“If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents that… demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document.”
— Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist and 1993 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/
AIDS is basically a scam, to get taxpayer funding. We’ve all been tricked.
Let me get this straight.
HIV exists, correct?
HIV does not cause AIDS (according to your website), correct?
People that die of AIDS actually die from the drugs (according to your website), correct?
So why were people dying of AIDS before any treatments were devised?
Why are so many people with HIV living symptom free and healthy as long as they take their drugs?
The fact that they have a couple looney academics spewing this shit should not surprise you. There are always at least few looney academics out there that will say anything.
Wow.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents that… demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document.”
— Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist and 1993 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/
AIDS is basically a scam, to get taxpayer funding. We’ve all been tricked.[/quote]
I hope you’re joking.
Magic Johnson is living proof that HIV just makes you fat.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Let me get this straight.
HIV exists, correct?
HIV does not cause AIDS (according to your website), correct?
People that die of AIDS actually die from the drugs (according to your website), correct?
So why were people dying of AIDS before any treatments were devised?
Why are so many people with HIV living symptom free and healthy as long as they take their drugs?
The fact that they have a couple looney academics spewing this shit should not surprise you. There are always at least few looney academics out there that will say anything.[/quote]
All of these questions are addressed on the site.
The MANY scientists listed and quoted on the site seems to refute the ‘loon’ stuff. Simply research the site.
Because AIDS is not my specialty, I posted the site for you to read. I wouldn’t ask you to rely on my interpretation.
[quote]DemiAjax wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
“If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents that… demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document.”
— Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist and 1993 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/
AIDS is basically a scam, to get taxpayer funding. We’ve all been tricked.
I hope you’re joking.[/quote]
No. Its my belief that AIDS is simply a made-up name for diseases that are mostly confined to drug users and gays. Most Americans would not endorse funding for diseases caused by that behavior; so it got re-packaged as AIDS.
Please read the site and judge for yourself. Attacking me is like attacking the messenger.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents that… demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document.”
— Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist and 1993 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/
AIDS is basically a scam, to get taxpayer funding. We’ve all been tricked.[/quote]
I wonder how much the South African government is paying them? Cos last I checked that is their official stance on it. That and taking a warm shower after having sex w/ an HIV infected woman will keep you safe (at least according to Mr Zuma).
Now that my party is going off a cliff I think I will join them.
You could NOT be more of a retard.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
No. Its my belief that AIDS is simply a made-up name for diseases that are mostly confined to drug users and gays. Most Americans would not endorse funding for diseases caused by that behavior; so it got re-packaged as AIDS.
[/quote]
I believe the risks of HIV infection for healthy straight people were overstated for political reasons, but that doesn’t mean that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
I believe the risks of HIV infection for healthy straight people were overstated for political reasons, but that doesn’t mean that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. [/quote]
I think this, further compounded by the misdiagnosis of AIDS in foreign countries has confounded and will continue to confound the problem. When somebody shoots themself full of it and doesn’t test positive and/or die, I’ll believe and gladly clap when they win the Nobel.
i browsed that site. all i can say is wow…i don’t really know what to think about it. it does worry me that our culture has such an overrelience on drugs. it seems we’d rather take a drug than address why we’re sick. i’m not saying that’s the doctor’s fault, just people in general.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
You could NOT be more of a retard. [/quote]
Well, since YOU like to flame me, I’ll assume that this wonderful contribution to the thread was directed at myself.
(a) Read the link.
(b) STFU until that time.
(c) Come back here and respond with
the brilliance and oratorical
skills we’ve all come to love.
I await your next syllable with great anticipation! (from the movie Arthur)
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
“If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents that… demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document.”
— Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist and 1993 Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/
AIDS is basically a scam, to get taxpayer funding. We’ve all been tricked.[/quote]
You honestly believe this?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
No. Its my belief that AIDS is simply a made-up name for diseases that are mostly confined to drug users and gays. Most Americans would not endorse funding for diseases caused by that behavior; so it got re-packaged as AIDS.
I believe the risks of HIV infection for healthy straight people were overstated for political reasons, but that doesn’t mean that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. [/quote]
Yeah, that’s my understanding as well. Still a world of difference between the two claims (or, in the case of Headhunter’s, conspiracy theory).
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
No. Its my belief that AIDS is simply a made-up name for diseases that are mostly confined to drug users and gays. Most Americans would not endorse funding for diseases caused by that behavior; so it got re-packaged as AIDS.
I believe the risks of HIV infection for healthy straight people were overstated for political reasons, but that doesn’t mean that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS. [/quote]
Although, when you look at the AIDS rate in most of Sub-Saharan Africa, it becomes pretty clear it’s from being solely a gay/drug users disease.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
You could NOT be more of a retard.
Well, since YOU like to flame me, I’ll assume that this wonderful contribution to the thread was directed at myself.
(a) Read the link.
(b) STFU until that time.
(c) Come back here and respond with
the brilliance and oratorical
skills we’ve all come to love.
I await your next syllable with great anticipation! (from the movie Arthur)
[/quote]
It was directed at you. You retard.
Now, I will NOT read the link for the same reason I will not read any of Jlesk’s nonsense about the Twin Towers being blown up by the Israelis or whatever the fuck he’s on about lately.
Your “idea” is a dumb waste of time that anyone with half-a-brain saw, like, three years ago and immediately dismissed as crackpot nonsense.
But, nothing more could be expected from the man who’s given us such gems as “liberalism=fascism”; “gas prices are high because of the Democrats”; and “Ayn Rand isn’t a complete and total waste of time.”
I know Peter Duesberg, the guy that started this whole conspiracy theory that Headhunter is refering to in yet another of his psychotic attacks. I met him back when I was at Berkeley, and I got to talk to him a lot about this.
His theory was concocted back in 1987, when in fact the disease was mostly in the gay/drug user community. The nearby San Francisco and Oakland are pretty fertile in both communities, and it seemed an obvious conclusion from his observations in this part of the Universe.
Of course, in the past 20 years we learnt a lot, and very few people still believe the guy.
The current consensus in the scientific community is that the Duesberg hypothesis has been refuted by the huge mass of available evidence, showing that Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled by HIV, that virus numbers in the blood correlate with disease progression and that a plausible mechanism for HIV’s action has been proposed.
In the 9 December, 1994 issue of Science (Vol. 266, No. 5191), Duesberg’s methods and claims were evaluated and found that:
* it is abundantly evident that HIV causes disease and death in hemophiliacs (Cohen, 1994a)
* HIV fulfills Koch's postulates (Cohen, 1994b)
* the AIDS epidemic in Thailand cited by Duesberg as confirming his theories in fact is evidence tending to confirm the role of HIV in AIDS. (Cohen, 1994c)
* AZT and illicit drug use, contrary to Duesberg's claims, do not cause an immune deficiency to or similar to that seen in AIDS (Cohen, 1994d)
From what I gathered in my conversations with him, there are three basic reasons why he keeps insisting on this “theory”: political beliefs, pride and self-interest.
His political beliefs, let’s say… are illegal in his native Germany. That’s one of the reasons he immigrated here.
Also, keeping his ground has gained him a lot of recognition, and a lot of support from fringe groups. If he caved to the mainstream thought in this area, he would no longer be relevant. He would probably be completely forgotten.