AIDS fact or Fraud?

[Agent Chameleon]

They won't pay any attention, Yongrel and Agent. They are so sure that the world works a certain way, that anything which doesn't fit into their perception of reality is not worth even considering.

Yup and you totally know the truth. And I should just believe what you say because you say have done so much "research".

 

[dannno]

And there's scientists that give credence to creationism. Credentials doesn't mean diddly-squat.

But lack of credentials does, right? No?

The point is, that since they have credentials, maybe it is worth at least listening what they have to say. According to you, we should just ignore them because their theories don't fit within the prevailing dogma of science.

If you can break the train of their logic, or the so-called HIV forum expert can show how they are missing some big piece of evidence, then great. Until then, we have seen the evidence, it is very clear and you continue to live in denial.

 

[dannno]

Yup and you totally know the truth. And I should just believe what you say because you say have done so much "research".

No, I keep telling you to do your own research and you refuse.

 

[sam9657]

Yup and you totally know the truth. And I should just believe what you say because you say have done so much "research".

Nobody said to simply believe us. All we are saying is that you should be skeptical and look at both sides of the story before drawing a conclusion. After all this is the one trait that makes us Ron Paul supporters great.

 

[hillertexas]

Does anyone know how the rate of the "AIDS vaccine" being distributed in Africa is correlated to the increase/decrease of the rate of those infected with AIDS in Africa?

 

[Agent Chameleon]

No, I keep telling you to do your own research and you refuse.

Dannno, I've done enough research to make up my own mind. I've looked at AIDS denialism, and read about the chief proponents of the theory.

They may have "credentials", but they are heavily outnumbered by those that reject their claims AND have credentials.

The two chief proponents being promoted by you and others are not convincing enough for me; I'm sorry. I mean even Thabo Mbeki had to back away from this Duesberg guy.

Things don't add up in favor of the AIDS denialism cause.

 

[Agent Chameleon]

Nobody said to simply believe us. All we are saying is that you should be skeptical and look at both sides of the story before drawing a conclusion. After all this is the one trait that makes us Ron Paul supporters great.

I have looked at other side and found it quite lacking. But I don't think that will be enough for you guys. Not until I see the "light".

 

[dannno]

Dannno, I've done enough research to make up my own mind. I've looked at AIDS denialism, and read about the chief proponents of the theory.

They may have "credentials", but they are heavily outnumbered by those that reject their claims AND have credentials.

The two chief proponents being promoted by you and others are not convincing enough for me; I'm sorry.

But your conclusion is based on the fact that more scientists disagree than agree. I thought credentials didn't matter? I'm talking about logic. I'm talking about what we know. If you did any real research, you would be able to explain the fault in their logic or research. You have not been able to point it out to me, and I refuse to believe the side of the issue who has the most "scientists" on it.

 

[dannno]

I have looked at other side and found it quite lacking. But I don't think that will be enough for you guys. Not until I see the "light".

There is nothing "lacking" about it. Everything is explained thoroughly and in detail. The only conclusion I can come to after the two arguments we have had this morning is that you are a liar. You haven't done any real research. You don't know anything about what we are talking about.

If you want to disprove me, then explain why, using actual scientific basis for your reasoning. You haven't mentioned anything specific this whole time. You are a diversionary tactic. A waster of time.

 

[Agent Chameleon]

But your conclusion is based on the fact that more scientists disagree than agree. I thought credentials didn't matter? I'm talking about logic. I'm talking about what we know. If you did any real research, you would be able to explain the fault in their logic or research. You have not been able to point it out to me, and I refuse to believe the side of the issue who has the most "scientists" on it.

I was simply adding that fact since you were putting such stock in credentials.

 

[Agent Chameleon]

There is nothing "lacking" about it. Everything is explained thoroughly and in detail. The only conclusion I can come to after the two arguments we have had this morning is that you are a liar. You haven't done any real research. You don't know anything about what we are talking about.

If you want to disprove me, then explain why, using actual scientific basis for your reasoning. You haven't mentioned anything specific this whole time. You are a diversionary tactic. A waster of time.

Because it's a waste of time arguing with delusional people like you. I've pointed how your "evidence" is questionable. I've pointed out that two scientists does NOT validate your beliefs. I've pointed out how the Bohemian grove video was unreliable.

But that doesn't matter to you. The truth is that you are just as stubborn as you claim I am. You never once showed me any respect, even when we had disagreements over the Georgia conflict, you just labeled my views as "bullshit". Ever since then I've never taken you very seriously.

For the good of the movement, I hope you learn to stop being such a self-righteous jerk.

 

[sam9657]

I was simply adding that fact since you were putting such stock in credentials.

Ok we have given you videos with evidence that HIV does not cause AIDS, but I have yet to see any rebuttal based on evidence or any study you can show me that shows HIV causes AIDS. Please show me some EVIDENCE!

 

[Agent Chameleon]

Ok we have given you videos with evidence that HIV does not cause AIDS, but I have yet to see any rebuttal based on evidence or any study you can show me that shows HIV causes AIDS. Please show me some EVIDENCE!

They are out there and you know it. You'll just deny anything I post as "propaganda or MSM-lies".

 

[Agent Chameleon]

I could pull any article from this website and you'll shoot it down just because it doesn't agree with your crazy belief that there is no proof of an AIDS-HIV connection. http://www.aidstruth.org/new/

 

[Agent Chameleon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/w...1193583001-IE12EKQeJt1sjwCUOYPVWg&oref=slogin

 

[dannno]

You never once showed me any respect, even when we had disagreements over the Georgia conflict, you just labeled my views as "bullshit". Ever since then I've never taken you very seriously.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7692751.stm

Maybe you should listen to me more often and refute my arguments with substance rather than what you do. I haven't heard you talk about any of the subject matter relating to this controversy, all you do is give your opinion. Why can't you give your opinion and back it up with substance??

For example:


"Dr. Duesberg says that cases of HIV went up in proportion to testing. This is false because..."

but instead all you do is say "I've done the research and they are wrong blah blah blah here's a crazy website AIDSTruth which doesn't make any sense based on their arguments but I'll post it anyway blah blah blah"

 

[M House]

Wow? I'm not an expert but it seems to me this is almost like a science debate over something like word choice....
AIDS=Acquired immune deficiency syndrome
-obviously you can acquire an immune deficiency from a variety of sources such as
dietary deficiency
some drugs
genetics
disease
-usually in that case it's just referred to as immune compromised (I think). AIDS(the term) is linked to HIV just for semantics here.

HIV=Human Immunodeficiency Virus
-by definition would it cause AIDs...yes
-would it be really stupid to argue this...yes
-does it necessarily cause it...no

Why not ask the scientist a detailed question for once? I have my doubts about alot of the validity of the research, mainly it's just due to huge amount of money thrown at it with seemly little result in some areas. Is it all bullshit, probably not look somethings that have been accomplished-greater lifespan and entirely new types of drugs that benefit a variety of fields. But you could of course still choose to deny this.

 

[Agent Chameleon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7692751.stm

Maybe you should listen to me more often and refute my arguments with substance rather than what you do. I haven't heard you talk about any of the subject matter relating to this controversy, all you do is give your opinion. Why can't you give your opinion and back it up with substance??

For example:


"Dr. Duesberg says that cases of HIV went up in proportion to testing. This is false because..."

but instead all you do is say "I've done the research and they are wrong blah blah blah here's a crazy website AIDSTruth which doesn't make any sense based on their arguments but I'll post it anyway blah blah blah"

Dannno you're not doing much of a better job at "substance". You and your friends use as "evidence" two videos by these "credible" scientists who's opinions are debunked.

Hell even a guy who posted actual substance earlier wasn't apparently not enough for you.

 

[dannno]

I could pull any article from this website and you'll shoot it down just because it doesn't agree with your crazy belief that there is no proof of an AIDS-HIV connection. http://www.aidstruth.org/new/

You've got to be kidding me. The first two are irrelevent.

The cause of death due to AIDS in Africa comes from malnutrition. The first article claims that because they didn't treat the mothers with their special program that would help reduce the number of babies with HIV, 330,000 babies eventually died over a decade. Do you have any idea how prevalent malnutrition is in Africa? Did you even know that malnutrition is a major cause of AIDS? Can you prove me that malnutrition cannot in fact cause AIDS?


The second article is even worse. They are talking about Quacks peddling fake cures for AIDS. The idea that HIV doesn't cause AIDS means there is no "cure" except to treat the condition which the people have.. which in Africa is malnutrition. In the US it is essentially malnutrition due to extensive drug use, HIV meds themselves and another disease that is easily treatable and can be contracted through anal sex.


The AIDS dissident movement simply wants to treat the actual disease that people have rather than shoving them full of AIDS medication. That's IT. If people actually listened and took it seriously, we could actually conquer this myth, one way or another, and help people.

 

[sam9657]

Interesting note. A quick google of the drug AZT,which was the first drug to treat AIDS, shows that the side effects of AZT are similar to the symptoms of AIDS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zidovudine
Common side effects of AZT include nausea, headache, changes in body fat, and discoloration of fingernails and toenails. More severe side effects include anemia and bone marrow suppression.

So since once of the side effects of AZT is that immune suppression how do we distinguish the its effects from AIDS itself?