It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Let's just get something straight here. I don't really care that a general consensus has come to agree that the word "myth" is to be equated with falsehood or lie. The word myth is a specific word that describes a specific sort of tale that describes either the origins of humanity, or describes the heroic deeds of some individual, and is often told with a supernatural bent. The lazy and sloppy use of this word "myth" to replace falsehood and/or lie is the first clue that in spite of your lengthy two part post, you are not a critical thinker as much as you are a follower of the common zeitgeist.
You certainly ignored a good chunk of my points, and didn't refeernce a single one of my sources. This leads me to believe you didn't read my post, especially since you are trying to make arguments that were fairly well-explained in my post, such as the math and science behind testing methods.
Statistics are vital to a diagnosis.
If we have three methods that are 75% specific of sensitive, but using the three tests in combination with the same blood samples increases the sensitivity and specificity to 99.9%, this is a wonderful application of statistics and science.
Why is this difficult to understand?
Most of your links are from "virusmyth.com"...yeah, no pre-determined goal in THEIR data, huh?
Can you please explain the very clear, obvious electron micrographs of HIV I have posted?
Why won't you just look at the photos and tell me what they are, if not HIV?
I've provided scientific explanations for every point made about HIV/AIDS being a hoax.
I have cited sources from various journals, studies, and universities, and I have provided clear, concise explanations.
You, on the other hand, have done nothing but attack me and ignore my sources, posting your own that have obvious agendas.
And yet you use virusmyth.com as your supporting evidence.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I spoke to the points I thought were most vital.
I read the entirety of your post, and am not obligated to break down every word and analyze it any more than you aren't obligated to do the same for me, and of course you did not do the same for me, so there you go again, accusing me of your crimes.
As to your "fairly well explained" arguments, you have not spoken at all to the arguments rebutting your "explanations" made by actual scientists, and instead just dismiss them all because some were found on a site you clearly disapprove of. In fact, you want to accuse me of fallacy and yet, when it gets right down to it, you can not speak to the claims being made by these doctors and scientists so you attack the site in which their findings were published. Nice.
This is just not true. Statistics are useful, and maybe even vital for making a prognosis,. but are not at all vital to making a diagnosis.
Statistically speaking those people who have a family history of certain cancers have a higher risk of getting that cancer themselves. So, if a doctor worked on your assumption that "statistics are vital to a diagnosis", someone with a lump who has a family history of prostrate cancer could conceivably be diagnosed with prostrate cancer, when in fact it is just a lump!
Of course, no doctor worth his, or her salt would make such a diagnosis, and while they may order a biopsy, they will indeed wait until all the facts have come in instead of relying on statistics, before making a diagnosis.
Again, if the definitions regarding HIV are arbitrary, and the gold standard of isolating an actual virus has been abandoned, then I suppose all you can do is rely on statistics. You certainly can't rely on facts. You know what is a wonderful application of science? The scientific method! Where is the scientific method in all your statistics?
This is what I [..]
What they have done is compile data from doctors and scientists who have questioned the HIV advocacy as being the actual cause of AIDS.
Why don't you read the links I provided and refute what they have to say about those photos?
Originally posted by Moonguy
Originally posted by Solasis
Where is your proof? An article in -- what language is that? Scandinavian? -- which is very short and says, I'm sure, almost exactly what you said with no proof either, does not really count. I believe that this is possible, but there's no hard proof of it that we have access to.
Where is you're proof to say otherwise? What logic are you using? from 10 year ago ? which is very short and says, I'm sure, almost exactly what you said with no proof either, Do YOU really count?...NO! I believe that AIDS is the man made proof, since we have dumpt billion of dollars into it and no cure.... what would be the reason behind it?... any smart person would understand it is a man made virus to control population.
THE hard proof is the logic of the fact that after all this time, all this advancement in technology, all the news of cures on cancer and aids from promising new discoveries that where closed and hidden and shut down mean that there is more then the idea of AIDS being just a natural virus that pop up from who knows where fro who knows what reason... CMON!!! wake up!!!
[edit on 2-8-2010 by Moonguy]
1970 United States intensifies its development of "ethnic weapons" (Military Review, Nov., 1970), designed to selectively target and eliminate specific ethnic groups who are susceptible due to genetic differences and variations in DNA.
1978 Experimental Hepatitis B vaccine trials, conducted by the CDC, begin in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. Ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men.
1981 First cases of AIDS are confirmed in homosexual men in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco, triggering speculation that AIDS may have been introduced via the Hepatitis B vaccine
Originally posted by rangersdad
reply to post by alysha.angel
This isnt exactly news. I have known about it for over 30 yrs now.
If I remember the story right, it came out of Africa when the citizens there were having sex with monkeys and then with women...then it came out that it was man made by the CIA.
Originally posted by Come Clean
If you really think about it. Why wouldn't a military develop biological weapons that attack the enemy at the genetic level?
It just makes sense that man made diseases exist.
Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
No, it doesn't make sense. No matter who your "enemy" is, you are 99.7% genetically identical to them. Any disease you create will be just as dangerous to you as it is to them.
Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by Come Clean
Is that your proof? That it would make sense even if that were true, why would they release a genetic disease that could also harm themselves? Genetic engineering is a precarious science, I know I've done it. Its also very dangerous in my science class we made antibiotic resistant E.coli, it worked my cutting a strip from a virus and inserting it into the bacteria by way of coaxing it into accepting it. The trouble is contamination, and what would you do with it after it gets out into the public. For the most part we don't understand how to cure many genetic diseases let alone create them and silently insert them into the public...come on now