PDA

View Full Version : The Great "HIV" Hoax


rushdoony
08-07-2006, 01:23 PM
I know this is old news, but
needs to be reposted, because
mass media still promoting HIV/AIDS Lies.

All these HIV promoters, including
doctors and judges
should now be arrested and sued for
all their assets.
--------------------------------------
The Great "HIV" Hoax
written by Patrick Rattigan ND


The multi-billion dollar/pound AIDS/HIV fraud is based on two fabrications : that AIDS is a single disease and that it is caused by the HI virus or the "HIV virus" as some medical/media masterminds call it - perhaps they think the V in HIV stands for volcano. In Japan "AIDS" is virtually unknown : yet, in random tests, 25% of people were found to be "HIV-positive".

HIV-positive response means nothing of any relevance to health : it can be triggered by vaccination, malnutrition, M.S., measles, influenza, papilloma virus wart, Epstein Barr virus, leprosy, glandular fever, hepatitis, syphillis ... : over sixty different conditions.

"HIV...is one thousandth the size of a regular cell....HIV is simply a harmless piece of dead tissue, not unlike the numerous other retroviruses that exist in our body..."
Dr Robert E. Willner, who inoculated himself with the blood of Pedro Tocino, a HIV-positive haemophiliac, on live Spanish television. The great HIV/AIDS lie was created by Robert Gallo who was found guilty of "scientific misconduct".

"...instead of trying to prove his insane theories about AIDS to his peers...he went public. Then, with the help of Margaret Heckler, former head of Health and Human Services, who was under great political pressure to come up with an answer to AIDS, the infamous world press announcement of the discovery of the so-called AIDS virus came about. This great fraud is now responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands... It was no accident that Gallo just happened to patent the test for HIV the day after the announcement...Gallo is now a multi-millionaire because of AIDS and his fraudulent AIDS test."
Dr Robert E. Willner
By grouping together 25-plus different diseases and other allied factors - pneumonia, herpes, candidiasis, salmonella, various cancers, infections, vaccine and antibiotic damage, amyl nitrate damage, malnutrition etc.and, particularly in Africa, TB, malaria, dysentery leprosy and "slim disease" - and calling the whole thing an "AIDS epidemic", a multi-billion dollar/pound "AIDS research and treatment" racket has been created.


The mythical "HIV-induced AIDS plague" in the Third World generates huge sums of cash from Western relief organisations whilst smokescreening the vaccine/drug boys, responsible for the carnage.

Every death of someone "HIV-positive" is recorded as an "AIDS death".

Periodically, the BBC/ITV/Press visit Africa/Yugoslavia/Russia etc to report on the "HIV/AIDS victims" and how they cannot afford the "life-saving AZT."

Glaxo Wellcome's lethal drug, AZT, in combination with the diagnosis of HIV-positive and the prediction, stated or implied, that - "You will die of AIDS" is one of the great pieces of Medical Black Magic - Voodoo Medicine at its most impressive : people have committed suicide on the basis of the ludicrous diagnosis.

Pregnant women who are HIV-positive have been told to stop breast-feeding, dosed with AZT, have had abortions or have been sterilised. HIV-positive babies who become ill -from vaccination or whatever - are automatically diagnosed as "suffering from AIDS".

"Considering that there is little scientific proof of the exact linkage of HIV and AIDS, is it ethical to prescribe AZT, a toxic chain terminator of DNA...to 150,000 Americans - among them pregnant women and newborn babies..?
Rep.G Gutknecht US House of Representatives.
New Labour "Health" have now announced that all pregnant women in the UK will be "offered" a HIV test. Those who fall for the scam and who are diagnosed as "HIV positive" will be given the chance to have themselves and their unborn child permanently damaged by AZT etc.

AZT began as a "cancer drug" but was withdrawn for being too toxic : like being thrown out of the Gestapo for cruelty. Its effects include - cancer, hepatitis, dementia, seizures, anxiety, impotence, leukopaenia, , severe nausea, ataxia, etc. and the termination of DNA synthesis. i.e. AIDS/death by prescription. AZT eventually kills all those who continue to take it.

"WARNING : Retrovir (AZT)...has been associated with symptomatic myopathy, similar to that produced by Human Immunodeficiency Virus..."
Glaxo Wellcome literature!
None of which stops the medical trade from pushing it on every trusting sap who is not ill to start with but is labelled with the "HIV-positive" nonsense and then destroyed by AZT; with "AIDS" getting the blame - and more billions pouring in for the drug boys, vivisectors, animal breeders and the rest. The latest stunt is to give a "cocktail" of drugs - including AZT, of course, and at 15,000 per head, per year - to all homosexual men who are "HIV-positive".

A particularly good scam is to haul into court someone "guilty of deliberately infecting the victim with the 'HIV-Virus which causes AIDS' " which then develops into "full-blown AIDS" - no mention of vaccine, antibiotic damage etc or full-blown AZT. Over 2000 - and rising, of the world's scientists are now disputing the HIV hoax, their efforts being continually suppressed by the AIDS establishment, the pharmaceutical/vivisection syndicate and their political and media lackeys...

"The story of AIDS is deeply connected with the vicissitudes of the theory that viruses cause cancer and the failure of the cancer research programme. Michael Verney-Elliot put it most acidly when he said 'From the people who didn't bring you the virus that causes cancer, it's the virus that doesn't cause AIDS.'
Jad Adams The HIV Myth.
"It's not even probable, let alone scientifically proven, that HIV causes AIDS. If there is evidence... there should be scientific documents which... demonstrate that fact... There are no such documents.
Dr Kary Mullis Nobel Laureate
"If you think a virus is the cause of AIDS, do a control without it....it hasn't been done. The epidemiology of AIDS is a pile of anecdotal stories, selected to fit the virus/AIDS hypothesis...
Peter Duesberg Member, National Academy of Sciences.
"Nobody wants to look at the facts...I've sent countless letters to medical journals...they simply ignore them. The fact is, this whole heterosexual AIDS thing is a hoax."
Prof Gordon Stewart Public Health University of Glasgow.
"The cause of AIDS is multiufactorial ; HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient."
Dr Lawrence Bradford biologist.
"I am well convinced that HIV is harmless."
Dr Fabio Franchi, specialist, infectious disease
"...AIDS is not a disease at all - it is a government program."
Tom Bethel Hoover Institute researcher.
"Electron microscopy reveals retrovirus-like particles in 90% of enlarged lymph nodes from AIDS patients but the identical particles can be found in 90% of enlarged lymph nodes from patients who do not have AIDS and are not at risk from developing AIDS. If the particles seen...in AIDS patients are, as the AIDS experts assure, HIV, what are the particles seen in patients..who are not at risk..."
Dr Valendar Turner, Autralian Broadcasting program 1994.
"A major problem with the new AIDS definition is that it ignores the man-made environmental causes of immune suppression. Exposure to toxins, alcoholism, heavy drug use or heavy antibiotic use all can cause onset of the list of 'diseases' indicative of AIDS."
Los Angeles Weekly Dec 18 1987.
"I have seen the constant terror and the programming to get sick and die...As long as we imply that 'AIDS' itself exists we are operating within the AIDS group fantasy."
Michael Ellner medical hypnotist
"Regarding the only type of HIV antibody test routinely used in the UK since 1992, called an ELISA, manufacturers, Abbott Laboratories, say : 'ELISA testing alone cannot be used to diagnose AIDS..'."

Roche Diagnostics..likewise say of their genetic 'HIV testing kits' : "The Amplicor HIV Monitor test is not intended to be used as a screening test for HIV or as a diagnostic test to confirm the presence of HIV infection"
Continuum Magazine leaflet Dec 1998
"The techniques of the HIV test have not been standardised and the magnitude and the consequences of inter-laboratory variations have not been measured.
Its results require interpretation and the criteria for this interpretation vary, not only from lab to lab, but from month to month."
New England Journal of Medicine 317:238-241.
"Positive tests do not prove AIDS or pre-AIDS disease status nor that these diseases will be acquired."
Manufacturers of Western Blot (HIV) test kit.
"...in the general population, which the CDC estimates to have a prevalence of HIV infection of 0.006%, using a test with a specificity of 99%, the result is that 94% of all positives will be false positives."
Christine Johnson, Continuum Magazine, April 1994
"A study last month, by Congress's Office of Technology Assessment, found that HIV tests can be very inaccurate indeed. For groups at very low risk - people who don't use IV drugs or have sex with gay or bi-sexual men - 9 in 10 positive findings are called false positives, indicating infection where none exists."
US News and World Report Nov 23 1994.
"HIV tests are notoriously unreliable in Africa. A 1994 study, published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, concluded that HIV tests were useless in central Africa, where the microbes responible for tuberculosis, malaria and leprosy were so prevalent that they registered over 70% false positive."
Sacramento Bee October 30 1994
"It was the first time a scientist had ever run away from me. Typically scientists are bulldogs. They fight for their position. But the HIV guys don't. They run."
David Rasnick, on his doomed attempt to get answers on awkward questions from HIV-fantasist Martin Markowitz.
"We've all seen them. Stars , disc jockeys , sportsmen and women with a red ribbon pinned onto white tuxedos , black dinner jackets and spaghetti-strapped evening dresses. These are the compassionate celebrities who, with a sad expression , don the mantle of corporate grief for 'AIDS victims and sufferers ' and feel they are 'doing good'. Granted they are doing this with the best of intentions but far from doing good they are actually doing damage - they are using their celebrity to raise funds for AIDS research that is entirely misdirected and orchestrated by a profit - oriented and commercially-blinkered pharmaceutical industry.

They are perpetrating the myth of the...friend who was unlucky enough to get AIDS through one unfortunate sexual encounter. They are colluding in a dangerous cult of death-worship. They are diverting attention away from the high-risk lifestyle factors including recreational and intravenous drug use that accompany 'acquired immune deficiency'....

When Celia Farber interviewed the late Michael Callen ( author of Surviving AIDS ) for Spin Magazine in 1988 he said, ' I have gone to a great deal of trouble to find these people who claim to have only one or two 'unlucky' sexual contacts. I found ten of them in all and each one ended up telling me they had been lying...in the support group setting they would regale us with tales of bathhouses and promiscuity and lovers on the side and drug use.'...

But there are those who prefer to cling to the 'single simple cause'. They have something to cling to in their grief...It is this ignorant, if innocent, collusion, both by ordinary mortals and celebrities, with the orthodox virus-AIDS hypothesis ( that has failed to save a single life ) which continues to fill the pharmaceutical industry's pockets, continues to perpetrate the myth that HIV causes AIDS - that HIV exists at all - and continues to prevent dissident scientists from exploring new avenues of research."

Joan Shenton, Meditel Productions - Continuum Magazine Jun/Jul 1997.
To add to the lunacy, if the HIV existed, a "positive" response would mean that the body has superiority over the virus : "HIV" is the only infective agent where a positive response indicates a negative situation.

Taking the "HIV test" is of no use whatsoever to anyone other than drug companies and governments ever eager to increase their control. Those who have had their immune system damaged by vaccines, antibiotics, antipyretics, analgesics, amyl nitrates etc. need to detoxify and to build up immune strength with raw, vegan, organic foods, homoeopathic and herbal remedies : and, above all else, to stop swallowing the " 'HIV' causes 'AIDS' " rubbish and the lethal AZT "medication".

Sources/reading Green Anarchist - 38. Times April 3 1994. Deadly Deception - Willner. The AIDS War - Lauritsen.

The Jody Wells Memorial Prize

1,000 Reward

MISSING VIRUS

A cash prize of 1,000 is offered to the first person finding one scientific paper establishing HIV actually exists.

CONTINUUM MAGAZINE


Continuum would like to offer more, but they, unlike some other organisations, are not bank-rolled by Glaxo Welllcome etc to spread false information about AIDS and AZT.

"I have known so many people who have died of AIDS ... and all of them - all of them - took the drugs they were told to by their doctors. .. I have never taken any of them and I haven't gotten sick. Not even a cold. The doctors told me I had five years left to live. .. these drugs companies that produce the medication are getting very rich... everyone I knew who has been HIV positive - and that's a lot of people- has died after taking these drugs."
Goldie Glitters - 30 years "living with the virus."
On Dec 1 1998, Channell 4 News, after commissioning an "AIDS Virus" expose from Meditel, declined to broadcast the 9-minute piece. The C4 editor, Jim Gray, succumbed to pressure from " 'AIDS' virologist", Jonathan Weber et al. David Lloyd, the C4 Head of News and Current Affairs, refused to overrule Gray.

The public-funded BBC, in gross contravention and contempt of the requirements for balance and impartiality, continues to promote, unchallenged, the Glaxo/AIDS Establishment version.
http://www.harmonikireland.com/
print.php?topic=HIV

666
08-08-2006, 11:37 PM
I love the way the media twisted this story and others like it. The man never took the recommended
aids drugs all his friends that did died and he is still alive despite continuing his so called dangerous pratices.

look at how they invented a term to explain
why the G R O U P that took NO medication is PERFECTLY normal

" ELITE CONTROLLERS "


HIV-Positive Group May Hold the Key to Defeating AIDS

Infected but not ill, 'elite controllers' make up less than 1% of those with the virus. They may hold the key to its cure.
By James Ricci, Times Staff Writer
July 6, 2006

SAN FRANCISCO — Matt Traywick's personal life has been a treatise on how to contract AIDS.

A gay man, he'd been "very sexually active" in San Francisco in the late 1970s, he said, and tended toward unprotected encounters. Then he entered a long-term monogamous relationship, and after he lost both it and his job as a computer specialist, he sank into a life of hard revelry and so much intravenous methamphetamine use that he wound up homeless on the streets of the city's Tenderloin district.


"I always knew I would be HIV-positive," Traywick recalled. "I hit all the major risk factors. It seemed there was no way I would have been negative. When I tested positive, my doctor cried and I didn't. Walking home, I wondered if there was something psychologically broken in me because, for some reason, I wasn't worried."

Against all logic and expectation, his nonchalance has turned out to be justified.

Traywick was diagnosed 21 years ago and has been healthy ever since, despite never having taken anti-HIV medications. Antibody tests demonstrate conclusively that he harbors the virus. But his immune system has controlled it so effectively that repeated blood assays have never shown a detectable level of the invader, even though Traywick still occasionally uses speed and engages in unprotected sex.

A graying, rumpled man of 46 with darting eyes and nervous hands, Traywick said he has "spent a lot of time trying to figure out why I was a survivor. There's got to be a reason some people are chosen not to die."

In the argot of AIDS research, Traywick is an "elite controller." Elites are extremely rare, accounting for an estimated one-third of 1% of known HIV-positive people and numbering perhaps 2,000. They and so-called viremic controllers, healthy infected people whose immune systems keep the virus at very low, although detectable, levels in the blood without drugs, are of keen interest to AIDS researchers.

"I would say we still don't have the faintest idea why these people are doing as well as they are," said Harvard medical professor Bruce Walker, director of the Partners AIDS Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital. "Achieving the state that these guys have reached in their bodies — if we could do that through some intervention, we would solve the AIDS epidemic."

Being a long-term controller is not an unalloyed blessing, as Kai Brothers' journey illustrates.

Brothers, 43, a computer technician for Wells Fargo bank in San Francisco, got his first indication something was amiss in 1987. A frequent blood donor, he received a certified letter from his blood bank stating that someone had donated HIV-tainted blood and asking him to be tested.

Brothers couldn't bring himself to respond. As a gay man, he knew he was in a high-risk group. Eventually he had himself tested but couldn't face learning the results. It was 1989 before he had himself retested, confirming his suspicions.

"I deep-down knew," he said in a recent interview. "There was a heavy feeling but not a surprise or shock. There was fear: 'Am I getting sick? How long will it take before this time bomb went off?' "

Not knowing his future, he quit his job and cashed in his 401(k) account to travel in Europe. On his return, he learned his infection-fighting T-cells — HIV's target — had dipped slightly below the normal range, and his doctor wrote him a prescription for AZT, the first effective HIV drug but one with often dreadful side effects.

"I decided I was not going to get it filled," Brothers recalled. "Something instinctively told me not to. I decided to wait it out."

Wait he did, and although his T-cells occasionally dipped, he also declined to use the effective multi-drug HIV cocktail when it became available in 1996. A man of moderate habits, Brothers took to practicing safe sex — although researchers think it unlikely that controllers can infect others, he has taken no chances — and listening more closely to his body when it requested food or rest or exercise.

While the AIDS epidemic roared through San Francisco's gay community, killing his partner and several close friends, Brothers escaped unharmed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-elites6jul06,0,7217065.story?coll=la-home-headlines

madthumbs
08-09-2006, 10:28 AM
Videos:

HIV - AIDS: Fact or Fiction? (http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=64)

The Other Side of AIDS (http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=127)

The Strecker Memorandump (http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=123)

666
08-09-2006, 02:34 PM
madthumbs wrote:
Videos:

HIV - AIDS: Fact or Fiction? (http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=64)

The Other Side of AIDS (http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=127)

The Strecker Memorandump (http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=123)



Fascinating how billions are made on ignorance.

truebeliever
08-09-2006, 11:48 PM
It's a great fraud indeed. I'm sick of this medical mafia lying bastard group.

AIDS is a lifestyle disease which just happened to coincide with the mass use of Methamphetamine. "Meth" (particularly when injected) is a POWERFUL immune system depressant and also has the affect of severly limiting appetite and therefore nutritional health. Combine this with getting things stuck up your bum by various strangers who do this ALL over the world and it should ne no surprise when the immune system crashes.

That the media and ALL the interest groups can keep this dead fish going is a testament to "sheepus ignoramus"...a new disease i just invented and am pushing for funding on.

Having known well, two Phd's in genetics and molecular biology, i can tell you the WHOLE research arm of the economy and control grid is a disgrace. Results are FAKED...regularly. Litterally pulled from thin air to keep the funding going.

The next time an "expert" comes on the telly to explain why your life is not exactly as it should be...turn him off. He/she is in fact a PAID shill of the P.R arms of the gigantic and powerful medical mafia.

08-16-2006, 01:59 PM
Its like the big ebola scare in the 90s the monkeys that had ebola in virginia didnt give it to any of the humans and we are supposed to beleive that the ebola in africa is 100% fatal it really makes you wonder what kind of cia type bioweapons are being used on the coloreds

666
08-16-2006, 02:09 PM
DamnTheMan wrote:
Its like the big ebola scare in the 90s the monkeys that had ebola in virginia didnt give it to any of the humans and we are supposed to beleive that the ebola in africa is 100% fatal it really makes you wonder what kind of cia type bioweapons are being used on the coloreds


Follow the money my friend ... follow the money

Headvoid
08-16-2006, 05:15 PM
This thread has everything from homophobia to racism to the CIA.

It's missing a Nazi link - so here is one

Godwins Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_Law)

08-16-2006, 05:59 PM
that was stupid i followed your link and it had nothing to do with hiv ebola or any of the viral "illnesses" that the AMA likes to sell us drugs for in league with big pharma

08-27-2006, 08:49 PM
SO DOES THIS MEANS YOU CAN GET ARSE RAPED BY HAITIANS AND YOU WON'T GET AIDS?

08-28-2006, 01:02 PM
yes you fucking retard

08-28-2006, 02:29 PM
IAN, KEYLOG THIS MAN'S COMPUTER TOO THANKS

conspiraskan
09-04-2006, 04:37 PM
HIV IS LIKE A LOW FAT LIFESTYLE. IT IS THE BIGGEST FUCKING MYTH IN MANKIND HISTORY.

They
09-05-2006, 06:35 AM
conspiraskan wrote:
HIV IS LIKE A LOW FAT LIFESTYLE. IT IS THE BIGGEST FUCKING MYTH IN MANKIND HISTORY.

Shadow_ why can't you come out from behind all the different usernames? The all caps and the writing style makes it obvious to anyone that it is all you.

09-09-2006, 09:30 AM
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1003/911goatsedh8.gif
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1003/911goatsedh8.gif
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/1003/911goatsedh8.gif

Tor
09-09-2006, 02:29 PM
Ok Ive seen enough of this Anti-Jewish picture now.

09-09-2006, 04:29 PM
I was over that picture the first time I saw it.

conspiraskan
09-09-2006, 05:48 PM
I ALMOST DROPPED MY TWINKIE IN THE SHITBARREL WHEN I SAW TWO PICTURES. DOES ANYONE HAVE THIS FUCKHEADS PHONE NUMBER? HE NEED INTRODUCTION INTO A HI FAT LYFESTYLE.

skanspirasy
09-09-2006, 06:22 PM
constIpatioN hAS SPOKEN!!!

BlueAngel
06-02-2008, 07:22 PM
According to their claims, HIV, unlike other viruses, has never been isolated as an independent stable particle. These scientists assert that electron microscope pictures of micrographs of all HIV isolates originally produced by GALLO and by other AIDS' researchers since show some objects that look like retroviruses along with a number of other microbial objects that clearly are not viruses, and that among these, the retrovirus-like objects called HIV are only observed in cell cultures that have been stimulated by certain chemicals.

Isolation is the only direct and unambiguous evidence of a virus, and isolation of a virus from the uncultured plasma of a patient is the only proof that a person has an active viral infection. Cultures are artificial laboratory environments that contain replicating microorganisms or cells.

Normally, true isolation can be achieved without difficulty as people with an active viral infection will have lot of viruses in their plasma. This is not the case with HIV. In fact, there is no evidence that anyone has ever found what is called HIV in fresh plasma. Instead, AIDS' researchers are only able to find what they call HIV when plasma or immune cells (co-cultures) and stimulating chemicals are added to cultures. Since artificially stimulated cultures can induce viral DNA to produce viruses even when the patient's plasma contains no virus, finding virus under these curmstances does not constitute evidence that patient plasma contains the virus.

True virus isolation requires using fresh, uncultered plasma.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Create the disease and sell us your drugs...such as Autism.

What better way to silence a society than through the creation of Autism.

Diagnose a condition such as HIV that doesn't exist and sell us your drugs...

Miracle CURES courtesy of the very elite, powerful and wealthy pharmaceutical companies.

Steal from the poor and the rich get richer.

They can't hold us up by gun point, so they have devised so many other covert ways to rob us blind and keep us dependent upon them.

rainfall
06-03-2008, 07:51 PM
Pharm. co.'s are just legal drug dealers and Drs. make a killing off of allowing them to prescribe them to us. They get kick backs like cruises and all kinds of extra benefits/gifts etc. I worked as a housekeeper in the medical center behind my house and heard alot about this sort of thing from the office secetaries/personnel etc. its awful. I rarely use anything but deal with the minor aches and pains I sometimes get. I once in a blue moon take an ibuprofin for a toothache I may get every now and then. I refuse to take anything and will not let anyone prescribe me any drugs. We have become dependent on taking to many different types of painkillers and other kinds of over and under the counter drugs. Pills to loose weight,one a days,any kind of vitamin you can imagine,sinus pills,pills for insomina,pills for those who sleep to much. Its getting out of hand. I stock retail in health and beauty in my department at the dollar store and we get all kinds of medicines.We even had a vitiman pill for hair growth and stronger nails. Go figure. Now the new thing is rub-on medications. I guess that goes right through your system/body-bloodstream and workes even quicker. Its all a bit crazy if you ask me. However there are some medicines that are created for a purpose and helpful many people however, I believe most are not.:(

BlueAngel
06-03-2008, 08:06 PM
Pharm. co.'s are just legal drug dealers and Drs. make a killing off of allowing them to prescribe them to us. They get kick backs like cruises and all kinds of extra benefits/gifts etc. I worked as a housekeeper in the medical center behind my house and heard alot about this sort of thing from the office secetaries/personnel etc. its awful. I rarely use anything but deal with the minor aches and pains I sometimes get. I once in a blue moon take an ibuprofin for a toothache I may get every now and then. I refuse to take anything and will not let anyone prescribe me any drugs. We have become dependent on taking to many different types of painkillers and other kinds of over and under the counter drugs. Pills to loose weight,one a days,any kind of vitamin you can imagine,sinus pills,pills for insomina,pills for those who sleep to much. Its getting out of hand. I stock retail in health and beauty in my department at the dollar store and we get all kinds of medicines.We even had a vitiman pill for hair growth and stronger nails. Go figure. Now the new thing is rub-on medications. I guess that goes right through your system/body-bloodstream and workes even quicker. Its all a bit crazy if you ask me. However there are some medicines that are created for a purpose and helpful many people however, I believe most are not.:(

A country of citizen's dependent upon the DRUG LORDS (pharmaceutical companies). Altering our brain chemistry in the process. Turning us into addicts.

Making millions in the process by prescribing this and prescribing that because we've been conditioned to believe that we cannot deal with LIFE and its' ups and downs unless we medicate ourselves.

What is better?

To journey through this life of rough terrain dependent upon YOURSELF to get you through or taking a drug that might ultimately cause some side effect that will kill you prematurely.

They're killing us. They're altering our children's brain chemistry with medication for ADD, depression, etc.

THE DRUGGING OF AMERICA, a thread I started around here somewhere.

Out of the Box
07-28-2008, 05:19 AM
I recently heard on the media that now people infected with HIV at the age of 20 get to live up to 70 or older if they take a few pills a day during their entire lifes. :rolleyes:

commonsense
10-11-2009, 07:37 AM
Its true that pharma companies are much more interested in diseases these days that cannot be cured. As OftB above me states, a person with HIV will take several drugs weekly for the rest of the their lifes, many decades. Thats a lot of drugs, a lot of money to be made. I do not personally agree with this ethos and I'm sure they don't draw attention to it themselves but then money does make the world go round.

Cures are never researched because once a diseased person is healthy, they do not buy anymore drugs.

Ofcourse I do not believe for one second that pharma companies are out there trying to drug us all....for some hidden/stupid reason.

EireEngineer
10-11-2009, 11:10 AM
Its funny to see everyone blaming the Pharma Companies for everything, when it is their drugs that have made it possible for AIDS patients to live normal lives. Feel free to believe whatever you read on the internet but those of us capable of understanding the science wont be in this group.:)

Eye-Kon
10-12-2009, 04:56 AM
Its funny to see everyone blaming the Pharma Companies for everything, when it is their drugs that have made it possible for AIDS patients to live normal lives. Feel free to believe whatever you read on the internet but those of us capable of understanding the science wont be in this group.:)


Agreed. AIDS/HIV is a very real disease. The whole conspiracy about how its a big scam to get people to buy pharma companys drugs and kill people with there drugs is just a way to confuse the masses. AIDS is actually a synthetic disease designed to kill blacks. It obviously kills whites as well just not nearly as fast. I think back in '01 blacks died in an average of 10 years from the disease while whites would usually live around 18-19 years with it. Rates are probably different now.

Now I'm not saying that some of the AIDS medicines aren't bad for people but there certainly not the cause of all the AIDS deaths in the world. I've known people with AIDS who never even took any medicine or changed there life style what so ever after getting the disease and they died horrible deaths with all sorts of AIDS symptoms, brown spots on face, losing weight, diarrhea, on going fevers etc. These people weren't drug addicts, or alcoholics heck some of them were even fitness trainers but they just slept with the wrong person. I watched their lives slowly slip away from them. Believe what you want to believe but AIDS is REAL.

Look up Boyd Graves on youtube and watch a few of his videos. He offers alot of very useful information on the disease, its nearly un-deniable at this point that it wasn't made in a labratory. The disease went from being only in monkeys to all of sudden jumping over to he human race. Even if someone did have sex with a monkey they wouldn't be able to catch a retro-virus from it no matter what. The virus was spliced so it could adapt to human blood. This is the reason they have false info all over the internet about how its not even a real disease. Its to confuse people so they don't end up finding the truth about this bio-weapon. Retro-Virus' don't just jump from one specie to another just like that.

Look up patent number 5676977. The cure for AIDS is sitting on the shelf. The cure has one known side effect which is that it puts alot of pressure on the liver, sometimes causing liver damage. But hey thats still alot better then dying from AIDS if you ask me. Also if you can find "Special Virus Cancer Program" on the net it will tell you AIDS was made in the labratory and everything. Wake the hell up people. This forum is garbage, filled with false info and moderators who just seem to spam the forums with 2 liners.

commonsense
10-12-2009, 06:30 AM
Agreed. AIDS/HIV is a very real disease. The whole conspiracy about how its a big scam to get people to buy pharma companys drugs and kill people with there drugs is just a way to confuse the masses. AIDS is actually a synthetic disease designed to kill blacks. It obviously kills whites as well just not nearly as fast. I think back in '01 blacks died in an average of 10 years from the disease while whites would usually live around 18-19 years with it. Rates are probably different now.

Now I'm not saying that some of the AIDS medicines aren't bad for people but there certainly not the cause of all the AIDS deaths in the world. I've known people with AIDS who never even took any medicine or changed there life style what so ever after getting the disease and they died horrible deaths with all sorts of AIDS symptoms, brown spots on face, losing weight, diarrhea, on going fevers etc. These people weren't drug addicts, or alcoholics heck some of them were even fitness trainers but they just slept with the wrong person. I watched their lives slowly slip away from them. Believe what you want to believe but AIDS is REAL.

Look up Boyd Graves on youtube and watch a few of his videos. He offers alot of very useful information on the disease, its nearly un-deniable at this point that it wasn't made in a labratory. The disease went from being only in monkeys to all of sudden jumping over to he human race. Even if someone did have sex with a monkey they wouldn't be able to catch a retro-virus from it no matter what. The virus was spliced so it could adapt to human blood. This is the reason they have false info all over the internet about how its not even a real disease. Its to confuse people so they don't end up finding the truth about this bio-weapon. Retro-Virus' don't just jump from one specie to another just like that.

Look up patent number 5676977. The cure for AIDS is sitting on the shelf. The cure has one known side effect which is that it puts alot of pressure on the liver, sometimes causing liver damage. But hey thats still alot better then dying from AIDS if you ask me. Also if you can find "Special Virus Cancer Program" on the net it will tell you AIDS was made in the labratory and everything. Wake the hell up people. This forum is garbage, filled with false info and moderators who just seem to spam the forums with 2 liners.

If you don't mind me asking, what is your education on this subject? A retrovirus has the very real capability to 'jump' species, its known as zoonosis. I've studied the pathophysiology of this virus and a cure is a long way off, without going into detail, the virus replicates at such a rate (and with such votility) that immunological techniques to subdue it are pointless.

Perhaps some backround reading into the science of it all would correct a few of your misconceptions.

EireEngineer
10-12-2009, 08:56 AM
Agreed. AIDS/HIV is a very real disease. The whole conspiracy about how its a big scam to get people to buy pharma companys drugs and kill people with there drugs is just a way to confuse the masses. AIDS is actually a synthetic disease designed to kill blacks. It obviously kills whites as well just not nearly as fast. I think back in '01 blacks died in an average of 10 years from the disease while whites would usually live around 18-19 years with it. Rates are probably different now.

Now I'm not saying that some of the AIDS medicines aren't bad for people but there certainly not the cause of all the AIDS deaths in the world. I've known people with AIDS who never even took any medicine or changed there life style what so ever after getting the disease and they died horrible deaths with all sorts of AIDS symptoms, brown spots on face, losing weight, diarrhea, on going fevers etc. These people weren't drug addicts, or alcoholics heck some of them were even fitness trainers but they just slept with the wrong person. I watched their lives slowly slip away from them. Believe what you want to believe but AIDS is REAL.

Look up Boyd Graves on youtube and watch a few of his videos. He offers alot of very useful information on the disease, its nearly un-deniable at this point that it wasn't made in a labratory. The disease went from being only in monkeys to all of sudden jumping over to he human race. Even if someone did have sex with a monkey they wouldn't be able to catch a retro-virus from it no matter what. The virus was spliced so it could adapt to human blood. This is the reason they have false info all over the internet about how its not even a real disease. Its to confuse people so they don't end up finding the truth about this bio-weapon. Retro-Virus' don't just jump from one specie to another just like that.

Look up patent number 5676977. The cure for AIDS is sitting on the shelf. The cure has one known side effect which is that it puts alot of pressure on the liver, sometimes causing liver damage. But hey thats still alot better then dying from AIDS if you ask me. Also if you can find "Special Virus Cancer Program" on the net it will tell you AIDS was made in the labratory and everything. Wake the hell up people. This forum is garbage, filled with false info and moderators who just seem to spam the forums with 2 liners.
All of this is funny. First, I think your signature is pretty ironic. You do realize that it is making fun of conspiracy theorists? Anyway, it is pretty conclusive that HIV entered the human population somewhere around the turn of the century, with the latest date being about 1928. Seeing as we didn't have the technology to make virus' then, it would be a little hard for it to be man made.

Also, dont take too much stock in something just because it has a patent. The shelves at the patent office are full of perpetual motion machines, snake oil patents, and psuedo-science galore. There really isnt much of a vetting process for getting a patent. All you have to do is prove that it is an original idea or a substantial modification. You dont have to prove it works.

EireEngineer
10-12-2009, 08:59 AM
Some light reading for you if you are interested:
HIV's not-so-ancient history (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/081101_hivorigins)
HIV/AIDS Emerged as Early as 1880s (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081001-hiv-aids-africa.html)
AIDS Timeline (http://www.avert.org/aids-timeline.htm)

Eye-Kon
10-13-2009, 02:14 AM
All of this is funny. First, I think your signature is pretty ironic. You do realize that it is making fun of conspiracy theorists? Anyway, it is pretty conclusive that HIV entered the human population somewhere around the turn of the century, with the latest date being about 1928. Seeing as we didn't have the technology to make virus' then, it would be a little hard for it to be man made.

Also, dont take too much stock in something just because it has a patent. The shelves at the patent office are full of perpetual motion machines, snake oil patents, and psuedo-science galore. There really isnt much of a vetting process for getting a patent. All you have to do is prove that it is an original idea or a substantial modification. You dont have to prove it works.

My signature in other words would be.. I the phrase conspiracy theory is a dis-info term that is thrown around to make people doubt certain theorys before they even read them.

I never said this cure is the absolute real deal blah blah. I just said it could very possibly be a real cure for AIDS/HIV. Theres more evidence pointing towards it being a real cure then it not being one. I also find it hard to believe AIDS has been around since any time before 1960. They couldn't even identify the virus until the 70s or 80s. The whole theory about AIDS being around before 1960's is just more dis-info thats on the net to confuse the AIDS situation even more.

As for zoonosis, retro-virus' don't fall in to the infectious agents catagory that can perform zoonosis. Its just like if you had hepatitis C, your cat wouldn't be able to catch it from you no matter what, just like if your cat had cat hepatitis you wouldn't be able to catch it from your cat. However there is infections that are communicable between animals and humans most of them are bacterial. No offense or anything but I'm honestly tired of the weak rebuttals you dish out in every thread. You seem to be a forum spammer who just gives links to articles with no basis and you ignore alot of the main points I make in general about things.

Heres a tid-bit for ya, I think around 400 people got trial hep B vaccines in the 70s or somethin, in new york. I think around 310 of those people died of AIDS, the other 90 people have 'unknown' deaths. In other words they all could of died of AIDS. Something along those lines happend in africa in the 70's as well. I find it hard to believe AIDS just jumped continents from Africa to the US in a few years and infected thousands in each place yet there was no cases in other places like Europe or Asia. I also find it hard to believe someone caught AIDS from monkey for a number of reasons. Well for one thing its a retro-virus and for another the disease was essentially just a virus that was only in sheep and lambs until after a few monkeys were used for trial vaccinations. The virus originates from lambs and sheeps however it was spliced to infect humans and monkeys. You cannot get AIDS/HIV from a monkey or anything besides another human! The disease started through vaccinations in Africa and New York. Its a contagious form of cancer in a sense. However, its main mode of destruction is a immunological supression so ones body its defenseless against other infections.

commonsense
10-13-2009, 07:17 AM
Huh? So what is your education on this subject? First off, I very much doubt you could be tired of my 'weak rebuttals' as this is my 5th post and I've only registered 2 days ago!

Again, just for you, zoonosis is 100% possible with retrovirus such as HIV. Here is a paper which details very well but, without sounding condescending, its very heavy language unless you've got a health related BSc.

Retroviral zoonoses. (1998) Robin A. Weiss. Nature Medicine 4, 391 - 392

Now this was published in Nature, without a doubt one of the most respected medical journals in the world, so it has a lot of basis. I do believe this one single point hinges a lot of your additional 'things' which you argue so once you realise you are wrong you can drop with theory?

EireEngineer
10-13-2009, 09:13 AM
My signature in other words would be.. I the phrase conspiracy theory is a dis-info term that is thrown around to make people doubt certain theorys before they even read them.

I never said this cure is the absolute real deal blah blah. I just said it could very possibly be a real cure for AIDS/HIV. Theres more evidence pointing towards it being a real cure then it not being one. I also find it hard to believe AIDS has been around since any time before 1960. They couldn't even identify the virus until the 70s or 80s. The whole theory about AIDS being around before 1960's is just more dis-info thats on the net to confuse the AIDS situation even more.

Well, its not just disinfo thats on the net....its published info in peer reviewed journals, and if you had bothered to read any of it you would know that.

As for zoonosis, retro-virus' don't fall in to the infectious agents catagory that can perform zoonosis.
This on is just plain wrong. Retrovirus' can and do jump the species barrier and are on the list of vectors that can, had you bothered to do a 2 second google search

Its just like if you had hepatitis C, your cat wouldn't be able to catch it from you no matter what, just like if your cat had cat hepatitis you wouldn't be able to catch it from your cat. However there is infections that are communicable between animals and humans most of them are bacterial. No offense or anything but I'm honestly tired of the weak rebuttals you dish out in every thread. You seem to be a forum spammer who just gives links to articles with no basis and you ignore alot of the main points I make in general about things.
Since it is obvious that you have gotten most of your info from the internet and refuse to look at anything that the actual scientific community has on the subject, i dont know what to tell you.

Heres a tid-bit for ya, I think around 400 people got trial hep B vaccines in the 70s or somethin, in new york. I think around 310 of those people died of AIDS, the other 90 people have 'unknown' deaths. In other words they all could of died of AIDS. Something along those lines happend in africa in the 70's as well. I find it hard to believe AIDS just jumped continents from Africa to the US in a few years and infected thousands in each place yet there was no cases in other places like Europe or Asia. I also find it hard to believe someone caught AIDS from monkey for a number of reasons. Well for one thing its a retro-virus and for another the disease was essentially just a virus that was only in sheep and lambs until after a few monkeys were used for trial vaccinations. The virus originates from lambs and sheeps however it was spliced to infect humans and monkeys. You cannot get AIDS/HIV from a monkey or anything besides another human! The disease started through vaccinations in Africa and New York. Its a contagious form of cancer in a sense. However, its main mode of destruction is a immunological supression so ones body its defenseless against other infections. Actually, if you had read any of the articles you would see that there is clear evidence of HIV in the human population well before the seventies. Analisys of two samples, one from 1959 and one from 1960, showed two different strains of HIV. Given the known rate of genetic drift we can extrapolate that these two strains had to come from a source which crossed the species barrier sometime between 1890 and 1928.

BlueAngel
10-13-2009, 09:36 PM
Huh? So what is your education on this subject?

Mr. Engineer knows all.

He's a ROCKET SCIENTIST; a DEMOLITION ENGINEER and an expert on HIV/AIDS, thus far.

Stay tuned.

I'm certain there is more to come.

EireEngineer
10-14-2009, 09:09 AM
I do read alot. How many journals do you subscribe to? And can you rebut anything I have said without resorting to ad hominem?

commonsense
10-14-2009, 10:57 AM
I'm sorry I think you've misunderstood - that comment was aimed at eye-kon.

EireEngineer
10-14-2009, 11:16 AM
Yeah, she likes setting up that strawman argument, but rarely has a legitimate rebuttal. Its funny.

Eye-Kon
10-20-2009, 04:26 AM
Since it is obvious that you have gotten most of your info from the internet and refuse to look at anything that the actual scientific community has on the subject, i dont know what to tell you.
Actually, if you had read any of the articles you would see that there is clear evidence of HIV in the human population well before the seventies. Analisys of two samples, one from 1959 and one from 1960, showed two different strains of HIV. Given the known rate of genetic drift we can extrapolate that these two strains had to come from a source which crossed the species barrier sometime between 1890 and 1928.

The conclusion that the disease jumped species somewhere between 1890 and 1928 is just an assumption. It doesn't dis-credit my arguement of it being a synthetic disease. The disease could have been made to have mutiple strains upon its release. Also, lies can be easily made up, I honestly think the 'regulators' do what ever seems appropriate to cover their tracks such as in-accurate articles. And btw your right, I have gotten most of my info from the internet. I've seen articles about tetra-silver that regard AIDS get removed from search engines, forums etc over and over again. I can't even post anything about tetra-silver on AIDS forum about how it could possibly be a cure with out it being removed with in 5 minutes. I see this as a tell-tale sign of it being the truth. I see multiple other threads on those forums about possible cures. Internet censorship has been around since '05 btw. I also find it odd how Boyd Graves wikipedia profile was removed from the net about a year ago. Its also weird how he was found mysteriously shot in his home about a year ago, this incident was labled as a suicide, hell I'm having trouble finding that article now.

Eye-Kon
10-20-2009, 04:28 AM
Huh? So what is your education on this subject? First off, I very much doubt you could be tired of my 'weak rebuttals' as this is my 5th post and I've only registered 2 days ago!

Again, just for you, zoonosis is 100% possible with retrovirus such as HIV. Here is a paper which details very well but, without sounding condescending, its very heavy language unless you've got a health related BSc.

Retroviral zoonoses. (1998) Robin A. Weiss. Nature Medicine 4, 391 - 392

Now this was published in Nature, without a doubt one of the most respected medical journals in the world, so it has a lot of basis. I do believe this one single point hinges a lot of your additional 'things' which you argue so once you realise you are wrong you can drop with theory?

All that really says is that it could be possible to get it from a monkey. Again this doesn't dis-credit or dis-prove any of my information.

Mr Blee
10-20-2009, 05:04 AM
I think this erieengineer is a real scientist and has his fact together.
As far as a cure for AIDS I can speak on this subject. my brother died from the AIDS virus. And when he was sick his boyfriend was an OB/GYN sugeon, actually graduated second from Pitt medical school, not easy to do.

So here it is...
AIDS may never be cured totally. However it might be treated like diabetes ie taking meds for the rest of your life.
When AIDS first hit my brother lived in San Francisco and lost his boyfriend (boyfriend before the doc) to this hideous disease. At first it took only a couple months from the time the patient showed symptoms to the time of death. When my brother contracted the virus he lived 7 years from symptoms to death. so they are making progress.

We did alot of discussion on the matter. We know my brother contracted AIDS on the west coast (he moved back to Pittsburgh after the big earthquake) due to the fact that his major symptom was cancer (they called it gay cancer) lymposynoma or something like that. And most east coast case symptoms were pneumonia. Best we could figure is our weather is more problematic to east coast weather conditions. We get more flu cases due to this. But it was the best guess not proven at the time.

The upside of my brother getting the cancer was Pit cancer institute did not have many cases of the cancer and my brother got into a study. if you look at the picture of the cancerous leg in the books from Pitt it is my brother leg. This got him alot of medicine and help we could not afford.

As far as conspiracy when the the Doc got AIDS and told the hospital and wanted to tell his patients that he operated on them with the virus, it was actually hidden deep in his contract that he was not aloud to tell his patients. That is a sickness in itself.

commonsense
10-20-2009, 05:53 AM
Mr Blee- sorry for your loss. Telling past patients that their doctor may have had HIV would be a bad idea, think of the mass panic - having to wait weeks for the results.

Eye-Kon- one of your strong points for a man-made HIV virus was that zoonosis was not possible, but now you agree with me that it is entirely possible for a monkey to pass the virus on? Although this doesn't discount your theory, it makes it an awful lot harder to swallow. It is much more likely a human caught the virus from a monkey, now this doesn't mean a human had sex with a monkey. A more realistic senario would be the preperation of a monkey for a meal, during the slaughtering infected blood could enter the human blood stream - BINGO - HIV zoonosis.

Mr Blee
10-20-2009, 08:15 AM
Got to disagree commonsense, people have the right to know if they have been possibly exposed. And I highly doubt the hospital did this to stop mass panic, they do this to keep from getting their butts sued off.

The real loss was a gifted doctor is now not with us. I am very against homosexuality (the sin not the people). Here is a cool story my brother was an upity gay he didn't eat it if it wasn't high falutin food was against any contact sports. And i realy had a bad view of gays cause when I met his boyfriend he was pretty cool he liked boxing and loved tater tots. I told him I liked him better than my brother.

EireEngineer
10-20-2009, 08:46 PM
The conclusion that the disease jumped species somewhere between 1890 and 1928 is just an assumption. It doesn't dis-credit my arguement of it being a synthetic disease. The disease could have been made to have mutiple strains upon its release. Also, lies can be easily made up, I honestly think the 'regulators' do what ever seems appropriate to cover their tracks such as in-accurate articles. And btw your right, I have gotten most of my info from the internet. I've seen articles about tetra-silver that regard AIDS get removed from search engines, forums etc over and over again. I can't even post anything about tetra-silver on AIDS forum about how it could possibly be a cure with out it being removed with in 5 minutes. I see this as a tell-tale sign of it being the truth. I see multiple other threads on those forums about possible cures. Internet censorship has been around since '05 btw. I also find it odd how Boyd Graves wikipedia profile was removed from the net about a year ago. Its also weird how he was found mysteriously shot in his home about a year ago, this incident was labled as a suicide, hell I'm having trouble finding that article now.

Yeah, it is an assumption, but not one without merit as you are trying so desperately assert. And resorting to special pleading of a conspiracy is silly. You yourself say you have gotten most of your info from the internet, info which is far more likely to be wildly inaccurate that anything published in a peer reviewed Journal. Spend at least a little bit of time in them before going around trying to debunk the hard science.

BlueAngel
10-20-2009, 10:02 PM
Yeah, it is an assumption, but not one without merit as you are trying so desperately assert. And resorting to special pleading of a conspiracy is silly. You yourself say you have gotten most of your info from the internet, info which is far more likely to be wildly inaccurate that anything published in a peer reviewed Journal. Spend at least a little bit of time in them before going around trying to debunk the hard science.

Oh, stop it already with the peer reviewed journals.

As if this makes you an expert on anything and, as if everything published by the SCIENTIFIC community is to be considered as FACT.

Eye-Kon
10-21-2009, 07:54 AM
Mr Blee- sorry for your loss. Telling past patients that their doctor may have had HIV would be a bad idea, think of the mass panic - having to wait weeks for the results.

Eye-Kon- one of your strong points for a man-made HIV virus was that zoonosis was not possible, but now you agree with me that it is entirely possible for a monkey to pass the virus on? Although this doesn't discount your theory, it makes it an awful lot harder to swallow. It is much more likely a human caught the virus from a monkey, now this doesn't mean a human had sex with a monkey. A more realistic senario would be the preperation of a monkey for a meal, during the slaughtering infected blood could enter the human blood stream - BINGO - HIV zoonosis.

I went through those articles and I couldn't find any where it said that it was certain HIV could perform zoonosis. Even if you can find an article it still doesn't mean its true. I also never agreed it could perform zoonosis I just said it was a possibility. Is there actually any records of people contracting AIDS/HIV from a monkey to this day? Besides the so called introduction of AIDS? You would think other people would still be getting it from monkeys in Africa rarely if it happend once already. Oh and thanks for ignoring my information on Boyd Graves. Trying looking up the "The Special Cancer Virus Program" if you can even find anymore these days you'll see this program clearly lays out the development of AIDS and how to make essentially a contagious cancer. You'll also notice the report sugests introducing this 'cancer virus' in to the public domain through vaccinations. I'm not asking you guys to totally buy my theory, however its illogical to not even consider it. I'm not MD or scientist, but you don't have to be to read through lines.

EireEngineer
10-21-2009, 09:42 AM
Oh, stop it already with the peer reviewed journals.

As if this makes you an expert on anything and, as if everything published by the SCIENTIFIC community is to be considered as FACT.
As if Eyekon, or yourself, are experts from reading WOO websites on the internet. See you next Tuesday.

EireEngineer
10-21-2009, 09:57 AM
I went through those articles and I couldn't find any where it said that it was certain HIV could perform zoonosis. Even if you can find an article it still doesn't mean its true. I also never agreed it could perform zoonosis I just said it was a possibility. Is there actually any records of people contracting AIDS/HIV from a monkey to this day? Besides the so called introduction of AIDS? You would think other people would still be getting it from monkeys in Africa rarely if it happend once already. Oh and thanks for ignoring my information on Boyd Graves. Trying looking up the "The Special Cancer Virus Program" if you can even find anymore these days you'll see this program clearly lays out the development of AIDS and how to make essentially a contagious cancer. You'll also notice the report sugests introducing this 'cancer virus' in to the public domain through vaccinations. I'm not asking you guys to totally buy my theory, however its illogical to not even consider it. I'm not MD or scientist, but you don't have to be to read through lines.
I looked up the Special Cancer Virus Program. Interesting stuff, though I couldn't help but notice the fact that most of the pages were typical Woo type sites with very little in the way of corroborating references. I would feel more comfortable if there were at least a few mainstream sources. Its not out of the realm of possibility though, since there are at least a handful of cancers known to be caused by viruses. As for zoonosis, it is true that the SIV2 is not the most readily capable organism for crossing the species barrier, but it does happen. All it takes is one Typhoid Mary.

"Despite the frequent human exposure to SIV-infected monkeys in Africa, only 10 cross-species transmission events have been documented and only four of these have resulted in successful human-to-human transmission, generating HIV-1 group M and group O, and HIV-2 groups A and B. The closest relatives of SIVcpz (HIV-1 group N) and of SIVsm (HIV-2 groups C through G) are extremely rare, with only six HIV-1 group N-infected patients and single individuals infected by HIV-2 groups C-G."

Out of the Box
10-21-2009, 03:31 PM
You yourself say you have gotten most of your info from the internet, info which is far more likely to be wildly inaccurate that anything published in a peer reviewed Journal.Oh, stop it already with the peer reviewed journals.

As if this makes you an expert on anything and, as if everything published by the SCIENTIFIC community is to be considered as FACT.

Both of you have a point. Internet sources are often highly unreliable and should only be used when other sources are too hard to get or too expensive. On the other hand, peer reviewed journals tend to be biased on certain areas of science and therefore unlikely to give you a balanced view of the available evidence regarding those particular areas. Thus, both the person limiting himself to "conspiracy websites" and the person limiting himself to "peer reviewed journals" are only able to see on particular perspective of an issue and thereby risk being poorly informed.

commonsense
10-21-2009, 04:15 PM
I'd have to disagree Out of the Box. Although you have a point about peer reviewed journals, it doesn't change the fact that they are peer reviewed by highly educated scientists. Ofcourse science is constantly evolving and many things that were once written in stone are now blatantly wrong. Basically most of the medical breakthroughs and major treatments have been based on the back of peer reviewed journals.
Now some wacky websites with no credible sources? It doesn't mean they're all wrong but without being able to differentiate between the bull and the truth....why even bother wasting your time.

BlueAngel, what's your issue with EireEngineer - although new to this forum your comments have all been harsh and immature toward him/her.

Out of the Box
10-21-2009, 04:53 PM
I'd have to disagree Out of the Box. Although you have a point about peer reviewed journals, it doesn't change the fact that they are peer reviewed by highly educated scientists.

It doesn't change the facts that some scientists with controversial views like Peter Duesberg (http://www.duesberg.com/) (known for his controversial theory on HIV and AIDS), Albert Hofmann (http://www.hofmann.org/) (inventor of LSD and supporter of the legal use of LSD as medicine for the soul), Arthur Butz (http://www.codoh.com/butz/) (Holocaust revisionist), Kevin MacDonald (http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/) (evolutionary psychologist and critical expert on Jewish culture), J Philippe Rushton (http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushton_bio.htm) (psychologist specialised in intelligence and racial differences) or Tomislav Sunic (http://www.tomsunic.info/) (anticapitalist, anticommunist and antimulticulturalist political scientist) are not given an oportunity to publish their work not because the quality is poor but because the conclusion of their research is just too controversial for academia too handle. Modern science has been dilluded by an malign ideology that got hold of Western society during the late '60s. As such, some areas of science has returned to dogma on a way reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

Basically most of the medical breakthroughs and major treatments have been based on the back of peer reviewed journals.

It is only on some specific areas that science becomes dogmatic and political within academia. With regards to technology, censorship tends to be fairly mild in comparison with the heavily politicised social sciences.

Now some wacky websites with no credible sources? It doesn't mean they're all wrong but without being able to differentiate between the bull and the truth....why even bother wasting your time.

What about controversial websites that do provide a list of verifiable sources? What about video footage that shows us some controversial facts? Can they be ignored too, just because the mainstream rejects them?

The Internet doesn't always offer poor quality, just like peer reviews don't always offer scientific fact. Real life isn't as black-and-white as you like to pretend it is.

BlueAngel, what's your issue with EireEngineer - although new to this forum your comments have all been harsh and immature toward him/her.

Maybe because he calling himself an engineer and some of the arguments he makes could suggest he's one of those many arrogant self-proclaimed "sceptics" who love to "debunk" controversial theories using peer-reviewed propaganda by quoting unreliable mainstream sources like parrots and ignoring other people's arguments because they're quoting from a highly reputated mainstream source whereas the others are just quoting from some website, some Internet video or some book by a fairly unknown author... of course regardless of the quality of the sources but only judging by the reputation of the source. These people are both pretentious and arrogant because they are anything but sceptic as they swallow pretty much anything that's mainstream whereas they look down upon those who actually are sceptic and question everything (in this case both "conspiracy theories" and mainstream theories)

EireEngineer
10-21-2009, 09:22 PM
It doesn't change the facts that some scientists with controversial views like Peter Duesberg (http://www.duesberg.com/) (known for his controversial theory on HIV and AIDS), Albert Hofmann (http://www.hofmann.org/) (inventor of LSD and supporter of the legal use of LSD as medicine for the soul), Arthur Butz (http://www.codoh.com/butz/) (Holocaust revisionist), Kevin MacDonald (http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/) (evolutionary psychologist and critical expert on Jewish culture), J Philippe Rushton (http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushton_bio.htm) (psychologist specialised in intelligence and racial differences) or Tomislav Sunic (http://www.tomsunic.info/) (anticapitalist, anticommunist and antimulticulturalist political scientist) are not given an oportunity to publish their work not because the quality is poor but because the conclusion of their research is just too controversial for academia too handle. Modern science has been dilluded by an malign ideology that got hold of Western society during the late '60s. As such, some areas of science has returned to dogma on a way reminiscent of the Dark Ages.



It is only on some specific areas that science becomes dogmatic and political within academia. With regards to technology, censorship tends to be fairly mild in comparison with the heavily politicised social sciences.



What about controversial websites that do provide a list of verifiable sources? What about video footage that shows us some controversial facts? Can they be ignored too, just because the mainstream rejects them?

The Internet doesn't always offer poor quality, just like peer reviews don't always offer scientific fact. Real life isn't as black-and-white as you like to pretend it is.



Maybe because he calling himself an engineer and some of the arguments he makes could suggest he's one of those many arrogant self-proclaimed "sceptics" who love to "debunk" controversial theories using peer-reviewed propaganda by quoting unreliable mainstream sources like parrots and ignoring other people's arguments because they're quoting from a highly reputated mainstream source whereas the others are just quoting from some website, some Internet video or some book by a fairly unknown author... of course regardless of the quality of the sources but only judging by the reputation of the source. These people are both pretentious and arrogant because they are anything but sceptic as they swallow pretty much anything that's mainstream whereas they look down upon those who actually are sceptic and question everything (in this case both "conspiracy theories" and mainstream theories)
First of all, its interesting that you say that their work "cannot be published". Obviously you were able to read them, so they must have been published somewhere. Theories that test the normal paradigm crop up all the time in the world of science. If they are testable, the peer review process will fairly quickly eliminate those ideas that are not tenable, and give at least preliminary confirmation to those that are. There is nothing "mainstream" or "non-mainstream" about the process, except of course for those that prefer to forgo the process altogether, like many of those in the flat earth/alternative medicine/conspiracy crowd.
As for your assertion that I will swallow anything thats mainstream, that is a strawman of epic proportions, especially since it seems that many in the "Woo" crowd will swallow anything they see on the internet. The burden of proof for what I will believe is fairly simple, and to a certain point follows closely the scientific method, albeit in somewhat abbreviated form.
1. The idea must be testable and capable of falsification.
2. The idea must conform with what we know about workings of the universe, or be specific in how it modifys our knowledge.
3. The idea must be capable of independant verification.

Until the "Woo" crowd starts observing these principles there will always be skeptics around to challenge them.

BlueAngel
10-21-2009, 11:27 PM
As if Eyekon, or yourself, are experts from reading WOO websites on the internet. See you next Tuesday.

As if I have ever claimed to en expert on any subject because of anything I've read on an internet site.

Why don't you try posting FACTS instead of FICTION.

Out of the Box
10-22-2009, 03:07 AM
First of all, its interesting that you say that their work "cannot be published". Obviously you were able to read them, so they must have been published somewhere.

These cannot publish in mainstream journals because of the controversial nature of their studies, but they can publish in books or some journals that are not mainstream. Most people (scientists and laymen alike), however, ignore studies that are not published in mainstream journals.

If they are testable, the peer review process will fairly quickly eliminate those ideas that are not tenable, and give at least preliminary confirmation to those that are.

To be able to be subjected to the standard process of peer-review, you first have to be able to publish in peer-reviewed journals. The problem is that many controversial theories are not allowed to be published there not because of the quality of their studies but because of the controversial nature of their studies. As such, these studies are ignored by academia while there should at least be attempts to debunk them scientificly.

There is nothing "mainstream" or "non-mainstream" about the process, except of course for those that prefer to forgo the process altogether, like many of those in the flat earth/alternative medicine/conspiracy crowd.

The people I mentioned do actively try to get their studies publicated in peer-reviewed journals but they're simply not allowed to. You seem to imply these people choose to stay outside of mainstream science but it's the other way around. It's mainstream science that ignores them due to the controversial nature of their studies.

As for your assertion that I will swallow anything thats mainstream, that is a strawman of epic proportions

I wasn't referring to you but to the kind of people most common among self-proclaimed "sceptics" as I'm pretty sure BlueAngel beliefs you're one of them. If you think I was talking about you, I guess you do indeed fit the description.

especially since it seems that many in the "Woo" crowd will swallow anything they see on the internet.

True. There's but a small amount of people who're truely sceptical and question both mainstream knowledge and controversial knowledge. Dogmatism and narrowmindedness are common on both sides. Didn't I already mention that before?

The burden of proof for what I will believe is fairly simple, and to a certain point follows closely the scientific method, albeit in somewhat abbreviated form.
1. The idea must be testable and capable of falsification.
2. The idea must conform with what we know about workings of the universe, or be specific in how it modifys our knowledge.
3. The idea must be capable of independant verification.

Until the "Woo" crowd starts observing these principles there will always be skeptics around to challenge them.

I've encountered many so-called "sceptics" who betray those principles and I've also encountered many so-called "conspiracy theorists" who follow those principles. You like to pretend it's all black-and-white with "sceptics" being rational science-oriented people and "conspiracy theorists" being gullable tin foil hat morons. That's simply idiotic.

EireEngineer
10-22-2009, 10:08 AM
That is a prime example of a strawman. I have never asserted the "all" members of the conspiracy movement are kooks, any more that all skeptics are purely rational. However, many of the arguments that the conspiracy/alt medicine/flat earth crowd are tendentious, working backward from a pre-concieved conclusion. What is more, many of them are backed by untestable hypotheses, and when evidence to the contrary is posited they resort to special pleading to counter it. There are many threads on this site that avoid this kind of logical fallacy, and I have for the most part let them alone. For those that do, however, there will always be someone to point out the mistakes. Its called the marketplace of ideas, and dissent only leads to an improvement of the concept.

Out of the Box
10-22-2009, 10:56 AM
That is a prime example of a strawman. I have never asserted the "all" members of the conspiracy movement are kooks, any more that all skeptics are purely rational.

You said :

As for your assertion that I will swallow anything thats mainstream, that is a strawman of epic proportions, especially since it seems that many in the "Woo" crowd will swallow anything they see on the internet. The burden of proof for what I will believe is fairly simple, and to a certain point follows closely the scientific method, albeit in somewhat abbreviated form.
1. The idea must be testable and capable of falsification.
2. The idea must conform with what we know about workings of the universe, or be specific in how it modifys our knowledge.
3. The idea must be capable of independant verification.

Until the "Woo" crowd starts observing these principles there will always be skeptics around to challenge them.

I'm not sure how you define "the Woo crowd", but thusfar your context seems to imply it is a reference to "conspiracy theorists". If this is not a reference to "conspiracy theorists" please explain who you consider to be part of the "Woo crowd" or use a more common term. It is a term I've never heard or read before.

Anyway, you did explicitly say that the "Woo crowd" does not observe the principles supposebly held dear to you, while you (implicitly) suggest that so-called "sceptics" do observe those principles considering you didn't care to mention them and you singled out the "Woo crowd".

However, many of the arguments that the conspiracy/alt medicine/flat earth crowd are tendentious, working backward from a pre-concieved conclusion.

First of all, there's no reason to mention "conspiracy", "alternative medicine" and "flat earth" theory in one breath as these are completely different areas. Also, the first two areas both vary from plausible to outer fringe making it quite absurd as well to put all these people and theories in one category. I already explained this in a previous comment and find it quite offensive to be put in the same category as "flat earthers", "David Icke fanatics" or "Creationists" just because I reject the mainstream account in certain areas (eg. certain specific historical events).

Further, I've seen so-called "sceptics" behave in exactly the same way. Many of them also start with a pre-concieved conclusion and work backwards towards their arguments. Similarly, I've encountered so-called "conspiracy theorists" who do base their conclusions on the evidence rather than vice versa. You like to pretend that having pre-conceived conclusions is typical for "conspiracy theorists" but I've seen it on both sides at varying degree and in some fields of expertise I've seen it even far more among the so-called "sceptics".

What is more, many of them are backed by untestable hypotheses

Many are. Many others are not.

when evidence to the contrary is posited they resort to special pleading to counter it.

You'll find the same behavior among so-called "sceptics" as I explained earlier. Such pathetic behavior is NOT exclusive to so-called "conspiracy theorists" and at least as common among those dedicated to "debunking conspiracy theorists". In fact, I've encountered dozens of self-proclaimed sceptics who are no less narrowminded and gullible as your average "David Icke fanatic".

There are many threads on this site that avoid this kind of logical fallacy, and I have for the most part let them alone. For those that do, however, there will always be someone to point out the mistakes. Its called the marketplace of ideas, and dissent only leads to an improvement of the concept.

I couldn't agree more. However, by only criticising so-called "conspiracy theorists" and pretending this behavioral flaw does not exist among so-called "sceptics" you're portraying a black-and-white view of reality and you're offending those "conspiracy theorists" who do not fit those criteria.

Out of the Box
11-06-2009, 07:11 AM
Still no response?!?

EireEngineer
11-06-2009, 09:20 AM
You said :



I'm not sure how you define "the Woo crowd", but thusfar your context seems to imply it is a reference to "conspiracy theorists". If this is not a reference to "conspiracy theorists" please explain who you consider to be part of the "Woo crowd" or use a more common term. It is a term I've never heard or read before.
OK, how about the Alternative Medicine/Flat Earth/Conspiracy Theory crowd. Woo-Woo is a term skeptics use to describe any of the myriad pseudo-science that is out there.

Anyway, you did explicitly say that the "Woo crowd" does not observe the principles supposebly held dear to you, while you (implicitly) suggest that so-called "sceptics" do observe those principles considering you didn't care to mention them and you singled out the "Woo crowd".

In general, yes that has been my observation, though I will admit so seeing some pretty poor logic out of skeptics too. Albie is a prime example.


First of all, there's no reason to mention "conspiracy", "alternative medicine" and "flat earth" theory in one breath as these are completely different areas. Also, the first two areas both vary from plausible to outer fringe making it quite absurd as well to put all these people and theories in one category. I already explained this in a previous comment and find it quite offensive to be put in the same category as "flat earthers", "David Icke fanatics" or "Creationists" just because I reject the mainstream account in certain areas (eg. certain specific historical events).
It has been my observation over the years that there are many commonalities between these groups. Namely, rabid denial of even basic evidence to the contrary, tendentiousness, and the common use of logical fallacy in their arguments. I will concede the point that many in the skeptical movement are just as bad, but it is a lower percentage then you will find in the woo crowd.


Further, I've seen so-called "sceptics" behave in exactly the same way. Many of them also start with a pre-concieved conclusion and work backwards towards their arguments. Similarly, I've encountered so-called "conspiracy theorists" who do base their conclusions on the evidence rather than vice versa. You like to pretend that having pre-conceived conclusions is typical for "conspiracy theorists" but I've seen it on both sides at varying degree and in some fields of expertise I've seen it even far more among the so-called "sceptics".



Many are. Many others are not.



You'll find the same behavior among so-called "sceptics" as I explained earlier. Such pathetic behavior is NOT exclusive to so-called "conspiracy theorists" and at least as common among those dedicated to "debunking conspiracy theorists". In fact, I've encountered dozens of self-proclaimed sceptics who are no less narrowminded and gullible as your average "David Icke fanatic".



I couldn't agree more. However, by only criticising so-called "conspiracy theorists" and pretending this behavioral flaw does not exist among so-called "sceptics" you're portraying a black-and-white view of reality and you're offending those "conspiracy theorists" who do not fit those criteria.
As I said, i agree with you on this, to a point. Certainly people like albie dont help our side in the least.

Out of the Box
11-09-2009, 02:42 AM
OK, how about the Alternative Medicine/Flat Earth/Conspiracy Theory crowd. Woo-Woo is a term skeptics use to describe any of the myriad pseudo-science that is out there.

Not all "alternative medicine" and "conspiracy theories" are pseudo-science. That's where you're wrong.

It has been my observation over the years that there are many commonalities between these groups. Namely, rabid denial of even basic evidence to the contrary, tendentiousness, and the common use of logical fallacy in their arguments. I will concede the point that many in the skeptical movement are just as bad, but it is a lower percentage then you will find in the woo crowd..

Not in my experience. If you visit a "skeptic" forum and attempt to prove that 9/11 was an inside job or that Hitler was not responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews (*), the vast majority of responses are strawman arguments and insults. It's the very reason I'm no longer active on that sort of forums.



--------------------------------------------------

(*) Hitler used concentration camps for much the same reason Roosevelt did : to lock up people considered a threat to national security. Forensic tests, Red Cross reports and other evidence shows that there were indeed large death tolls in some of the German concentration camps, however the main killers in these camps were typhus and typhoid. When the allies were carpet bombing German infrastructure, resources could no longer reach these camps making it impossible to stop the pandemic. The film The Relief of Belsen (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0950502/) gives some insight in what really took place and is based on the testimonies of the British soldiers as they liberated Bergen-Belsen.
As rumours existed among Jews that Hitler was killing people with gas chambers, this was soon incorporated in black propaganda, linked to the high death toll and even made it to the Nuremberg show trials. However, there is no evidence that a single concentration camp inmate was ever gassed by the Germans. Neither is there any evidence that Hitler planned to kill all Jews. In fact, the claims that Hitler was exterminating Jews was largely forgotten until the Six Day war when zionists started using it for their own propaganda and the Holocaust Industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_Industry) developed.

EireEngineer
11-09-2009, 09:22 AM
Not all "alternative medicine" and "conspiracy theories" are pseudo-science. That's where you're wrong.
Perhaps, but the overwhelming majority of so called "alternative medicine" practices are pseudo-science at best, and charlatanism at their worst. Take acupuncture for example. I for one was hopeful that acupuncture would prove to have at least moderate efficacy for the treatment of pain. However, in every double blind study ever performed the best that acupuncture could deliver was the placebo effect. Yet acupuncturists tried to spin this as "it works". What is worse is that by promoting such therapies as valid, alt med adherents are discouraging people with real conditions from seeking real treatment, contributing to the pain, suffering, and sometimes needless death of these individuals.



Not in my experience. If you visit a "skeptic" forum and attempt to prove that 9/11 was an inside job or that Hitler was not responsible for the murder of 6 million Jews (*), the vast majority of responses are strawman arguments and insults. It's the very reason I'm no longer active on that sort of forums.

I suppose it depends on the quality of the information you bring to the debate, and the amount of actual research you have done. It seems that many people think that just because somebody wrote it and put it on the internet, that it has been fact checked at vetted, and therefore it should be believed.

Out of the Box
11-09-2009, 12:35 PM
Perhaps, but the overwhelming majority of so called "alternative medicine" practices are pseudo-science at best, and charlatanism at their worst. Take acupuncture for example. I for one was hopeful that acupuncture would prove to have at least moderate efficacy for the treatment of pain. However, in every double blind study ever performed the best that acupuncture could deliver was the placebo effect. Yet acupuncturists tried to spin this as "it works". What is worse is that by promoting such therapies as valid, alt med adherents are discouraging people with real conditions from seeking real treatment, contributing to the pain, suffering, and sometimes needless death of these individuals.

What about the Duesberg hypothesis on HIV and AIDS? What about Royal Rife's research? Is there sufficient evidence to dismiss these as pseudo-science? I find it hard to find any...

I suppose it depends on the quality of the information you bring to the debate, and the amount of actual research you have done. It seems that many people think that just because somebody wrote it and put it on the internet, that it has been fact checked at vetted, and therefore it should be believed.

Unfortunately, this is the case both for so-called "skeptics" and so-called "conspiracy theorists".

EireEngineer
11-09-2009, 09:16 PM
What about the Duesberg hypothesis on HIV and AIDS? What about Royal Rife's research? Is there sufficient evidence to dismiss these as pseudo-science? I find it hard to find any...

I have looked at them both and not found it convincing, but to each his own.

Unfortunately, this is the case both for so-called "skeptics" and so-called "conspiracy theorists".
No arguments from me on that one.

Out of the Box
11-10-2009, 03:04 AM
I have looked at them both and not found it convincing, but to each his own.

I know only little about Rife's work (although I find his story fascinating), but I have looked into the arguments of Duesberg and as a layman I find no arguments to disprove him. IMO, this gives him as a prominent scientist at least the benefit of a doubt.

EireEngineer
11-10-2009, 01:48 PM
I know only little about Rife's work (although I find his story fascinating), but I have looked into the arguments of Duesberg and as a layman I find no arguments to disprove him. IMO, this gives him as a prominent scientist at least the benefit of a doubt.

Some of Duesburgs assertions that are obviously bunk:

4) The epidemic is fragmented into distinct subepidemics with exclusive AIDS-defining diseases. For example, only homosexual males have Kaposi's sarcoma.

University Clinic Hamburg.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the natural history of KS in HIV-positive women METHODS: Clinical, epidemiological and immunological data of ten women with biopsy-proven KS living in Germany were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean age was 39.7 years. KS was the first AIDS defining event in 9 and reason for testing in 3. Mean CD4-count was 215/yl. 2 patients were of African origin. 5 patients were heterosexually infected. All but one, a prostitute, had a bisexual HIV-positive partner, 3/4 partners had KS. 3 women were IVDU. 2, possibly all 3, had been prostitutes. Initially, 8 patients had limited, 2 widely disseminated disease. Only 1 patient has not progressed. 6 patients died after a mean follow-up of 16.7 months (range 7 to 43). In 4, death was at least partly attributed to end-stage KS. Survival was longer for non IVDU and for patients with higher CD4-counts at diagnosis. CONCLUSION: KS runs a particularly aggressive course in women. Our data are consistent with a sexually transmissible etiologic agent of KS. Prostitution, an issue yet to be addressed by other authors reporting series of women with KS, was reported in 4 of our patients Further studies need to clarify the significance of this finding.

(1)
AIDS is not contagious. For example, not even one health care worker has contracted AIDS from over 800,000 AIDS patients in America and Europe.

It took me all of five seconds to find an article in The Lancet on a heathcare worker infected by a patient, and many more where heathcare workers have infected patients.

Out of the Box
11-11-2009, 04:40 AM
4) The epidemic is fragmented into distinct subepidemics with exclusive AIDS-defining diseases. For example, only homosexual males have Kaposi's sarcoma.

University Clinic Hamburg.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the natural history of KS in HIV-positive women METHODS: Clinical, epidemiological and immunological data of ten women with biopsy-proven KS living in Germany were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean age was 39.7 years. KS was the first AIDS defining event in 9 and reason for testing in 3. Mean CD4-count was 215/yl. 2 patients were of African origin. 5 patients were heterosexually infected. All but one, a prostitute, had a bisexual HIV-positive partner, 3/4 partners had KS. 3 women were IVDU. 2, possibly all 3, had been prostitutes. [...] Prostitution, an issue yet to be addressed by other authors reporting series of women with KS, was reported in 4 of our patients.

So Duesberg was inaccurate. This doesn't disprove his hypothesis, though.

Note the marked words. All but one had a bisexual HIV-positive partner. 3/4 of partners had KS and the one that didn't have an HIV-positive partner was a prostitute. Duesberg attributes the homosexual variation of AIDS to the use of poppers. Considering this data, the use of poppers is far from unlikely. In fact, it is remarkable that of male partners only 3/4 had KS, however it makes sense considering they were in a heterosexual relationship and poppers are mostly used for widening the anus for anal sex.

AIDS is not contagious. For example, not even one health care worker has contracted AIDS from over 800,000 AIDS patients in America and Europe.

It took me all of five seconds to find an article in The Lancet on a heathcare worker infected by a patient, and many more where heathcare workers have infected patients.

And we know there's a causal relationship because......??

Another inaccuracy that doesn't disprove his hypothesis.

EireEngineer
11-11-2009, 09:13 AM
Because the healthcare worker had been tested, as required by law, just the week before, had a patient who was HIV+, and while attempting to resuscitate him was accidentally stuck by a needle containing his blood. Given the patients known HIV+ status, she was put on leave, and later tested positive. She did not fit into ANY of the risk groups, and this was the sole incident that could have caused the infection. Here in Denver, we recently had a similar incident, only it was the mans ribs that did the sticking. He had been in a car accident and they had missed a couple of rib fractures on intake. The man coded, and during CPR, one of the man's ribs punctured the skin, glove, and finally the skin of the nurse performing the CPR. Big surprise that she came down HIV+ the next time she was tested.

Out of the Box
11-12-2009, 10:53 AM
Because the healthcare worker had been tested, as required by law, just the week before, had a patient who was HIV+, and while attempting to resuscitate him was accidentally stuck by a needle containing his blood. Given the patients known HIV+ status, she was put on leave, and later tested positive. She did not fit into ANY of the risk groups, and this was the sole incident that could have caused the infection.

This doesn't prove ANYTHING. If you had researched the Duesberg hypothesis, you'd understand that. According to the Duesberg hypothesis, a positive HIV test is actually quite common and unrelated to AIDS.

Maybe you should actually research the Duesberg hypothesis before coming up with this sort of strawman arguments. I suggest you start by watching the 2 hour documentary HIV=AIDS: Fact Or Fraud (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8142733917997460212&ei=sDz8SquoH4rN-Qan68HxCg&q=AIDS&view=2#) and move on from there.

EireEngineer
11-12-2009, 11:16 AM
This doesn't prove ANYTHING. If you had researched the Duesberg hypothesis, you'd understand that. According to the Duesberg hypothesis, a positive HIV test is actually quite common and unrelated to AIDS.

Maybe you should actually research the Duesberg hypothesis before coming up with this sort of strawman arguments. I suggest you start by watching the 2 hour documentary HIV=AIDS: Fact Or Fraud (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8142733917997460212&ei=sDz8SquoH4rN-Qan68HxCg&q=AIDS&view=2#) and move on from there.
Ill look at it, but the fact that I found so many inconsistancies in just a cursory investigation does not impress me much.

Out of the Box
11-12-2009, 11:38 AM
Ill look at it, but the fact that I found so many inconsistancies in just a cursory investigation does not impress me much.

Thusfar, you've only brought up strawman arguments that are anything but impressive. Just watch the video first. It gives a very good introduction into the matter and this video is actually what made me interested in the topic in the first place.

EireEngineer
11-12-2009, 11:45 AM
Thusfar, you've only brought up strawman arguments that are anything but impressive. Just watch the video first. It gives a very good introduction into the matter and this video is actually what made me interested in the topic in the first place.
A straw man means that I am exaggerating the claim. There is no need to do that in this case.

Out of the Box
11-12-2009, 12:16 PM
A straw man means that I am exaggerating the claim. There is no need to do that in this case.

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. Your arguments were based on a misrepresentation of Duesberg's hypothesis or otherwise you would have known they were irrelevant.

Anyway.... Why don't you just watch the video first before you make any more comments? It's only two hours. Thusfar, I haven't encountered a single "debunker" or "skeptic" who can provide a plausible explanation for the points made in the video (eg. the failure of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis to pass Koch's postulates or the fact that almost all cases of AIDS within the developed world are limited to specific risk groups).

EireEngineer
11-12-2009, 01:33 PM
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. Your arguments were based on a misrepresentation of Duesberg's hypothesis or otherwise you would have known they were irrelevant.

Anyway.... Why don't you just watch the video first before you make any more comments? It's only two hours. Thusfar, I haven't encountered a single "debunker" or "skeptic" who can provide a plausible explanation for the points made in the video (eg. the failure of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis to pass Koch's postulates or the fact that almost all cases of AIDS within the developed world are limited to specific risk groups).

Well, he was the one that claimed that women dont get KS, after all, so that is not an overstatement.

Out of the Box
11-12-2009, 01:51 PM
Well, he was the one that claimed that women dont get KS, after all, so that is not an overstatement.

Where did he make that claim? Can you link to the actual source you got that from?

Anyway... So what if out of all KS cases there are 5% or less women instead of 0 women? It's a silly inaccuracy that does not disprove his hypothesis.

EireEngineer
11-13-2009, 09:46 AM
Peter Duesberg on AIDS - Duesberg.com - HIV / AIDS research website for Peter H. Duesberg. (http://www.duesberg.com/)

Or is this site wildly misrepresenting his ideas? Im still looking into it.

Out of the Box
11-13-2009, 11:30 AM
Peter Duesberg on AIDS - Duesberg.com - HIV / AIDS research website for Peter H. Duesberg. (http://www.duesberg.com/)

Or is this site wildly misrepresenting his ideas?

It does appear to be his official website.

Anyway, have you watched the video yet?

EireEngineer
11-13-2009, 01:51 PM
No, sorry. Bit busy running a business and doing the nano-thermite research you gave me. But I wont forget about it.

Out of the Box
11-14-2009, 09:03 AM
No, sorry. Bit busy running a business and doing the nano-thermite research you gave me. But I wont forget about it.

Take your time. We can continue this discussion after you watched the video ;)

priovikeposse
03-02-2010, 01:19 AM
Dentist Bucuresti

superted
05-05-2010, 06:23 AM
What are you talking about termpapers? HIV-positive means you have the Human immunodeficiency retrovirus.

Aren't you just trying advertise your link 'Term papers'?