I am proof that Covid is real

Discussion in 'Coronavirus Pandemic Discussions' started by Ronstar, Feb 16, 2023.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,736
    Likes Received:
    46,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Glad you made it through the sniffles bro.

    It was your WW2.
     
  2. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,464
    Likes Received:
    14,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Most of my symptoms are now gone.

    Rapid test showed a very weak positive again.

    I read vaccine plus boosters plus natural immunity means I am pretty safe for the next 6 months.

    This is been a very interesting yet shitty February.
     
  3. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,464
    Likes Received:
    14,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Much more than sniffles. Bronchitis was starting to happen fast. I also have asthma and I think without the paxlovid I was heading to the emergency room. :(

    And by the way ever since we got rid of the clay cat litter I have had no bronchitis symptoms unless I am exposed to cigarette smoke. I was exposed to no smoke or any other environmental cause of my typical bronchitis.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2023
  4. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,736
    Likes Received:
    46,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah I'm sure bronchitis makes getting sick worse.

    I never wore masks unless I was in a store and someone was hyperventilating about me not wearing one, which was uncommon here. Got sick once for a couple days with flu like symptoms in the last few years but I dunno if it was covid. Never did a test. Probably was though.

    Never did get the vaccine either *shrug*.
     
  5. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    1,496
    Likes Received:
    723
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    First of all nothing I said was silly, nor was it stupid. I expected a response like that because you like to distract from the real issues. Nothing I said was a lie. I never said I didn't know anything about 'the issue'. I said it doesn't matter whether I do or don't because there are thousands upon thousands of research papers and scientific articles that are produced by people who have specialized and direct education in HIV/AIDS. You are not one of these people and nor is the Perth Group.
    I did not lie and I did not say silly things. Let me remind you of what I said.

    You cherry picked one phrase from the Padian Perspective and used it to misrepresent what the phrase meant and what the study meant. That's true.

    I quoted what the study actually stated related to seroconversion and what the purpose of the study actually was.

    It is not silly or a lie to point out to you that the study does not hypothesize whether HIV is transmitted heterosexually and I stated what it was about and what it demonstrated with actual quotes from the study.

    You misunderstand the study and when and why no seroconversions took place.

    Are you saying that Padian claims are silly and lies because I was directly quoting from her statements?

    Again, what do you think that study was actually about?

    Did Padian ever state that HIV is not transmitted heterosexually?

    You are abusing her study to misrepresent what the study is about and you have proven that with your own words -- repeatedly.

    For the last bloody time, the study was not trying to 'prove' heterosexual transmission. Do you not understand that you can't change the purpose of a study to suit your own beliefs. The purpose of the study was to examine the rates of and risk factors for heterosexual transmission of HIV, not to ‘prove’ transmission of HIV.

    You are entirely missing the point of the study. It’s not about proving heterosexual transmission of HIV. Do you not understand??????? The study is was to examine the rates of and risk factors for heterosexual transmission of HIV, not to ‘prove’ transmission of HIV.

    Again, you are doing exactly what Padian complains about — making the study appear to be about something it isn't, and grossly misrepresenting the facts.

    After a short investigation via Google Scholar -- there are 17,700 results related to the heterosexual transmission of HIV. You are relying on one study that you insist is demonstrating something it isn't. Even when I quote actual statements made by Padian about the purpose of the study and how her study is being misrepresented by people such at the Perth Group, you still won't accept it. That's a pretty hefty steaming pile of denial.

    Information derived from epidemiological data states that in the UK, there are about 45,000 men living with HIV who were infected with sex with other men. Collected data demonstrates that there are 54,100 people who contracted the disease through heterosexual sex which means that 52% of people living with HIV are heterosexual. This can't be denied.

    I have a few things to say about the Perth Group. Generally, the research related to AIDS and HIV is nothing short of astoundingly spectacular. An illness was discovered, the cause (HIV) was found, and successful medications were developed. In the late 1990's, AIDS wards in hospitals in the developed world were shut down due to HAART. Why -- lack of patients. There is fifty years of scientific consensus with enough scientific evidence to support the fact that HIV causes AIDS. Yet, the Perth Group astonishingly clings to their faulty beliefs and arguments that HIV does not cause AIDS. As far as I am concerned, after fifty years of research, denying the link between HIV and AIDS is scientific illiteracy and moronic. What bloated egos they must have to believe in themselves despite them having no actual qualifications related to AIDS/HIV research nor the education. They have produced no research that clinically demonstrates their deluded beliefs, yet they cling to their delusions. Denial has caused countless unnecessary deaths. The Perth Group contributed to the deaths of 365,000 deaths in South Africa during Mbeki's leadership. They must be really proud of that (sarcasm). Shame on them and any body who denies HIV causes AIDS.

    I think I have posted enough relevant information to demonstrate your misrepresentation of the Padian study and that the Perth Group are a fringe group of denialists. I'm done.
     
    Death likes this.
  6. Death

    Death Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    5,184
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have not had a chance to respond to much of the false info on this thread. As for the aboove:

    "Myth: The mRNA vaccines change your DNA and could cause cancer.
    Truth: None of the vaccines interact with or alter your DNA in any way, and therefore cannot cause cancer.

    Messenger RNA (mRNA) is not the same as DNA and cannot be combined with DNA to change your genetic code. Here’s now mRNA vaccines actually work:

    The mRNA vaccines use a tiny piece of the coronavirus’ genetic code to teach your immune system how to make a protein that will trigger an immune response if you get infected. The mRNA is fragile and it delivers the instructions to your cells to make antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. The mRNA does not enter the nucleus of the cell — the part that contains your DNA.

    Therefore, there is no truth to the myth that somehow the mRNA vaccine could inactivate the genes that suppress tumors."

    source:https://www.mskcc.org/coronavirus/myths-about-covid-19-vaccines

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...t-linked-cancer-spike-experts-say/6711367001/

    https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-turbocancer-vaccine-idUSL1N3340PQ

    https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-cancer-covid-idUSL1N2UM24J

    When I see the same bullshit repeated over and over I have to ask is this genuine ignorance or deliberate spreading of disinformation?

    Please people who do have cancer speak with your family doctor, or a chapter of the American or Canadian Cancer society closest to where you live do not let ignorant people fear monger and spread false bullshit to you.

    https://www.cancercareontario.ca/si.../assets/CancerPatientsandCOVIDVaccinesFAQ.pdf
     
    dairyair likes this.
  7. Death

    Death Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    5,184
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Read the words in black. Take ownership of the contradiction. Here is the phenoma I would contendmight explain that contradiction I have asked you to take ownership of above:

    https://www.psycom.net/cognitive-dissonance

    As for asking for proof HIV exists the question I would contend exhibits rhetoric. It states I would contend the statement you do not believe HIV exists and that all existing information that proves it does not exist.

    Therefore any response to that question would be a waste of time.

    It also shows a deeper agenda of denial of not just HIV but the entire medical community. Such issues of denial I would contend might suggest you have unresolved issues with authority figures who tell you thinks you feel frightened by. Providing you proof of HIV won't address those fears that cause you do reject medical evidence but it does help explain why people come on this thread to deny illness or medical treatments for illness.
     
  8. Death

    Death Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    5,184
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Again Joe the reason why people were asked to take the vaccine and its benefits are independent of it being able to provide absolute, permanent immunity. The benefits it does provide even though it does not provide 100% permanent immunity and only temporary immunity are:

    1-it cuts down on the period of time someone may have Covid 19 and therefore pass it on;
    2-by doing 2, it may prevent passing the Covid 19 virus to someone who can NOT take the vaccine for medical reasons and might otherwise get it and die or get very ill requiring hospitalization;
    3-in regards to 1 and 2, if it cuts down on the no. of people in need of hospitalization, it then reduces the chance that the hospital services otherwise taken up treating Covid 19, can be used instead on people with other diseases;
    4-tests now show that people who take the vaccine, not only reduce the spread but reduce serious illnesses to both themselves and others.

    Given 1-4 the vaccine doesn't have to provide 100% immunity (a cure) to provide a benefit.

    https://covid19.trackvaccines.org/benefits-of-vaccines/

    https://www.uab.edu/news/youcanuse/item/12025-five-benefits-of-getting-a-covid-19-vaccine

    Can some of you please stop with the false deduction that because the vaccine does not provide 100% permanent immunity does not mean it has no benefits.

    That is not just illogical but it makes no commons sense.

    I would suggest that the reasoning behind believing if something can not be guaranteed to be a 100% cure means you ignore it, is a method of defining value based on a distorted sense of self entitlement and ego. I would argue its an exercise of thought based on believing that if something does not meet a feeling of specific entitlement to a person individually it has no meaning. That meaning could also come from its benefit to others and their needs as well, and those other needs may not be synonymous with the needs of the person rejecting the value of the vaccine.

    We need to look further than our own need when determining value of things. The exercise of determining need or value by simply how it caters to your own immediate need is referred to as hedonism. Surely when examining medical needs we need to understand hedonistic bias, i.e., simply considering what is good for us as an individual ignores how we behave to get our need may impact negatively on others and so we should also question that negative impact on others and ask can we prevent it.

    We never see vaccine deniers ever acknowledge the good and positive things vaccines help with only its shortcomings.
     
  9. Joe knows

    Joe knows Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2021
    Messages:
    13,846
    Likes Received:
    10,170
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is no proof whatsoever or even remotely suggests that the Vaccine stops the spread or makes the non contagious. That is a complete lie.
     
  10. Joe knows

    Joe knows Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2021
    Messages:
    13,846
    Likes Received:
    10,170
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This vaccine doesn’t offer immunity at all. It doesn’t prevent COVID at all. As in anyone who is vaccinated can still get COVID and likely did. This vaccine prevents absolutely nothing.
     
  11. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,464
    Likes Received:
    14,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The vaccine and boosters significantly reduce symptoms and the likelyhood of death or requiring hospitalization. The numbers prove it.

    You lose. Covid is real, the vaccines are real. I am proof.
     
  12. Death

    Death Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    5,184
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Acquired by vaccine immunity anywhere from 3-6 months give or take each person. It is individual. Each person is different. It could be shorter or longer for you.

    Next acquired by Covid 19 immunity maybe as long as 8 months.

    Right now acquired by vaccine and acquired by the virus itself immunity are being both called natural immunity. Technically only the immunity to the virus without any vaccine is natural. The MRNA Vaccines are synthetic, i.e., made by humans. The immunity that comes from only the virus itself is the natural one.

    The vaccine that injects the actual virus but in a small dose to allow the body to build up immunities to it, is still technically mostly but not all man made given its smaller controlled release of the virus which would not otherwise happen naturally without human pharmaceutical assistance.

    Next, the term herd immunity is used to describe when it is believed a large enough portion of the population becomes exposed to a virus and so develops an immunity to it. The reasoning is if the spread of disease from person is allowed to happen herd immunity is achieved. As a result, the whole community becomes protected — not just those who are immune.

    The point is this can not happen with Covid 19 and for that matter science can't say which viruses it can be achieved with definitively. It was thought this could be achieved with small pox and polio, but that has not proven to be the case.

    In regards to COVID-19 if you catch the virus your body can offer some natural protection or immunity from reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19 but no one can say how much. The tests that do exist that getting COVID-19 the virus or taking a COVID-19 vaccination can both result in a low risk of another infection with a similar variant for at least six to 8 months but there is NOT guarantee of that and far more studies need to be compiled to determine with any accuracy any predicted immunity period and at this time there is no such lengthy info that would allow finite numbers and probably there may never be as Covid 19 appears to mutate very quickly.

    What we know with its predecessor, SARS, it mutated and as it mutated to a more dangerous and lethal strain more likely to kill, it also became harder to catch. With other viruses the inverse may happen, i.e., its easier to catch but becomes less lethal, like certain strains of influenza virus.

    No one virus is the same as another in makeup or in how each human body deals with it.

    Certain viruses like rabies appear 100% fatal unless you get a rabies vaccine within so many hours of being bitten. Others you can survive and wait longer periods before getting a vaccine like syphilis. Its very rare someone does not have some kind of reaction to any virus.

    Chicken pox which is a herpes virus (one of 12) can come back in later life and is often referred to as shingles. We now have a needle you can take at the first signs of shingles that help reduce the period you have it and the spread of the inflammation of the nerve endings which can cause rashes, or painful blisters or nerve pain (neuralgia).

    The point is immunology is complex. The point is unless someone is an immunologist, rheumatologist, internal specialist, pharmacologist. hematologist, pathologist, they may not have specific training to pick up or notice certain phenomena. All these areas of medicine work looking at different considerations that overlap. To coordinate their findings and get accurate cause and effect analysis can take many years of research.

    The people in the anti vaccine movement show a remarkable similarity in that they all want quick easy to understand answers/cures. If you tell them there is no clear answer it can fuel their insecurity and need to alleviate anxiety and threat trigged by that insecurity by engaging in the defensive mechanism of denial to try make that lack of clear answer go away.

    Conspiracies and denials are defense mechanisms to cope with the absence of immediate comforting messages.
     
  13. Death

    Death Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Messages:
    5,184
    Likes Received:
    1,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Also your comments about cat litter are real and can be explained too and you may already know this but to back up what you said:

    https://www.shoppetplanet.com/educa...clay litters,breath and reduced lung capacity.
     
  14. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,464
    Likes Received:
    14,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
  15. Peter the Roman

    Peter the Roman Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2019
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    It is not relevant what Padian were trying to prove with her study, the fact is that it does not prove "heterosexual transmission of HIV", in other words, it does not prove vaginal intercourse can lead a seronegative person being seropositive, whatever being the state of its partner. And if the study can't prove heterosexual transmission of HIV then all other possible objectives (rates or risk of "HIV") are irrelevant.

    The Padian study was the longest, largest, best-designed and executed published study of heterosexuals anywhere in the world. You talk about many other studies or huge scientific literature that allegedly prove HIV transmission and more propaganda. In the 2003-2005 AIDS debate ( http://bmj.rethinkers.net/bmj_debate.html ), that you don't want to read showing your null intention to learn, the best epidemiological studies to that date were analyzed, not only the Padian study. None of them proved vaginal intercourse as a way to get a "HIV" positive status.

    Of course there are many studies that prove anal intercourse with ejaculation as a way to get a "HIV" positive status, but in that cases, the reason is not "HIV", but semen deposited into the rectum.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2023
  16. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,464
    Likes Received:
    14,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet lots of people got HIV through intravenous drug use and heterosexual sex acts.

    https://web.archive.org/web/2011030...topics/surveillance/resources/slides/general/

    #HIVdenierFAIL
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2023
  17. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,464
    Likes Received:
    14,677
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Lots of heterosexual people got HIV through intravenous drug use and non-anal sex acts.
     
  18. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    1,496
    Likes Received:
    723
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    WTF are you talking about. I would love a detailed explanation how semen deposited in the rectum causes AIDS without HIV being considered. Please do tell.

    Semen has been deposited in the rectum for thousands of years, yet nobody developed anything near to AIDS until HIV was discovered as the cause of AIDS. Explain your logic.
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2023
  19. Peter the Roman

    Peter the Roman Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2019
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    So you should finally admit you know very little about the Perth Group and their AIDS theory, because semen as a potent oxidative agent that could lead to a "HIV" positive status is a cornerstone of the theory.

    It's impossible to know if semen has been "deposited for thousands of years" and it's impossible to know how many of those alleged people would have had a "HIV" positive status or even AIDS. We can't make an epidemiological study with people already deceased. But that semen is oxidative can't be denied:

    http://theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/reappraisalofaids.html

    It has been shown in a number of studies and should be emphasised that, unlike all sexually transmitted diseases, where both partners are equally susceptible to the disease, in homosexual males immunosuppression appears in the anal sperm recipients but not in the exclusive sperm donors (39) The risk factors in AIDS development are the number of homosexual partners and frequency of receptive anal intercourse (2). Furthermore many of the AIDS cases diagnosed in women may have resulted from the practice of anal intercourse by heterosexual couples (39,40,41). More importantly, carefully designed ainimal experiments leave no doubt that sperm is a strong immunosuppressive agent (41,42,43,44). Sperm is one of the best known mitotic agents and like all other mitogens is an oxidizing agent, its electrophilicity being a prerequisite for fertilisational (45). During spermatogenesis two main processes take place in the testes: morphogenesis of the maturing gamete whose chromatin becomes progressively condensed and replacement of the somatic histories with protamines by the oxidation of the sulphydryl groups (SH) to disulphide (SS). Although maturation starts in the testes, spermatozoa released from the seminiferous epithelium are not fully mature from a functional standpoint and must complete their maturation by the oxidaition of the SH groups to SS during the passage through the epididymis. The amount of cysteine residues present as SH in the spermatozoa from the caput, corpus and cauda epididymis and vas deferens being 50, 15, 5, and 3% respectively (46,47,48,49). Of pivotal significance to the present discussion is the finding of Hurtenback that mature sperm is much more effective in producing immunosuppression than immature sperm (43). Since the significant difference between sperm derived from the semineferous tubules and mature ejaculated sperm is its degree of oxidation, it is highly probable that this property determines its immunosuppressive effects. This is reinforced by the finding that sperm from older animals, whose tissues are known to be more oxidized, is more effective in inducing immunosuppression (43). For the same reason, the homosexual male's sperm may be even more immunosuppressive than that of healthy heterosexuals. The fact that sperm does not seem to produce immunosuppression during vaginal sexual intercourse can be accounted for by it critical structural difference between the epithelium of the rectum and vagina (39,50). The vagina is lined by thick stratified squamous epithelium which makes ulceration and penetration of the semen into the vascular lamina unlikely. In contrast the semen in the rectum is separated from blood vessels and lymphatics by a single layer of cells which is easily penetrated and ulcerated during anal intercourse. In addition to lymphoma and KS the homosexuals have two other malignancies, cancer of the tongue and rectum (51). The increased incidence of these two cancers like carcinoma of the cervix in women, may be related to periods of high local concentration of sperm. (bold mine)

    (click on the link to see the references)
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2023
  20. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    1,496
    Likes Received:
    723
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Explain why semen has only been a ‘potent oxidative’ agent since the 1970‘s. Can you explain why AIDS appeared when it did and at the time HIV was discovered. Like I said men have been engaging in anal sex for thousands of years and all sorts of other naughty behaviour, yet nothing like AIDS existed until the 1970’s.

    Can you explain why in the past 20 years or more their theoretical comments have not been accepted as an explanation, they have only been debunked. Has the Perth Group done anything more than theorize about this, where is their clinical support?
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2023
  21. Peter the Roman

    Peter the Roman Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2019
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    It's not only semen, in the case of homosexuals are recreative drugs too, like poppers. Recreative drugs are oxidative agents too, and could have a synergetic effect with semen.

    But, really, I think I'm not here to explain the complete Perth Group's oxidative theory to you. You should make an effort and read something too, for example, that link I put above in my previous post, which is not difficult to read and is not too long.

    It could be my fault, indeed, that on my blog (https://hiv-probably-does-not-exist.blogspot.com) the oxidative theory is not explain yet, in plain language. I will try to do it in the future. Take into account, again, that English is not my mother tongue, so it will be an effort for me.

    Why the Perth Group has been ignored? Not because of them and their effort, of course, but the arrogance of the "HIV experts". You can see this link as an example:

    http://challenges.rethinkers.net/Moore-Perth.html

    At the 2006 International AIDS Conference Professor John Moore presented a session entitled "HIV Science and Responsible Journalism". In his presentation Professor Moore referred to Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, Valendar Turner and the Perth Group. Soon after the Perth Group sent Professor Moore this response and also entered into some brief correspondence via email.

    (see John Moore's responses)
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2023
  22. Richard Franks

    Richard Franks Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2019
    Messages:
    4,813
    Likes Received:
    1,573
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They sound like true facts and you know what you're talking about. Amen to that,
     
  23. Peter the Roman

    Peter the Roman Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2019
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    I just saw the word is "recreational" better than recreative.
     
  24. MuchAdo

    MuchAdo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2022
    Messages:
    1,496
    Likes Received:
    723
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    l don’t need an explanation of the Perth Groups theory. I’ve read it. You are repeatedly just pasting stuff they say. I am trying to see if you understand oxidation. Because if you did, you would understand why they are wrong. Perhaps, I will explain why tomorrow.

    Why don’t you answer my questions? Again.

    Explain why semen has only been a ‘potent oxidative’ agent since the 1970‘s. Can you explain why AIDS appeared when it did and at the time HIV was discovered. Like I said men have been engaging in anal sex for thousands of years and all sorts of other naughty behaviour, yet nothing like AIDS existed until the 1970’s.

    Can you explain why in the past 20 years or more their theoretical comments have not been accepted as an explanation, they have only been debunked. Has the Perth Group done anything more than theorize about this, where is their clinical support?
     
  25. Peter the Roman

    Peter the Roman Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2019
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Sorry, but you're already boring me. Just learn about the homosexual liberation in the US in the 1970s, that led to a lot of recreational drugs consumption and anal sex.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_liberation

    What I demonstrate "pasting stuff the Perth Group say" is that I have read almost everything what they say, whereas you knew very little about them. I hope that, after my intervention here, and despite your null intention to read and to learn, you can at least distinguish them from Duesberg.

    Regarding "where is their clinical support", yes, I will paste more text of them, from the same link I put above:

    http://challenges.rethinkers.net/Moore-Perth.html

    Jonh Moore said : “But the denialists don’t publish any of their own work. They simply criticize, ignorantly, the work of scientists who do.”

    Our publications contain a lot of original ideas and work. Although it is not necessary for us to perform experiments based on our ideas, we would have preferred to do them. However, due to lack of funds we have been unable to perform our original experiments. Science has progressed on the basis of new ideas and theories being presented many times by either one person or a group of people and then experiments being carried out by either another person or group of people. In fact, some of the most important progressions in science were based on ideas of people who never performed the experiments themselves.


    Finally, I have the right to ask questions too. For example, if people who take PrEP (Pre-exposure prophylaxis, the most promiscuous homosexuals take it) don't get infected with "HIV", and seropositive people with indetectable "viral" load don't transmit "HIV" to others, then why are still quite new infections between homosexuals? The epidemic should be eradicated o almost eradicated on this risk group. Or why have there been a vaccine for Covid after only one year and is there no vaccine for HIV after 40 years, when both alleged viruses are RNA viruses?
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2023

Share This Page