HIV/AIDS Denialism

[ImprobableJoe]

Come on guys... we can't let something like facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. Even if it does kill millions of people, what's more important is that ignorant assholes feel superior to modern medical experts. :facepalm:

 

[Giliell]

Come on, guys, even I can fake a better picture!
Where are the horns, scales, talons and stuff?
These look like frog-spawn :lol:

 

[xchillx42]

Don't you see, this is just another form of natural selection. All the retards will eventually die out because they deny cancer and AIDs. Isn't that just dandy?

 

[Giliell]

Don't you see, this is just another form of natural selection. All the retards will eventually die out because they deny cancer and AIDs. Isn't that just dandy?

Well, I'd agree with you if they just hurt themselves.
But that's sadly not the case. Anti-Vaccinationists usually hurt children whom they deny the protection they could easily have and if you watched Concordance's videos on AIDS denialism, you'd see what dangerous influence those murderers had in South Africa.
Therefore, they are dangerous and have to be stopped.

 

[Zetetic]

From that AIDS myth exposed site:

G Man G Man is offline
Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 191
G Man is on a distinguished road
Default Re: HIV antibodies Kills HIV

That's the main problem I have with this so called 'science'. They assume way, way too much. In fact, HIV/AIDS itself has always been just one big fat ASSUMPTION. It's amazing they have gotten away with it for this long, it really is. But now there are so many hands in the AIDS money pot, unfortunately I don't see any change coming anytime soon. Hate to be so pessamistic, but.....

:shock: :? :facepalm:

 

[ManOrAstroman]

(first post, sorry about the formatting)

- Raindance Film Festival Endorse AIDS Denialism Movie -

http://gimpyblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/film-festival-endorse-aids-denialism/

This is pretty bad.

The Raindance film festival has shown an AIDS denialist movie called 'House of Numbers' which Bad Science's Ben Goldacre debunked only last week in the Guardian. The movie is full of misrepresentations and conspiracy theories by all accounts. Apparently, Raindance got quite a lot of complaints from experts and AIDS victims before going ahead anyway.

But if that wasn't bad enough, Raindance have come back fighting. At first they boasted about showing the movie in the face of the experts, which caused a Twitter dispute between sceptics and Raindance. Now they're accusing the critics of being "in the pay of BIG PHARMA" and gloating about "shoving it to the man".

The antics of Raindance organiser Xavier Rashid and especially the creator of Raindance Eliot Grove are outrageous. They deserve more coverage and criticism.

The attached link has more.

 

[Finger]

Guaaah! This is why I hate these film festival types. Notice how Raindance reps say "it's a good pice of film" as their only defense of it? They never even considered its validity. To them, documentaries aren't about telling the truth, they're about telling a compelling story. As long as you have the right arrangement of sound effects, editing tricks, and an anti-corporation message, you'll win awards from these people regardless of how full of shit you are.

Good documentary filmmakers are like journalists. They let their research and investigation guide the final product. This movie belongs in the propaganda category along with Expelled, Loose Change, Bowling for Columbine, and Zeitgeist. The sad thing about all this is that all the controversy is just going to get the movie more attention which is the last thing stupid people need.

Great. Now I'm going to bed angry. :x

 

[jrparri]

Guaaah! ... along with Expelled, Loose Change, Bowling for Columbine, and Zeitgeist.

Bowling was an interesting choice for that list - I would've said "Every Michael Moore flick , minus Bowling for Columbine".

The movie started out as anti-gun, but ended up demonstrating that gun violence is a societal/cultural thing and has nothing whatsoever to do with who owns what kind of gun. It essentially debunked gun control (while at the same time being critical of the NRA). Admittedly, It's been a while since I saw that film so my memory is fuzzy. Am I wrong?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The movie started out as anti-gun, but ended up demonstrating that gun violence is a societal/cultural thing and has nothing whatsoever to do with who owns what kind of gun. It essentially debunked gun control (while at the same time being critical of the NRA). Admittedly, It's been a while since I saw that film so my memory is fuzzy. Am I wrong?

No, you're right... it was an indictment of America's gun culture and right-wing lunacy in relation to it, not an attack on gun ownership.

 

[Finger]

The movie started out as anti-gun, but ended up demonstrating that gun violence is a societal/cultural thing and has nothing whatsoever to do with who owns what kind of gun. It essentially debunked gun control (while at the same time being critical of the NRA). Admittedly, It's been a while since I saw that film so my memory is fuzzy. Am I wrong?

Yes you are. Moor staged several major scenes in the movie and falsely represented them as "vérité". One major scene was the one at the beginning where he gets a rifle at the bank for opening an account. In reality, all he did at the bank was pick a rifle, then he had to go through all the proper channels (waiting period, ect.) before finally picking it up at a licensed gun shop. But for the movie, he made it look like he chose and received his rifle on the same day and at the bank itself. He was deliberately misleading his audience. Another deceptive tactic was how Moor blatantly edited his interview with and other speeches by Charlton Heston in another deliberate attempt to distort actual events by making Heston appear to say things he actually didn't. Moor was even deceitful in his representation of the NRA's history (implying that it was founded by the KKK when it was actually founded by two Union Soldiers in the 1870s and had several founding members who were former slaves.) If you want a lesson on propaganda, all you have to do is watch Bowling for Columbine. That it would win an Oscar for best documentary is an insult to real documentary filmmakers everywhere (that's why I singled it out in my list as opposed to his other movies.)

Regardless of whether or not his conclusions about "gun culture" were correct, Moor still had to rely on deception and misinformation tactics in order to get his politically charged message across. That is the definition of propaganda. Forgiving these things for the sake of a political ideology is exactly the type of moral compromise that allows propaganda like House of Cards to be called "a good piece of film" by the Raindance film festival. I will not stand for it.

 

[ManOrAstroman]

What baffles me is that the Raindance film festival people, Xavier Rashid and Eliot Grove, took their endorsement of the movie beyond that of simply aesthetic appreciation.

During the Twitter dispute, a representative of Raindance mocked complaints by one sceptic against the movie with the response:

the big US Drug companies love U

Another Raindance reply cited a website by a far-right ex US cop (who was fired for violent conduct) to defend their stance on AIDS denialism.

AIDS denialism is pernicious meddling that has cost the lives of thousands. If Xavier Rashid was on camera defending Holocaust denying propaganda in the service of Raindance, he'd have been hounded out of town. The only difference between Holocaust denial and this is that his endorsement of this garbage will cost lives in the future. But those lives lost will be in Africa, not in his privileged London clique.

This blog post further decribes the falsehoods propagated by the movie:

http://denyingaids.blogspot.com/2009/10/moron-aids-denialist-film-house-of.html