Widget posted the following link on the General forum:
http://members.aol.com/pbchowka/live8hiv-aids070105.html
This links basically argues that the drugs companies which sell anti-HIV drugs (or cocktails as they are known) will use Live 8! as one massive advertisement. It also hints that there is no proven connection between HIV and AIDS. This is an argument I was not familiar with.
From this article (which doesn't seem very objective to me) I plucked a few links, which make for VERY interesting reading:
http://www.nypress.com/18/25/news&columns/farber.cfm
This is a column by Farber in which she(?) argues that the anti-HIV drugs cause more life-threatening events than AIDS does.
http://www.healtoronto.com/nih/
This is the basis which really got me thinking about the subject.
(Obviously there's something scary about argueing that HIV does not lead to AIDS, when you can see so many people dying of the disease in Africa.
I certainly wouldn't want anybody to have sex without a condom because of this debate. I just, seriously, think this is worth debating. Because the implications of the issue at stake are very far reaching!)
This article is the rebuttel about HIV causing AIDS. It sets out to demolish the proof, which if what they say is true, is based on bad science.
I know it's a lot of reading, but I reckon it's worth it.
1. Has anybody ever heard these rebuttels on public television?
2. Has anybody found a rebuttel to the rebuttel?
3. What are the implications if this should be true?
I genuinly wonder what you all think of it!
Originally posted by shavixmirWhat? Schmutt? Been into a few butts that have you worried?
Widget posted the following link on the General forum:
http://members.aol.com/pbchowka/live8hiv-aids070105.html
This links basically argues that the drugs companies which sell anti-HIV drugs (or cocktails as they are known) will use Live 8! as one massive advertisement. It also hints that there is no proven connection between HIV and AIDS. This is a ...[text shortened]... What are the implications if this should be true?
I genuinly wonder what you all think of it!
Originally posted by shavixmirI've heard of this stuff. I live in California and am very interested in AIDS. I've volunteered in an AIDS center and studied a little of the virology of the disease. There are a fair number of people out there who think all kinds of odd things about AIDS.
Widget posted the following link on the General forum:
http://members.aol.com/pbchowka/live8hiv-aids070105.html
This links basically argues that the drugs companies which sell anti-HIV drugs (or cocktails as they are known) will us ...[text shortened]... his should be true?
I genuinly wonder what you all think of it!
This is a lot of reading you've provided and I didn't read all of it. I unfortunately am not intimately familiar with this debate (though maybe I should be).
Here are some questions that come to mind.
Does the virus that has been named HIV exist? When I took virology there were detailed electron microscopy images of this virus and detailed diagrams of what it's made of. Are these imaginary or irrelevant?
Does it infect and destroy white blood cells?
Does this activity cause at least some cases of AIDS?
What are the alternatively hypothesized causes?
Has good science been done to explore these other causes?
Has good science been done to show that cures have been produced due to these other explanations?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungConspiracy theorists have a ball with this one, joining the moon
I've heard of this stuff. I live in California and am very interested in AIDS. I've volunteered in an AIDS center and studied a little of the virology of the disease. There are a fair number of people out there who think all kinds of odd things about AIDS.
This is a lot of reading you've provided and I didn't read all of it. I unfortunately ...[text shortened]... as good science been done to show that cures have been produced due to these other explanations?
hoaxers. They have good SEM images of the HIV virus and even
decoded the DNA. But because of ethical issues, they can't use an
HIV virus on humans to prove it causes AIDS so the hoaxers have
a field day. They know full well the monkey version, SIV causes
an aids like disease in monkeys, they have no moral dilemma
causing monkeys to contract SIV, not sure of the right name but
the S stands for Simian. I don't think it is fatal in monkeys
and one theory goes the bushmen in africa kill monkeys and eat them
and the SIV mutated into a human form and then AIDS in Africa was
born and eventually some gay dude got it and went to America
and others went to Europe, etc. and the rest is history. The hard part
is inducing an immunal response before it gets to be a hoard inside
the body, hiding out everywhere, mutating like mad along the way.
So Just recently, an article in New Scientist announced a possible
serum that induces a strong immune response to HIV.
That is one way to prove HIV causes aids and cause the hoaxers
to find some other conspiracy to slobber over. If they actually
get people to fight HIV before it takes over, then a statistical
cause and effect chain will be shown, people with the serum live
X amount of years, people without the serum lives X minus 20 years
or something. Then they can attack others with similar lethality,
like Ebola, thats another bad one.
I seem to remember that the current President of South Africa was extremely reluctant to agree there was a link between HIV and AIDS. That's the context in which I've seen this before.
Makes you think, really, how many things we take as the truth not because of our own observations but relying on the words of others.