| Mercuryking 29.05.2011 19:15 |
He may not even have had aids at all , they diagnose him saying he had the aids virus then giving him the fatal drug called AZT look it up for yourselves. I think those fuckers killed freddie on purpose. Look up AZT on youtube. link |
| brian may 50463 29.05.2011 19:41 |
Oh dear. The cat's out of the bag now. We must seek and destroy you. |
| Thrill Yeti 30.05.2011 07:03 |
How about we inject some of these conspiracy theorists with the HIV virus and don't give them any medication. They should be fine with it considering how it doesn't cause AIDS. |
| The Real Wizard 30.05.2011 09:43 |
Owned. |
| john bodega 30.05.2011 14:34 |
Actually, Amir ... the reason Freddie died was because he stopped taking the medication about a fortnight before his death. Are you sure that it wasn't Larry Silverstein who decided to 'pull it' from Freddie's medicine cabinet? |
| jamster1111 30.05.2011 17:18 |
Zebonka12 wrote: Actually, Amir ... the reason Freddie died was because he stopped taking the medication about a fortnight before his death. Are you sure that it wasn't Larry Silverstein who decided to 'pull it' from Freddie's medicine cabinet? Freddie didn't die...He just went home. |
| Mercuryking 30.05.2011 17:38 |
OR was it just 4 years on this socalled "medication" that killed him? He stopped taking it like 2-3 weeks before he died if im correct. He stopped taking the damn shitty so called medicin cause IT didnt help, and i will go so far as to say that IT was the sole reason to his death. I dont believe he had aids if there really is such a thing as aids. He got "diagnosed" with it and told to take the drugs inorder to stop "it" from killing him , not knowing that the drug he was taking actually was the disease. We trust in our doctors that much so that we take everything they say as fact. They killed him. They could not continue their plan with such a great loving and powerful humanbeing like mercury still being alive. Trust me , music would not look like it is today had mercury still been here. |
| drmurph 30.05.2011 17:56 |
Hmmm, interesting sites in your link. Up to the point I followed the link I had no idea there was dispute over the HIV virus. It will take some time to read the information properly. Guess I should read up on the facts before making a judgement. |
| brians wig 30.05.2011 18:05 |
Thrill Yeti wrote: How about we inject some of these conspiracy theorists with the HIV virus and don't give them any medication. They should be fine with it considering how it doesn't cause AIDS. =========================================== That would be a great idea except for the FACT that they've NEVER FOUND the virus! |
| Mercuryking 30.05.2011 18:09 |
drmurph wrote: Hmmm, interesting sites in your link. Up to the point I followed the link I had no idea there was dispute over the HIV virus. It will take some time to read the information properly. Guess I should read up on the facts before making a judgement. ____________________________________________________________________________ The smartest reply so far. Not saying you believe in it but you would at least be open to the idea, that goes way beyond the rest of the sheeple here at queenzone. Like being open minded to things and not just calling someone a looney. People are so ignorant and just buy everything the world says to them. |
| Jimmy Dean 30.05.2011 21:11 |
idiots... they have found the virus - that's how they're able to detect it - it's been proven under a microscope. The virus EXISTS - AIDS killed Freddie - one (intelligent being) might argue that AZT *might* have sped up the disease rather than slow it down - given how little research was available on how to actually slow down AIDS *at the time*. These days, HIV positive individuals, that can afford the medication, are able to live a relatively normal life-span. What they HAVEN'T been able to do is to *create* or *isolate* an atigen to fight the disease. They've detected antibodies in rare circumstances but scientist have yet been able to use that information to their advantage. Nowm the TRUE CONSPIRACY is where did it originate from. There are many vaguely supported theories without any hardcore evidence. And it's very convenent to argue that the government created it as means of selective population control - the anti-darwin movement, in my opinion. Do I believe that this is the case - not until I see evidence. Do I think it's a possiblity - of course it is.... If the US government can kill its president in plain sight and get 250M to believe it was a sole gunman, then one ormany governments can easily inject HIV into a live population without anyone realizing it. Freddie died of AIDS-related causes, there is no conspiracy there. |
| Senna 31.05.2011 03:43 |
Jimmy Dean you were doing so well until that last paragraph and then you fell off a cliff my friend. |
| Mercuryking 31.05.2011 06:24 |
Freddie died of AIDS-related causes, there is no conspiracy there. __________________________________________________________________________ Yea cause you know everything right? You cant say for a fact that he was dying of such a thing. It could be so and it could not be so and i am starting to think that it was the drug killing him cause there is other examples of the AZT drug almost killing a little girl but her parents decided to stop taking the AZT drug and now she is healthy and well. |
| GratefulFan 31.05.2011 07:43 |
Mercury SingerOfLife wrote: The smartest reply so far. Not saying you believe in it but you would at least be open to the idea, that goes way beyond the rest of the sheeple here at queenzone. Like being open minded to things and not just calling someone a looney. People are so ignorant and just buy everything the world says to them. ========================= And conspiracy fans are often so fundamentally lacking in adequate reason that they buy virtually every anti-establishment theory they trip over. So open minded that their brains fall out. AZT was all they had when Freddie was ill. It was (and is) toxic, but it was less toxic than advanced HIV. HIV could also develop resistance to it more readily in those years, and so it's efficacy was eventually limited. It's still a key part of the cocktail on which people are now living long and near normal lives today, just at much lower doses and in combination with other retrovirals and compounds that reduce resistance. |
| marvinp01 31.05.2011 16:19 |
This is absolutely ridiculous! Why can't dimwits like you just leave his death in peace? Have you no respect? Freddie Mercury died for a reason thats it! Leave it alone please! |
| inu-liger 31.05.2011 16:43 |
Don't feed the trolls |
| Jimmy Dean 31.05.2011 17:39 |
******************************** marvinp01 wrote: This is absolutely ridiculous! Why can't dimwits like you just leave his death in peace? Have you no respect? Freddie Mercury died for a reason thats it! Leave it alone please! ************************************* What *reason* did he die for? lol Are you insinuating conspiracy, too? or do you think he was Jesus, circa 1991? |
| Jimmy Dean 31.05.2011 17:40 |
============================================= GratefulFan wrote: Mercury SingerOfLife wrote: The smartest reply so far. Not saying you believe in it but you would at least be open to the idea, that goes way beyond the rest of the sheeple here at queenzone. Like being open minded to things and not just calling someone a looney. People are so ignorant and just buy everything the world says to them. ========================= And conspiracy fans are often so fundamentally lacking in adequate reason that they buy virtually every anti-establishment theory they trip over. So open minded that their brains fall out. AZT was all they had when Freddie was ill. It was (and is) toxic, but it was less toxic than advanced HIV. HIV could also develop resistance to it more readily in those years, and so it's efficacy was eventually limited. It's still a key part of the cocktail on which people are now living long and near normal lives today, just at much lower doses and in combination with other retrovirals and compounds that reduce resistance. ============================================= well put! |
| john bodega 31.05.2011 18:21 |
I have this brilliant mental image of Amir dying from AIDS. It's a bit like the Scientologists that die (quick deaths) from cancer because they don't think it exists; or rather, that chemotherapy and other treatments are a lot of hokey, so they use their Hubbard-endorsed ways of dealing with the illness ... and they die hilariously quickly :D I have this sort of faint hope that something similar will happen to this malignant moron. |
| Biggest Band On The Planet 31.05.2011 18:55 |
Check out these videos link link link link link link link |
| The Real Wizard 01.06.2011 00:54 |
GratefulFan wrote: And conspiracy fans are often so fundamentally lacking in adequate reason that they buy virtually every anti-establishment theory they trip over. So open minded that their brains fall out. =================== Very well put, in the case of many - but certainly not all. Government lies, media lies, and big pharma lies - all in the interest of money and power. The question remains, how far do they go? We can't be labeling every single person who goes against conventional thinking and official reports as a nut. That's equally short-sighted as believing in every conspiracy simply for the sake of rebelling. |
| Mercuryking 01.06.2011 10:57 |
Sir GH: You are really underestimating freddie here. You dont see just how powerful he really was and still is. The man was truely a super one of a kind with HUGE impact on this world whether you agree or not its a true fact that he influenced many with his music and presence. They knew that people like that couldnt exist. While music didnt go totally crap directly after he died , it certainly did after awhile and i think its mainly cause of the loss of that beautiful mans presence. I think they killed him on purpose. |
| john bodega 01.06.2011 11:11 |
You also think that the only thing stopping your band from being huge is the Illuminati, so I'm sure people can do the math on this for themselves. Your AZT theory is just as fucking stupid as the rest you've posted. Congratulations on your consistency. |
| The Real Wizard 01.06.2011 11:59 |
Mercury SingerOfLife wrote: You are really underestimating freddie here. You dont see just how powerful he really was and still is. ============================== This is coming from a guy who once argued that Freddie is the greatest musician ever without even knowing who Steve Perry is. You are just an over-zealous Queen fan, full stop. Reality check (not that you have any sense of what reality is): Freddie was arguably rock's greatest frontman, but he was not a revolutionary force like The Beatles or Michael Jackson. When literally everyone consistently thinks you're nuts, maybe they might have a point. Read GratefulFan's post once again... very carefully. She's one of the wisest people on here, and I don't think I've ever seen her be unequivocally wrong. Except maybe in your eyes.. your flawless, all-knowing eyes.. |
| Mercuryking 01.06.2011 16:39 |
Sir GH wrote: Mercury SingerOfLife wrote: You are really underestimating freddie here. You dont see just how powerful he really was and still is. ============================== This is coming from a guy who once argued that Freddie is the greatest musician ever without even knowing who Steve Perry is. You are just an over-zealous Queen fan, full stop. Reality check (not that you have any sense of what reality is): Freddie was arguably rock's greatest frontman, but he was not a revolutionary force like The Beatles or Michael Jackson. When literally everyone consistently thinks you're nuts, maybe they might have a point. Read GratefulFan's post once again... very carefully. She's one of the wisest people on here, and I don't think I've ever seen her be unequivocally wrong. Except maybe in your eyes.. your flawless, all-knowing eyes.. saying that michael jackson and the beatles are more important than freddie just shows what your values are at. In fact i bet that goes for the whole queenzone community, bet you all think that beatles and jackson are more important to music than freddie was. BUT you are ALL soo wrong, they are lightyears behind both of them. |
| Thistle 01.06.2011 16:51 |
Now I was once told to stop feeding the trolls! |
| Burn On Dakota 01.06.2011 17:00 |
As Andy Millman would say " is he having a laugh?" Amir you have gone completely mad. |
| The Real Wizard 01.06.2011 17:26 |
Mercury SingerOfLife wrote: saying that michael jackson and the beatles are more important than freddie just shows what your values are at. In fact i bet that goes for the whole queenzone community, bet you all think that beatles and jackson are more important to music than freddie was. BUT you are ALL soo wrong, they are lightyears behind both of them. ============================== This has nothing to do with values or taste. Queen are my personal favourite band, but I know where they stand in the grand scheme of things. The Beatles and MJ both changed the world. The Beatles completely revolutionized popular culture in the 60s, and Thriller almost single-handedly resurrected the music business after disco. Both were complete game changers. Perhaps in South America did Queen have a similar effect, but certainly not anywhere else in the world. You are the last person anyone should turn to for a lesson in music history. Keep the laughs coming... you're making a fool of yourself, as usual.. |
| GratefulFan 01.06.2011 17:51 |
Sir GH wrote: Read GratefulFan's post once again... very carefully. She's one of the wisest people on here, and I don't think I've ever seen her be unequivocally wrong. ========================== Didn't you once also call TQ one of the wisest people on here? Hey what'd I ever do to you?! ; ) P.S. I'm frequently, thoroughly and hopelessly wrong, and my teenager will be happy to tell you so. |
| john bodega 01.06.2011 19:10 |
"bet you all think that beatles and jackson are more important to music than freddie was" They were. They are definitely up in the same league - the Beatles for their overall impact on studio recording, live performance, and songwriting itself, Michael Jackson for the whole Thriller thing (you just have no idea how huge that was, whether you liked the album or not ... ) and Queen for their approach to live shows, for having the first notable music video that was used in the way that we see them today... but really, in actual terms, the Beatles and Michael Jackson made a bigger impact. I'm not saying I think they're better; if you like Freddie better, then cool! But more people have been affected by the Beatles. This goes beyond record sales - it is a cultural fucking anomaly we are talking about; the biggest effing thing going. And like I said, none of this should be taken as though we're saying we think other, more influential bands are better than Queen. We are on a Queen site - you'll probably find most of us prefer Queen to those other bands. But, we're intelligent enough to pull our heads out of our arses (some of us, anyway) and understand that just because you have a favourite band doesn't mean that the whole world agrees with you. Have you ever seen skip come in here doing his Kiss routine? That's you with Queen - and it's all the more insulting when you consider that Queen don't need morons like you, because the music stands up on its own. It's amusing to see what a narrow minded twat you are though. This is all stuff I could've told you ten years ago - when I was a spotty teenager who still laughed at Joe Cartoon. How old are you anyway? |
| The Real Wizard 01.06.2011 19:41 |
GratefulFan wrote: I'm frequently, thoroughly and hopelessly wrong, and my teenager will be happy to tell you so. ======================= Of course we can all be wrong in life. But on a forum where we can take the time to formulate our thoughts, still only an elite few remain rock solid in their judgment ... needless to say you're in said group. So don't blow it :p |
| Jimmy Dean 01.06.2011 21:51 |
I thought this topic of discussion was about the ultra-secret conspiracy theory that Freddie Mercury was killed by the gay mafia and not by a fake disease that doesn't affect millions of people anymore formerly known as PRINCE? or am i mistaken? |
| emrabt 02.06.2011 00:52 |
you know how i always try to find some good and logic in what Amir says, to the point of pointlessly defending him. well there is no logic, or point to this, it's just crazy conspiracy nut ramblings with no proof. Freddie wasn’t a god, or a revolutionary. His contribution to music is undeniable, but there is no reason for anyone to secretly kill him, especially in the era where he was making radio friendly pop. The truth is Freddies death was tragic, but he knew the risks and suffered because of his own stupidity. Like a lot of people in the 80’s when the seriousness of the HIV / AIDS situation finally hit him it was too late. that's the truth, there's no cover up or anything. |
| YourValentine 02.06.2011 03:29 |
emrabt wrote: The truth is Freddies death was tragic, but he knew the risks and suffered because of his own stupidity. Like a lot of people in the 80’s when the seriousness of the HIV / AIDS situation finally hit him it was too late. that's the truth, there's no cover up or anything. This has been often said but I always thought this is a very wrong and judgamental statement. When Freddie got infected - probably in the late 70s - nobody knew about AIDS. The only danger of many unprotected sexual contacts was syphilis and that was not really a big threat since penicillin had been invented. The connection between gay sexual contacts and the new mysterious disease was made very late and most infected people at the time had no chance. Also, gay sex was not discussed in public, it was a no-go subject and gay people were in denial on so many levels that facing the dangers of AIDS was close to impossible for most of them. To say that gay people in the 70s and early 80s were "stupid" and acting against reason is laying the blame on individuals who simply were unaware of the danger. I know that Paul Gambaccini repeated in many Queen documentaries that Freddie said he would do "anything with anybody" but this was just a casual remark in a late night bar and I would not make a case that Freddie was an irresponsible individual based on such a casual remark. I can imagine that he was as scared and insecure as all gay people at the time. The taboos and social stigma connected with AIDS were so severe it is hard to believe these days. |
| emrabt 02.06.2011 03:58 |
This has been often said but I always thought this is a very wrong and judgamental statement. When Freddie got infected - probably in the late 70s - nobody knew about AIDS. The connection between gay sexual contacts and the new mysterious disease was made very late and most infected people at the time had no chance. Also, gay sex was not discussed in public, it was a no-go subject and gay people were in denial on so many levels that facing the dangers of AIDS was close to impossible for most of them. =========================== we don’t know when Freddie got infected (I personally think mid 80’s, as 5 years seem an average on the medication of the time, but admittedly I’m no expert), but aids was known by 1982, linked to sex in 1983 and it was advertised all over by 1984, to the point where people were refusing blood transfusions because of it. You’ve said it your self Gay people WERE in denial about the dangers, if, like documentaries and things suggest, he didn’t "care", then it is his own fault. |
| Mercuryking 02.06.2011 08:03 |
you can call it crazy or whatever, one can not be 100% sure that he was even sick. He got a diagnose from a doctor saying he had a death sentence, he took their stuff and off he went faster then many others. IF you dont think a man with that much power would not run the risk of being killed then you are naive Emrabt. Yes he made radio friendly songs but thats not the point , his music would always have pure emotions, messages of love and freedom, and thats the reason he couldnt live anymore. The industry is going towards pure robotic and emotionless times and with freddie still being alive that would be IMPOSSIBLE , hence why they killed him And for michael jackson and his thriller album, i think its way overhyped and if it werent for queen that album maybe wouldnt have been. And the beatles sucks. Queen on the other hand , works for almost anyone , everybody has at least one song. Freddie mercury cannot be compared to any other humanbeing , at least not in our century. To compare him to ordinary people like the beatles and ever michael is funny |
| john bodega 02.06.2011 09:16 |
"He got a diagnose from a doctor saying he had a death sentence" That's because he had full blown AIDS. Funny that. It's funny that a doctor, who had a lump of Freddie Mercury tissue taken in a biopsy, would know less about Freddie's health than Amir - arsefucking maggot from Sweden who never even met Freddie Mercury. That's pretty great - how do you do it? "he took their stuff and off he went faster then many others" Actually, AIDS conceivably killed Rock Hudson a lot faster than it killed Freddie. A quick look at some figures on how long it takes HIV/AIDS to kill someone (no matter their age) would probably do you some good - but I know from the 9/11 thread that you refuse to read things that debunk your retarded ramblings, so I guess we'll skip that for now. "IF you dont think a man with that much power would not run the risk of being killed" What power?? He was not much of an activist, and Queen's profile in America was mangled enough that nobody needed to give him AIDS (which would only make his music more popular anyway!). Are you even thinking about what you're typing, or is it distracting for you that Max is sucking you dry as you post? "The industry is going towards pure robotic and emotionless times and with freddie still being alive that would be IMPOSSIBLE , hence why they killed him" You're an idiot. They don't need to kill entertainers to kill music. Did they have to kill Freddie to sell copies of Rick Astley albums? Nope. It was already happening. If you knew a fucking thing about the music industry, it might be a lot easier to have this discussion. "And for michael jackson and his thriller album, i think its way overhyped" I agree, but it was a bigger influence on music that was coming out than Queen was. Do you understand the idea of influence? Amir does not have to like something for it to be influential. In actual fact, what you think doesn't matter because you're some sticky prat who's been wearing his brother's arse for a hat for the past 5 years and has forgotten how the real world works. "And the beatles sucks." Of course, wrong again. Funny how you disagree with the great Freddie on this one - as usual, Freddie is on the money, and you are aimlessly circling a drain of illogical bullshit from which you've made a self-sustaining cocoon over these past few years. You are a cumbubble. |
| The Real Wizard 02.06.2011 11:13 |
^ What he said. |
| malicedoom 02.06.2011 12:32 |
This has just become my favorite (insane) thread of the week. |
| Doga 02.06.2011 12:48 |
i don't know what is more sad, if Freddie died because his promisciuty, or if someone killed him. |
| Rubbersuit 02.06.2011 13:50 |
There's no point in arguing with a conspiracy theorist. 2 things will happen: 1. Any evidence against their theory they dismiss as propaganda. 2. They barrage you with BS websites and "facts" that you'd have to spend a week to dissect and counter. Then you end up back at point #1. |
| The Real Wizard 02.06.2011 13:53 |
Thistleboy 1980 wrote: Now I was once told to stop feeding the trolls! ======== B .. but... it's just so fun ! |
| Burn On Dakota 02.06.2011 14:26 |
Did you really say that "the Beatles suck"??? ...... ........ ........... I won’t even argue with you about how wrong that statement is, I’ll just ask You realize no Beatles would have meant no queen. |
| Mercuryking 03.06.2011 14:44 |
there is a difference, the beatles were only "revolutionizing" cause there wasnt that many bands out there, not because they were any super talent or anything, in fact i dont even think they were really talented. Queen on the other hand wouldnt have mattered if they were the only band or amongst many others , they still are musically light years ahead of everybody else. So for that reason the beatles cannot stand a chance, they were just ordinary musicians in a time were a band was something new. TOTALLY overhyped musicians. |
| emrabt 03.06.2011 14:53 |
one can not be 100% sure that he was even sick. He got a diagnose from a doctor saying he had a death sentence, he took their stuff and off he went faster then many others. IF you dont think a man with that much power would not run the risk of being killed then you are naive Emrabt. ================ No, you go to a doctor because you don't feel well, if he was fine why did he see a doctor in the first place, BECAUSE HE WAS SICK? ==== The beatles were just ordinary musicians in a time were a band was something new. ============== Um.... you know bands had been about for 100's of years before hand right? ===================== his music would always have pure emotions, messages of love and freedom, and thats the reason he couldnt live anymore. =============== Yes Freddie was the only person who’s music was about love and freedom (except when it wasn't, which was mostly). It was the 80's you'll find it hard to find a song not about love, or freedom. In fact I can only think of a handful of songs Freddie wrote about love and freedom,. “In my defence” wasn’t Freddie ”Heaven for everyone” wasn't Freddie ”time” wasn't Freddie ”who wants to live forever” Wasn’t Freddie ”Too much love will kill you” Wasn’t Freddie ”my life has been saved” Wasn’t Freddie ”innuendo” wasn’t Freddie ”I want to break free” Wasn’t Freddie "breakthru" Wasn't freddie "One vision" was a band effort, but it was Roger who came up with the basic frame work. However, paul mccartney, Cliff richard, Bob dylan, Billy joel, Waters, Gilmour, Mason, Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend all wrote many songs about love and freedom, and guess what, they are still alive. |
| The Real Wizard 03.06.2011 15:43 |
emrabt wrote: "However, paul mccartney, Cliff richard, Bob dylan, Billy joel, Waters, Gilmour, Mason, Roger Daltrey and Pete Townshend all wrote many songs about love and freedom, and guess what, they are still alive." Don't waste your breath - he hasn't heard of half of them. ================== the idiot wrote: "i dont even think they were really talented." Then that speaks volumes about your assessment of talent, not The Beatles. Revolver was more ground-breaking and influential than Queen's entire catalogue combined. "Queen on the other hand wouldnt have mattered if they were the only band or amongst many others , they still are musically light years ahead of everybody else." Frank Zappa, Yes, Genesis, Weather Report and the Mahavishnu Orchestra were musically light years ahead of Queen. Not that you'd care, because listening open-mindedly to someone else may infect your pre-determined bias that has absolutely no base in reality. |
| Mercuryking 03.06.2011 22:41 |
no i think he went to check himself after all the fuss about the disease , he went to check if he was clear and then they gave him his "death sentence" Im just telling what i think is the truth , no other musician could ever match him. |
| john bodega 03.06.2011 23:06 |
How did you get access to his medical files and tissue samples in order to confirm this? |
| rhyeking 03.06.2011 23:13 |
The Beatles didn't set to revolutionize anything (at least at first). They played the music they liked, emulated their influences and covered their favourite songs. The songs they wrote became increasingly sophisticated because they were trying each time to not retread their past releases. They wanted to try new things and experiment, which became harder each time. When they stopped touring, they suddenly had all the time in the world to indulge. They had friendly rivalries with bands like The Beach Boys and The Rolling Stones, the former's releases such at Pet Sounds directly influencing The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper. And as to The Beatles being only one of a few bands out there at the time, all I can say is (in my least condescending tone), you need to do some homework, my friend. There were hundreds of bands and artists all over the airwaves during the Sixties. They both influenced and were influenced by The Beatles (and many other bands). What made The Beatles stand out was a combination of sheer talent and the aforementioned need to always try new things. While it IS possible to overstate their impact at the expense of everything else which was going on at the time, The Beatles' catalogue is nonetheless as impressively diverse as it is lengthy for only about 10 years of work. |
| emrabt 04.06.2011 01:40 |
To be honest i didn't really know what he meant by "love and freedom", unless he was talking about 99% of roger taylors back catalogue dealing with the press, the world and such. Never the less I put a list together. =============== as to The Beatles being only one of a few bands out there at the time, all I can say is (in my least condescending tone), you need to do some homework, my friend. There were hundreds of bands and artists all over the airwaves during the Sixties. They both influenced and were influenced by The Beatles (and many other bands). ============= You are a blind idiot, have amir’s teachings taught you nothing, the beatles were the first band, a total novelty, queen improve on their “people playing instruments” formula. Here's the timeline: Nothing > Cavemen > Motsart*> the beatles > FREDDIE-QUEEN > everyone else at the time, who were all copying queen.>transvilla (Queen2) *Mozart is spelt the way TM spells it, i don't know if it's a mistake or if it's the Swedish way. I also think it's really odd that after diagnosing Freddie with AIDS, his doctor prescribed medication. Then some years later Freddie died due to aids related complications. Open your eyes people! |
| Mercuryking 04.06.2011 08:29 |
im just going to say this. Freddie Mercury was one of the most important being in our century. Basically like a god walking as a man. Now he's dead there is nothing left but mediocracy. Empty musicians with no feeling. |
| john bodega 04.06.2011 11:23 |
He really was not that important. Unlike a lot of activist/musicians, Freddie was smart enough to draw the line at doing only what he was really good at - music. That's what he's great at, and that's why we like him. You could write a list of 50 people (at LEAST 50) that were more important to the happenings on this world in the last century. A lot of them would probably be massive bastards, but they'd be more important than Freddie because they've effected more changes on the way we live. Freddie just gave us good stuff to put on the stereo. |
| inu-liger 04.06.2011 13:29 |
Once again, please stop delivering food aid to the trolls. They need to be humanely euthanized by cutting off their food supplies. |
| john bodega 04.06.2011 14:33 |
If I see one more banal "don't talk to trolls" comment, I might have to bring the hammer down. It's not as though this thread is not clearly labelled as being posted by Trannyvilia or whatever. It's like walking into a strip club and asking people not to offer $20 notes to the girls. |
| inu-liger 04.06.2011 17:39 |
We're all just waiting for the hammer to fall (and the trolls with it) |
| hivmartyn 19.07.2013 16:21 |
i was diagnosed hiv in 2000, i stopped taking hiv meds 2 years ago after reading of the toxic effects and reading the aids myth by peter duesberg. my health has improved no end, if freddie took azt its no doubt that stuff killed him, it stops dna replication in all cells. i have no doubt hiv is a lie now, if it was true i should be dead now. |
| bobbyo 20.07.2013 00:40 |
Martyn, that's the best user name I've seen so far. As for the conspiracy theory, it's bullshit. The simple FACT is that Elvis killed Freddie. |
| Fireplace 20.07.2013 19:42 |
bobbyo wrote: Martyn, that's the best user name I've seen so far. As for the conspiracy theory, it's bullshit. The simple FACT is that Elvis killed Freddie.I just knew the fat bastard couldn't stand someone else taking his crown. |
| Mercuryking 23.07.2013 13:33 |
If you look it up, you can see that that AZT medicine was toxic to the Point that it could kill you and that is what i Believe happend to Freddie. |
| inu-liger 23.07.2013 15:20 |
The moron returns. THANKS guys. |
| brENsKi 23.07.2013 16:10 |
Mercuryking wrote: He may not even have had aids at all , they diagnose him saying he had the aids virus then giving him the fatal drug called AZT...and what (pray tell) "fatal drug" killed all of your braincells? you f**king imbecile |
| GuitarMay 23.07.2013 22:58 |
Fuck all this speculations, shit ! |
| Mark_Glasgow 25.07.2013 04:24 |
How ironic....some Queen fans displaying the same level of ingnorance that allowed HIV to spread quickly in the first place....priceless |
| Centurion 23.03.2014 02:46 |
You must read webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zoHs91gKgDIJ:evolveandascend.com/2014/03/12/why-you-need-to-google-5676977-by-jennifersodini/ (backup: pastebin.com/hpc9H0dy) |
| k-m 24.03.2014 08:30 |
Just noticed this topic and perhaps the OP did have a point? Isn't it what the recent film "Dallas Buyers Club" talks about? I still haven't seen it though, so no spoilers please! ;-) |
| Centurion 24.03.2014 12:12 |
That's right, makes you wonder why alternative treatments weren't recommended to Freddie. link popcultureblog.dallasnews.com/2012/07/for-matthew-mcconaughey-next-up-is-true-life-tale-of-the-dallas-buyers-club-but-it-wont-be-filmed-here.html |
| The Real Wizard 24.03.2014 19:56 |
Centurion wrote: That's right, makes you wonder why alternative treatments weren't recommended to Freddie."You know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proved to work? Medicine." -- Tim Minchin, Storm Alternative treatments do not work, period. Anything that seems to work is nothing more than a coincidence, or a case of correlation not being causation. If something that is not incorporated into modern medicine actually does work, it is then fully developed and patented. In this particular case of AZT in the 80s and early 90s, it was eventually realized that high dosages of it did indeed have side effects. This is what modern medicine/science does - it makes mistakes and builds upon them in the search for the best possible remedy or theory. AZT is used today in smaller quantities than it used to be, along with a few other compounds in what is called "highly active antiretroviral therapy" (HAART) - the treatment for HIV that is now accepted across the board (except alties and conspiracy nutbars, of course). And the film clarifies this at the end. That's the only spoiler I'll provide, since this is (or should be) common knowledge by now. |
| k-m 25.03.2014 16:58 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Centurion wrote: That's right, makes you wonder why alternative treatments weren't recommended to Freddie."You know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proved to work? Medicine." -- Tim Minchin, Storm Alternative treatments do not work, period. Anything that seems to work is nothing more than a coincidence, or a case of correlation not being causation. If something that is not incorporated into modern medicine actually does work, it is then fully developed and patented. In this particular case of AZT in the 80s and early 90s, it was eventually realized that high dosages of it did indeed have side effects. This is what modern medicine/science does - it makes mistakes and builds upon them in the search for the best possible remedy or theory. AZT is used today in smaller quantities than it used to be, along with a few other compounds in what is called "highly active antiretroviral therapy" (HAART) - the treatment for HIV that is now accepted across the board (except alties and conspiracy nutbars, of course). And the film clarifies this at the end. That's the only spoiler I'll provide, since this is (or should be) common knowledge by now. |
| k-m 25.03.2014 17:00 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Centurion wrote: That's right, makes you wonder why alternative treatments weren't recommended to Freddie."You know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proved to work? Medicine." -- Tim Minchin, Storm Alternative treatments do not work, period. Anything that seems to work is nothing more than a coincidence, or a case of correlation not being causation. If something that is not incorporated into modern medicine actually does work, it is then fully developed and patented. In this particular case of AZT in the 80s and early 90s, it was eventually realized that high dosages of it did indeed have side effects. This is what modern medicine/science does - it makes mistakes and builds upon them in the search for the best possible remedy or theory. AZT is used today in smaller quantities than it used to be, along with a few other compounds in what is called "highly active antiretroviral therapy" (HAART) - the treatment for HIV that is now accepted across the board (except alties and conspiracy nutbars, of course). And the film clarifies this at the end. That's the only spoiler I'll provide, since this is (or should be) common knowledge by now. |
| k-m 25.03.2014 17:01 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Just watched the film and the film does indeed clarify at the end that AZT is used nowadays in smaller doses and helped millions of people around the world. However, before making this brief statement, it also makes the whole case that alternative treatments, in the case of Ron Woodworth (and, as it suggests, many other anonymous sufferers) did work. I'm actually baffled how can you argue that?? When diagnosed, Woodworth was given 30 days to live by the doctors (who later offered AZT trials to their patients) and survived 7 years without them, eventually succumbing to the disease in September 1992. I am very far from any conspiracy theories whatsoever, but the film also indicates it wasn't in the interests of doctors who tested AZT to give their patients something else, not to mention that in the mid-late 80s little was known about the disease and ways to treat it. According to your theory, when was AZT "fully developed and patented" then? When its usage was reduced? Sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me.Centurion wrote: That's right, makes you wonder why alternative treatments weren't recommended to Freddie."You know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proved to work? Medicine." -- Tim Minchin, Storm Alternative treatments do not work, period. Anything that seems to work is nothing more than a coincidence, or a case of correlation not being causation. If something that is not incorporated into modern medicine actually does work, it is then fully developed and patented. In this particular case of AZT in the 80s and early 90s, it was eventually realized that high dosages of it did indeed have side effects. This is what modern medicine/science does - it makes mistakes and builds upon them in the search for the best possible remedy or theory. AZT is used today in smaller quantities than it used to be, along with a few other compounds in what is called "highly active antiretroviral therapy" (HAART) - the treatment for HIV that is now accepted across the board (except alties and conspiracy nutbars, of course). And the film clarifies this at the end. That's the only spoiler I'll provide, since this is (or should be) common knowledge by now. |
| musicland munich 25.03.2014 19:04 |
k-m wrote: Just watched the film and the film does indeed clarify at the end that AZT is used nowadays in smaller doses and helped millions of people around the world. However, before making this brief statement, it also makes the whole case that alternative treatments, in the case of Ron Woodworth (and, as it suggests, many other anonymous sufferers) did work. I'm actually baffled how can you argue that?? When diagnosed, Woodworth was given 30 days to live by the doctors (who later offered AZT trials to their patients) and survived 7 years without them, eventually succumbing to the disease in September 1992. I am very far from any conspiracy theories whatsoever, but the film also indicates it wasn't in the interests of doctors who tested AZT to give their patients something else, not to mention that in the mid-late 80s little was known about the disease and ways to treat it. According to your theory, when was AZT "fully developed and patented" then? When its usage was reduced? Sounds like a bit of a contradiction to me.AZT did not killed Freddie ! Freddie developed full blown AIDS in 1986 ( Japan Trip he had a KS stain on his cheek) AZT was released in 1987 !!! Now with this kind of cancer (KS) doctors expect your death within the next three years. Freddie managed to survived five years. Thanks to the best specialists and AZT. Freddie tried so called alternative treatments. According to B Valentin he had bood transfusion(s) in Suisse. |
| musicland munich 26.03.2014 00:28 |
Sorry, but to stop that rumours. This is Freddie around September 86' on a Japan trip. There is a KS stain on HIS left cheek. So his status was "full blown AIDS" at that point. AZT wasn't available before 1987. |
| youngballantyne 26.03.2014 02:47 |
Okay, medically, let's get a few things straight...hmmm? Firstly, Freddie's immune system was already in a very bad state in 1987. He could have been dead by the following year. He had had his blood tested the previous year which did come back positive for HIV (or at least there's evidence to support this). At the time in the aids epidemic, doctors were not completely trusting of the test itself, called 'The Western Blot'; the test had been known to give false positives. It was only after he began to show visible signs of aids when he went for a lymph node biopsy from his shoulder in the spring of 1987. In order to get a definitive diagnosis, tissue from the biopsy would have been scanned under an electron microscope. a specialist would have visually confirmed hiv virus present in the tissue - making an absolute confirmation that he did indeed have the virus present in his blood. This type of procedure is not cheap and was not an option for the general population in the 80's who wanted an undeniable answer to whether HIV could actually be seen in their blood. Freddie could afford it and obviously did it to be sure. so when a moron like you comes along and starts sprouting out garbage about him not having aids/hiv...it makes no sense. secondly, Freddie had the best medical specialists in the world treating him. They wouldn't have only given him AZT or a toxic dose of the drug. Even back in 87 there were other drugs that he could get access to and was most likely on a combination of trimetrexate, roferon/ganciclovir/etc. Whatever you say about AZT, if it wasn't for this drug, we would most likely not have had Barcelona, Miracle, Innuendo, or MIH. I'm guessing your the type that also thinks 9/11 was an inside job and that a man has never walked on the moon? |
| The Real Wizard 26.03.2014 23:36 |
k-m wrote: it also makes the whole case that alternative treatments, in the case of Ron Woodworth (and, as it suggests, many other anonymous sufferers) did work. I'm actually baffled how can you argue that?? When diagnosed, Woodworth was given 30 days to live by the doctors (who later offered AZT trials to their patients) and survived 7 years without them, eventually succumbing to the disease in September 1992.The drugs he took (ddC and peptide T) technically weren't "alternative medicine" ... they were real drugs, but they just hadn't yet gone through the proper due processes to be approved by the FDA, which they eventually were. Alternative medicine, on the other hand, is an umbrella term for things that, for lack of a longer explanation, don't work. In terms of science and rational means of testing ideas based on observable evidence, it is quackery, pseudoscience, new age philosophy airy fairy beliefs, diluted crap used in homeopathy, whatever you want to call it. Major difference. I realize this may be an issue of semantics, but pretty much any medical scientist will define alternative medicine as something that has been proven not to work. So I'd say we should choose our wording carefully, as we shouldn't be lumping in the naturopath quack crowd with developing medicine. |
| The Real Wizard 26.03.2014 23:43 |
musicland munich wrote: Sorry, but to stop that rumours. This is Freddie around September 86' on a Japan trip. There is a KS stain on HIS left cheek. So his status was "full blown AIDS" at that point. AZT wasn't available before 1987.Could it not be a pimple or something? Not that I doubt the overall idea ... it's pretty clear that he knew he had AIDS in 1986. But I'm not sure if a picture like this with supposed kaposi's sarcoma marks should be considered evidence.. |
| musicland munich 27.03.2014 00:12 |
Yeah, I know what you mean...I' have tried to get a higher resulution - but they almost slaughtered me because I asked for that ! The next point is the particular place on his cheek - very similar to KS stain on the well known "Jukebox interview " from 87' and the Ibiza pictures from the same year. |
| k-m 27.03.2014 16:04 |
youngballantyne wrote: Okay, medically, let's get a few things straight...hmmm? Firstly, Freddie's immune system was already in a very bad state in 1987. He could have been dead by the following year. He had had his blood tested the previous year which did come back positive for HIV (or at least there's evidence to support this). At the time in the aids epidemic, doctors were not completely trusting of the test itself, called 'The Western Blot'; the test had been known to give false positives. It was only after he began to show visible signs of aids when he went for a lymph node biopsy from his shoulder in the spring of 1987. In order to get a definitive diagnosis, tissue from the biopsy would have been scanned under an electron microscope. a specialist would have visually confirmed hiv virus present in the tissue - making an absolute confirmation that he did indeed have the virus present in his blood. This type of procedure is not cheap and was not an option for the general population in the 80's who wanted an undeniable answer to whether HIV could actually be seen in their blood. Freddie could afford it and obviously did it to be sure. so when a moron like you comes along and starts sprouting out garbage about him not having aids/hiv...it makes no sense. secondly, Freddie had the best medical specialists in the world treating him. They wouldn't have only given him AZT or a toxic dose of the drug. Even back in 87 there were other drugs that he could get access to and was most likely on a combination of trimetrexate, roferon/ganciclovir/etc. Whatever you say about AZT, if it wasn't for this drug, we would most likely not have had Barcelona, Miracle, Innuendo, or MIH. I'm guessing your the type that also thinks 9/11 was an inside job and that a man has never walked on the moon? |
| k-m 27.03.2014 16:09 |
Sorry guys, don't know why Queenzone does the above every time I try to reply with quote, so I'll just paste the answer to "youngballantyne" here. Happy reading, Mr Know It All. Not exactly sure who you are referring to as a moron who suggests Freddie did not have HIV or AIDS. I don't think anyone in their sane mind could say that. I appreciate your (alleged) knowledge of the subject matter, but perhaps if you saw the film I mentioned, you would have a better idea what I meant saying that perhaps the OP did have a point and suggesting that perhaps he was bashed a bit unfairly here. Which should be obvious to anyone who saw the film. I'm not claiming that AZT killed Freddie, because that would be absurd. To clarify, I'm not the OP. Anyway, won't waste much more time debating you. |
| k-m 27.03.2014 16:28 |
@ musiclandmunich Since when a blood transfusion is an "alternative treatment"? Also, apart from the "thing" on his cheek, he didn't look like dying there. He actually looks quite healthy. Perhaps, he was still at HIV stage? Anyway, I never claimed to be an expert on AIDS or HIV, so won't really argue here. As I said, watch the Dallas Buyers Club, maybe you will see a different aspect to the whole story. And as usual, the truth lies probably somewhere in between. AZT did not kill Freddie, but perhaps it did him a lot of harm? Obviously, he wasn't as crazy as Ron Woodworth, so he wouldn't rely on unapproved drugs (as RW did), but maybe it was also a bit of a trap? |
| beemack74 27.03.2014 19:23 |
Since Hutton's book,the general consensus has been that FM discovered that he had AIDS in late April or early May 1987. I know that's only one person's story,but it seems to be the timeline that most biographies/websites go by. Now, as we have seen from "Barcelona" until "I Want It All",Freddie's face is at times slightly bloated,this being blamed on medication he was being given for his condition. But... In the "Great Pretender" video, Freddie's face is already displaying this "puffiness". This video would probably have been filmed around January 1987, suggesting that he was already receiving treatment at this point. This calls into question the April 1987 diagnosis. I may be wrong here but just thought I'd mention it. Apologies if it's been mentioned before. |
| musicland munich 27.03.2014 20:37 |
Ok I am not here to "bash" other people or something like that. Of course is just a Theory - try to really prove me wrong ! I mean real good, and not with a movie wich has nothing to do with Freddie's case. Two different people with a disease that is known for a large spectrum of what can happen to the patient. Think of cancer for example, some are dying in a couple of weeks without noticed something before that point and some are fighting for years and years. Back again - The picture - the more or less exact place on his cheek- Jim Hutton mentioned in his book that he expected that Freddie would be a party animal as soon he returned from Japan- but actually he turned into a couch potato. And it doesn't matter if he had KS in late 86 or early 87, in both cases he lived longer than the prognoses by the doctors. So did AZT kill him ? I say NO to that ! Destroy my Theory - real good - with a better one ! |
| k-m 28.03.2014 05:23 |
Lol. You have even used a capital T for your Theory, as if it was some scientific thesis we're supposed to kneel down before. The only thing I can add is that the film which you so conveniently dismissed is based on facts and it certainly sheds some light on various methods of treatment in mid-late 80s. And don't try to educate me about cancer and how it differs from person to person, because you sound pathetic. I am not going to discuss it any longer, as you are clearly stuck in your views, unwilling to accept anything which might put them in question. |
| nightshifter 31.03.2014 04:50 |
musicland munich wrote: According to B Valentin he had bood transfusion(s) in Suisse.I always wondered why replacing most of the blood wouldn't cure AIDS, wouldn't that recover a normal CD4 count besides a lower viral load? |
| barnsleybob 31.03.2014 15:14 |
Why do people come to the theory that music wouldnt be the same had freddie been.alive? There is no way to stop the way music develops whether he was alive or not. I honestly believe Queen already had peaked in the 80s as with any band. My question is how would the music industry be different if Freddie was here? |
| The Real Wizard 02.04.2014 01:34 |
Little, if any at all. Queen's major ripples were made between 1975 and 1981. |
| Costa86 04.04.2014 18:39 |
musicland munich wrote: Sorry, but to stop that rumours. This is Freddie around September 86' on a Japan trip. There is a KS stain on HIS left cheek. So his status was "full blown AIDS" at that point. AZT wasn't available before 1987. |
| Costa86 04.04.2014 18:41 |
musicland munich wrote: Sorry, but to stop that rumours. This is Freddie around September 86' on a Japan trip. There is a KS stain on HIS left cheek. So his status was "full blown AIDS" at that point. AZT wasn't available before 1987. The only worthwhile thing which has come out of this topic is the photo above. I had never seen it before. It shows that Freddie already had what used to be called "full-blow AIDS" (it's never called that nowadays) in mid-to-late 1986. That Kaposi's sarcoma lesion became more prominent later on, and you can clearly see it in many photos from 1987 (such as those taken in Ibiza). This really puts a strong shadow of doubt on Jim Hutton's version of events - i.e. that Freddie got to know he had AIDS in 1987. Yes, in 1987 he did have a biopsy done which confirmed his HIV positive status. But I am certain that by 1986 he had already received HIV-positive test results, which, while at the time not always completely reliable, already gave him an extremely strong indication that he had HIV. In 1986 he must have already done ELISA tests and Western blot assays, most likely several, and enough of them came back positive to establish within near certainty that he was HIV positive. The 1987 biopsy was just overkill really. By then he had Kaposi's sarcoma, an AIDS-defining disease, and there would have been virtually no doubt that he had not just HIV, but AIDS. So, the question here is, why did Jim Hutton not say that Freddie knew he had HIV in 1986? Did Jim himself not know? Was Freddie concealing this? It is quite obvious (especially since a recent radio interview) that Mary Austin knew Freddie had HIV during the Wembley Tour. So either Jim wasn't privvy to the truth, or else he lied about it in his book. Since Freddie had AIDS by mid-1986, it is reasonable to argue that he must have been infected in the mid or late 1970s. He spent most of his time in Queen living with HIV. I also think, and this is just speculation based on less facts than what I wrote above, that Freddie knew in 1985, not through tests but through using his own common sense, that he most likely had HIV. I think 1984 was the last year that Freddie did not strongly suspect he was infected. |
| enjoybeing 13.08.2014 07:26 |
So nice to see a few people trying to wake up the Sheep, Trolls and Plants.. It's easy to research.. you can see who is unwilling to do so. Learn the truth about AZT and all the spinoffs of it.. Learn the truth about the non-standardized testing, learn the truth that the virus has never been photographed and that so many have been diagnosed by lifestyle alone.. Learn the truth, spread the truth.. |
| Costa86 13.08.2014 07:39 |
enjoybeing wrote: So nice to see a few people trying to wake up the Sheep, Trolls and Plants.. It's easy to research.. you can see who is unwilling to do so. Learn the truth about AZT and all the spinoffs of it.. Learn the truth about the non-standardized testing, learn the truth that the virus has never been photographed and that so many have been diagnosed by lifestyle alone.. Learn the truth, spread the truth..I really must tell you, and I say this with the utmost respect, please shove your AIDS denialism up your arse and fuck off. |
| inu-liger 13.08.2014 09:06 |
Indeed, fuck off and stop resurrecting this ignorant bile. |
| enjoybeing 13.08.2014 10:08 |
brENsKi wrote:It's amazing how people who have no valid argument can only Name Call.. I see it everywhere.. see: “HIV test are NOT HIV tests” Research, Learn something..Mercuryking wrote: He may not even have had aids at all , they diagnose him saying he had the aids virus then giving him the fatal drug called AZT...and what (pray tell) "fatal drug" killed all of your braincells? you f**king imbecile |
| enjoybeing 13.08.2014 10:12 |
inu-liger wrote: Indeed, fuck off and stop resurrecting this ignorant bile.It is quite sad when people do not know how to debate but only know how to degrade or be belligerent. Amazes me but I think the masses see it. Those who call people names really only express a reflection of themselves.. Good Luck to you! |
| enjoybeing 13.08.2014 10:16 |
How does HIV turn into 30 different diseases? link |
| enjoybeing 13.08.2014 10:18 |
Open your minds to the truth! link |
| enjoybeing 13.08.2014 10:24 |
There is no such thing as HIV.. I wish people would research more and speak less of things that they know nothing about.. link |
| inu-liger 13.08.2014 16:29 |
Go away, Treasure Moment |
| luthorn 14.08.2014 20:55 |
Freddie killed Freddie and took many with him. If he became infected in late 1970s, as some claim, and given that he was slutting himself in that time period to about 1984 he must have stood on top of a pyramid and infected hundreds, who then in turn infected many more. |
| Day dop 16.08.2014 00:19 |
To enjoybeing: All that open mindedness requires is consideration of an idea/proposal without rejecting it outright before any considerations or evaluations are made. What conspiracy nuts don't seem to be able to grasp is that having an open mind does not mean accepting any new idea as true as soon as it is presented, like they mostly do. Oh but of course the conspiracy theories presented on this thread are true - there's videos that say it on YouTube! Just like there's videos on YouTube (and internet blogs) that claim there's such things as humanoid reptilians, or the moon is a hologram, or that Sandy Hook or the Woolwich massacre were false flags or that Stonehenge was built in 1954... (the list goes on)... "How to Make Money Creating Conspiracy Theories" link That site MercuryKing posted mentions and quotes Kary Mullis. Let's see (a quick look on Wiki will give you an idea of what he's about - and if you doubt Wiki, then treat yourself to a little more investigation, you'll find it's correct)... "Mullis has been criticized in The New York Times for promoting ideas in areas in which he has no expertise.[6] He has promoted AIDS denialism,[7][8][9][10][11][12] climate change denial[7] and his belief in astrology.[6][7] Mullis has drawn controversy for his association with prominent AIDS denialist Peter Duesberg,[8] claiming that AIDS is an arbitrary diagnosis only used when HIV antibodies are found in a patient's blood.[9] The medical and scientific consensus is that Duesberg's hypothesis is pseudoscience, HIV having been conclusively proven to be the cause of AIDS[26][27] . Extraterrestrial life Mullis reported an encounter with a glowing green raccoon at his cabin in the woods of northern California around midnight one night in 1985.[35]" Fascinating. I guess by his logic "in areas in which he has no expertise" that also makes astrology the real deal too, right? Well, it appears not. Astrology Debunked - Sagan, Dawkins, Nye, Randi, Tyson... (There's plenty more info on that than just a YouTube video too - and a little bit of critical thinking wouldn't go amiss). And what scientific journals is that site talking about exactly? Legit ones? Would you be able to tell the difference? Can you evaluate scientific journals? Here's some help for you... link link link link link link link link link link link link A few places where you'll find scientific literature.... link “an international network of more than 31,000 dedicated people from over 120 countries. We work together to help healthcare practitioners, policy-makers, patients, their advocates and carers, make well-informed decisions about health care, by preparing, updating, and promoting the accessibility of Cochrane Reviews – over 5,000 so far, published online in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, part of The Cochrane Library. We also prepare the largest collection of records of randomised controlled trials in the world, called CENTRAL, published as part of The Cochrane Library.” link “comprises more than 23 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full-text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.” link “is a digital library of more than 1,500 academic journals, books, and primary sources. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations.” link "a nonprofit publisher and advocacy organization founded to accelerate progress in science and medicine by leading a transformation in research communication.” Or a good place to ask science questions is link Here's a list of fake research journal publishers... link And here's a video on critical thinking skills... Now, if you really want to "open your mind to the truth", I suggest you start attempting to get nearer to it by educating yourself a little bit, instead of peddling bullshit that only the ill-informed or gullible would fall for. |
| Day dop 16.08.2014 01:20 |
Mercuryking wrote: He may not even have had aids at all , they diagnose him saying he had the aids virus then giving him the fatal drug called AZT look it up for yourselves. I think those fuckers killed freddie on purpose.Look up - Myth #7: AZT causes AIDS Fact: AZT and other antiretrovirals helps people with AIDS live longer. link |
| Day dop 16.08.2014 01:29 |
Biggest Band On The Planet wrote: Check out these videos ....Now read this regarding RT, being as you posted RT videos - especially the bit under "Conspiracy theories" > link |
| The Real Wizard 16.08.2014 04:51 |
Day dop wrote:Excellent fact-checking job in your last few posts.Mercuryking wrote: He may not even have had aids at all , they diagnose him saying he had the aids virus then giving him the fatal drug called AZT look it up for yourselves. I think those fuckers killed freddie on purpose.Look up - Myth #7: AZT causes AIDS Fact: AZT and other antiretrovirals helps people with AIDS live longer. link Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unless you're a conspiracy nut, in which case you're almost never persuaded by facts.. |
| Day dop 16.08.2014 10:40 |
The Real Wizard wrote:Totally, they're infuriatingly ignorant. Paranoid conspiracy theorists and facts aren't friends. What's sad about it is that the tin foil hat brigade can recruit casual observers if their weak arguments aren't refuted.Day dop wrote:Excellent fact-checking job in your last few posts. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unless you're a conspiracy nut, in which case you're almost never persuaded by facts..Mercuryking wrote: He may not even have had aids at all , they diagnose him saying he had the aids virus then giving him the fatal drug called AZT look it up for yourselves. I think those fuckers killed freddie on purpose.Look up - Myth #7: AZT causes AIDS Fact: AZT and other antiretrovirals helps people with AIDS live longer. link This is kind of amusing - three things that PCTs regularly bleat ... link link link |
| thomasquinn 32989 17.08.2014 10:37 |
What's really interesting is looking at who the people are that are peddling conspiracy theories. A lot of the time, it's not just people trying to make an easy buck (plenty of those) or the really bat crap crazy types (idem), but socio-political extremists: religious fanatics, no-government extremists, ultra-nationalists and, occasionally, environmentalists actively exploiting the New Age-crowd to push political goals by means of conspiracy-theory propaganda, yes, psychological warfare. The upsurge in conspiracy theory-material and exposure given to it and the new rise of the 'paranoid conservative' have mostly moved in a similar way the past few decades. |
| Day dop 19.08.2014 12:40 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: What's really interesting is looking at who the people are that are peddling conspiracy theories. A lot of the time, it's not just people trying to make an easy buck (plenty of those) or the really bat crap crazy types (idem), but socio-political extremists: religious fanatics, no-government extremists, ultra-nationalists and, occasionally, environmentalists actively exploiting the New Age-crowd to push political goals by means of conspiracy-theory propaganda, yes, psychological warfare. The upsurge in conspiracy theory-material and exposure given to it and the new rise of the 'paranoid conservative' have mostly moved in a similar way the past few decades.The internet is a great source of misinformation, that's added to all the paranoia a hell of a lot. Plus, the way conspiracy theorists jumped on 911. Since then, I think it's got worse. |
| The Real Wizard 19.08.2014 17:23 |
Day dop wrote: link link linkRationalwiki is my favourite website, next to cracked.com. The writing is concise, accurate, and often hilarious. Like this one: link But unfortunately, pointing wayward minded people to actual facts has been shown via studies to actually be detrimental - it merely reinforces (and often strengthens) their views and confirmation bias. |
| Day dop 19.08.2014 20:45 |
The Real Wizard wrote:It's great huh?Day dop wrote: link link linkRationalwiki is my favourite website, next to cracked.com. The writing is concise, accurate, and often hilarious. Like this one: link But unfortunately, pointing wayward minded people to actual facts has been shown via studies to actually be detrimental - it merely reinforces (and often strengthens) their views and confirmation bias. This one makes me laugh. link Also, their page about David Icke - that's funny too. As for Cracked.com, I recently found this one, it's old, from 2007, but it's interesting... worth reading if you have the time (if you haven't already, that is). link |
| *goodco* 19.08.2014 21:07 |
Here's one regarding the moon landing for you link Now you have THIS to dispel the facts of this as well. Extra cheese, please. |