Wil says: "Whaaaaaaaaa!" Then he attempts to make the orthodoxy sound oh so ethical and just .
If your side has got the "evidence" and such, why do John Moore and Robert Gallo refuse to debate with dissidents? If your evidence and knowledge is so secure, it can certainly withstand the questions of the dissidents.
Time and again, the dissidents offer to debate the orthodoxy. And time after time the cowardly orthodoxy refuses. What do they have to lose?
I notice that you only post approved comments on your articles. If you were truly so confident of your stance, you would have no reason to do this. Only cowards who are afraid that alternate views might be embraced (if presented with appropriate evidence) take this approach of censorship. And you will also notice that the anti-AIDS-denialist websites allow full freedom of speech. Any of you may come there and say whatever you wish and present whatever evidence you wish, with no fear that your comments will disappear into the ether. You might be soundly reprimanded by people with, you know, ACTUAL EVIDENCE on their side, but you won't be censored.
One is left wondering: Why don't you people extend the same freedoms to your visitors from the other side of the issue?
---------------
Hello Wil... or whoever you are... I posted your message to remind others that if they have an opposing viewpoint to say so with facts and no ad hominems... I don't post troll attacks... if you check out my previous posts you'll see that I've posted MANY opposing viewpoints, which allows me and other readers to clarify viewpoints...
Edited By Siteowner
"Ms. Farber's lawsuit speaks for itself..."
"TAG has engaged in vicious and relentless attack on anyone who highlights the toxicities of the ARV drugs that are the basis of its business operations in the United States and around the world, particularly the developing world."
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/1...-
reopening.html
"Among those advocating a change in accelerated approval is Spencer Cox, a member of the Treatment Action Group, or Tag, an influential advocacy group, and the Community Research Initiative on AIDS, a nonprofit research center based in New York. He said he was frustrated by the lack of data.
'We pay huge amounts of money, and we suffer through major toxicities, and we have to take the drug company's word for it that the drugs work,' Mr. Cox said. 'That's supposed to be empowerment? 'We Need to Re-evaluate'...
Mr. Cox said: "DDC would seem to be a prime candidate for accelerated withdrawal. There is no evidence that the drug delays illness or death."
The more one reads about the issue (AIDS science) the more one concludes that it is akin to "World Wide Wrestling."
Yes, it has great athletes;
Yes, there is a ring and a referee
Yes, the action is good (at least to some people).
But, it is not a sport. It's a rigged game run by jokers for jokers, meant to entertain and make money.
AIDS is the World Wide Wrestling league of science. Lotta money, but lotta PhDs, but a whole lot of phony science.
Why do they use an antibody test, rather than detecting actual virus in supposed HIV+ people?
Clark, this is good news. The AID$ robots should be exposed and this lawsuit will surely make a dent on them robots. Keep us updated on this.
Malcolm, that is because prostate disease only affects men of age (roughly) 45 and up. How are the pharma companies going to earn a living out of them? Compare that to AIDS which casts such a big net and subsequently far bigger catches (male, female, young and old). The government is spending too much on AIDS because majority of it goes to the pharma companies by way of HAART and tests. The more these pharma companies earn the more they fund the scientists and other authorities thru grants and studies. It's a circular logic really much in the same manner that HIV = AIDS is such a circular reasoning (ie, HIV + disease = AIDS, HIV - disease = disease).
Could someone please explain why we spend $206,000 per AIDS death in this country and only $12,000 for prostate disease?
Am I missing something?
Celia Farber's Harpers article was such an important piece of investigative journalism, she should have been showered with praise and we should have seen a sea change in the corrupt AID$ industry. Keep it up Mr. Baker, and maybe that will finally begin to happen.
J
Los Angeles
The Farber lawsuit is good news.
This is a pivotal moment for sure!
The few examples you've shown here of the abusive nature of some members of the AIDS orthodoxy are only the tip of the iceberg.
Excellent reporting, Mr. Baker.
It seems to me this bogus swine flu episode is further evidence of this unholy alliance between alarmist idiots at the CDC and rapacious pharma goons who profiteer from disease and hysteria.
It would not surprise me in the least if AIDS turned out to be an exaggerated snake-pit of corruption.
Commenting by HaloScan
