21 Mar 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Hand of HecateDon't worry, if it IS real, we'll never hear about it. The government will kill all the people who know the recipe, or lie and say it's fake or something.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/03/15/koinange.africa/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Indiscriminate sex a spoonful away! Free love here we come!
21 Mar 07
Originally posted by LanndonKaneor they'll keep the recipe, and never tell anyone...
Don't worry, if it IS real, the we'll never hear about it. The government will kill all the people who know the recipe, or lie and say it's fake or something.
that way, the AIDS fundraisers can keep collecting money and pocketing it for themselves
21 Mar 07
This man went to the doctor because he had AIDS. The doctor advised him to go down to Mexico, and drink all the water he could, eat all the Mexican food he could, and drink all the tequila he could. The man asked the doctor if that would cure AIDS. The doctor replied, it will teach you what your rectum is for. 😕
21 Mar 07
Originally posted by Ice Coldi don't get it
This man went to the doctor because he had AIDS. The doctor advised him to go down to Mexico, and drink all the water he could, eat all the Mexican food he could, and drink all the tequila he could. The man asked the doctor if that would cure AIDS. The doctor replied, it will teach you what your rectum is for. 😕
21 Mar 07
Originally posted by LanndonKaneA lot of people are going to lose a lot of money if the cure for aids is a spoonful of mud and leaves. I'm scared that there is no reason for drug companies to find the cure. However, I can't see suppressing the media if this is true. No amount of money would keep it down.
Don't worry, if it IS real, we'll never hear about it. The government will kill all the people who know the recipe, or lie and say it's fake or something.
I don't see why professors are jumping up and down telling him to shut up before they have any evidence. All evidence now points toward it being at least a partial short-term remedy. If they truly cared, they'd say "Let's see what you have here. Let's do the tests. Let's try it on the sick that are willing to try anything now." before shutting it out as preposterous.
Maybe it's just boiled marijuana though... that would make people feel better.
21 Mar 07
It is not so unbelievable in light of the fact that there are, especially in the past 5 to 10 years, several long-term and successful treatments to the enigmatic HIV. We are going to see a lot of people in the next 20 years or so who are not officially cured, yet who are "doing fine". After reading the article, I would have to say that if there is any reality to this newest remedy, it is likely another way to reduce the rate at which the virus replicates.
21 Mar 07
Originally posted by CoconutNo new therapy should be used before several stages of testing are applied. 'Professors' aren't damning the drug outright - they're asking that the drugs true efficacy be tested before it's heralded as the replacement for drugs that are proven to work. They are saying "Let's see what you have here" "Let's do the tests" but (not suprisingly) the creaters of this miracle cure won't let them. Why?
I don't see why professors are jumping up and down telling him to shut up before they have any evidence. All evidence now points toward it being at least a partial short-term remedy. If they truly cared, they'd say "Let's see what you have here. Let's do the tests. Let's try it on the sick that are willing to try anything now." before shutting it out as prep ...[text shortened]... rous.
Maybe it's just boiled marijuana though... that would make people feel better.
I suspect that if there is any benefit of this new drug that your last statement is right - that it countains drugs that mask they symptoms. The problem is that the drugs won't be doing annything to stop long term progression of the disease, may themselves be harmful in the medium/long term, may stop other drug therapies from working, certainly will encourage people to stop taking other therapies. This is why you shouldn't "try it on the sick that are willing to try anything" - because theres' not the slightest evidence that it's not doing more harm than good.
I can't see on what you base your claim that "All evidence now points toward it being at least a partial short-term remedy". The only evidence I see is (1)a president claiming to have had a miracle dream - a man who has much to gain from being seen as the great saviour by his people, (2) one patient who claims to have suddenly got better, without presenting any proof beyond his word how sicjk he was previously, (3) one doctor who is backing the evidence verbally but providing no evidence. The evidence that is being denied is patient records to show the efficacy of the drug or the drug itself for either analysis or testing programs. In short, we only have the word of a few people with much to gain, who are not allowing us to verify their claims.