It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Medical Industry Holding Back Cures for Major Diseases

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   


If you would rather believe in something and believe information that supports only your position on the matter...then the motto "deny ignorance" will never truly apply to you.


ZZZ...it's a shame you can't even follow your own advice!!




posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   
References used by Dr. Kwame Nantambu, Associate Professor at kent State University for an essay he wrote on AIDS being man-made, which can be found here:

archives.econ.utah.edu...

References:

1. Is AIDS manmade?: The Strecker Memorandum. Distributed by The Strecker Group, Eagle Rock, CA., 1983.
2. Jack Felder. (1989). AIDS: United States Germs Warfare at its Best with Documents and Proof, 6.
3. Malcolm Turner. (June 24, 1991). AIDS is Biological Warfare: A Warning to African People, African Connection, 9.
4. Turner. (1991) and William Campbell Douglass, (October 17, 1990) Who Murdered Africa, The Challenger, 25.
5. Douglass. (1990), 25.
6. Turner. (1991), 25.
7. Is AIDS manmade?: The Strecker
Memorandum (1983).
8. William Campbell Douglass, (undated), Who Murdered
Africa: Organization unleashed killer disease on unsuspecting mankind in
biological boondoggle of the century.
9. (Undated). Is AIDS man-made? Strecker Memorandum claims AIDS was created and deployed by scientists with
an on-going cover-up. Opinion expressed by Dr. Theodore A. Strecker on TV program “For the People.”
10. Pearce Wright. (May 1989). Smallpox vaccine triggered AIDS virus,' Times, 25.
11. Wright. (1989).
12. Wright. (1989).
13. Douglass. (October 17, 1990).
14. Douglass. (1990).
15. Douglass. (1990).
16. Turner. (1991).
17. AIDS and the Doctors of Death: An Inquiry Into the Origin of the AIDS Epidemic. (1988). Aries Rising Press.
18. Felder. (1989).
19. Douglass. (1990).
20. Federal Information Systems Corporation, Federal News Service. (September 21, 1999). Speech by Pres. Clinton to the 54th United Nations General Assembly, New York City.
21. 23 Ravi Nessman. (June 6, 2001). AIDS expert for U.N. warns epidemic is likely to worsen. The Plain Dealer.
22. Angus Shaw. (September 16, 1999). U.N. agency says AIDS scourge is making Africa a killer field'. The Plain Dealer, 7A.
23. Shaw. (1999).
24. Maggie Farley. (June 26, 2001). U.N. chief to world: Face facts on AIDS. The Plain Dealer.
25. Donald G. McNeil. (December 16, 1998). AIDS epidemic alters Africa's culture of mourning. The Plain Dealer.
26. Jim McDermott. (June 23, 1991). Asia-Epicenter of the AIDS Epidemic. The Washington Post.
27. Jeannie Relly. (February 26, 2000). HIV infections up in Caribbean. The Plain Dealer.
28. Emma Ross. (November 27, 1998). AIDS toll falling in Europe, study says. The Plain Dealer.
29. Felder. (1989).
30. Felder. (1989).
31. Felder. (1989).
32. Felder. (1989).
33. Barbara Day. (June 20, 1991). Deadly Tuskegee syphilis study 40 years
later. The Capital Spotlight, 6.
34. Felder. (1989).
35. Felder. (1989).
36. Felder. (1989).
37. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (May 16,
1997). Remarks by the President in Apology for Study Done in Tuskegee, 2.

BTW...the Strecker Memorandum which is in video form can be purchased at the above address which is: Distributed by The Strecker Group, Eagle Rock, CA.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   


The following articles are extracted from New Dawn magazine,
Volume No. 1 & 2. (C) Copyright April 1992. Subscription rates are
as follows: $30 for 12 issues, $5 sample; Foreign US$40 & US$7.
New Dawn, GPO Box 3126FF, Melbourne, 3001, Australia.



Shocking Revelations on AIDS Research by Our North American
Correspondent : www.hackcanada.com...

Lots of information on the man-made nature of AIDS and the powers that be to block cures and use other means to depopulate this planet!



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Was There an AIDS Contract? [Morrissey]

Was There an AIDS Contract?

I heard about Jakob Segal's theory that the AIDS virus originated in a
US government biological warfare research laboratory in early 1989.
After some preliminary research, I was amazed to find that this shocking
theory had received no attention whatsoever in the mainstream American
press, and almost none in Europe.

The questions this theory raised were a matter of pure science, or so it
seemed to me. There were only three possibilities: 1) Segal was wrong;
2) he was right; 3) it could not be determined either way. I resolved to
find out which of these was true.

This is probably the most detailed analysis of the question: Was AIDS Man-Made? I have found. It shows all sides of the story (not just the one I believe) and is in great detail and uses a vast amount of valid sources. A long read, but a very interesting essay!

It is found here: www.sas.upenn.edu...

Maybe the fact that this essay shows all sides of the story might make some of the harrassers happy! Please read. It's fascinating stuff!!



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Well, once more just to clear the waters...I never stated what I found was a fact but simply a more plausible supported theory, and that is:

AIDs is a virus that mutated and crossed species to humans.

For your theory to hold more sway I would be interested to know:

1) Why would the WHO (World Health Organization) which is the the United Nations public health arm, be involved in a plot formed by the USA?
2) Why would the government (USA) make this decision to commit population control using an untested and very new virus (for which they had no control)?
3) Why would the use a retrovirus, which by definition is SLOW. Not even slow in months, but in years. Surely they knew then of the possiblity of world wide spread.
4) Why would they use a retrovirus rather than something else that might cause victims to be sterile?
5) Why would they target minorities or homesexuals specifically with that retrovirus, knowing it could never be limited to just those groups?
6) Why target homosexuals for population control (since that's how it started spreading initially) when, as far as I'm aware, male-to-male intercouse can't cause pregnancy?

Yes, these are the tip of the iceberg of questions that would need to be answered.

As for the recent reference you just posted, I would question why this was a religious event run by the Minister Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam? This is a group that has long looked at criminalizing whites for slavery, etc. Now it seems they need new ammunition to further their agenda and why not use a conspiracy of genocide to fuel the fires? Certainly suspect.

How does Washington's former Mayor Marion Barry add credibility? He is a proven coc aine user which places the possibility of curruption very high. How much is the NOI paying him for his endorsement? Again...suspect.

And this well used statement you have put forth a few times:



National Security Memorandum 200, written during the Ford administration, which advised that the preservation of U.S. political and commercial interests "will require that the President and Secretary of State treat the subject of population growth control in the third world as a matter of paramount importance...."


Is there anything that proves they were speaking about genocide rather than teaching birth control methods (which can use drugs) to these countries? Many of those countries have huge populations with vast medical and food problems. Why couldn't the talks have been humanitarian in nature? Words can certainly be used out of context and if this one document is the only link in the theory, it too could be being misused.

Then you have this:



Dr. Muhammad used the case of Brazil, which has the second largest black population in the world, to prove that the memorandum was being implemented. "Today in Brazil, 40% of the women of childbearing age have been surgically sterilized with funds provided by the USAID," he said, "and 90% of those sterilized women are black."


Sterilization is the world's most widespread form of birth control, accounting for over a third of contraceptive use worldwide, and almost half in developing countries. So what who funds it? Are you now saying the USA forced it world wide and yet nobody knows this? World wide? And the statistics could be true. 90% are black women in a country that has "second largest black population." So what? Seems like a bit of a twisted quote.

Then it get's into:



He insisted that this genocide was the real agenda of Bush's New World Order; that it not only motivated the invasion of Panama and the kidnapping of Gen. Manuel Noriega, but also the continuing murder of the nation of Iraq. He told the audience that these were just the opening battles in the war of the advanced sector nations of the North against the developing nations of the South. Dr. Muhammad denounced George Bush as a wicked man who cherished his membership in the satanic secret society Skull and Bones. He
reminded the audience that the "skull and bones" was also the emblem on the flag flown by the slave traders who raided Africa, as well as of the latter day pirates.


Now we have it related to GW Bush specifically, the Iraq war, Gen. Noriega (coc aine cartel criminal and more), skull & bones, satanists, and even...pirates. This is a credible source?


I could probably go on, but I'll leave it there. These are just some of the obsticals with the "man-made" theory. So far I have seen nothing to refute the species-jump type theory other than one memo (possibly used out of context), vague accusations and "vast amounts" of research and data that nobody seems to be able to produce.

THAT is why it is less credible. I didn't say wrong. Just far less credible, which was my whole point. So if there are so many "open-minds", can you dispute that I have made at least a few valid points that cannot be explained by your theory?

Finally something new. Ok, I'll have a look but by your statement below:



Maybe the fact that this essay shows all sides of the story might make some of the harrassers happy! Please read. It's fascinating stuff!!


It shows both sides, but the side opposite YOUR view are just "harrassers?" Now that statement alone makes the term "open-mind" suspect as well.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   
ZZZ...the last essay I posted is quite good. regarding this:



It shows both sides, but the side opposite YOUR view are just "harrassers?" Now that statement alone makes the term "open-mind" suspect as well.


I'm not calling the side that opposes mine "harrassers." I'm calling you and FredT harrassers. You especially. And, it has nothing to do with your opinions on this matter. I'm willing to look at all sides and have. Nothing has been presented by your side to make me change my opinion and that's what is making you upset! (i.e. the hissy fit post).

Whatever we keep butting heads about...read the last essay I posted. It covers everything and you will like it!



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Oh, I WILL read it. As for this...


Originally posted by XanaX
"Hissy fits and the need to use latin to show ones intelligence are signs of sexual frustration."


Again the personal jabs? And now in your signature no less?


Yes, I suppose actually looking at the research and such I provided and trying to counter any of it would be far more difficult than just insulting myself or another Mod with a thinly veiled insult about our sexuality.


Par for the course I suppose. Also, nothing about anything I posted I see. Just a "hey look at my document I linked" and personal insults.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
ZZZ....I changed my signature line. I'll agree to play nice if do so as well. regarding this:



For your theory to hold more sway I would be interested to know:

1) Why would the WHO (World Health Organization) which is the the United Nations public health arm, be involved in a plot formed by the USA?
2) Why would the government (USA) make this decision to commit population control using an untested and very new virus (for which they had no control)?
3) Why would the use a retrovirus, which by definition is SLOW. Not even slow in months, but in years. Surely they knew then of the possiblity of world wide spread.
4) Why would they use a retrovirus rather than something else that might cause victims to be sterile?
5) Why would they target minorities or homesexuals specifically with that retrovirus, knowing it could never be limited to just those groups?
6) Why target homosexuals for population control (since that's how it started spreading initially) when, as far as I'm aware, male-to-male intercouse can't cause pregnancy?



Here's my thoughts (sorry if I keep ignoring your questions):
1. It's not just a US conspiracy. There were and are many countries involved in the depopulation program initiated during the Nixon administration.
2. They did test it. In Africa and in Manhattan.
3. Slow is less easy to prove a conspiracy. If it spread like wildfire, that would probably send up a lot of red flags!
4. Don't have an answer to this one.
5. It wouldn't be limited to, but certainly would stay mainly with them. Why does the President not care about any soldier that gets killed in Iraq? Because they are expendable as are any lives lost to AIDS...
6. What does pregnancy have to do with it? And it has also been targeted to blacks mainly in Africa and IV drug users....



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   


And this well used statement you have put forth a few times:

quote:
National Security Memorandum 200, written during the Ford administration, which advised that the preservation of U.S. political and commercial interests "will require that the President and Secretary of State treat the subject of population growth control in the third world as a matter of paramount importance...."


Is there anything that proves they were speaking about genocide rather than teaching birth control methods (which can use drugs) to these countries? Many of those countries have huge populations with vast medical and food problems. Why couldn't the talks have been humanitarian in nature? Words can certainly be used out of context and if this one document is the only link in the theory, it too could be being misused.



ZZZ...you are talking about one line in a massive document here. A massive document which I provided a link to. I think if you read the document, there is no need for your question.

[edit on 23-9-2005 by XanaX]



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 01:48 PM
link   


Now we have it related to GW Bush specifically, the Iraq war, Gen. Noriega (coc aine cartel criminal and more), skull & bones, satanists, and even...pirates. This is a credible source?


You want to be open-minded and check all viewpoints.....so I provided someone else's views. If you find them humorous ZZZ, well good for you. There's more to that particular essay than the things you decided to post from it. You are the close minded one who only sees what he wants to see. You LOOK for stuff to scoff at instead of opening your thick skull. Maybe this isn't the best of my posts, but it's another source and another way to look at things. Shouldn't the topic of this thread be looked at from all angles? Or just the angles you think are okay? This is the part of your personality that is aggravating. Everything is a big joke unless a source gets ZZZ's approval.....and so far not one of my sources or posts gets your approval. Isn't that odd to you? Don't you think it shows a flaw in your character?.......



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   


Yes, you know I read that too. It's a great find, but my questions are:

1) What was the "medical literature?"
2) Who were these 'top scientists?"
3) What exactly does it mean when they say "...to read for themselves was, basically, proof that...?" What IS proof...basically?
4) Who is the wolrd famous virologist?
5) How were the scientists requesting such a virus be made?
6) Where are the "thousands" of ducuments that support this argument? Why not show the world and blow the cover on the scam?



You will have to buy the video tape to get the answers to your questions. Everything you want answers to and more is in that tape.

Regarding #6...if you read my post, you would see they tried quite intensely to blow the whistle on it and my post explains what happened when they tried.......



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   


The first human retrovirus (HTLV-I) was not discovered until 1977, and even then it could not immediately be linked to any disease, but scientific evidence shows AID was already in several countries by that time. It would have had to be an epidemic years before the 70's. (Slow virus, remember?).

If you read the book "The Birth of AIDS" you would note that cases in the 1930's (earliest accurate records) show some isolated cases with all the earmarks of AIDS. Studying the DNA sequences to determine age have provided estimates for HIV in the 30-900 year range.

Then you have the social conditions of the time. International travel on the rise, the sexual revolution, injection drug use building and blood donations with multiple re-use of syringes in many Third World countries, provide an Occam's Razor type of explanation.

Thousands of Africans get infected with HIV each year from blood transfusions alone because they can't afford to screen their blood supply.

Reuse of old syringes which in some cases is a handful of needles for a few thousand people.

Poor protection practices. Just look at the STD rate in Africa as a result of a lack of basic public health. Poverty in those nations means that many Africans don't even have basic medication like aspirin



ZZZ.....your first 2 paragraphs here completely contradict each other. First you say the first retro-virus wasn't discovered until 1977 and then your next paragraph says AIDS showed up in the 1930's...or something "like" AIDS. Which is it? Why the contradiction? This just seems to prove my theory that you like to argue just to argue. To quote a Monty Python sketch: "This isn't an argument. It's a contradiction." Except.....you don't need anyone's help....Maybe you could have a debate with yourself on here. I'd like to see that. You'd probably lose.

The rest of your post discusses ways AIDS can be spread and this thread has nothing to do with how it's spread. This thread is about where it came from to begin with.....remember?

Lastly...if I did apply Occam's Razor to this topic....I would come up with the conclusion that AIDS was and is man-made!!



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
One last site with some new information (some old also...)....Again with reputable sources....an essay written by Eric Taylor:

www.sonic.net...

ZZZ....I'm heading to Fort Detrick this weekend to try and find the original scientists/researchers that developed AIDS at which time we'd like to come by your house and discuss the matter over tea and crumpets.

We will try to have the news media there to document the whole thing. I'll get back to you with the details!



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Well, certainly some compelling answers in all those posts you have.


Originally posted by XanaX
You LOOK for stuff to scoff at instead of opening your thick skull.


And of course anther personal shot.


Again, ok...you have one document that is questionable in it's link to AIDs and you know that.


1. It's not just a US conspiracy. There were and are many countries involved in the depopulation program initiated during the Nixon administration.

So now it's a world conspiracy? How could the powerbrokers be sure that little secret wouldn't get out? Let the world know we're going to start killing people and just hope some other country doesn't spill the beans? Thin...


2. They did test it. In Africa and in Manhattan.

I also showed that scientifically AND socially there are more plausable reasons for this spread pattern. I also showed that the spread in Africa does not even line up geographically to the vaccinations that were given (and neither does the timeline). If they were targeting third world overpopulated countries, why test in the USA? Why not some island of natives or a prision? Especially when dealing with a retrovirus they would have known it would take years and years to grow to full effect. The virus does not exclude by race, gender or sexual preference. So the "test release" theory just doesn't sound near as plausible as other reasons.


3. Slow is less easy to prove a conspiracy. If it spread like wildfire, that would probably send up a lot of red flags!

They could have used a drug that targeted men and made the sterile. Drop that in the water and wait a few months to take effect. Certainly not a retrovirus that takes years and one which they really had no solid information on anyway. The timelines are off.


4. Don't have an answer to this one.

See #3.


5. It wouldn't be limited to, but certainly would stay mainly with them. Why does the President not care about any soldier that gets killed in Iraq? Because they are expendable as are any lives lost to AIDS...

So anyone who happens to get that is expendable? And launching a retrovirus into the world that would continually grow and jump from black to whites to homesexuals to women to babies is just not really a concern? I just don't buy that. Your answer here is just one of convienience and is not taking into account the knowledge of the time period.


6. What does pregnancy have to do with it? And it has also been targeted to blacks mainly in Africa and IV drug users....

Population control. That's the key to you theory right? Ok, so you kill a huge part of the homosexual population. There is no reproduction happening there so it really doesn't stop the population. Then you target blacks which is more of a race card argument. Why not the asians or the indians? There are many other races that have huge populations...far greater than the US. Why not those? Why not Russia?

That was the Cold War at the time and I think there was more concern for that, then a vast world-spanning conspiracy involving multiple countries in the world using the health arm of the United Nations to introduce a very slow acting retrovirus into the human population.

I would also go back to say look at the politics, the science, the medical knowledge and the social aspects at the time as well. There are so many loopholes in that theory that just can't be explained. The species jump theory has far less loopholes.

Do I believe the sex with the green monkey theory? No...but there are other very probable conclusions. They fall in line with exactly the way BSE is spread from cattle to humans and takes years to show.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by XanaX
ZZZ.....your first 2 paragraphs here completely contradict each other. First you say the first retro-virus wasn't discovered until 1977 and then your next paragraph says AIDS showed up in the 1930's...or something "like" AIDS. Which is it? Why the contradiction? This just seems to prove my theory that you like to argue just to argue. To quote a Monty Python sketch: "This isn't an argument. It's a contradiction." Except.....you don't need anyone's help....Maybe you could have a debate with yourself on here. I'd like to see that. You'd probably lose.


Again the personal insult attacks. Nice.

Maybe you could just call me stupid instead. I know that's what your saying so no need to hide it.

Now, I did say that the retrovirus showed up in the 70's. Remember when AIDs first broke out and when medical science first discovered the retrovirus?

Now, the next statement said "If you read the book "The Birth of AIDS" you would note that cases in the 1930's (earliest accurate records) show some isolated cases with all the earmarks of AIDS. Studying the DNA sequences to determine age have provided estimates for HIV in the 30-900 year range."

How is that a contradiction? Explain that statement please for all of us to see. I said retrovirus' were first discovered in the 70s and then some "isolated cases with all the earmarks of AIDs" were noted in records further back."

Nothing contradictory there.



The rest of your post discusses ways AIDS can be spread and this thread has nothing to do with how it's spread. This thread is about where it came from to begin with.....remember?

Wait. The whole center of your position is man started it and did mass testing. To determine if there is truth to that theory, you must research and look at the spread of the disease to see the pattern of growth.

Now you're saying you don't care to even think about that issue? Is that because you just know it was man-made through preconcieved determination of guilt? In any court that is not considered a fair trial and thefore not considered very open-minded.


Lastly...if I did apply Occam's Razor to this topic....I would come up with the conclusion that AIDS was and is man-made!!

Do you understand the theory of Occam's Razor?

You believe that with the Cold War, various social and political issues happening, that a vast world-spanning conspiracy involving multiple countries in the world and using the health arm of the United Nations...introduced a lethal very slow acting retrovirus which was quite unknow to medical science at the time into the human population as a means of control and of course nobody has ever blown the whistle or figured it out conclusively.

over...

A retrovirus that grew in animals (which happens) and crossed-species (which also happens) and the spread naturally (which happens) and has become a global epidemic still not quite understood by modern science.

I ask again...are you SURE you understand Occam's razor?



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   


Again the personal insult attacks. Nice.
Maybe you could just call me stupid instead. I know that's what your saying so no need to hide it.

Now, I did say that the retrovirus showed up in the 70's. Remember when AIDs first broke out and when medical science first discovered the retrovirus?

Now, the next statement said "If you read the book "The Birth of AIDS" you would note that cases in the 1930's (earliest accurate records) show some isolated cases with all the earmarks of AIDS. Studying the DNA sequences to determine age have provided estimates for HIV in the 30-900 year range."

How is that a contradiction? Explain that statement please for all of us to see. I said retrovirus' were first discovered in the 70s and then some "isolated cases with all the earmarks of AIDs" were noted in records further back."

Nothing contradictory there.


quote: The rest of your post discusses ways AIDS can be spread and this thread has nothing to do with how it's spread. This thread is about where it came from to begin with.....remember?
Wait. The whole center of your position is man started it and did mass testing. To determine if there is truth to that theory, you must research and look at the spread of the disease to see the pattern of growth.

Now you're saying you don't care to even think about that issue? Is that because you just know it was man-made through preconcieved determination of guilt? In any court that is not considered a fair trial and thefore not considered very open-minded.

quote: Lastly...if I did apply Occam's Razor to this topic....I would come up with the conclusion that AIDS was and is man-made!!
Do you understand the theory of Occam's Razor?

You believe that with the Cold War, various social and political issues happening, that a vast world-spanning conspiracy involving multiple countries in the world and using the health arm of the United Nations...introduced a lethal very slow acting retrovirus which was quite unknow to medical science at the time into the human population as a means of control and of course nobody has ever blown the whistle or figured it out conclusively.

over...

A retrovirus that grew in animals (which happens) and crossed-species (which also happens) and the spread naturally (which happens) and has become a global epidemic still not quite understood by modern science.

I ask again...are you SURE you understand Occam's razor?



1. Personal attack?...no. It's what you call "levity." I honestly don't think you're stupid. Close minded? Yes. Opinionated? Sure. Stupid? No.
2. Contradiction? Yes! Quite obviously so. I need say no more!
3. How it spreads and patterns of growth is a topic for another thread. This thread is about where it started and why!
4. We're not in court!
5. I understand Occam's Razor!



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Having read - and re-read - every post again today, sorry Xanax...but though the material you've suggested is indeed interesting, it just doesn't make for a sound, plausible theory to me. I do give you credit though, for tenacity and homework-doing!


I'm still reading my own material too; I'm guessing I have access to a little more than usual in terms of the more obscure medical information (though I heartily recommend taking out a free trial at MD Consult - if only because they have hundreds of full medical journals online that you'd usually have to buy to peruse freely), and if I do find anything else to further support your theory, Xanax, believe me you'll be the first to know.

(And before we even head there, you can easily search a lot of the same material yourself. Just to prove I won't be "hiding" anything).

ZZZ - thank you so much for providing yet another mine of information.

Ockham's Razor still stands. "Man-made" is just far less plausible a theory.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by XanaX
1. Personal attack?...no. It's what you call "levity." I honestly don't think you're stupid. Close minded? Yes. Opinionated? Sure. Stupid? No.

Fair enough...levity.


2. Contradiction? Yes! Quite obviously so. I need say no more!

Yes, you do. Those statements do not contradict each other at all. I assume you are using the definition " Inconsistency or discrepancy."

How are those statements contradictory? Retroviruses discovered in the 70's and then medical records from the 30's show "earmarks" of AIDs-like symptoms.

It doesn't say retroviruses were discovered in the 70's AND also in the 30's. That would a be a contradiction. Retroviruses were discovered by science in the 70's but some medicals cases SEEMED to show AIDs-like (not proven to be AIDs) in the 30's.
Not even close.


3. How it spreads and patterns of growth is a topic for another thread. This thread is about where it started and why!

To explain the "why" you cannot leave out the "how." That is central to the whole matter, especially when your talking about viruses and disease. Even more important, if you are to say that a vast conspiracy made AIDs and released it to the world for population control...the 'how" is just as key in the theory.


4. We're not in court!

Ok, the point was lost on you.


5. I understand Occam's Razor!

Well, I submit that you don't.

The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one.

Would you like to try again? How about one easy paragraph on the "man-made" theory and the "natural" theory and explain how Occam's Razor would apply most to the first? I did that in my last post and anyone that knows Occam's will see that.



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   


Would you like to try again? How about one easy paragraph on the "man-made" theory and the "natural" theory and explain how Occam's Razor would apply most to the first? I did that in my last post and anyone that knows Occam's will see that.


I don't want to play school with you ZZZ. Especially if you get to be the professor. Maybe you could go to Africa and teach a classroom full of green monkeys how to use sign language?

Peace for now....time to hit the road.....I look forward to playing some more tomorrow! *hugs and kisses*



posted on Sep, 23 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by XanaX
I don't want to play school with you ZZZ. Especially if you get to be the professor. Maybe you could go to Africa and teach a classroom full of green monkeys how to use sign language?


Don't underestimate Zedd's compassion, nor his academic prowess, he's been teaching me sign language in the Mod lounge, and I'd like to say I'm a better simian for it... As a matter fact, he just taught me to say "XanaX is number one!"


Mirthful Me, pre Zedd home schooling:



Mirthful Me, post Zedd intellectual enlightenment:



I R a rocket monkey...

Brainiac Monkeys, not just for pushing the right button anymore…



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join