View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Films/Scientists that challenge the HIV=AIDS hypothesis

Discussions about Holistic Health and Alternative Medicine.

Re: Films/Scientists that challenge the HIV=AIDS hypothesis

Postby Arouet » 13 Oct 2012, 19:58

Why do you respond just to that post Scepcop but not the one where I showed that you were wrong about Gallo having not published a peer-reviewed paper?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07






Re: Breakthrough documentary challenges HIV/AIDS hypothesis

Postby really? » 13 Oct 2012, 21:20

Scepcop wrote:HIV=AIDS: Fact or Fraud? A Stephen Allen film.

A shocking documentary that exposes
HIV/AIDS as a deceptive and deadly scam

unproven hypothesis.

If this film is correct






really? wrote:Isn't the world scary enough without people conjuring up more boogeymen where none likely exist ?


Scepcop wrote:I agree. You should be telling that to the AIDS establishment and the powers that be. They do this all the time.

The world is not scary. Most people who have traveled the world do not report it as a scary place. Only the media does.

Why is it that pseudoskeptics are blind to the factors of money, politics, power, corruption, lies and cover ups? Those things have always been a part of our world, yet pseudoskeptics like you have trouble understanding or accepting them. They are never a factor in your belief system for some reason. Very strange. Why is that? Is it because you worship power and authority?

Aren't professional pseudoskeptics like Michael Shermer funded by those with a vested interest in orthodoxy? Who pays him exactly? Why does he never put any burden of proof on orthodoxy? They can claim anything with zero evidence, and Shermer will accept it as Gospel Truth. Why does he never put the burden of proof on orthodoxy?


Scepcop wrote:The world is not scary. Most people who have traveled the world do not report it as a scary place. Only the media does.

It certainly is scary. Why you could be gunned down by a Mexican drug lord on vacation. http://www.truecrimereport.com/2010/10/ ... usband.php or you can be walking in your own neighborhood and be murdered
http://www.choralnet.org/398268 or you can be a young women speaking out for the rights of women in the country you live in and be shot by people that disagree with you http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012 ... happens.ht. I'd bet your life on this. In whatever country you live in presently there are places you would not walk after dark and people in those dark places that would be very detrimental to your continued well being. I'm sure you are aware of this. The world is a scary place when you seriously consider all that can happen to you.

Why is it that pseudoskeptics are blind to the factors of money, politics, power, corruption, lies and cover ups? Those things have always been a part of our world, yet pseudoskeptics like you have trouble understanding or accepting them. They are never a factor in your belief system for some reason. Very strange. Why is that? Is it because you worship power and authority?

Nobodies blind to the fact that money & power makes the world go round. The rest of what you say is just skewed and inscrutable .
Aren't professional pseudoskeptics like Michael Shermer funded by those with a vested interest in orthodoxy? Who pays him exactly? Why does he never put any burden of proof on orthodoxy? They can claim anything with zero evidence, and Shermer will accept it as Gospel Truth. Why does he never put the burden of proof on orthodoxy?

I don't understand you love affair with Shermer. Anyway he makes a living from various sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shermer. Which orthodoxy are you referring to ?

Let me point out something to you regarding pseudoskeptics. It is an error on your part to demand that a skeptic should never have an opinion on what is plausible or not plausible. Skeptics are allowed too make up their minds that such and such is unlikely or false just as there are those that believe such and such is likely or true. Perhaps I should start using the coined term pseudobeliever ( an oxymoron ? ) which would define a person as someone who has trouble differentiating reasonable claims from those requiring more rigorous evidence excepting all claims as reasonable.

P.S. In place of pseudobeliever I think pseudoincredulous defines more accurately.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Previous

Return to Holistic Health / Alternative Medicine

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest