nobel prize winner challenges the myths about aids

[daman232323]

Haha ok addicted, considering the only evidence you have is a 1994 video I'll assume you've also spoken to a glowing raccoon. I guess I will have to go on living my sheepish life helping the other sheep who are willing to accept actual research and science.

[addicted]

Haha ok addicted, considering the only evidence you have is a 1994 video I'll assume you've also spoken to a glowing raccoon. I guess I will have to go on living my sheepish life helping the other sheep who are willing to accept actual research and science.

fuck you thats all I have to say, Some people take the ghandi approach and turn the other cheek.. me I would slap a mother fucker on the otherside of the cheek. Doctors are looked upon as hero's when they are really the biggest murders in world history.

[feneman]

Daman, some ppl you cannot argue with, one can only hope and pray to the gods of statistics that he will never get HIV (mostly because if he doesn`t believe it is linked with AIDS than odds are he will have unprotected sex even if knows he is infected.)

One can also only hope he is merely trying to provoke ppl and he doesn`t actually believe all he saying ... one can only hope.
Of course it is a lot more courageous to say these things to provoke behind a CPU than to actually tell someone who has AIDS that his disease is actually just make-believe.

Although i have to say the following sentence is actually quoteworthy, the contradiction is spectacular and it is either the most moronic / provocative for the sake of shock value / and-or hypocritical comment i've read in a long time:

All facts your mainstream medicine beliefs are all lies and you have been brainwashed like the rest of the idiot american sheep.

Let us analyze this sentence, shall we ?
First part:
It states that all documented, tested and re-tested facts obtained through scientific method are actually fabrications. So one must assume that this not only applies to medical discoveries of the last 50 years (where pharma was more present) but also discoveries made before this were also lies;
-and so Pasteur did not discover a way to sterilize milk, Currie did not discover radioactivity, Watson and Cricks did not show that DNA contain two strands, etc... We can also expand this and claim that antibiotics do not fight bacterias, NSAIDS do not decrease inflammation and that sennokot/colace do not "make you go poopoo" :P.
Now having claimed that these discoveries of medicine are actually lies, we can also claim that Kerry Mullis' discoveries are also lies since they are part of the modern day medicine.

Now, for the second part:
Since we have established that all medical facts including Kerry Mullis' participation to modern medicine are lies, we will go on to the next part of the sentence.
This part claims that the entire medical / scientific community (which has discovered, tested and re-tested these facts) is brainwashed for blindly believing facts that have been put through peer review and have lasted the test of time and technology (with better technology you retest old facts to see how they hold-up.) Some of these facts have been brought forth by Kerry Mullis; and so the scientific community is brainwashed for giving a nobel prize to Kerry Mullis (and therefor accepting his facts) yet the OP is not brainwashed for believing other statements the same man has said ... interesting contradiction there.

Now, for the last part:
This sentence concludes with the affirmative that all those who believe modern medicine are "sheep" and it is implied that all those that believe the OP's alternative are the actual thinkers.
Digging a little deeper, the OP is telling us not only question (which is always a healthy thing to do) but to outright discard modern medical fact (which have have undergone rigorous testing through the scientific method many times over), in order to believe an alternative brought forth without any proof that either the previous facts are wrong or that the alternative has had a modicum of testing. In short, ppl who believe the medical community over him being sheep. (and yet for some odd reason I have this feeling if he ever gets cancer he'll opt for the quimio ... just a hunch though.

So analysing the whole sentence:
OP believes an alternate theory brought forth by a Nobel prize winner (that has no testing whatsoever), wanting us to take his word for it (offering no data supporting his claims), while stating that all facts the scientific / medical community (whom the previously mentioned Nobel prize winner is part of) have brought forth are lies (although they have been thoroughly tested, contrary to his claims.)
All of this, for the OP to claim to question the mainstream facts in order to not be sheep, while asking to believe his claims blindly (and not question these claims, because if you do so you are also sheep.)


Wow, talk about contradictions .. and all of that from just one sentence... damn !! I could do an entire theses on just 2 or 3 posts :P

[Prospero]

Myths. Oh dear. And the Illuminati were behind 9/11 and time travellers killed Abe Lincoln, John Lennon and Martin Luther king.

[addicted]

Daman, some ppl you cannot argue with, one can only hope and pray to the gods of statistics that he will never get HIV (mostly because if he doesn`t believe it is linked with AIDS than odds are he will have unprotected sex even if knows he is infected.)

One can also only hope he is merely trying to provoke ppl and he doesn`t actually believe all he saying ... one can only hope.
Of course it is a lot more courageous to say these things to provoke behind a CPU than to actually tell someone who has AIDS that his disease is actually just make-believe.

Although i have to say the following sentence is actually quoteworthy, the contradiction is spectacular and it is either the most moronic / provocative for the sake of shock value / and-or hypocritical comment i've read in a long time:



Let us analyze this sentence, shall we ?
First part:
It states that all documented, tested and re-tested facts obtained through scientific method are actually fabrications. So one must assume that this not only applies to medical discoveries of the last 50 years (where pharma was more present) but also discoveries made before this were also lies;
-and so Pasteur did not discover a way to sterilize milk, Currie did not discover radioactivity, Watson and Cricks did not show that DNA contain two strands, etc... We can also expand this and claim that antibiotics do not fight bacterias, NSAIDS do not decrease inflammation and that sennokot/colace do not "make you go poopoo" :P.
Now having claimed that these discoveries of medicine are actually lies, we can also claim that Kerry Mullis' discoveries are also lies since they are part of the modern day medicine.

Now, for the second part:
Since we have established that all medical facts including Kerry Mullis' participation to modern medicine are lies, we will go on to the next part of the sentence.
This part claims that the entire medical / scientific community (which has discovered, tested and re-tested these facts) is brainwashed for blindly believing facts that have been put through peer review and have lasted the test of time and technology (with better technology you retest old facts to see how they hold-up.) Some of these facts have been brought forth by Kerry Mullis; and so the scientific community is brainwashed for giving a nobel prize to Kerry Mullis (and therefor accepting his facts) yet the OP is not brainwashed for believing other statements the same man has said ... interesting contradiction there.

Now, for the last part:
This sentence concludes with the affirmative that all those who believe modern medicine are "sheep" and it is implied that all those that believe the OP's alternative are the actual thinkers.
Digging a little deeper, the OP is telling us not only question (which is always a healthy thing to do) but to outright discard modern medical fact (which have have undergone rigorous testing through the scientific method many times over), in order to believe an alternative brought forth without any proof that either the previous facts are wrong or that the alternative has had a modicum of testing. In short, ppl who believe the medical community over him being sheep. (and yet for some odd reason I have this feeling if he ever gets cancer he'll opt for the quimio ... just a hunch though.

So analysing the whole sentence:
OP believes an alternate theory brought forth by a Nobel prize winner (that has no testing whatsoever), wanting us to take his word for it (offering no data supporting his claims), while stating that all facts the scientific / medical community (whom the previously mentioned Nobel prize winner is part of) have brought forth are lies (although they have been thoroughly tested, contrary to his claims.)
All of this, for the OP to claim to question the mainstream facts in order to not be sheep, while asking to believe his claims blindly (and not question these claims, because if you do so you are also sheep.)


Wow, talk about contradictions .. and all of that from just one sentence... damn !! I could do an entire theses on just 2 or 3 posts :P

[addicted]