is what you want. Maybe you are one of those crackpots who dream of killing off millions of people every year. Let me guess. You are probably one of those who thinks the earth is flat as well, aren't you?

He has already proven to me that he is one of them, so in all honesty there is no point in trying to make nice. He's not going to make nice and I am ashamed of people who let someone run wild because he has "moderator" status and we're all supposed to suck up to authority.

"Them"? Who exactly is "them"?

Are 'they' out to get you? Is it foil hat time again?

He is someone's sock puppet. No, I have not lost my mind. Spurious is exactly what I said he is. He and others like him have been doing this since 1996 at the very earliest, or at least that's the earliest that I know of.

Oh I think you have lost your mind.

Actually, Spurious is a sockpuppet of George Bush. It's his alternate personality coming through under Spurious. You know the personality that is intelligent.

You better put on that foil hate Meta. Mind probe incoming in 5.

Spurious is deliberately giving me problems about giving the sources that he demands. He is nitpicking. He is playing games. He is making rules that only I am bound to follow. Believe me, I know him and I know his game by now. The whole thing is deliberately calculated to make me paranoid, except that paranoia is when you think that someone is out to get you who actually isn't. Spurious is and has been since this affair started.

No. It is generally accepted in any scientific community or any intelligent community actually (it's even expectec and accepted in high school) that you provide evidence from a reliable source to back up any claims you may be making. You have failed.

He does not have to make you paranoid. You ARE paranoid.

When I put up sources all that he will do is say that there is something he doesn't like about them and then cesspool the message just to disrupt the discussion. He has absolutely no intention of conducting his moderation in a fair manner.

As you have been told countless times now, you can post your links right here. He has no moderation powers in this particular forum. So where are they?

Why do you refuse to show proof of your claims?

Invert, those people destroyed several good discussion groups. They are paid to do this. I know for a fact that one of them gets $200,000 a year, no shit, and I know who pays them. It is real and I am so very sick of them. For one of them to come here and do what Spurious did to me is such a horrid experience that I cannot describe it. He has contaminated this site for me. He has given me yet another experience where I have been made to appear to be a liar or crazy when I was telling the truth.

Oh dear lord!

Precious!

He hasn't had to do anything to make you appear crazy or a liar. He hasn't really participated much in this thread. You've done the 'appearing' crazy all on your very own.

Do you know the game where someone tells you to explain something then keeps interrupting you with stupid stuff? That's the game that Spurious is playing. I'm having to try to play a straight game and all he's doing is screwing around. I am so goddam sick of it.

Meta.

It's a forum. He can't interrupt you mid sentence. You post your whole post without interruption. He replies to it and so on. You aren't speaking in real time. You are typing out a message. It could take him a couple of minutes, hours or even days to reply. So how in the hell can he or anyone else interrupt what you are trying to say?

The truth is that AIDS is definitely one of the worst scientific hoaxes ever played on the world. The drugs are killing millions of people worldwide and they do nothing to help the disease.

I think you are mistaking the drugs killing them with the actual disease killing them.

And what in the hell is that site?

Do you have something from a university or research organisation? WHO? UN? Hell even Fox news? Anything at all? Or are they "them" as well?

I'll make it easier for you. Do you have even one article from 2003 onwards which supports your claims? Because at the moment you are only relying on opinions of people from the early to mid 90's.

 

[MetaKron]

Meanwhile, that jerk keeps yanking messages out and making false statements. I have ceased to make any attempt to comply with what he demands because he deliberately cites non-compliance when I have complied. It's the same thing as interrupting me mid-sentence because he nitpicks.

Also, I have encountered this person before and he's pulled the same tricks.

 

[2inquisitive]

MetaKron, Spurious has yet to even mention you in this thread. He created this thread to illuminate the real harm that AIDS Denial websites can potentially cause. It is the same as if websites claimed cancer was a hoax and it was chemotherapy that was killing people who underwent the treatment instead of cancer. Advising them to not undergo treatment as it is the treatment that will kill you. Such unbased proclaimations can likely result in the death of those uninformed, or just not too bright, people who are in a state of denial because of their disease, either cancer or HIV infection.
MetaKron, you seem to be either in a state of denial, or just not too bright. Hopefully you have not tested positive for HIV. Have you?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Approximately 75% of American hemophiliacs have been infected with HIV for more than 10 years. According to the HIV hypothesis at least 50% should have died of AIDS by now, yet mortality among hemophiliacs has not increased and only 2% of HIV-positive hemophiliacs develop AIDS indicator-diseases annually.

how strange it is to see that in the UK haemophiliacs did die from frequently than non-infected from HIV infection mostly because of AIDS. The ones not-infected with HIV didn't die from AIDS.

Repost from the great HIV/AIDS thread where all data showing that HIV causes AIDS is conveniently ignored by metakron.

Nature 377, 79 - 82 1995


Mortality before and after HIV infection in the complete UK population of haemophiliacs

DURING 1977-91, 6,278 males diagnosed with haemophilia were living in the UK. During 1979-86, 1,227 were infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) as a result of transfusion therapy (median estimated seroconversion date, October 1982). Among 2,448 with severe haemophilia, the annual death rate was stable at 8 per 1,000 during 1977-84; during 1985-92 death rates remained at 8 per 1,000 among HIV-seronegative patients but rose steeply in seropositive patients, reaching 81 per 1,000 in 1991-92. Among 3,830 with mild or moderate haemophilia, the pattern was similar, with an initial death rate of 4 per 1,000 in 1977-84, rising to 85 per 1,000 in 1991-92 in seropositive patients. During 1985-92, there were 403 deaths in HIV seropositive patients, whereas 60 would have been predicted from rates in seronegatives, suggesting that 85% of the deaths in seropositive patients were due to HIV infection. Most of the excess deaths were certified as due to AIDS or to conditions recognized as being associated with AIDS.

 

[qwerty mob]

Not this again... the HTLV-III => AIDS hypothesis is unproven, and will likely forever be so, because there is no single pathogenic cause for the variety of observed cases of Immunological Dysfunction in the Human population, worldwide, in the past three decades. No, kiddies, HTLV-III did NOT satisfy Koch's Postulate; and no appeals to statistics can make it so. HIV, therefore, was "defined into being" by mere political convention, rather than scientific concensus.

If a person dies of pneumonia without a trace of HTLV-III, they died of (surprise) pneumonia; but if a person dies of pneumonia with "HIV" antibodies present, they died of "AIDS"... a victory for circular logic.

--

I happen to be a telecommunications engineer, professionally, but I posess more than a passing interest in biotechnology since the future of my field is RF transmission safety, nanofabrication, and hybrid circuitry. Some time ago, I weighed evidence for both sides of the "AIDS" debate, and I still hold the opinion that there is legitimate room for dissent among scientists on the AIDS topic. It's taken years to vindicate my industry from the popular media-myth that "Cell Phones cause Jaw Cancer"... it's simply going to take longer for *The* AIDS Myth to die.

Labelling those, such as myself, who acknowledge that evidence suggests that there is more than one variety of "AIDS" today (one type of which may very well be viral in Humans) with the blanket epithet of "denier" is hardly accurate, and if anyone was really trying to fashion the notion that good science is somehow immoral, I'd happily ask such a person to "go get jaw cancer on their cell phone"... while fucking a tainted monkey.

*grin*

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Could you give the reference to the source where it states that a patient with AIDS has been found without HIV infection?

 

[MetaKron]

Well, I don't know, Qwerty, but this whole thing is giving me ass cancer this week.

 

[MetaKron]

Could you give the reference to the source where it states that a patient with AIDS has been found without HIV infection?

Can you give me the reference to the source that decided that all of AIDS was caused by HIV?

 

[James R]

How do you know that the information about the test is a lie, James?

It's your turn. You answer my questions. Then I might answer yours.

 

[invert_nexus]

Viruses typically cause disease shortly after infection, before the immune system of their host can respond. There is no other example of a viral pathogen which causes primary disease only after long and unpredictable latent periods, only in the presence of neutralizing antibodies, and in the virtual absence of gene expression, as HIV is said to do.

Try chicken pox (shingles).
Try herpes.
Try any number of other viruses that embed themselves in your body on a permanent basis and flare up from time to time.

(By the by, our genome is riddled with viroid hitchhikers from the ancient past. In fact, it's quite possible that we owe portions of our evolution to extra baggage provided by virii...)

It should be noted that initial hiv infection causes flu-like symptoms.

 

[MetaKron]

Try chicken pox (shingles).
Try herpes.
Try any number of other viruses that embed themselves in your body on a permanent basis and flare up from time to time.

(By the by, our genome is riddled with viroid hitchhikers from the ancient past. In fact, it's quite possible that we owe portions of our evolution to extra baggage provided by virii...)

It should be noted that initial hiv infection causes flu-like symptoms.

Invert, look at ALL of the conditions listed.

 

[invert_nexus]

Hiv doesn't even fit all the conditions:

which causes primary disease

Hiv causes flu-like symptoms after the initial infection.

And I don't have a clue what this is about:

only in the presence of neutralizing antibodies, and in the virtual absence of gene expression

 

[qwerty mob]

Could you give the reference to the source where it states that a patient with AIDS has been found without HIV infection?

Yes, and you would dismiss it as anachronistic, so I'll suggest you conduct your own search for epidemiological studies, beginning with Vancouver (which at least began to investigate Duesberg's lifestyle cofactors hypothesis for USA-AIDS).