Opie Macleod wrote:
But then don't tell me I should stop making questions only because the answer is already on Wikipedia. That's just plain lazy.
Or common sense. One Hundred and Four cited articles. Eight pictures. Three actual images of HIV from the CDC (Center of Disease Control). A full reference to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS. I don't nor did I say - don't question because of a wiki article. But seriously - 104 resources collected on one page. And I am lazy? You are posing a question that has been dealt with by the scientific community, but is being ignored (nevermind ti is their field of study) because they "are making big bucks." People aren't magically dying. And Research Groups aren't killing people, labeling it HIV and AIDS, just so they can get money.
If you are going to question - then truly question. Don't expect someone to do all the work for you. And when someone shows you the door to 104 articles on the subject with full research sites listed on the page for further reading - Don't call them lazy. Because it answers the question.
That sounds like something one of my students would say to justify single-sourcing their term paper. :lol:
Opie Macleod wrote:
Of course that would not be ethical, but at no point are they asking such a thing.
Yes they are. By denying all factual evidence and stipulating it is a fallacy despite being shown clear research otherwise. There would be only one way to truly prove it. And guess it? That in itself gets proven. Do you know why this - HIV and AIDS isn't real - is not a big community? Because these people get AIDS and die. Hard to have a mass movement when those most affected by it start "mysteriously" dying. And if all these supposed HIV and AIDS infected people were just placebo or horrible lifestyle choice - why isn't the movement millions strong - considering how many are diagnosed with HIV and AIDS every year? Crunch the numbers - something doesn't add up. And it isn't that HIV and AIDS doesn't exist.
I would agree with you on this one if we were talking about all the angry HIV-infected people who are just too immature to deal with reality. But when you have specialized doctors, who have worked in AIDS research, or on pharmaceutical development of HIV drugs, who come out and state that the research is flawed, I do think it's at least time to shake off the Wikipedia-induced hypnosis and at least take a look at both sides before deciding. Granted, the title of this post is extremist and provocative, but the point is that there might be some things we just don't understand and not all medical experts agree on for a reason.
Opie Macleod wrote:
You assume too much.
I don't assume. I observe. I draw a conclusion based upon your response. Thus the word apparently and a generalized question (not a statement). Your initial response clearly shows an inclination toward the content of the original website posted. I mention wiki (citing my clear dislike for it) as a point of ease. How the amount of information and the simple two seconds it takes to access 104 sources on research on the question. Ergo - If it is that easy to gain access to a plethora of documented materials from such organizations as the CDC and United Nations then the simple reality and answer must prevail.
Is something being officially supported as truth enough to make it so? For how long was the Earth round?
