Scientific negationism: dogmatism?

[sen-no-sen]

And you go round in circles! You focus on particular points so as not to respond to other fundamentals.

The hospital that shoots bazooka on charity!
Whatever the subject you systematically dodge the questions that are put to you by answering side ...
I'm talking to you about AIDS Talk to me about AZT, what are we talking about, one or the other?
It would be like talking about heart disease and pick.
Except your position is not clear, you never expose the bottom of your thought history to be able to take a side step in case of lack of argument.

So answer me clearly: what is the cause of AIDS?

That's counter psychology!
Poisoning, he, somatizes everyone; so stress + poisoning, the chances of getting away are slim, even nil.

Again what are we talking about?
You talk about poison, which ones?
In what types of pathologies?

In less than a year, from lifestyle tipsshe began to walk, to talk to the great surprise of the doctor, the physiotherapist, the family. The thing was all the more difficult if the father was in favor, the mother was opposed in principle and it was a game of cat and mouse.

I would like you to expose me your very obscure life hygiene advice?
I want a very detailed list.
You can also transmit it to the AIDS victim to heal ...
I invite you to register on a forum help the sick and prove to the medical corps the error in which it gets entangled ...
To listen to you all the inhabitants of our country would be in error, would eat anything, smoke, drug, do not do sports ... except Janic...

[Janic]

sen no sen

Janic wrote:
And you go round in circles! You focus on particular points so as not to respond to other fundamentals.

The hospital that shoots bazooka on charity!

I am your example, oh sensei!

Whatever the subject you systematically dodge the questions that are put to you by answering side ...

and you do not answer it, it's the atomic bomb to kill a mosquito. With this kind of kindness it does not advance the schmilblick!

I'm talking to you about AIDS Talk to me about AZT, what are we talking about, one or the other?

I quote only. It is not me who made the link but the promoters of this type of therapy before triple therapy only slightly less toxic.

It would be like talking about heart disease and the pick.

Not really, the pick has never been proposed as a treatment for heart disease while AZT has been used to treat AIDS patients.

Except your position is not clear, you never expose the bottom of your thought history to be able to take a side step in case of lack of argument.
So answer me clearly: what is the cause of AIDS? .

Scientists, according to their convictions have already answered, goes back the course of history that led to this type of designation. I am not the inventor of this concept. (this is explained in the videos shown)
Personally I have said and repeated that ID (immuno-deficiencies), there are for many reasons exposed in these documents of which the simplest is the pregnancy for example which does, sometimes, melt the rate of T CD4 at the level supposed AIDS patients. So the A (I stress again) is only assumed with respect to this CD4 T level in proSIDA, not the others.

Quote:
That's counter psychology!
Poisoning, he, somatizes everyone; so stress + poisoning, the chances of getting away are slim, even nil.

Again what are we talking about?
You talk about poison, which ones?

AZT! Tritherapies! The skull on the bottle is not there to look pretty! Are you sure to follow the course of our discussions?

In what types of pathologies?

HIV / AIDS since it is used alone first and then combined with other drugs. (read the proposed documents)

Quote:
In less than a year, starting from advice of hygiene of life, she began to walk, to talk to the great surprise of the doctor, the Physiotherapist, the family. The thing was all the more difficult if the father was in favor, the mother was opposed in principle and it was a game of cat and mouse.

I would like you to expose me your very obscure advice of hygiene of life?

No way ! It's top secret! If not studying hygienism, he responds largely! Or the ortho molecular medicine of Obamot, it's pretty close!

You can also transmit it to the AIDS victim to heal ...

They would not care as their first diaper! We must first be aware of the uselessness and dangerousness of current treatments BEFORE to make a change and, by experience, (not for AIDS, I do not know any) I know it's exceptional even on the verge of death!

I invite you to register on a forum help the sick and prove to the medical corps the error in which it gets entangled ...

Another utopian dream! If these patients want at least to learn (not even do) the internet can provide them with all the information they need ... but the system keeps them well trapped in his web and it's not easy to get out!

To listen to you all the inhabitants of our country would be in error, would eat anything, smoke, drug, do not do sports ... except Janic ...

The majority of French eat what they find in the supermarket and therefore anything because they have no choice or do not want to change. Smokers I took care a few years and those who want to stop can easily, but not with patches or phony cigarettes that keep them dependent (the business again); the drug is distributed by pharmacies (drugs are classified officially as drugs, including alcohol in all its forms) and sport when I see the rooms desertify (some sport or rather physical activities whatsoever) and the streets almost empty walkers, joggers or others, this is not better. (except in medium or large cities, which must be compared with the number of inhabitants.)
For me, my kind of life favors me and therefore allows me to do what others can not do for a long time.
As you are practicing Aikido, you know the necessary physical form and septuagenarians, octogenarians, are not crowded but rather fear a bone breakage ... osteoporosis, or are rheumatic, osteoarthritic, diabetic, etc ... (we have a fifty-year-old osteoarthritis, former karateka who can not move on his knees, then in 20 years ...?)

[sen-no-sen]

Not really, the pick has never been proposed as a treatment for heart disease while AZT has been used to treat AIDS patients.

From memory the pick was prescribed against diabetes type 2 which by extension was classified in the drugs against cardiovascular disorders (sic).

Personally I have said and repeated that ID (immuno-deficiencies), there are for many reasons exposed in these documents of which the simplest is the pregnancy for example which does, sometimes, melt the rate of T CD4 at the level supposed AIDS patients.

Yes finally confuse pregnancy and AIDS is going a little strong!
The decrease in T4 lymphocytes can be caused by a whole host of reasons (taking corticosteroids, kidney problems, malnutrition), but we should stop taking doctors for "quiches" because it is a subject very well mastered.
Malnutrition, or kidney failure does not cause lymphoma or Kaposi syndrome ....

AZT! Tritherapies! The skull on the bottle is not there to look pretty! Are you sure to follow the course of our discussions?

The first people with the said virus did not take AZT because the latter did not exist, it was put into service at the end of the 80 years, which effectively excluded this substance as responsible for the epidemic.

[Janic]

sen no sen

Janic wrote:

Not really, the pick has never been proposed as a treatment for heart disease while AZT has been used to treat AIDS patients.

From memory the pick was prescribed against diabetes type 2 which by extension was classified in the drugs against cardiovascular disorders (sic).

There are many medocs with multiple actions. Use outside the scope of the intended use by the manufacturer and the AMM is under the responsibility of medical prescribers and users. So the pick should be used as an adjunct to diabetes, which diabetes obviously plays in cardiovascular diseases, but the prescription was not provided for this purpose. Hence its diversion as a hunger cut reducing the consumption of food necessary against this diabetes.

Quote:
Personally I have said and repeated that ID (immuno-deficiencies), there are for many reasons exposed in these documents of which the simplest is the pregnancy for example which does, sometimes, melt the rate of T CD4 at the level supposed AIDS patients.

Yes finally confuse pregnancy and AIDS is going a little strong!

This is however what is listed among the 29 cases inducing a significant decrease in T CD4 indicators of the supposed AIDS

The decrease in T4 lymphocytes can be caused by a whole host of reasons (taking corticosteroids, kidney problems, malnutrition), but we should stop taking doctors for "quiches" because it is a subject very well mastered.

It is especially to take them for badly informed because if other pathologies are not detected, it is this rate which is taken in reference of AIDS.

Malnutrition, or kidney failure does not cause lymphoma or Kaposi syndrome ....

Karposi syndrome is very specific and only affects drug users who are particularly poppers. But the so-called AIDS do not concern only this syndrome, but lots of non-consuming people but who may have a fall in the immune system, even a transient one. Read the testimonials! The tests done in the street do not do in detail, even with a non-specific questionnaire (therefore anti-medical) and the analysis that is made of it remains that the probability of AIDS is important (revidéo indicated) and successive controls can indicate successive positives and negatives. Who and what to trust?
Yet malnutrition, a dramatic feature of some countries, lowers the rate of CD4 and therefore is classified AIDS-type in reality ID only, but the psychosis and confusion are willingly, or not, maintained between ID and HIV / AIDS. (In addition, surveys have shown that diseases that have traditionally been cataloged for a long time have voluntarily been re-cataloged as only this declared pathology allowed for subsidies, and thus these fake AIDS have increased the statistics. ) But a simple immune decline by malnutrition disappears with good nutrition and hygiene such as drinking water does not cause dysentery for example and therefore again and again the immune system.

Quote:
AZT! Tritherapies! The skull on the bottle is not there to look pretty! Are you sure to follow the course of our discussions?

The first people with the said virus did not take AZT because the latter did not exist, it was put into service at the end of the 80 years, which effectively excluded this substance as responsible for the epidemic.

There was no AIDS epidemic, no recognized virus (except for Montagnier and Gallo), but many syndromes related to the consumption of substances attacking the body and decreasing the immune system, particularly in Gay communities. It is history that must be placed in order. Gallo had not yet invented its Elisa test and only laboratory measurements could determine this immune decline which (given the stroke of each analysis) was beyond the financial reach of the affected individuals. AZT intervenes in 1987 to sell unused old stocks if it does not have a specific medoc to fight against these apparent "epidemics", not affecting healthy individuals.
http://www.sidasante.com/azt/aztindex.htm
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zidovudine
Its defect, considered a quality in this case, was to raise the rate of CD4 and thus to give the appearance of fighting AIDS (partly logical), but with this confusion between AIDS and HIV. (Aspirin intake has the same effect of raising this rate, but without the toxicological risks of AZT). Triple therapy, less aggressive than AZT alone, but still toxic, has decreased cases related only to AZT and thus giving the appearance of reducing AIDS and, in fact, effectively fight against this HIV supposed to be the cause of all. AIDS will disappear at the same time (and not because of) poisons administered to the "sick". Hence the major, essential role of the lifestyle that excludes any aggressive product for the body: " primum no nocere From Hippocrates.

[Exnihiloest]

Anything guys !! Denying the reality of climate change and AIDS is like denying the Holocaust!

Go back to Earth !!!
And watch out for what you're saying forum !!

It would be rather the opposite.
And then the CO2 makes the planet green again. In areas that are difficult for vegetation, a little more or a little less CO2 makes the difference.

Whatever!!!

To deny that plants use CO2 and that a larger percentage of CO2 in the air promotes their growth is denial, and it is unscientific, it would be more like an ecology. poorly controlled.

"The current concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). It has been shown by virtually thousands of experiments that adding another 300 ppm CO2 to the air will dramatically increase the growth or biomass production of almost any plant. This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of two raw materials (the other being water) that are needed for photosynthesis. Thus, CO2 is effectively the "food" that sustains almost all land and sea plants. And the more they "eat" CO2 (absorbed from air or water), the better they grow.".
CO2 is Green

(Which does not mean that changing the level of CO2 will not influence other plant factors, eg the fixation of minerals by the plants that feed us, and positive or negative).

[Exnihiloest]

Option 4): Evidence of anything is not brought.
In other words, nothing can be done about current data and models.

If I summarize, you kick in touch the time to see which model will win?

There is no kick in touch. When a science is not mature, you have to know how to recognize it, that's all.
In physics, the limits are known. Physicists know that they have a problem with dark matter, dark energy, that QM and general relativity are incompatible etc etc ... But with climatologists, none of that. These gentlemen, of unheard-of pretension, make Nostradamus-style predictions over decades, with dubious models that they set up on a small weekly basis, when their "science" is far, even very far, from being sufficiently solid to be relevant. Climatology today is the science of climate, not far from what alchemy was for chemistry.

But how do you say that the IPCC is mistaken?

No need. "What is claimed without proof can be denied without proof." Any evidence presented against their claims is just icing on the cake.

In short, whatever the outcome, the measures of reduction is necessary whatever the case ...

Provided you know which ones.

The IPCC's 5th report shows how natural variations, such as those of the Sun, can explain the temperature variations observed in the past. But since 1950, the observed warming is explainable mainly because of human activities.

http://leclimatchange.fr/questions-reponses/

It was in 2007 that I began to doubt the predictions and skills of the IPCC, following various publications by physicists demonstrating how climatologists make gross errors and are ignorant of thermodynamics. I have since seen that it is not only thermodynamics, but even Newton's laws, that climatologists do not control. As I saw their cheating and manipulations when the IPCC hacked mails were revealed, that the raw data are corrected before processing, and that their work is published without any counter-expertise by independent teams. I now have enough factual elements to no longer consider the IPCC as a scientific body, but a political body, and I no longer give them any credibility.

... the release of gigatonne of methane into the atmosphere in a few years, resulting from the melting of permafrost, can cause a snowball effect causing an extremely sharp increase in temperatures, and this IPCC do not take it enough into consideration ...

"can cause a snowball effect causing an extremely sudden increase in temperatures ...". Pure speculation, especially if even the IPCC does not take it into consideration when it would be the case if there was the slightest breeze on that side blowing in their direction.

[Exnihiloest]

...
Exnihiloest means SES rudimentary knowledge, huh! ...

I advise the reader to read rather Exnihiloest in the text, rather than what Obamot translates. Because between what Exhihilo is saying, and what qu'Obamot understands, tripatouille, wants to say or regurgitated, it became so simplistic and biased that it is embarrassing for the latter.

[sen-no-sen]

No need. "What is claimed without proof can be denied without proof." Any evidence presented against their claims is just icing on the cake.

Inaccurate, climate models are anything other than life after death or the existence of god, used the reversal of the burden of proof as you do here is invalid.

It was in 2007 that I began to doubt the predictions and skills of the IPCC, following various publications by physicists demonstrating how climatologists make gross errors and are ignorant of thermodynamics.

This is a disproportionate charge, the climate is entirely focused on thermodynamics, claiming that climatologists are "buzzards" makes little sense.
In addition you instruct the file only dependent, I could answer you that number of physicists fully validate the thesis of the RCA.
As already stated, there is a broad consensus on the issue.

"can cause a snowball effect causing an extremely sudden increase in temperatures ...". Pure speculation, especially if even the IPCC does not take it into consideration when it would be the case if there was the slightest breeze on that side blowing in their direction.

There is no speculation in it, unless you consider the chemists to be incompetent?

[Obamot]

...
Exnihiloest means SES rudimentary knowledge, huh! ...

I advise the reader to read rather Exnihiloest in the text [..] For between what Exhilohest says, and what Obamot understands,

Instead of playing who has the biggest, just read what others say TES About:

- Inaccurate, [...]
- As you do here is not valid [...]
- You instruct the file only to load [...]
- This is a disproportionate accusation [...]
- unless you consider the chemists to be incompetent? [...]
- There is no speculation in there

you are right in principle, but who establishes, according to what criteria shared by all, such point of view, can be considered as false or inaccurate?
So: what is the false between our two opinions expressed ...

If we can not agree, then everyone is convinced that he is right. In this case everyone has to decide for himself what is wrong or not.

- But that's what you said above [...]

- One can therefore individually estimate that something is wrong only on the condition of demonstrating it and not assuming that .... ! [...]
- where are the corrigendum documents of the persons concerned? Absent! [...]
- establish, according to what criteria [...]
- what is the false between our two opinions expressed, my opinion being only that expressed by scientists of very high level [...]
- there is a gap between being wrong and lying

You still there? It's not just ridicule that does not kill

[Janic]

sen no sen hello
as you seemed astonished that the words HIV and AIDS are contiguous, this is what this site says
https://www.sida-info-service.org/?Kit- ... -infection
What is AIDS?
AIDS (Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome) is due to HIV (The human immunodeficiency virus). When this virus enters the body, it destroys certain cells (CD4s) that coordinate immunity, that is, the body's defenses against germs. When the number of these cells decreases, immunity becomes less effective. Serious diseases, "opportunistic diseases", can then develop. When a person has one or more diseases of this type, they are said to have AIDS.
Learn more
What is HIV-positive?
When one has been infected with HIV, one is HIV positive. The only way to know if you have HIV is to get tested for HIV / AIDS.