Human Immunodeficiency Virus, impairs cells in your immune system (Helper T). It doesn't necessarily so much kill them outright but prevents them from the tagging, reproducing, and working the normal functions they are assigned. This what I understand, think the guy here was trying to get across. It doesn't actually cause AIDS if your coming from the stance of arguing definitions. AIDs is a syndrome. It does cause however an immune deficiency obviously by impairing the ability of immune system to normally operate. If want to view the significance of this, just google some pictures. Denying this is stupid. Even herpes can kill children (once again look at some pictures of children who get it at birth), so when your given a chance to take some responsibility for a health risk, why not? They have much more specialized anti viral drugs not just that AZT you keep spamming, just look at Valtrex. Many of you probably view that as some sorta conspiracy but whatever. Immune compromised people die all the time at hospitals does that mean it's always better to avoid things like chemo for cancer? Anyway when people are immune compromised, they die from simple things like infections, often pre-existing diseases and conditions.
AIDS fact or Fraud?
- Thread starter sam9657
- Start date
lucius
Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 3,347
That is a very salient point: science reinforcing policy agenda is funded; science that is inimical is not, which was one of the findings of the 1954 Congressional Reece Committee investigating tax exempt corporate foundations.
Last edited:
Brooklyn Red Leg
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 2,091
Not Gravity, but Gravity-based Cosmology whose adherents have the nasty little problem of having to constantly invent new explanations (none of which are ever observed) as to why the theory keeps breaking down. Why else would they have to come up with Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy and now (amazingly) Dark Light. All bullshit to try and cover up the holes in the current model of Cosmology when there is an alternative (Electric/Plasma Cosmology) that doesn't require nearly the pretzel-like maneuvers to try and cover up the holes in the theory.
Hey Danno
I am a Scientist with credintials.
How can you say that you believe what you have read and it all makes sense?
Obviously, you do not know much science if you believe the lies and misinformation you read.
For example, Dr. Henry Bauer, says that the recent story printed in The NY Times done by HARVARD that there have been 365,000 lives lost in South Africa since he and his ReThinking AIDS cohorts went and snowballed Mbeki, is flawed. However, when I post to his site, he will not post what I say. I will give you his link below, and my comments, that he will NOT post, because he knows I am right.
Take heed!!
http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/poison-in-south-africa/
My reply:
Dr. Bauer,
I came to this link because Christine Maggiore asked you to send it to my personal email. I was under the impression this article was about the mathematical model used and how it was incorrect, or even insufficient.
Where did you even give direct evidence of the “rather elaborate computerized models replete with hordes of assumptions, and they deliver outputs that not only differ with one another…”
You are the one assuming the computer models are “rather elaborate”
And then you go on to infuse your own thoughts saying they are “replete with hordes of assumptions” What? You do not say what assumptions are made. Then you compare this report, with other “reports” that this South African report does not even mention.
Here is a quote directly from the NY Times Article:
“Epidemiologists and biostatisticians who reviewed the study for The New York Times said the researchers had based their estimates on conservative assumptions and used a sound methodology.”
And also:“They have truly used conservative estimates for their calculations, and I would consider their numbers quite reasonable,” James Chin, a professor of epidemiology at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Public Health, said in an e-mail message.
Where is the proof of the shoddy math model?
Sincerely,
J. Todd DeShong
Now, do you see part of the reason you cannot believe ANYTHING these people post? They do not believe in free speech, nor do they believe in the truth.
If you have any further questions, just come to my blog.
Sincerely,
J. Todd DeShong
www.dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com
I am a Scientist with credintials.
How can you say that you believe what you have read and it all makes sense?
Obviously, you do not know much science if you believe the lies and misinformation you read.
For example, Dr. Henry Bauer, says that the recent story printed in The NY Times done by HARVARD that there have been 365,000 lives lost in South Africa since he and his ReThinking AIDS cohorts went and snowballed Mbeki, is flawed. However, when I post to his site, he will not post what I say. I will give you his link below, and my comments, that he will NOT post, because he knows I am right.
Take heed!!
http://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/poison-in-south-africa/
My reply:
Dr. Bauer,
I came to this link because Christine Maggiore asked you to send it to my personal email. I was under the impression this article was about the mathematical model used and how it was incorrect, or even insufficient.
Where did you even give direct evidence of the “rather elaborate computerized models replete with hordes of assumptions, and they deliver outputs that not only differ with one another…”
You are the one assuming the computer models are “rather elaborate”
And then you go on to infuse your own thoughts saying they are “replete with hordes of assumptions” What? You do not say what assumptions are made. Then you compare this report, with other “reports” that this South African report does not even mention.
Here is a quote directly from the NY Times Article:
“Epidemiologists and biostatisticians who reviewed the study for The New York Times said the researchers had based their estimates on conservative assumptions and used a sound methodology.”
And also:“They have truly used conservative estimates for their calculations, and I would consider their numbers quite reasonable,” James Chin, a professor of epidemiology at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Public Health, said in an e-mail message.
Where is the proof of the shoddy math model?
Sincerely,
J. Todd DeShong
Now, do you see part of the reason you cannot believe ANYTHING these people post? They do not believe in free speech, nor do they believe in the truth.
If you have any further questions, just come to my blog.
Sincerely,
J. Todd DeShong
www.dissidents4dumbees.blogspot.com
Yer seriously gonna feel a bit lonely on these boards arguing that way. Even global warming has been argued from a scientific standpoint. Tmosley researches the HIV itself and he was outgunned/just read some of threads. You need to realize your arguing with alot of paranoids, stoners, and confused. That of course is an unfair generalization. Considering the election results, economy, laughingly twisted political garbage going on they are a bit validated in their positions. This of course brings many things to the table both good and bad. Just keep attacking with whatever you have don't hide in a blog. You should of course keep coming here, between regular trips for blood pressure meds. You can argue a point here or there and provide some substance/different view points. I'm not really seeing alot of variety in arguments alot of times.
-There's me=near college drop out, but to give myself a nifty title a neuropathophysiologist (u know to atleast represent diversity in classes I have taken)
-Mosley=high IQ, chemist researcher dude
-U=credentialed scientist elaborate?
-Awhile ago I also saw some guy post who was thinking of using proteins in place of alotta preservative compounds in vaccines wonder what happened with that?
-A few other regular posters-many have cool views, many um... yeah results vary
Together, though we might be last great hope for Health Freedom in this country. Until recently I didn't think I'd ever even bother to read a PDF on Gardasil. Some people care though I got a PM about that awhile back. Was I useful who knows. Ugh, whatever we outta atleast be able to come with acceptable amount of truth to bullshit for someone to get something outta it though.
-There's me=near college drop out, but to give myself a nifty title a neuropathophysiologist (u know to atleast represent diversity in classes I have taken)
-Mosley=high IQ, chemist researcher dude
-U=credentialed scientist elaborate?
-Awhile ago I also saw some guy post who was thinking of using proteins in place of alotta preservative compounds in vaccines wonder what happened with that?
-A few other regular posters-many have cool views, many um... yeah results vary
Together, though we might be last great hope for Health Freedom in this country. Until recently I didn't think I'd ever even bother to read a PDF on Gardasil. Some people care though I got a PM about that awhile back. Was I useful who knows. Ugh, whatever we outta atleast be able to come with acceptable amount of truth to bullshit for someone to get something outta it though.
tmosley
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 5,519
Well, it's hard to blame them for being skeptical of accepted views, given the amount of lies and half truths put out by government and corporations. In many of those examples you cited (economy and politics), the general consensus of those on these forums are quite right, as far as I can tell.
Certainly, it is in Big Pharma's interests to keep people medicated all the time, but from my experience, that doesn't really stop real work from being done. It makes technological stagnation profitable (companies get to continually ride old or near-worthless discoveries for decades by manipulating the system), but if a real cure is found and demonstrated, it would still make it through.
A certain degree of skepticism is healthy. Of course, many people here buy into every new conspiracy theory that comes along. I personally think that the only truly dangerous conspiracy out there is the banking conspiracy, although there is certainly collusion everywhere touched by government. My basic assumption, which may or may not be flawed, is that the vast majority of people do what they think is good for the vast majority of the time. If they get involved in something nasty, they are likely to blow the whistle. If the FDA were contaminating our food on purpose, it would come out. If there was a conspiracy to make the public stupid and complacent through use of fluoridation, it would come out. Et cetera. All it takes is time. If someone had "made up" the HIV virus, it would be VERY obvious. Indeed, since it was at a controversial theory at the time that it came out, it was put through the ringer, and stood up to all criticism. That's how science works. It's not just research-->hypothesis-->experiment-->observation-->confirmation/contradiction, but it includes more steps -->peer review-->criticism-->repetition of the experiment-->presentation of results-->questioning-->further refinement-->publication-->more questioning-->more experimentation-->more refinement, and so on until you have a pretty damn good idea of what's going on. This process includes dozens, hundreds, and often thousands of people, all with different agendas and conflicting interests. Much like open source, there are so many eyes on this research that it is very difficult to slip in falsified results or data. If it is important enough for someone else to read it, someone will almost always find the fraud, and when it comes out, that researchers career is over.
Because of this rigorous and open review, most science questions are pretty cut and dried by the time they reach the general public. There are always a few who refuse to be swayed by any logic or set of evidence, but they are almost always in such a situation due to the end result of a series of escalating investments to try to save face (coming up on the wrong side of an argument a few too many times and they start to think that everyone is out to get them, when it's really that their theories don't hold water). I think that is the case with most of these AIDS deniers. That, or they have a vested monetary interest and have thus convinced themselves that they are right, despite the preponderance of evidence.
Certainly, it is in Big Pharma's interests to keep people medicated all the time, but from my experience, that doesn't really stop real work from being done. It makes technological stagnation profitable (companies get to continually ride old or near-worthless discoveries for decades by manipulating the system), but if a real cure is found and demonstrated, it would still make it through.
A certain degree of skepticism is healthy. Of course, many people here buy into every new conspiracy theory that comes along. I personally think that the only truly dangerous conspiracy out there is the banking conspiracy, although there is certainly collusion everywhere touched by government. My basic assumption, which may or may not be flawed, is that the vast majority of people do what they think is good for the vast majority of the time. If they get involved in something nasty, they are likely to blow the whistle. If the FDA were contaminating our food on purpose, it would come out. If there was a conspiracy to make the public stupid and complacent through use of fluoridation, it would come out. Et cetera. All it takes is time. If someone had "made up" the HIV virus, it would be VERY obvious. Indeed, since it was at a controversial theory at the time that it came out, it was put through the ringer, and stood up to all criticism. That's how science works. It's not just research-->hypothesis-->experiment-->observation-->confirmation/contradiction, but it includes more steps -->peer review-->criticism-->repetition of the experiment-->presentation of results-->questioning-->further refinement-->publication-->more questioning-->more experimentation-->more refinement, and so on until you have a pretty damn good idea of what's going on. This process includes dozens, hundreds, and often thousands of people, all with different agendas and conflicting interests. Much like open source, there are so many eyes on this research that it is very difficult to slip in falsified results or data. If it is important enough for someone else to read it, someone will almost always find the fraud, and when it comes out, that researchers career is over.
Because of this rigorous and open review, most science questions are pretty cut and dried by the time they reach the general public. There are always a few who refuse to be swayed by any logic or set of evidence, but they are almost always in such a situation due to the end result of a series of escalating investments to try to save face (coming up on the wrong side of an argument a few too many times and they start to think that everyone is out to get them, when it's really that their theories don't hold water). I think that is the case with most of these AIDS deniers. That, or they have a vested monetary interest and have thus convinced themselves that they are right, despite the preponderance of evidence.
Bumped just to laugh at this guy. She died of AIDS a few days after he posted this. Talk about getting owned.
sorianofan
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2007
- Messages
- 577
It's the 911 scholars for truth!
JK, aids dissidence is an interesting topic. It just seems that all of the people with HIV that took no medicine die 20 years later...I even emailed Christine Maggiore when she was still alive. Sadly, now she's dead.
Kludge
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Messages
- 21,719
Ha ha ha. She died, and so did her 3 y/o daughter, of HIV/AIDS. Ha. Ha. Ha. ...
sorianofan
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2007
- Messages
- 577
Whoa this thread is years old.
Last edited:
John F Kennedy III
Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 13,839
I wish humans would stop manufacturing diseases.
Similar threads
