Re: [A-List] How "scientific" is science?

["tony black" <tal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

'Rationality' is not always so easily defined...

There are at present, at least two Nobel laureates who dispute the present
HIV/AIDs connection...(I'm not, by the way, 'weighing' in on either side
here, just playing devil's advocate)..Moreover, the isolation of the virus
according to Koch's postulates - that is, the *failure* to do so - is
precisely where some of the major criticism re the AID's/HIV connection has
come from. There is also the contradictory demographic evidence..the
complete dichotomy of AIDs diagnostic procedures between the first and third
worlds...the proven and profound cross-reactions of the AIDs tests with
something like 30 other chronic or previously suffered conditions (i.e.
malaria, pneumonia, tuberculosis etc)..

..Moreover the origin of AIDs (presuming it exists)...that is, the official
story..is just so much official bluster...Again playing the devil's
advocate -

It is a matter of record that: (and let me wax prolific here...)

Throughout the 1960's and '70's the recombinant viral technology research
establishment was heavily cross-staffed with the flourishing experimental
vaccine and large-scale immunization programs (directed, it is worthy of
note, at precisely the epidemiologically relevant areas).

In this period scientists at the likes of CDC, the NIH and the biowarfare
labs at Ft. Detrick, Maryland were, after having been authorized and funded
by Congress to do so (as I say, a matter of public record), directing their
research specifically towards immunosuppressive viral agents(!)

At the same time, many of the same scientists, often working at the same
facilities were helping to develop experimental vaccines. There existed
similar cross-transferance of products and personnel with respect to the
viral cancer research programs as well as the production- line vaccine
facilities themselves.

Moreover, much of this research and vaccine production was based on central
West-African primates, especially - you guessed it - green monkeys, some of
whom were then re-exported back to Africa.

The innumerable potential vectors for cross-contamination, intra- and
inter-species transference, naturally occurring viral hybidization of
man-made viral recombinant progenitors, re-transference and so on, is simply
boggling to contemplate.

Now it is true that all this is so much cirucumstantial evidence. But to go
further, as 'rational' officialdom has authoritatively and misleadingly
pronounced, and say that the iatrogenic theory of AIDs is simply fantastic
and without any logical or scientific merit, not worthy of an impartial
investigation, or any investigation at all, in fact, to be sniffed and
snooted at... is not only so much bluster - it is itself, highly suspect,
highly suspicious.
                         * * *
..Ahh...'rationality'...what a world in a word...(All too often employed,
ironically, merely as an emotive put-down of another's argument).

Tony



----- Original Message -----
From: "Hayduke" <hayduke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "The A-List" <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: [A-List] How "scientific" is science?


> on 12/16/2005 8:00 PM, Sabri Oncu at soncu@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > But the propagation of the hiv-aids myth benefits the drug
> > companies who now have a market for their old anti-cancer
> > fatally toxic drugs and effectively masks the fact that
> > western economic policies are decimating the peoples of the
> > third world and in particular Africa.
>
>    Yes, the pharmaceutical industry capitalizes on all epidemic diseases.
> This does not, however, mean that diseases do not exist.
>
>    The HIV virus is well documented world-wide, historically back to 1959.
> There is no question as to the existence of this virus and its nature.
>
>    The interactions among nutrition, immunology and general human health
> relating to HIV and AIDS are subjects for debate and investigation. there
> is
> no vast conspiracy to profit from the invention of a false HIV virus. It
> is
> very real and its effects are very real.
>
>    It's important to separate the real from the fantasy, by examining the
> evidence. Rationality is our only defense in the face of fantasy.
>
>    Michael