AIDS denial is immoral
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
Why are we forced to make any kind of decision about something that we don't know shit about? If some doctors or researchers tell me that there's green cheese on the moon, ...okay, fine ....but that doesn't mean that I should come to sciforums and announce that I firmly, convincingly agree with that report. ...and that anyone who doesn't is an asshole, an idiot and a lyin' jerk-wit!
I don't care if HIV causes AIDS or not. Believing or not has no effect on my life, so why should I give a fuck? I suspect that it has actually very little effect on most of y'all. And more to the point, why should I or anyone argue either way or get upset when someone else believes differently?
Oh, fuck no! She's too ugly, and ain't got no body worth a damn, either. But I would let Britney Spears or Jennifer Lopez do it!!!
Baron Max
Baron Max:
If your car breaks down, what do you do? Maybe you try to fix it yourself. If your children get sick, what do you do? Maybe you try to cure them as best you can. If you want to build a house, what do you do? Maybe you try to build it yourself.
Most people rely on experts. They take their car to a trained repairer. They take their kids to a qualified doctor. They hire qualified builders to build their houses.
Do car repairers and doctors and builders ever make mistakes?
What about a committee of 100 car repairers, or 100 builders?
Now, think.
Nobody is forcing you to think. You need to want to. You need to put in some effort yourself to educate yourself. Or not.
But don't complain to us just because you find it all too difficult to exercise your brain.
I don't know. Obviously you do care, or you would have stayed out of this thread.
If your car breaks down, what do you do? Maybe you try to fix it yourself. If your children get sick, what do you do? Maybe you try to cure them as best you can. If you want to build a house, what do you do? Maybe you try to build it yourself.
Most people rely on experts. They take their car to a trained repairer. They take their kids to a qualified doctor. They hire qualified builders to build their houses.
Do car repairers and doctors and builders ever make mistakes?
What about a committee of 100 car repairers, or 100 builders?
Now, think.
Nobody is forcing you to think. You need to want to. You need to put in some effort yourself to educate yourself. Or not.
But don't complain to us just because you find it all too difficult to exercise your brain.
I don't know. Obviously you do care, or you would have stayed out of this thread.
I hope that's not a threat of banishment?
If you'd read my post, you'd see that it had little or nothing to do with AIDS or HIV, it was about making decisions about things that have no effect on our lives.
No, I don't give a fuck about HIV or AIDS or any of the people that have it. I was only talking about, asking about, why we feel that we must make some kind of decision on this or, in fact, anything, that doesn't affect us directly.
Baron Max
A funny thing is, I've bought a car before that was supposedly worked over by a trained mechanic. It had an overheating problem that I found out was due to a malfunctioning radiator cap that didn't let water flow from the overflow reservoir to the radiator. It also had some problems with the engine racing because the rubber in the vacuum control lines had rotted, and I'm not a trained mechanic.
Doctors kill about 100,000 people a year by their mistakes, that the AMA admits to. You know what they call the person who graduates medical school at the bottom of the class? They call him or her "doctor." There is also groupthink and allopaths are infamously resistant to new ideas like surgical asepsis.
James, you want us to believe, give us something to believe in.
Doctors kill about 100,000 people a year by their mistakes, that the AMA admits to. You know what they call the person who graduates medical school at the bottom of the class? They call him or her "doctor." There is also groupthink and allopaths are infamously resistant to new ideas like surgical asepsis.
James, you want us to believe, give us something to believe in.
Baron Max:
Of course not.
That's right. And you won't - until somebody you care about gets it. If there is anybody you care about, other than yourself, that is.
MetaKron:
Look, MetaKron, I've already said I'm neither a biologist nor a medical researcher. But I trust that very smart people who are have done the required work and reached a concensus on HIV/AIDS.
In every field there are fringe-dwellers who will go against the prevailing consensus. Occasionally, they turn out to be correct, but more often they are on the fringes because they are wrong but not smart enough to see it, or because they have personal baggage which leads them to push a line that is unsustainable on the evidence.
What I wonder, though, is where you fit in. I am not a biologist, and I freely admit that, but I notice when I ask you the same question you won't admit that you, too, are unqualified in this area. You presume to be able to evaluate the truth or falsity of your favorite crackpot websites, and yet seem to lack the expertise required to do so. So, what it comes down to, as far as I can see, is that you're taking a stand against majority scientific opinion merely to be contrary, and perhaps to "stick it to the man".
Most people grow out of that kind of thing following their teen years. The ones who tend to cling on to silly notions usually do so because they think their rebellion somehow compensates for their lack of personal success in mainstream society.
But maybe you have better reasons. Who knows?
Of course not.
That's right. And you won't - until somebody you care about gets it. If there is anybody you care about, other than yourself, that is.
MetaKron:
Look, MetaKron, I've already said I'm neither a biologist nor a medical researcher. But I trust that very smart people who are have done the required work and reached a concensus on HIV/AIDS.
In every field there are fringe-dwellers who will go against the prevailing consensus. Occasionally, they turn out to be correct, but more often they are on the fringes because they are wrong but not smart enough to see it, or because they have personal baggage which leads them to push a line that is unsustainable on the evidence.
What I wonder, though, is where you fit in. I am not a biologist, and I freely admit that, but I notice when I ask you the same question you won't admit that you, too, are unqualified in this area. You presume to be able to evaluate the truth or falsity of your favorite crackpot websites, and yet seem to lack the expertise required to do so. So, what it comes down to, as far as I can see, is that you're taking a stand against majority scientific opinion merely to be contrary, and perhaps to "stick it to the man".
Most people grow out of that kind of thing following their teen years. The ones who tend to cling on to silly notions usually do so because they think their rebellion somehow compensates for their lack of personal success in mainstream society.
But maybe you have better reasons. Who knows?
Bells
Staff member
And AIDS/HIV denialists have denied medical help to millions of people, resulting in their death from the disease. What nice company you keep Meta.
You are obviously the type of person that no matter how much evidence is presented to them, will refuse to look at it. More's the pity for you and those of your ilk. I guess some prefer to hide in their ignorance and denial than actually face they might be wrong.
You don't have to diagnose AIDS with specifying an HIV infection has to exist. AIDS is actually rather specific in other respects too. One of which is the complete depletion of T cells. There are some diseases/disorders out there where you have a partial depletion, but none that go as far as AIDS. All the way to zero.
And for Baron, I already pointed out to you that you DO NOT have to believe the doctors/researchers. You can pull the research and judge the DATA. For yourself. I did that. You can't be arsed, so you basically have no option but to believe researchers.
Very, very bad rhetoric there.
No argument there.
Oh look a moderator insulting an poster...I never thought it possible
keep up the 'good' work
you don't mind if I use this extract for my blog do you?
Have a nice day
James R, one of the truly tragic things about "HIV" is the fact that the speculations about HIV somehow upended a lot of science that was established before the idea of HIV came along. It was a silly notion. Now those who argue for the existence of HIV disease argue for a set of special rules that HIV disease has to exist in order to prove. A lot of people simply can't escape circular logic.
I just told you you can define AIDS without HIV. Because in some respects it is highly specific other than the presence of HIV.
Ignoring the truth is not the same as the existence of a conspiracy. You are trapped in circular logic.
Ignoring the truth is not the same as the existence of a conspiracy. You are trapped in circular logic.
That is all in your head I'm afraid.
Do I have your kind permission now?
How do we define AIDS? One of the first things you learn when you look for a definition of AIDS is that the definition has changed a few times and it's not the same in different countries or according to different organizations. I contend that any condition of immune suppression may qualify.
I have a question to ask: would the people who deny the role of HIV in AIDS be prepared to deliberately infect themselves with it? I don't think so. Somebody should ask Duisberg about it...
Not possible. No one has isolated the virus.
pictorial of HIV-1 virus:
http://www.critpath.org/aric/library/img002.htm
how a cell commits suicide:
http://www.critpath.org/aric/library/img010.htm
general hypothesis
http://www.critpath.org/aric/library/img012.htm
http://www.critpath.org/aric/library/img002.htm
how a cell commits suicide:
http://www.critpath.org/aric/library/img010.htm
general hypothesis
http://www.critpath.org/aric/library/img012.htm
"How Apoptosis May Be Triggered in HIV Infection"
They use "may" and "can" a lot, just like anyone who is writing a speculative story about a proposed mechanism. A reasonable person might well decide to withhold the undying faith kind of belief until more results are in. Apoptosis is a very common mechanism in living tissue that helps prevent tumors, helps remove senescent cells, and helps prevent the immune system from attacking living tissue, because living tissue can trigger apoptosis in white blood cells. This last is very necessary because there are circumstances under which white blood cells can attack tissues that the body is still using.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosis
Is it or is it not correct to say that "reasoned speculation" by HIV experts should not be taken as gospel?
They use "may" and "can" a lot, just like anyone who is writing a speculative story about a proposed mechanism. A reasonable person might well decide to withhold the undying faith kind of belief until more results are in. Apoptosis is a very common mechanism in living tissue that helps prevent tumors, helps remove senescent cells, and helps prevent the immune system from attacking living tissue, because living tissue can trigger apoptosis in white blood cells. This last is very necessary because there are circumstances under which white blood cells can attack tissues that the body is still using.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoptosis
Is it or is it not correct to say that "reasoned speculation" by HIV experts should not be taken as gospel?