cfi means cowardly fatuous ignorance regarding failed HIV theory

This letter of inquiry has been sent to every available representative and contact email for the center for inquiry.
None have responded.
Just stating facts and irrefutable truths.
To the supposed free-thinkers
I am Proud to celebrate blasphemy
Speaking of blasphemy and challenging dogmatic belief I can’t help but challenge cfi on their blind faith and support of the unproven and failed HIV theory.
Considering that HIV has been declared to no longer be a serious transmissible threat, why is preventative medicinal treatment encouraged for mere risk of exposure in certain populations?
Considering that instead of doubling annually and “exploding” into the heterosexual population as predicted, HIV has only grown from an estimated one-million to an estimated one-million, one hundred seventy five thousand while causing less than seven hundred thousand u.s. deaths in thirty years and still remains restricted primarily to gay men and drug users how is it an “epidemic”?
Considering that instead of being decimated by loss the population of Africa has more than doubled in the thirty years since its predicted demise despite unending famine, drought, endemic disease and genocidal conflict compounded by lack of sanitation or basic healthcare needs, how do they claim the virus is killing Africans?
Considering that no HIV test is required in Africa and AIDS is diagnosed often post death based on symptoms, how do they prove causation?
Considering failure of every pre-requisite, prediction, threat and promise made with and since the 1984 proposed but still unproven theory of HIV as epidemic AIDS causation why does anyone still believe it?
In order to believe and support something as a skeptic you need be able to provide scientific, testable, verifiable, repeatable proof of validity.
I hereby challenge the falsely named center for inquiry to provide backing for their faith in HIV dogma.
When, where, how and by whom was it officially demonstrated and declared proven that a viral agent named HIV is capable and sufficient to cause epidemic immune failure?
For that matter when, where, how and by whom was HIV isolated, purified and proven to exist?
Until someone at the “center for inquiry” is able to answer these questions your acceptance and support of the HIV theory demonstrates your organization to be founded on lies, cowardice, ignorance and hypocrisy.
You are therefor complicit in the deaths caused by toxic treatments for a phantom threat.
Defend your faith.
Expecting no-one there is brave, intelligent or informed enough to be able to respond, i remain sickened by your cowardly, fatuous ignorance.
Perhaps that is what cfi truly means.
cowardly, fatuous ignorance
Sincerely
Brother Strawberry
p.s. Did you see the December 2015 declaration that HIV is evolving into a virtually harmless, non-transmissible agent?
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30254697
How could it become any more harmless?
It has never been demonstrated to cause harm.
It has never been proven to exist.
Why do you believe the lie?
What proof do you have as support?
So it goes…

We’re not allow to write about it.
pssst.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UQK-UcRezE&spfreload=10

Uhm, CC, you kinda ruined it, I mean, it’s as though you answered “nobody” to a knocker asking who is home. You have forgotten the first rule of a secret program is to not even acknowledge that you are keeping a secret.
The brother is, after all, doing a service to humanity with his happy juice, which is a tonic for the modern seoul…
https://modernseoul.org/2016/03/08/strawberry-brother-soda-limited-edition/

:down: My bad :-/
Sometimes I’m just too trigger happy. :shut:

The brother is, after all, doing a service to humanity with his happy juice, which is a tonic for the modern seoul... https://modernseoul.org/2016/03/08/strawberry-brother-soda-limited-edition/
Well hot damn, why didn't he just say so. Although he's miscategorized it. Should probably be posted on the bestes medicine board.

How sad and pathetic yet unsurprising that “sr. members” at this granfalloon of arrogant ignorance are unable to respond to or even acknowledge any of the irrefutable facts and statements in my post but instead only resort to juvenile mockery of the name given me by legendary free-thinking humanist and atheist Kurt Vonnegut the first time he wrote to me. He was referencing the time a few months earlier when, as we were leaving the front door of his Manhattan brownstone he introduced me to a woman just arriving as “My long lost brother.”
How dare you?
My post suggested no conspiracy or secret programs.
That attempted deflection only further confirms your ignorant inability to respond intelligently.
Yet you claim to seek and demand reason, logic and scientific fact.
I provide irrefutable facts backed by thirty years of research, science and logic.
You respond by mocking my name.
How absolutely pathetic you are!!
How dare you claim to be a mature, reasonable, intelligent, free-thinking skeptic.
Your behavior demonstrates not only your lack of character but your intellectual insignificance as well.
Just as their silence when asked to defend blind, dogmatic faith in failed theory demonstrate all at this organization and website to be arrogantly bloated by cowardly fatuous ignorance.
Vile, shameful, sad, disgusting and pathetic.
In Fact!!

How sad and pathetic yet unsurprising that "sr. members" at this granfalloon of arrogant ignorance are unable to respond to or even acknowledge any of the irrefutable facts and statements in my post but instead only resort to juvenile mockery of the name given me by legendary free-thinking humanist and atheist Kurt Vonnegut the first time he wrote to me. He was referencing the time a few months earlier when, as we were leaving the front door of his Manhattan brownstone he introduced me to a woman just arriving as "My long lost brother." How dare you? My post suggested no conspiracy or secret programs. That attempted deflection only further confirms your ignorant inability to respond intelligently. Yet you claim to seek and demand reason, logic and scientific fact. I provide irrefutable facts backed by thirty years of research, science and logic. You respond by mocking my name. How absolutely pathetic you are!! How dare you claim to be a mature, reasonable, intelligent, free-thinking skeptic. Your behavior demonstrates not only your lack of character but your intellectual insignificance as well. Just as their silence when asked to defend blind, dogmatic faith in failed theory demonstrate all at this organization and website to be arrogantly bloated by cowardly fatuous ignorance. Vile, shameful, sad, disgusting and pathetic. In Fact!!
Sorry BS, but posting that consist of little more than stringing together abusive epithets is against the rules of this Forum. If you have points to make, they can be made calmly and without rancor. Continued rule violation may lead to banning.

Doug
Do you really mean to suggest that my calling out “sr. members” for their juvenile behavior of mocking my name while being unable to refute or respond to my statement of fact is worse than their behavior?
Is their behavior truly considered more acceptable, respectable and intelligent than the facts of my post?
Is their behavior the representation you are proud to have as “sr. members”?
Why can’t they, you or anyone else here respond intelligently to my inquiry?
Isn’t that why this place exists?
Isn’t that why you are here?

Doug Do you really mean to suggest that my calling out "sr. members" for their juvenile behavior of mocking my name while being unable to refute or respond to my statement of fact is worse than their behavior? Is their behavior truly considered more acceptable, respectable and intelligent than the facts of my post? Is their behavior the representation you are proud to have as "sr. members"? Why can't they, you or anyone else here respond intelligently to my inquiry? Isn't that why this place exists? Isn't that why you are here?
Again, if you have a point to make, it can be made plainly and calmly, without abuse, unlike the title and your first posts on this Forum.

Again Administrator Sir
My points of fact were made in my original post.
The title of my original post stems from the fact that though claiming to demand fact, reason, logic, science and skeptical inquiry this organization is unable to provide verification or proof for their dogmatic adherence to a theory that my presentation of irrefutable fact demonstrates as a failure.
All I am asking for is proof of your belief.
When, where, how and by whom was a viral agent now termed HIV demonstrated as capable and sufficient to cause immune failure epidemic?
Then perhaps you could explain why it hasn’t done so.
Civil enough for you?
By the way, why do you not scold “sr. members” for behavior more fitting the fan site of a pop star?
Why do you not answer my inquiries?

With utmost sincerity and all due respect for the administrator, my exasperation with the immature antics of “sr. members” mocking my name while being unable to refute or even acknowledge the irrefutable Truth of my original post is doubtlessly exaggerated by my frustration with the fact that nobody at the organization has offered response to my inquiry.
They actually scolded me for calling the listed phone number with my inquiry.
It is like trying to argue with a creationist. They have no proof other than blind faith in what they have been taught.
Science, logic, fact and history are on my side.
As is Truth.
Why aren’t the skeptics at cfi even willing to consider questioning a theory that has failed every prerequisite, prediction, threat and promise made with and since 1984 proposal?

Speaking of blasphemy and challenging dogmatic belief I can't help but challenge cfi on their blind faith and support of the unproven and failed HIV theory.
And it's not like you improved any after that. Want me to take you serious, take your subject seriously first >:(

Are you able to respond to or refute any of the facts stated?
Are you able to provide any more evidence in support of the HIV theory than believers are able to provide as proof of their god
How can you expect to be taken seriously when all you offer is mockery and presumption?
Please respond to the facts I presented and if you are so confident in your knowledge then offer proof.
I did.

How dare you?
How dare you present such a half baked rant and expect it to be taken seriously? :smirk:
My post suggested no conspiracy or secret programs.
I didn't say it did. Did I?
That attempted deflection only further confirms your ignorant inability to respond intelligently.
What's that got to do with you expecting your irrational rant to be taken seriously by rational people?
Yet you claim to seek and demand reason, logic and scientific fact. I provide irrefutable facts backed by thirty years of research, science and logic.
That's why I can be light hearted about your "challenge." You provided nothing but a lot of extreme machinations - there was no evidence presented. But you think your opinion should be treated as irrefutable facts, when it presents nothing constructive to do anything with. The only thing that comes through your opening volley and subsequent serves, is that you are very pissed off at the system and that you don't believe a thing they tell us. I suspect if I took the time to look up serious information from the CDC, or WHO, you'd dismiss them as a much of quacks. If I am wrong in that assumption please correct me.
You respond by mocking my name. How absolutely pathetic you are!! How dare you claim to be a mature, reasonable, intelligent, free-thinking skeptic. Your behavior demonstrates not only your lack of character but your intellectual insignificance as well.
Don't take yourself so damned seriously, I was having a little fun at your expense. But, you're the one who set me up.
Just as their silence when asked to defend blind, dogmatic faith in failed theory demonstrate all at this organization and website to be arrogantly bloated by cowardly fatuous ignorance. Vile, shameful, sad, disgusting and pathetic.
Their silence might be an indication of how seriously they take this conversation.
In Fact!!
Is that a FACT!! - prove it :cheese:
p.s. Did you see the December 2015 declaration that HIV is evolving into a virtually harmless, non-transmissible agent? http://www.bbc.com/news/health-30254697 How could it become any more harmless? It has never been demonstrated to cause harm. It has never been proven to exist. Why do you believe the lie? What proof do you have as support?
Why would you ask a lay-person to come up with proof? Don't you appreciate how incredibly complex all of this is? I, you, we, have no choice but to listen to and trust the community of experts - after all that community is alive with skepticism, arguments, strong personalities who want to make their careers by discovering something that no one else suspected, etc. A lively community of experts is the best we can do when it comes to understanding extremely complex things. I don't need proof, because I trust the experts, even though they makes mistakes. I know that they learn from mistakes. Please don't forget how well "they" have contained some potential pandemics these past few years* - jezz I don't need more proof than that, to understand why they can be trusted. *or is all that a hoax? Brother Strawberry, what's your justification for implying all of that work can be dismissed with a rant? PLEASE CAN YOU ANSWER THAT? You make an lot of extreme claims you believe to be "irrefutable" proof. Why do you think you're opinion is irrefutable proof? What have you learned about all this? What do you know? You have taken great offense at being joked at. Answer wisely and you can vindicate yourself. What have you learned about HIV? What proofs have you assembled to support YOUR claims?
Are you able to respond to or refute any of the facts stated?
I'm not a doctor, but I do pay attention to the news. I don't remember ever hearing anything about this "fact" of yours. "Considering that HIV has been declared to no longer be a serious transmissible threat, why is preventative medicinal treatment encouraged for mere risk of exposure in certain populations?" When was that declaration made? Who made it? That's the point that I quit taking you seriously. So, if you can respond to that, with evidence, I'll respond to something else you say. And where did you get those numbers?]

How dare you call yourself a skeptic?
Or even a thinker?
Won’t bother quoting and replying to your admittance of not needing proof and blindly accepting what you are told by the appointed experts. Any sane thinking, semi-intelligent individual would recognize your words as loyal subservience comparable to religious fanatics.
I will however address your admittance to being unwilling or just too lazy to research confirmation of your insistence that my claims are merely opinion.
Had you bothered to actually perform one iota of the extensive research study I have for the last thirty years you might have recognized that the irrefutable facts you dismiss as “opinion” were gathered from the CDC website, science and medical journals, the Morbidity and Mortality weekly report, the u.s. census and statistical abstract as well as the world health organization. My knowledge of fact is gleaned from studying the work and reports of PHDs, specialists and Nobel Prize winning researchers in related fields.
Had you bothered to research any of my statements you dismiss as “opinion” it would have been confirmed as Truth.
Instead you hide behind the arrogant ignorance-or is it simply ignorant arrogance-of your opinion that what you are told by the “experts” you so blindly trust is unquestionable.
How dare you call yourself a skeptic?
Or even a thinker?
You admit to blindly accepting what you are told to be true while rejecting irrefutable fact demonstrating failure of what you are being told to be true. All the while admitting you cannot be bothered to do your own research.
That defines willful ignorance.
You may as well be zealously proselytizing for a god.
I know what I know to be true and not merely opinion thanks to thirty years of obsessive study. All the while watching countless friends, heroes and loved ones struggle and die taking prescribed treatment to fight a phantom virus never demonstrated or proven to cause harm or death.
It is fact that since the 1985 Bangui definition of AIDS in Africa no HIV test is required for diagnosis of AIDS.
It is a fact that by CDC definition once a person has tested HIV positive, no matter how they die and even if treatment has made viral load “undetectable” their death is declared due to HIV/AIDS.
It is a fact that despite such broad definition this “epidemic” has taken less than seven-hundred thousand u.s. lives in thirty years. That number was taken from the official September 2015 update to the CDC AIDS information website. For some reason the latest update has deleted that bit of statistical fact. They do however still admit that in thirty years the original estimate of one-million infected Americans has only grown to 1.2 million. In thirty years.
Of course that is only an estimate. And that is all they have.
Had you bothered to research any of my facts you dismiss as “opinion” you might have learned something.
Instead of simply accepting what you are told to be true by those you blindly trust.
Who am I to make such assertion of fact you challenge?
I am someone who has studied and researched the issue for thirty years.
Why are so many of the AIDS defining diseases not reliant on immune suppression or HIV infection?
What ever happened to the high rate of Kaposi’s sarcoma, once a most common market for infection?
Fact: Kaposi’s sarcoma is a benign blood lesion proven caused by a herpes virus.
Another fact…One of histories most famous AIDS cases was a young hemophiliac named Ryan White. Supposed proof of transmission through tainted blood, Ryan was famously expelled from school due to the potential threat posed other students by his infection. Ryan was on high dosage of AZT and other experimental treatment. One side effect of such chemo therapeutic treatment is ulceration on internal organs. It might be presumed that such chemically induced ulcers on the internal organs of a hemophiliac might be bleeding ulcers. The stated cause of death on Ryan’s death certificate is unstoppable internal bleeding. Though not a sign of immune suppression such internal bleeding is the most common cause of death for hemophiliacs. Even those not on chemotherapy.
Once demonized as a potential “patient zero”, Gaetan Dugas-the infamously highly promiscuous air steward initially theorized responsible for the introduction and coast to coast dissemination of this new killer virus into the u.s. died not of an immune suppressive disorder or even an AIDS defining disease but of liver failure. Typical for a hard drinking, drug using, highly promiscuous individual.
I could go on and on…
But who am i to make such assertion?
I am a man who is alive today because dissent to the unproven HIV theory emboldened me to reject 1987 clinic recommendation to immediately begin AZT treatment. The first friend I would lose to this syndrome died less than two years later. He had secretly been taking AZT to fight the HIV positive diagnosis kept secret.
The British/French Concorde trials of AZT would soon demonstrate the drug not only “ineffective” at delaying progression of disease but actually guilty of hastening death in patients taking the drug.
AZT is still in use today.
If you can find anyone who began AZT in 1987 and is still alive today we can compare quality of life.
Why do you believe in HIV?

I don't remember ever hearing anything about this "fact" of yours. "Considering that HIV has been declared to no longer be a serious transmissible threat, why is preventative medicinal treatment encouraged for mere risk of exposure in certain populations?" When was that declaration made? Who made it?
HIV/AIDS dissidents have been active on the internet for many years, and they have an extensive collection of memes and argumentoids that they repeat over and over and which have been repeatedly debunked. When this happens, they look for new websites to proclaim their beliefs, and recycle the same claims looking for new audiences who haven't heard them before. It seems like Brother Strawberry has been trying to start such a discussion here, without much success. The "HIV has been declared to no longer be a serious transmissible threat" meme derives from a ruling by the US Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in early 2010 removing HIV/AIDS from the list of communicable diseases that prevent a visitor from entering the United States. Prior to that time the US was one of a very small number of countries such as Saudi Arabia, North Korea and Iran that refused entry to HIV positive visitors. The law dated back to the 1980s, and was considered deeply discriminatory by human rights and HIV activists, and its removal was long overdue. There was also a particular urgency to its removal, as the 2012 International AIDS Conference was due to be held in Washington DC, and faced a boycott if the law remained in place. The change in the law recognised that "is not a communicable disease that is a significant public health risk for introduction, transmission, and spread to the U.S. population through casual contact.. As a result of this final rule, aliens will no longer be inadmissible into the United States based solely on the ground they are infected with HIV, and they will not be required to undergo HIV testing as part of the required medical examination for U.S. immigration." (My emphasis) https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-11-02/pdf/E9-26337.pdf Brother Strawberry includes a barrage of such long-debunked dissident arguments in his screed, including the claim that HIV prevalence in the US has been steady at around a million since the mid 1980s (it hasn't) and the argument that the African population is growing despite the HIV epidemic, which supposedly disproves the claimed HIV/AIDS deaths there. These are also relatively easy to debunk. Firstly, HIV prevalence in the US has not been flat over the course of the epidemic]. It rose steeply in the 1980s, flattened out in the first half of the 1990s as the annual number of deaths approximated the number of new infections, and then has been rising since the mid 1990s when the introduction of effective antiretroviral treatment resulted in a dramatic fall in deaths. Secondly, it is true that Africa's population is increasing, but it is also true that there is significant mortality from HIV/AIDS on that continent. In rough figures, the current population of subsaharan Africa is about a billion, of whom about 25 million have HIV. There are around 1.1 million HIV/AIDS deaths annually, down from 1.8 million in the mid 2000s prior to the widespread rollout of antiretroviral treatments. There are also around 11 million deaths from causes other than HIV/AIDS (total deaths 12 million) but there are also 35 million births annually for a net annual increase of about 23 million, or 2.3 per cent. Anyway, hope this helps.

BS, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that “senior member” means a member who is somehow superior to junior members. A member becomes a senior member when he has posted a particular number of times. That’s ALL it means. The posts can be rational or irrational, it’s only the number that counts. So you’re in luck. Your posts can contimue to be as irrational as they have been so far and they will STILL count toward the total number you need to be a senior member. Pretty neat,huh? So keep on posting your inane, whining posts and before you know it, you’ll be a senior member, too, with all the perks a senior member gets. Then when a new member arrives who is designated a junior member you can gloat, especially if the junior member whines about not being a senior member. You, too, will be a senior member, you can pretend senior member means you’re a superior member and you can be even more annoying than you are now as a junior member.

Oh, what the heck. I’ll have a go at answering Brother Strawberry’s latest. I’ll ignore the rude and abusive rhetoric, and try to focus on the positive “factual” claims he makes.

It is fact that since the 1985 Bangui definition of AIDS in Africa no HIV test is required for diagnosis of AIDS.
No, that is not a fact. The 1985 Bangui definition was an epidemiological surveillance case definition] used to try to estimate numbers of AIDS cases in some developing countries where HIV testing was not available at that time, and where even basic testing for the opportunistic diseases was unfeasible. It was never used to guide an individual's clinical care or treatment, and has not been used even for its original public health statistical purpose for many years.
It is a fact that by CDC definition once a person has tested HIV positive, no matter how they die and even if treatment has made viral load "undetectable" their death is declared due to HIV/AIDS.
No it is not. There are two different types of HIV/AIDS death statistics. The first is Deaths due to HIV/AIDS. These are collated from death certificates. When a doctor certifies a death she lists the causes of that death. If the death certificate states that HIV/AIDS was one of the causes of the person's demise, then it is counted as a Death due to HIV/AIDS. The second type of death statistic is Deaths Among People with AIDS. In some countries such as the US AIDS is a notifiable disease - whenever doctors diagnose a case they notify the state health department who in turn provide statistics to the CDC. The main reason is so health authorities know how many cases are living where, to help with planning for services. When someone who has previously been notified as an AIDS case dies then this death is also notified, regardless of whether the cause of death was HIV/AIDS related. The purpose of this is to keep the statistics for people living with AIDS up to date. Deaths due to HIV/AIDS and Deaths among people with AIDS are not necessarily the same thing. Some people die from HIV/AIDS without ever getting an AIDS-defining condition. And some people die some time after receiving an AIDS diagnosis but from causes unrelated to HIV/AIDS.
It is a fact that despite such broad definition this "epidemic" has taken less than seven-hundred thousand u.s. lives in thirty years. That number was taken from the official September 2015 update to the CDC AIDS information website. For some reason the latest update has deleted that bit of statistical fact.
700,000 deaths seems quite a lot to me. A number of them were my friends who died tragically young, so perhaps I am taking it personally. Fortunately, with antiretroviral treatment the death rate has fallen sharply since the 1980s and 1990s. I'm not sure what your point is.
Fact: Kaposi's sarcoma is a benign blood lesion proven caused by a herpes virus.
No, it is not a "benign blood lesion". While it's true that the necessary cause of KS is HHV8 (Kaposi's Sarcoma associated herpesvirus]) it's in fact a malignant inflammatory cancer] of vascular and lymphatic endothelium. As with many types of cancer it can take a relatively indolent course or it can be fulminant and fatal. In people with severe cell-mediated immune suppression (as in advanced untreated HIV/AIDS) it is often deadly.
Another fact...One of histories most famous AIDS cases was a young hemophiliac named Ryan White. Supposed proof of transmission through tainted blood, Ryan was famously expelled from school due to the potential threat posed other students by his infection. Ryan was on high dosage of AZT and other experimental treatment. One side effect of such chemo therapeutic treatment is ulceration on internal organs. It might be presumed that such chemically induced ulcers on the internal organs of a hemophiliac might be bleeding ulcers. The stated cause of death on Ryan's death certificate is unstoppable internal bleeding. Though not a sign of immune suppression such internal bleeding is the most common cause of death for hemophiliacs. Even those not on chemotherapy.
Ryan White was diagnosed with AIDSat the age of 12 in 1984 when he developed PCP. At that time, the median survival without treatment following a diagnosis of AIDS was 11 months. With the treatment available at the time he lived another six years. I challenge your claim that the "stated cause of death on Ryan's death certificate is unstoppable internal bleeding", and I would like to know your source for this. Without that, your speculation that this supposed internal bleeding was caused by AZT or other antiretroviral therapy is moot. According to press reports], Ryan's terminal illness was in fact another respiratory infection.
Once demonized as a potential "patient zero", Gaetan Dugas-the infamously highly promiscuous air steward initially theorized responsible for the introduction and coast to coast dissemination of this new killer virus into the u.s. died not of an immune suppressive disorder or even an AIDS defining disease but of liver failure. Typical for a hard drinking, drug using, highly promiscuous individual.
Again, I have no idea where you got the idea Dugas died of liver failure, and without evidence for this your speculations about its possible causes are moot. He was diagnosed with Kaposi's Sarcoma in 1980, and over the following years suffered multiple bouts of PCP, as was typical among people with advanced AIDS at that time.] Randy Shilts attributed his terminal illness in 1984 to kidney failure, not liver failure. End stage HIV kidney disease ]was quite common in advanced HIV/AIDS in the pre-antiretroviral era. If you would like to discuss any of your other "factual" claims I would be happy to, but please tone down the belligerence a tad. Also it helps to deal with one claim at a time, rather than trying to keep up with a Gish Gallop] of nonsense.