Lifestyle

TOPICS:

12/21/04

NEWS: The Poet Laureate from Muskogee

12/21/04

NEWS: Experimental HIV Drugs Tested on Kids in NYC [3]

12/21/04

urban myth: hand in water=pee

12/21/04

NEWS: Japanese Princess Dies

12/21/04

NEWS: Annie Sprinkle, Sex Educator, Weds

12/21/04

12/21/04

NEWS: Publishers Can Access Iran, Cuba, and Sudan

12/21/04

What kind of monster would you be? [6]

12/21/04

Local teen barred from graveyard

12/21/04

A very shitty day! [2]

12/21/04

Hot Cocoa and Marshmallow Fluff

12/21/04

Woo-Hoo....It's SNOWING!!!!! [3]

12/21/04

"Academic dishonesty" [4]

12/21/04

Check out my new shirt ;)

12/21/04

NEWS: Even Crappy Condoms Hold 18 Liters [2]

12/21/04

Love is in the Heir

12/20/04

Coffee (and how to make a good cup) [3]

12/20/04

I noticed a lot of people want iPods [2]

12/20/04

Daniel Robert Epstein: Control Room director Jehane Noujaim

12/20/04

Georgia bans genital piercings for women [2]

12/20/04

Cheap Christmas gifts that don't suck. [2]

12/20/04

NEWS: McFarlane Pays Piper [2]

12/20/04

"Secret Santa" in the workplace.

ChrisHorrorShow

12/20/04

Blade 3. CRAPTASTIC! [2]

12/20/04

12/20/04

Man, I think I love you, Jessi Klein...

12/20/04

SALSA CRUD KICK JOE

12/20/04

NEWS: Finally, We Can Tell the Strippers from the Patrons

doghouse_reilly

12/20/04

Anyone got a recipe?

12/20/04

Lindsay steals picture!

12/20/04

NEWS: Octopus Attack on McDonalds! [2]

12/20/04

12/20/04

NEWS: Anne Frank House to Become Writer's Residence

12/20/04

smoking "is sinful"

12/20/04

12/20/04

12/20/04

NEWS: Read a book, get a blowjob [3]

12/20/04

12/20/04

NEWS: Dukes of Hazzard Return [2]

12/20/04

PAGE:

1 ...

436 | 437 | 438

... 944

retweet

NEWS: Experimental HIV Drugs Tested on Kids in NYC

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3

WilliamIV

I'm lost

January 2004

DEC 19, 2004 04:26 PM

Hey go eat some healthy food instead of whatever it is that you are ingesting
Then maybe you might not be so hostile, or perhaps its just affectation that is considered fashionable to be "an angry young man"

aj said:

WilliamIV said:
You set yourself up as the ultimate authority to order me what and what not to post. Perhaps you have delusions of grandeur Thats what I mean by editing I should have send wannabe editor and censor. So you believe every undocumented unsubstanciated blog you read but say the BBC is completely false.

Look, you can post whatever you want. If you have some serious mental block about other people pointing out your obvious and gratuitous logical fallacies, maybe you shouldn't post anything. I find it hilarious that you play the aggrieved party when this started out with you taking potshots at me for expressing some healthy skepticism at an overblown story. Maybe you should go back to the AOL chatrooms.

By the way its rude to complain about net misspelling, it makes you look like an old maid librarian.

I'm applying for library science programs right now, so thanks.

sfmoe

Chicago, IL

September 2004

DEC 19, 2004 10:30 PM

peleus said:

sfmoe said:
if you are trully interested in this story you should also read this ... http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com/2004_12_01_respectfulofotters_archive.html#110210791125514246

Nice research sfmoe. This answers most of my questions.

my pleasure ... dissinformation sucks

sfmoe

Chicago, IL

September 2004

DEC 19, 2004 10:32 PM

demetrius_z said:

WilliamIV said:
I always wonder when a storoy like this comes out why some people immediately start to do damage control by denying it without any proof that the storyis false.

It named a Dr and a Lawyer you could get their number from information and call them if you have doubts.

Indeed. This was a report for a BBC television programme. The link above has a link where people can contact the programme makers to ask questions.

you should read this
http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com/2004_12_01_respectfulofotters_archive.html#110210791125514246

adjunct

Philadelphia, PA

July 2002

DEC 20, 2004 12:42 AM

WilliamIV said:
Hey go eat some healthy food instead of whatever it is that you are ingesting
Then maybe you might not be so hostile, or perhaps its just affectation that is considered fashionable to be "an angry young man"

Vegan, thanks.

Let me retrace this: I posted my honest doubts, you turned around and painted me as the voice of damage control for some likely none too savory characters. I don't take kindly to that.

WilliamIV

I'm lost

January 2004

DEC 20, 2004 07:45 AM

Guess you are just going to have to learn to live with it.

aj said:

WilliamIV said:
Hey go eat some healthy food instead of whatever it is that you are ingesting
Then maybe you might not be so hostile, or perhaps its just affectation that is considered fashionable to be "an angry young man"

Vegan, thanks.

Let me retrace this: I posted my honest doubts, you turned around and painted me as the voice of damage control for some likely none too savory characters. I don't take kindly to that.

adjunct

Philadelphia, PA

July 2002

DEC 20, 2004 10:21 AM

I'd rather be an offended skeptic than being the water boy for AIDS deniers. You're welcome to it, though.

WilliamIV

I'm lost

January 2004

DEC 20, 2004 11:03 AM

Chill out dude

aj said:
I'd rather be an offended skeptic than being the water boy for AIDS deniers. You're welcome to it, though.

PointBlank

New York, NY

November 2004

DEC 20, 2004 11:14 AM

Here's the deal:
The part of the story that was true: AIDS drugs WERE tested on kids, without their parents approval.

The Part that is Misleading:Whether or not these drugs are "extremely dangerous" or not. The Dr quoted in the article is an HIV denier...this should have been mentioned. He believes that these drugs are ALL dangerous.

This is an OLD STORY....the US health department launched an investigation back in February. Maybe instead of flinging around insults some of you could do a little bit of research.

[Edited on Dec 20, 2004 by Point_Blank]

Hussein

I'm lost

March 2004

DEC 20, 2004 12:20 PM

edit: sorry, i read the link above more carefully . . .

still lots of b.s. in this story, however.

[Edited on Dec 20, 2004 by in_a_blue_state]

adjunct

Philadelphia, PA

July 2002

DEC 20, 2004 12:36 PM

Point_Blank said:
Here's the deal:
The part of the story that was true: AIDS drugs WERE tested on kids, without their parents approval.

But these kids were wards of the state (assumedly some have no living parents). Legally, the parents, if there were any living, are no longer the guardians, and don't get the right to consent to the drug trials.

Really, it truly does suck that some of these kids ended up getting more sick from these treatments, but considering that most already did have HIV/AIDS, and the drugs potentially could improve their symptoms and perhaps prolong their lives, it's not a large leap to see why people were willing to take the risk. It's not an uninformed gamble, but instead is roughly in the same area as people who try to beat cancer with chemotherapy- they run the risk of dying, and will probably get quite ill before getting better, but also have the chance of recovering and extending their lives.

Wannie

Kingston, ON

March 2004

DEC 20, 2004 12:45 PM

Yes, it does seem to me that the issue here is an ethical one: should the state be allowed to order trials on children. I could go on, but it seems that most of the true facts have been plucked and the garbage has been tossed.

It is quite refreshing to see people actually researching stories instead of just believing what they are fed. On the same note however, just because major news companies (espcially in the US?) do not print/air a story does not make it bogus. The American voter lives on disinformation which is controlled at a higher source. Check out the documentary "Outfoxed", some of the memos from Rupert Murdoch are chilling.
For example, has anyone noted the major amounts of proof that Bush stole this election? What, it's not on the major news networks? That's odd....

P.S. I hate to get involved, but I'm going to have to award the argument to aj, kept his cool and his wit.

WilliamIV

I'm lost

January 2004

DEC 21, 2004 08:03 AM

Accusing me of being the "water boy for
aids deniers is not keeoping your cool or showing wit.

Wannie said:
Yes, it does seem to me that the issue here is an ethical one: should the state be allowed to order trials on children. I could go on, but it seems that most of the true facts have been plucked and the garbage has been tossed.

It is quite refreshing to see people actually researching stories instead of just believing what they are fed. On the same note however, just because major news companies (espcially in the US?) do not print/air a story does not make it bogus. The American voter lives on disinformation which is controlled at a higher source. Check out the documentary "Outfoxed", some of the memos from Rupert Murdoch are chilling.
For example, has anyone noted the major amounts of proof that Bush stole this election? What, it's not on the major news networks? That's odd....

P.S. I hate to get involved, but I'm going to have to award the argument to aj, kept his cool and his wit.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3