2
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 23:
Line 23: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (view source)
Revision as of 21:26, June 3, 2011
, 21:26, June 3, 2011→deadly misinformation.: new section
::If diagnosis of AIDS is dependent on detecting HIV antibodies, then what does this mean? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:54, 7 January 2009 (EST)
::If diagnosis of AIDS is dependent on detecting HIV antibodies, then what does this mean? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:54, 7 January 2009 (EST)
:::That AIDS is dependent on the HIV being present in the system.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:03, 7 January 2009 (EST)
:::That AIDS is dependent on the HIV being present in the system.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 14:03, 7 January 2009 (EST)
== deadly misinformation. ==
This article gives an outrageous amount of uncritical attention to AIDS skeptics. Having seen plenty of scary whoppers on the pages of Conservapedia, I have never seen anything so stunningly naive as the following:
"It is estimated that over $1 trillion has been siphoned off from health care worldwide for antiretroviral drugs to treat AIDS, despite growing evidence that a good general diet can be just as effective."
(1) AIDS is a global pandemic. Treating and preventing it is health care. Even mitigating its symptoms, which antiretrovirals are able to do, helps not just individuals, but families, communities and indeed entire societies.
(2) A good general diet cannot be just as effective.
Truly, it is articles such as this which makes me glad that no one will ever rely on this site for facts. Because that could kill them.