https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Discredited_HIV/AIDS_origins_theories
One possibility left out – A created theory with no real content
One possibility seems left out from the article and it is the fact that the theory itself is without underlying reality, i.e., that one has come to describe a phenomenon beyond reality and failed to see it for real such as describing leukemia as HIV/AIDS instead. As such this constitutes a created theory with no real content. What say you, should we include this aspect, one out of Philosophy of Science or the science lesson itself. Bye. 85.165.44.101 (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Chrysippus Ha! you jest with me? Beware of the shaft of insoluble syllogism.
Dr. Fauci with Leonore Annenberg, Brooke Astor, Irene Diamond, William H. Gates Sr., David Rockefeller, George Soros and Ted Turner.
How many illuminati blood lines do you count here?
Article below with proof it.
the WHO ordained them the 'WHO Collaborating Laboratory on Comparative Medicine: Simian Viruses.' They're located at the Southwest Foundation for Research and Education [currently called the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research]." "Listen to their 'specific aims:"' (1) the development of a working repository for simian viruses; (2) the provision of a source of reagents such as certified reference seed virus strains and specific antisera; (3) the provision of consultation services, including serum survey data, on the existence of antibody to various viruses of human and simian origin in various genera and species of primates; (4) the provision of diagnostic services, including the identification and characterization of viruses for primate research workers unable to identify isolates obtained from their primates (this would also include screening for human viruses); (5) the provision of information and the organization of exchanges of organisms between primate centres and other health organizations; and (6) the training of interested students in virological laboratory procedures associated with primate investigations. [21] "And here again, they stated they received their 'working stocks' of viruses and antisera from the NIH's Research Reference Reagents Branch as well as from the NCI, and that they were now creating their own new forms of viruses and vaccines." "Sounds like a 'clearinghouse' for simian viruses," Jackie responded with one eye open. "Just what the world needed. Now can we go to sleep." "Not yet. Consider the financial payoff. They already acknowledged working with private companies. In the late 1960s and early 1970s they stockpiled everything that might be needed, and undoubtedly lucrative, in the event of a future simian virus outbreak. They clearly acknowledged the Marburg virus outbreak in Europe and Africa as a sign of times to come. It also says they would continue their 'present cooperation with investigators using primates in cancer studies.' "What's interesting," I continued, "is that they blamed the monkeys for transmitting these newly discovered viruses which they most plausibly isolated, cultured, and then inoculated into the animals. Here's how they closed:" "Perhaps it should be reemphasized that there is a very practical, important side to this programme. Recent outbreaks of human and simian disease in several centres handling simians indicate that these animals are responsible for the transmission of the etiological agents." [21] "How treasonous," Jackie chuckled. "The monkeys asked to be jailed so they could later be held responsible for their crimes against humanity. How dare they transmit deadly viruses back to the humans who were infecting them." I joined in the comic relief. "Yeah. Maybe instead of three monkeys symbolizing denial, it should be three NCI virologists with their eyes, ears, and mouths covered. "The last thing it says is that:" "It is highly probable that more such incidents can be expected. The work to be done at the centre will do much to evaluate and elucidate the situation, and the centre may be called upon for assistance." [21] "That's the best example I think I've ever heard of successful
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discredited_HIV/AIDS_origins_theories
Hepatitis B vaccine (HBV) theory
The dermatologist Alan Cantwell, in self-published books entitled AIDS and the Doctors of Death: An Inquiry into the Origin of the AIDS Epidemic (1988) and Queer Blood: The Secret AIDS Genocide Plot (1993), said that HIV is a genetically modified organism developed by U.S. Government scientists. The virus was then introduced into the population through Hepatitis B (via the Hepatitis B vaccine) experiments performed on gay and bisexual men between 1978–1981 in major U.S. cities. Cantwell claims that these experiments were directed by Wolf Szmuness, and that there was an ongoing government cover-up of the origins of the AIDS epidemic. Similar theories have been advanced by Robert B. Strecker,[9] Matilde Krim, and Milton William Cooper.
- This is covered in the second sentence of the article: “Alternative theories regarding the hidden origin—accidental or intentional—of HIV/AIDS must be distinguished from AIDS denialism, which is the view of those who deny that HIV is the cause of AIDS.” The sentence links to the relevant article on denialism. VQuakr (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_denialism
History
A constellation of symptoms named “Gay-related immune deficiency” was noted in 1982. In 1983, a group of scientists and doctors at the Pasteur Institute in France, led by Luc Montagnier, discovered a new virus in a patient with signs and symptoms that often preceded AIDS.[17] They named the virus lymphadenopathy-associated virus, or LAV, and sent samples to Robert Gallo‘s team in the United States. Their findings were peer reviewed and slated for publication in Science.
At a 23 April 1984 press conference in Washington, D.C., Margaret Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services, announced that Gallo and his co-workers had discovered a virus that is the “probable” cause of AIDS. This virus was initially named HTLV-III.[18] That same year, Casper Schmidt responded to Gallo’s papers with “The Group-Fantasy Origins of AIDS”, Journal of Psychohistory.[19] Schmidt posited that AIDS was not an actual disease, but rather an example of “epidemic hysteria” in which groups of people are subconsciously acting out social conflicts. Schmidt compared AIDS to documented cases of epidemic hysteria in the past which were mistakenly thought to be infectious. (Schmidt himself would later die of AIDS in 1994.)[20][21]
In 1986, the viruses discovered by Montagnier and Gallo, found to be genetically indistinguishable, were renamed HIV.[22]
In 1987, the molecular biologist Peter Duesberg questioned the link between HIV and AIDS in the journal Cancer Research.[23] Duesberg’s publication coincided with the start of major public health campaigns and the development of zidovudine (AZT) as a treatment for HIV/AIDS.
In 1988, a panel of the Institute of Medicine of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences found that “the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is scientifically conclusive.”[1] That same year, Science published Blattner, Gallo, and Temin’s “HIV causes AIDS”,[24] and Duesberg’s “HIV is not the cause of AIDS”.[25] Also that same year, the Perth Group, a group of denialists based in Perth, Western Australia led by Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, published in the non-peer-reviewed journal Medical Hypotheses their first article questioning aspects of HIV/AIDS research,[26] arguing that there was “no compelling reason for preferring the viral hypothesis of AIDS to one based on the activity of oxidising agents.”
In 1989, Duesberg exercised his right, as a member of the National Academy of Sciences, to bypass the peer review process and publish his arguments in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) unreviewed. The editor of PNAS initially resisted, but ultimately allowed Duesberg to publish, saying, “If you wish to make these unsupported, vague, and prejudicial statements in print, so be it. But I cannot see how this would be convincing to any scientifically trained reader.”[27]
In 1990, the physiologist Robert Root-Bernstein published his first peer-reviewed article detailing his objections to the mainstream view of AIDS and HIV.[28] In it, he questioned both the mainstream view and the “dissident” view as potentially inaccurate.
In 1991, The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, comprising twelve scientists, doctors, and activists, submitted a short letter to various journals, but the letter was rejected.[29]
In 1993, Nature published an editorial arguing that Duesberg had forfeited his right of reply by engaging in disingenuous rhetorical techniques and ignoring any evidence that conflicted with his claims.[30] That same year, Papadopulos-Eleopulos and coautors from the Perth Group alleged in the journal Nature Biotechnology (then edited by fellow denialist Harvey Bialy) that the Western blot test for HIV was not standardized, non-reproducible, and of unknown specificity due to a claimed lack of a “gold standard“.[31][32]
On 28 October 1994, Robert Willner, a physician whose medical license had been revoked for, among other things, treating an AIDS patient with ozone therapy, publicly jabbed his finger with blood he said was from an HIV-infected patient.[10] Willner died in 1995 of a heart attack.[33]
In 1995, The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis in 1991 published a letter in Science similar to the one they had attempted to publish in 1991.[34] That same year, Continuum, a denialist group, placed an advertisement in the British gay and lesbian magazine The Pink Paper offering a £1,000 reward to “the first person finding one scientific paper establishing actual isolation of HIV”, according to a set of seven steps they claimed to have been drawn up by the Pasteur Institute in 1973.[35] The challenge was later dismissed by various scientists, including Duesberg, asserting that HIV undoubtedly exists.[35] Stefan Lanka argued in the same year that HIV does not exist.[36] Also that year, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases released a report concluding that “abundant epidemiologic, virologic and immunologic data support the conclusion that infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the underlying cause of AIDS.”[37][38]
In 1996, the British Medical Journal published “Response: arguments contradict the “foreign protein-zidovudine” hypothesis”[39] as a response to a petition by Duesberg: “In 1991 Duesberg challenged researchers… We and Darby et al. have provided that evidence”. The paper argued that Duesberg was wrong regarding the cause of AIDS in haemophiliacs. In 1997, The Perth Group questioned the existence of HIV, and speculated that the production of antibodies recognizing HIV proteins can be caused by allogenic stimuli and autoimmune disorders.[40][41] They continued to repeat this speculation through at least 2006.[42]
In 1998, Joan Shenton published the book Positively False – Exposing the Myths Around HIV and AIDS, which promotes AIDS denialism. In the book, Shenton claims that AIDS is a conspiracy created by pharmaceutical companies to make money from selling antiretroviral drugs.[43]
In 2006, Celia Farber, a journalist and prominent HIV/AIDS denialist, published an essay in the March issue of Harper’s Magazine entitled “Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science”, in which she summarized a number of arguments for HIV/AIDS denialism and alleged incompetence, conspiracy, and fraud on the part of the medical community.[44] Scientists and AIDS activists extensively criticized the article as inaccurate, misleading, and poorly fact-checked.[45][46]
In 2007, members of the Perth Group testified at an appeals hearing for Andre Chad Parenzee, asserting that HIV could not be transmitted by heterosexual sex. The judge concluded, “I reject the evidence of Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Dr Turner. I conclude… that they are not qualified to give expert opinions.”[47]
In 2009, a paper was published in the then non-peer-reviewed journal Medical Hypotheses by Duesberg and four other researchers which criticized a 2008 study by Chigwedere et al.,[14] which found that HIV/AIDS denialism in South Africa resulted in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths from HIV/AIDS, because the government delayed the provision of antiretroviral drugs. The paper concluded that “the claims that HIV has caused huge losses of African lives are unconfirmed and that HIV is not sufficient or even necessary to cause the previously known diseases, now called AIDS in the presence of antibody against HIV.”[48] Later that year, the paper was withdrawn from the journal on the grounds of it having methodological flaws, and that it contained assertions “that could potentially be damaging to global public health”. A revised version was later published in Italian Journal of Anatomy and Embryology.[49]
Dr. Robert B. Strecker passed away on April 15, 2018 due to an auto accident. He was America’s first credentialed AIDS whistleblower with his scholarly video presentation of research into early genetic engineering studies mutating viruses. Sadly, Dr. Strecker was attacked and belittled for his work even though independent investigations corroborated his claims. Nevertheless, Dr. Strecker was a dedicated and selfless man who was passionate about his work, his patients, and the understanding and fighting of disease.
This is the most controversial video you’ll ever see. Dr. Robert Strecker refutes, with documented evidence, virtually everything the so-called experts and Government reports have told you about AIDS. He asserts in no uncertain terms that:
- AIDS is a man-made disease,
- AIDS is not a homosexual disease,
- AIDS is not a venereal disease,
- AIDS can be carried by mosquitos,
- and there can never be a vaccine.
Although decades have passed and untold billions have been spent in research, cancer is still with us, the second major cause of death in America. The most dreaded fear that all oncologists (cancer doctors), virologists and immunologists live with is that someday cancer in one form or another will become a contagious disease, transferable from one person to another.
AIDS has now made that fear a reality, and if you think you’re safe because you’re not gay or promiscuous, or because you’re not sexually active, then you had better watch this video very carefully until you fully understand what Dr. Strecker is telling you as he takes you step by step and shows you how this dreaded disease was actually man-made. Condoms can’t prevent it and there won’t ever be a vaccine.
Dr. Strecker shows how AIDS was predicted, requested, created, deployed and works very well!
IS AIDS MAN MADE?
“THE STRECKER MEMORANDUM DVD”
Dr. Fauci with Leonore Annenberg, Brooke Astor, Irene Diamond, William H. Gates Sr., David Rockefeller, George Soros and Ted Turner.
How many illuminati blood lines do you count here?
Article below with proof it.
Mike Bravo@mikebravodudeDr. Fauci has been the director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984. See where the graphs change under his leadership? He was failing miserably in solving anything. Odd he was awarded and praised for this.
Why do you think that is?
https://twitter.com/HowleyReporter/status/1246977890710892545
Tonight, I went on The Alex Jones Show to Bust Bill Gates and Fauci #firefauci
And I sent a message to our great President: We stand with you. We will not allow the Globalists to take our Freedomhttps://t.co/AckXED3BHV
— Patrick Howley (@HowleyReporter) April 6, 2020
What?? pic.twitter.com/jWcOqiISD9
— Kevin Sorbo (@ksorbs) April 14, 2020
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth
Vacuous truth
Jump to navigationJump to search
In mathematics and logic, a vacuous truth is a conditional or universal statement that is only true because the antecedent cannot be satisfied.[1][2] For example, the statement “all cell phones in the room are turned off” will be true, whenever there are no cell phones in the room. In this case, the statement “all cell phones in the room are turned on” would also be vacuously true, as would the conjunction of the two: “all cell phones in the room are turned on and turned off”. For that reason, it is sometimes said that a statement is vacuously true only because it does not really say anything.[3]
More formally, a relatively well-defined usage refers to a conditional statement (or a universal conditional statement) with a false antecedent.[1][2][4][3][5] One example of such a statement is “if Uluru is in France, then the Eiffel Tower is in Bolivia“. Such statements are considered vacuous truths, because the fact that the antecedent is false prevents using the statement to infer anything about the truth value of the consequent. In essence, they are true because a material conditional is defined to be true when the antecedent is false (regardless of whether the conclusion is true or false).
In pure mathematics, vacuously true statements are not generally of interest by themselves, but they frequently arise as the base case of proofs by mathematical induction.[6][1] This notion has relevance in pure mathematics, as well as in any other field that uses classical logic.
Outside of mathematics, statements which can be characterized informally as vacuously true can be misleading. Such statements make reasonable assertions about qualified objects which do not actually exist. For example, a child might tell their parent “I ate every vegetable on my plate”, when there were no vegetables on the child’s plate to begin with.
Chrysippus of Soli (/kraɪˈsɪpəs, krɪ-/;[3] Greek: Χρύσιππος ὁ Σολεύς, Chrysippos ho Soleus; c. 279 – c. 206 BC[4]) was a Greek Stoic philosopher. He was a native of Soli, Cilicia, but moved to Athens as a young man, where he became a pupil of Cleanthes in the Stoic school. When Cleanthes died, around 230 BC, Chrysippus became the third head of the school. A prolific writer, Chrysippus expanded the fundamental doctrines of Zeno of Citium, the founder of the school, which earned him the title of Second Founder of Stoicism.[5]
http://trisagionseraph.tripod.com/Texts/Creeds.html
Seventh Dealer. Regard me as your purchaser, good fellow, and tell me all about yourself. I dare say you think it rather hard to be sold for a slave?
Chrysippus. Not at all. These things are beyond our control. And what is beyond our control is indifferent.
Seventh Dealer. I don’t see how you make that out.
Chrysippus. What! Have you yet to learn that of indifferentia some are praeposita and others rejecta?
Seventh Dealer. Still I don’t quite see.
Chrysippus. No; how should you? You are not familiar with our terms. You lack the comprehensio visi. The earnest student of logic knows this and more than this. He understands the nature of subject, predicate, and contingent, and the distinctions between them.
Seventh Dealer. Now in Wisdom’s name, tell me, pray, what is a predicate? what is a contingent? There is a ring about those words that takes my fancy.
Chrysippus. With all my heart. A man lame in one foot knocks that foot accidentally against a stone, and gets a cut. Now the man is subject to lameness; which is the predicate. And the cut is a contingency.
Seventh Dealer. Oh, subtle! What else can you tell me?
Chrysippus. I have verbal involutions, for the better hampering, crippling, and muzzling of my antagonists. This is performed by the use of the far-famed syllogism.
Seventh Dealer. Syllogism! I warrant him a tough customer.
Chrysippus. Take a case. You have a child?
Seventh Dealer. Well, and what if I have?
Chrysippus. A crocodile catches him as he wanders along the bank of a river, and promises to restore him to you, if you will first guess correctly whether he means to restore him or not. Which are you going to say?
Seventh Dealer. A difficult question. I don’t know which way I should get him back soonest. In Heaven’s name, answer for me, and save the child before he is eaten up.
Chrysippus. Ha, ha. I will teach you far other things than that.
Seventh Dealer. For instance?
Chrysippus. There is the ‘Reaper.’ There is the ‘Rightful Owner.’ Better still, there is the ‘Electra’ and the ‘Man in the Hood.’
Seventh Dealer. Who was he? and who was Electra?
Chrysippus. She was the Electra, the daughter of Agamemnon, to whom the same thing was known and unknown at the same time. She knew that Orestes was her brother: yet when he stood before her she did not know (until he revealed himself) that her brother was Orestes. As to the Man in the Hood, he will surprise you considerably. Answer me now: do you know your own father?
Seventh Dealer. Yes.
Chrysippus. Well now, if I present to you a man in a hood, shall you know him? eh?
Seventh Dealer. Of course not.
Chrysippus. Well, but the Man in the Hood is your father. You don’t know the Man in the Hood. Therefore you don’t know your own father.
Seventh Dealer. Why, no. But if I take his hood off, I shall get at the facts. Now tell me, what is the end of your philosophy? What happens when you reach the goal of virtue?
Chrysippus. In regard to things external, health, wealth, and the like, I am then all that Nature intended me to be. But there is much previous toil to be undergone. You will first sharpen your eyes on minute manuscripts, amass commentaries, and get your bellyful of outlandish terms. Last but not least, it is forbidden to be wise without repeated doses of hellebore.
Seventh Dealer. All this is exalted and magnanimous to a degree. But what am I to think when I find that you are also the creed of cent-per-cent, the creed of the usurer? Has he swallowed his hellebore? is he made perfect in virtue?
Chrysippus. Assuredly. On none but the wise man does usury sit well. Consider. His is the art of putting two and two together, and usury is the art of putting interest together. The two are evidently connected, and one as much as the other is the prerogative of the true believer; who, not content, like common men, with simple interest, will also take interest upon interest. For interest, as you are probably aware, is of two kinds. There is simple interest, and there is its offspring, compound interest. Hear Syllogism on the subject. ‘If I take simple interest, I shall also take compound. But I shall take simple interest: therefore I shall take compound.’
Seventh Dealer. And the same applies to the fees you take from your youthful pupils? None but the true believer sells virtue for a fee?
Chrysippus. Quite right. I take the fee in my pupil’s interest, not because I want it. The world is made up of diffusion and accumulation. I accordingly practice my pupil in the former, and myself in the latter.
Seventh Dealer. But it ought to be the other way. The pupil ought to accumulate, and you, ‘sole millionaire,’ ought to diffuse.
Chrysippus. Ha! you jest with me? Beware of the shaft of insoluble syllogism.
Seventh Dealer. What harm can that do?
Chrysippus. It cripples; it ties the tongue, and turns the brain. Nay, I have but to will it, and you are stone this instant.
Seventh Dealer. Stone! You are no Perseus, friend?
Chrysippus. See here. A stone is a body?
Seventh Dealer. Yes.
Chrysippus. Well, and an animal is a body?
Seventh Dealer. Yes.
Chrysippus. And you are an animal?
Seventh Dealer. I suppose I am.
Chrysippus. Therefore you are a body. Therefore a stone.
Seventh Dealer. Mercy, in Heaven’s name! Unstone me, and let me be flesh as heretofore.
Chrysippus. That is soon done. Back with you into flesh! Thus: Is every body animate?
Seventh Dealer. No.
Chrysippus. Is a stone animate?
Seventh Dealer. No.
Chrysippus. Now, you are a body?
Seventh Dealer. Yes.
Chrysippus. And an animate body?
Seventh Dealer. Yes.
Chrysippus. Then being animate, you cannot be a stone.
Seventh Dealer. Ah! thank you, thank you. I was beginning to feel my limbs growing numb and solidifying like Niobe’s. Oh, I must have you. What’s to pay?
Hermes. Fifty pounds.
3 comments
You must log in to post a comment.