AIDS denial is immoral

MetaKron said:
My conclusion is that HIV disease is a fraud, and the things that we call AIDS include starvation and endemic disease in Africa, and unwise use of drugs and lifestyles in America. There are also the AIDS medications, which do cause AIDS.

AIDS denial may be immoral, but the ones who call themselves the AIDS establishment have denied the real causes of immune suppression since this started. In 1981 immune suppression was known to be caused by drugs, chemicals, nutritional deficiencies, and radiation exposure, among other things. The HIV believers have denied that immune suppression is caused by anything but HIV or an HIV like virus. This has cost lives. I could say that it has cost millions of lives in Africa, but when this thing started there had already been years of futile attempts to deal with the deaths in Africa, AND the population of Africa has been steadily increasing since then because people have ten children per family.
Click to expand...

Well, certainly anything you say that is rational or correct can be talked about; should , be talked about.
btw, nice to finally meet you again across the forum.
...
I just deleted my post because I thought you said something else. But you're actually saying your conclusion as I said it in the first sentence?

My conclusion is that HIV disease is a fraud, and the things that we call AIDS include starvation and endemic disease in Africa, and unwise use of drugs and lifestyles in America.

...............
So, this is your conclusion. Wow. That is metakron , I must admit , a very interesting conclusion. It isn't very conclusive to me though?
I do wonder first how Hiv disease is a fraud. I mean, even knowing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about this subject, I know there is something to hiv. But what ticks me off in the next part about your conclusion, I mean, really, me--- come on--- is that you say HIV causes no death. You say it includes starvation endemic disease ; and the unwise use of drugs and lifestyles in america.

This sounds very much like excuses. But I may be wrong....

If no one else will talk with you about this I wouldn't mind. BUt it feels like AIDS is being denied.
And you still haven't answered my questions in the eariler post I made... maybe you did...


AIDS denial may be immoral, but the ones who call themselves the AIDS establishment have denied the real causes of immune suppression since this started

...............

I won't deny or disadmire say, an attack of such . The reason is it sounds like a fury you are in. Good job.

If you have any evidence in this i wouldn't mind looking for evidence to go aganist what you say. If you're up for a scavenger hunt to close these aids denying threads.

I think you should face it though, AIDS does exist, there may be little squibbles and squabbles there and here, but hey, what do we care? .......


The HIV believers have denied that immune suppression is caused by anything but HIV or an HIV like virus. This has cost lives

..........
And that too is good work. If it truely has costs lifes, then we know this. Great. Excellent, actually......
I am being a little sarcastic but I am more careless and mindlessly typing most rational defense to your conclusion.

But you need to clarify a little bit still meta

So... what is your conclusion?
Or re-answer my previous post in a way which directs its attention to it, please? For the thread?
 
HIV infection does not immediately cause AIDS, and the issues of how it does, and whether all HIV-infected patients will progress to overt disease, remain controversial.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=imm.section.1518
Click to expand...

The only controversy in aids research is specific mechanics and, most especially, whether all hiv positives will eventually move on to aids.

This is an issue where I can understand Metakron's points about the dangerous nature of these drugs.
It is perhaps immoral to give someone drugs with harmful side effects to forestall a condition that may not ever occur in this individual.
And yet, if these drugs can extend a person's life span who will eventually get aids from his infection, then it's not immoral.

The problem being that doctors are not psychics and they can't tell which is which. And there is no clinical method of determining which category one might fall into.
Yet.

In the end, it becomes a choice of the individual whether or not he chooses to take the drugs or not. And this choice must be made in a manner which takes advantage of the full range of the body of knowledge built up around hiv and aids.
I'm not entirely sure of the exact procedures taking place in hospitals when patients are asked to make these choices, but I suspect that the doctors do make patients aware of the risk of the drugs (evidence being the warning labels on the packaging that Metakron loves to speak about) and also about the possibility that the infection may not ever lead to full-blown aids.

Of course, counterbalancing any education the doctor may try to instill in the patient in order to make an informed decision is all the previous knowledge about aids that the patient has acquired during his lifetime. And, unfortunately, with the media being the sensationalist bunghole that it is, is likely to be skewed in one direction or another. Either hiv infection is a death sentence (with no knowledge of the small percentage of people that never progress to aids, etc...) or that hiv/aids is a lie.

This is really a difficult decision to make and is not easy on anyone.
But, it is a decision that must be made.
 
They played a psychic act to make the prediction that HIV positives would die.

What is actually happening is that the people who are drugged progress quickly to AIDS while the people who are not drugged do not.
 
What is actually happening is that the people who are drugged progress quickly to AIDS while the people who are not drugged do not.
Click to expand...

That's a mighty grand statement there.
Got any clinical evidence to back that up?
The common view is just the opposite.
The only problem being the people who would never have moved on to Aids to begin with...
 
invert_nexus said:
That's a mighty grand statement there.
Got any clinical evidence to back that up?
The common view is just the opposite.
The only problem being the people who would never have moved on to Aids to begin with...
Click to expand...

The clinical evidence is skewed by the fact that the doctors ignore the non-progressors who don't take the drugs.
 
Meta :)

Let us for a moment forget this - and let us for a moment make an experiment of thoughts :

Let us say some very bad disease (causing suffering and death) exists ...

Theory one says, it is caused by this and that - and from your life experience you can understand that , and you support that theory in your heart ....
Actually you are pretty sure that theory is true .....

However some scientists say, this disease is caused from something infectious - and that you can actually stop most of its spreading by using a condom ...
You feel in your heart and mind , that these scientists are actually wrong ..
Actually you are pretty sure they are wrong ....

Since I somehow do not feel , that you want to harm yourself or your fellow man - wouldn´t it then be better to use a condom - I mean just to eliminate ANY risk - thereby protecting yourself and others ???

I mean - if it is a very serious disease - could you then not find it in your heart - just as a generous gesture to yourself and others - to do such a thing , just to eliminate any risk ??
 
Could I find it in my heart to obey the dictates of people who can't get their scientific acts together enough to operate a can opener? To allow myself to be led around by the nose by people who are obviously the product of dumbed down curriculums and are also obviously under the control of people who are dumber than themselves? To let my thinking be warped by totally bad science?

What a generous gesture you have conceived for me.
 
MetaKron said:
Could I find it in my heart to obey the dictates of people who can't get their scientific acts together enough to operate a can opener? To allow myself to be led around by the nose by people who are obviously the product of dumbed down curriculums and are also obviously under the control of people who are dumber than themselves? To let my thinking be warped by totally bad science?

What a generous gesture you have conceived for me.
Click to expand...

gosh...aren't you full of yourself.
 
somebody must gain from this "conspiracy".

who gains metakron? and for what end? i find it hard to believe that big pharma is behind this.
you've mentioned elsewhere that the medicine used is one of the causes for aids. doesn't that prove that hiv causes AIDS?

what other uses could this research (AIDS) be applied?

my opinion of the whole matter is people don't realize things about research.
this whole matter boils down to what triggers abnormal cell growth.
 
Leopold, I don't know where abnormal cell growth has been mentioned in relation to AIDS.

Tens of billions of dollars a year are being thrown at AIDS. Certain accounting discrepencies that made the news lately are just the tip of the iceberg of abuses, I am certain, and the accountability seems to be entirely missing. It's a bigger black hole for cash than is Homeland Security.

So who stands to benefit? If I had had a way to make hundreds of millions of dollars from this, I would have a really difficult time pulling the plug on it and the stockholders would crucify me. I mean, they would actually tie me to a tree and drive nails through me.
 
Facial, I've already told people who I was inspired by. Duesberg has won numerous prestigious awards and Kary Mullis won the Nobel Prize. These people were held in the highest esteem until they started questioning HIV.
 
MetaKron said:
Leopold, I don't know where abnormal cell growth has been mentioned in relation to AIDS.
Click to expand...
i said "in my opinion".
okay. let's take this a step at a time.
lab animals have been infected with HIV and those animals developed AIDS, correct?
if so it proves AIDS is not a hoax.

if it isn't abnormal cell growth then what are they looking for?


So who stands to benefit? If I had had a way to make hundreds of millions of dollars from this, I would have a really difficult time pulling the plug on it and the stockholders would crucify me. I mean, they would actually tie me to a tree and drive nails through me.
Click to expand...
i can't imagine doing this to people.
if a cooperation did this they would be setting themselves up to be plucked by the next class action lawsuit.
 
There were no lab animals that could be infected with HIV and develop disease until those mice that were just invented, Leopold.

They are looking for immune deficiency, not abnormal cell growth.

The thing that they refuse to test for in the human population, that answers the question of why no normal lab animals can get the disease, is a population of HIV positives who do not use drugs. It is "unethical." So they use one ethic to slide past another.

Something wierd happens when they try class action lawsuits. The worst ambulance chasers won't touch it. They are afraid of it. Word has been out for a while. If they will screw over someone like Duesberg, they will eat lawyers alive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top