An interesting video

[Spectral Paladin]

This is a rather old video, more than 10 years apparently judging by the dates mentioned in it. However, it put me into some thought and I was surprised at how firmly I believed myself hiv causes aids.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6696052383812726197&q=hiv+%3D+aids

Worth pondering?

[Spectral Paladin]

Did fed2k die or something while I was gone ?

[Andrew]

It may have, but what turned me off from watching it is the fact that is is a 2 hour video. :(

[Anathema]

Worth pondering?

Not really.

[Khan]

Not really.

What makes you say that?

I thought it was incredibly interesting, and having just watchec the Global Warming Scam video I don't know what to believe any more... ;)

I haven't watched all of it though only the first hour (have an essay I really should stop avoiding) but the evidence is frightening and it certainly is very compelling. Its very well presented as well, as was the global warming vid.

[Spectral Paladin]

Not really.

Mm ok, maybe consider this

I did not live at the time aids became popular, however it seems that there was some pressure from the gay community to find an explanation

An infectious disease that can affect everyone appears as reason enough to spend tremendous amounts of money in the research of its cure. Not to mention the profits of the pharmaceutical companies on drugs and condomns.

It's a fact that no cure has been found.

Last but not least, the reasons/excuses we are given for this are attributes that no other virus possesses, such as its ability to remain dormant for many years (and its activation by co-factors, which were only offered as explanation much later), its insane mutation rate, etc

Google is your friend, there are contemporary sites on this. Besides what is presented in the video, they also question the validity of hiv tests. Basically, the drugs themselves that are subscribed to aids patients seem to be what is killing them. While aids itself is nothing new, though it strikes certain groups of people now more than ever mainly because of current lifestyles.

I cannot say these are to be believed, as not much differs them than the media, except for the fact there's no profit to be made for them.. However, to answer my own question, I can see reasons why this is worth pondering.

[nemafakei]

"I did not live at the time aids became popular"

Hehe. Not quite what you mean.

Whatever the facts of the matter (it could well be that proof has emerged for the standard hypothesis), it's interesting to see how deeply integrated pharmaceutical capital, US government research boards, and political parties are, and how easy is actually is for that sort of thing to happen.

The video only presents one side of the story, it does get a bit repetitive by the end, and the editors, consciously or not, seemed to leap at any chance to use homosexuality as a bogeyman in spite of what their star scientist was saying, but if you're prepared to look for it, there's some good food for thought in there.

[Khan]

Yes I don't know why they distinguished drug users and gay men when the only thing which put the gay men in the risk category was their drug abuse. The parts about africa and the fact that normal diseases are aids if HIV is present were very interesting though.

[chatfsh]

Just finished watching this video

[Acriku]

Not really going to watch an hour movie on AIDS, but is it the sort that points to the US Army for concocting this virus?

[nemafakei]

"is it the sort that points to the US Army for concocting this virus?"

No, it claims HIV is very, very old and entirely unrelated to AIDS.

"but were merely showing the link between drug abuse and AIDS"

Yeah, they were did make that distinction in what was actually said, and it's hard to point to anything conclusive. Khan's point comes close, but I don't think their consideration statistics for the gay population was unjustified: it was a phenomenon to explain. It just seemed that there was a bit of hostility under the surface - in the feel of the thing rather than the actual statements. Perhaps it's more noticeable if you're less used to that sort of thing. In ten years' time, we might all be horrified at how "gay" is used in ordinary conversation to mean "bad" - but at the moment, we're so accustomed to it, we don't generally realise how disturbing a practice it is.

The one thing that I felt the documentary failed to do well was define what it considered AIDS to be. From the sounds of it, AIDS is simply a condition you assign to anyone who has fewer T-cells than you'd normally expect.

[Spectral Paladin]

Actually homosexual men were further distinguished from the drug users, as there's a short mention of the consequences of receiving anal sex (foreign substances have an easier time entering the bloodstream).

If the anti-aids sites are to be believed, condoms and spermicides themselves may have a part to play in causing aids. Third post here presents interesting studies on condoms; again though, some seem to be old while the site and forum is contemporary.

The one thing that I felt the documentary failed to do well was define what it considered AIDS to be. From the sounds of it, AIDS is simply a condition you assign to anyone who has fewer T-cells than you'd normally expect.

Indeed that appears to be what they suggest aids to be, and the reason for its recent popularity to be none other than the increased use of toxic substances nowadays.

[Khan]

Note: you might want to say boost or surge in aids cases rather than popularity.

[Tezcatlipoca]

In ten years' time, we might all be horrified at how "gay" is used in ordinary conversation to mean "bad" - but at the moment, we're so accustomed to it, we don't generally realise how disturbing a practice it is.

Ten years? I cringe every time I hear someone use the term like that; especially if I know they're smart enough to know better.