 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / April 2004'AIDS' debunking - The Emperor has no clothes!
The Emperor has no clothes! Deconstructing HIV and AIDS Edited by Robert Johnston "The World Health Organization studied prostitutes in a little coastal African country above Liberia. They found that 75 percent of the prostitutes were HIV-positive and predicted that five years later half of them would be dead. In five years they came back and there were no bodies to count. Still they're HIV-positive, according to their tests. (Actually, they're positive due to a cross-reactivity.) The conclusion of a paper on this published in Nature was that these people had a special strain of HIV which firstly does not cause any disease and secondly protects you from the strains that are rampant throughout Africa. It even said that we ought to study these people further to develop a vaccine. Even a sixth grader looking at the logic of this would say, 'Wait a minute. The emperor has no clothes here!' There's something seriously wrong with the minds of people who don't examine direct evidence of their conclusions being wrong." ~ Dr. Kary Mullis, biochemist, 1993 Nobel prize for chemistry >"The World Health Organization studied prostitutes in a little coastal >African country above Liberia. They found that 75 percent of the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >clothes here!' There's something seriously wrong with the minds of people >who don't examine direct evidence of their conclusions being wrong." This quote can be found at http://www.garynull.com/Documents/aids.htm, and Gary Null gives a reference to the source for this quote: "Gary Null interview with Kary Mullis, undated." So, there is not enough information here to locate the study or the article. There is no way to check whether the claim is true or not. A claim that can't be traced to its source is just a rumour.  SignatureDavid Canzi All it takes to keep a controversy going is one chronically wrong idiot who won't shut up. A controversy is not evidence that there are actually two sides worth hearing. "All it takes to keep a controversy going is one chronically wrong idiot who won't shut up." Right on the button there, Mr Canzi. We just have to determine which speakers are chronically wrong. In the end our only recourse as thinking beings is to look critically at the evidence for the HIV hypothesis - rather than at the assertions constantly made for it. I think that the readers of this forum will want to see isolation/proof of pathology of the HIV virus before they decide that the controversy is quite over. There is a Nobel prize and a considerable amount of prize money awaiting the first person to do this, so it is a little baffling that someone in the AIDs industry doesn't just do it. snip... >This quote can be found at http://www.garynull.com/Documents/aids.htm, >and Gary Null gives a reference to the source for this quote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >A claim that can't be traced to its source is just a rumour. Who cares? Gary Null is one of the biggest f.cking ripoff idiots who even gets a lot of his nutritional information wrong as he sells his overpriced crap. It is a true and deep shame that WBAI still carries his voice on the air. I won't listen to BAI because of him. George M. Carter " I won't listen to BAI because of him." Seems you wont listen to ANYTHING that challenges you 'AIDS' dogma. Oh Paul you are so utterly devoid of insight that you fail to see the irony in your comment bellow....................... Gary Stein > " I won't listen to BAI because of him." > > Seems you wont listen to ANYTHING that challenges you 'AIDS' dogma. >" I won't listen to BAI because of him." > >Seems you wont listen to ANYTHING that challenges you 'AIDS' dogma. See? You're just like Bush. Data conflict with your worldview so you make things up. Clearly, I have been reading the spate of denialist dithering you have posted here and in some cases responded quite extensively (e.g., the list of 100 so-called "inconsistencies"). And thanks too for the opportunity to do some catch-up review of research! A little conflict does get me goin'! The sad part is that after 15 years, you're denialist horseshit is really pathetic. It does not refute the existence of HIV (and even your own major denialist, Duesberg doesn't do that). Nor does it refute the development of AIDS in most infected individuals. Challenges and questions are a hallmark of good scientific investigation. I WELCOME that. And indeed, there IS much to question about HIV--as with all diseases. From the way it causes the immune dysfunction to the global way we have failed as a species to address the pandemic. MANY questions. The inchoate gibberings that you and your ilk bring up are demonstrably the wrong questions. "Does HIV cause AIDS?" Yes! Get infected--find out for yourself if you don't believe it. Get a grip and start asking the more important questions and stop killing people with your stupid anti-condom, denialist nonsense. George M. Carter "Does HIV cause AIDS?". I am more interested in "Why are we talking about a viral cause without evidence of a virus?". If we find a virus then we can attempt to track the pathology of that virus: we can then ask "Does HIV cause AIDS?". But we must not assert viral cause without proof. Presumption of viral cause is partly why "we as a species" have made such a mare's nest of AIDs epidemiology. The unfortunate SMON "outbreak" in Japan is a classic example of the viral error: albeit on a far smaller scale. SMON would still be with us today if the scientists involved had not had the courage to examine possible toxic causes in the face of adverse public opinion. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.