I know what you mean about this 'impossible' issue.
AIDS is an illness that they say cannot be cured but when Charlie explained the nature of his illness after he took the vaccination is that the way AIDS is defined, if you ever had it and it's not detectable the word for it is not 'cure' but now not-detectable AIDS.
But people have had the illness and then changed a name and got tested again and not had it... it was never like that except as a social convention, and it would be unlikely for this AIDS condition to just disappear but sometimes it does and some people are even immune in that sense.
AIDS has supposedly devastated Africa but they calculate life expectancy differently in Africa because they have a different educational system where what you get you get right away at a young age so the life expectancy number is calculated differently.
But what was the real change in this life expectancy number assuming a standardized way of calculating it?
Then there are celebrities like Freddie Mercury (who as far as I know is not from a ten commandments based faith and his religion probably has nothing against homosexuality) and EZ E (who is heavily ten commandments biased, and more about telling the kids right cuz he was confused), but these guys complain about homosexual relations as the worst thing for society and claim that doing gay stuff makes dudes want to just randomly murder people or stuff in that vein, and then they get AIDS right away and die...
Or they're afraid about "gang relations" and looking the other way and random senseless murder attempts and EZ E went the next step to create a space of understanding where someone could engage in those activities without wanting to either kill people or look the other way at senseless murder, and Freddie Mercury before his passing backed down on these notions as if it could be possible, but these are examples of people that died right away from the illness with a big smug smile on their face that their point was proven...
But we don't know what it would have been naturally. There is so much hysteria blinding of reasonable insight but we know that given the nature of the illness some assumptions would have to be wrong.
Now some even say AIDS is a choice and it makes you more internal and soft but if you take it easy, you might buy a safety zone advantage rather than burning it up... but then make it a choice and let people decide if they want it or not.
I have heard that it can transfer from a kiss or even the air but it's very very unlikely (or how would they even know the person didn't already have AIDS - when was the last AIDS test given? If it was that rare, it could easily be coincidental, especially among sub groups of people who kissed someone with AIDS at all; what else could they have done?)
But we also hear Charlie's side and the way we frame AIDS in our mind is out and out loony and not corresponding to the initial assumptions.
It's hysteria but we know the whole story is that he took steps to improve his life expectancy and make it extremely tough to transfer this 'illness' but we have to admit that the way he explained it is that the reason it cannot be cured is purely definitional to how the illness is ***defined*** ******uniquely****** but it could not be detected if he changed his name and tried to pass the highest level of detection testing.
I'm not saying that AIDS is not a real illness but the facts and figures and numbers and assumptions around it are insensible in tandem. It won't make sense.
For example, why would someone take medication for HIV if it has no symptoms other than it can lead to or spread AIDS? Why would anyone take habitual medications for an illness of this nature if they woke up feeling fine? Given what we were told, wouldn't it be more sensible for HIV to develop to AIDS before attempting treatment and even then wouldn't it make sense to apply treatments when there is another issue?
Because the first thought is that this would help the next thing kill us as our immune system is hampered.... so if we woke up fine why would we even bother with pills?
Or maybe there is a reason but it clearly is not disclosed.
But if there was a reason for *some* habitual medications, if the research was properly conducted for our benefit, the majority would have probably started where I did.... from what people were told when I was in elementary school 89-90, something like that... if the research was conducted in fairness for our benefit, rather than try to treat HIV habitually, some big names would have to be thinking of giving 'extra pills' or maybe even blood cell boosters (if that was available) when the patient had another sickness or a fever... that would have been a reasonable place for someone to start but the pressure for habitual treatment when you make it that big and that grand as a standardized approach, the treatments have ****clearly**** been corrupted given the first notions disclosed on the nature of the illness.
And I think if it was defined within normal boundaries for better comparison with other illnesses, an established easy to reproduce and cheap cure has been available for thirty years, almost as long as the illness, if more cures are not available on top of this one.
Quite frankly if I had to guess, I would bet on Sheen giving himself AIDS to prove a point.... maybe thinking it would boost his acting to get behind something big like AIDS research, buy him some good will...
Regardless AIDS research (or AIDS 'beliefs') is not foundationally solid... what we have been cultured to believe will not add up to a congruent picture, so I believe Charlie.
I think he found a way to 'undetectable AIDS' and I think the way it's designed for obvious reasons unless he changes his identity he cannot be cured... but that would be the next step if he wanted a full cure and people fighting it are scared of an evil that they themselves are propagating.
Cuz it never made sense before he said this stuff either, how they were going about 'treating' the problem.
reply
share