|
On February 14 2011 23:05 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 22:59 Igakusei wrote:It looks like the suit had to do with the unauthorized release of private medical records, which doesn't exactly have anything to do with whether or not she actually had AIDS. And what's the deal with Al-Bayati? The fact that he's such an outspoken and prolific denialist casts suspicion over everything he does. The fact that they got him to release that report instead of a real medical pathologist that doesn't have any personal stake in the issue says a lot. If she really died from iatrogneic causes, shouldn't that be obvious to ANY pathologist? In the article you ignore this quote, "Eliza Jane Scovill had never been tested for HIV." And once again the circular logic. You are saying that Al-Bayati is unqualified to make his report because of the very nature of his argument, that his argument invalidates itself? That his pathology/toxicology report is invalid because of what the evidence that it indicates? Seriously? Yet, your youtube video made by AIDsTruth is valid and real evidence?
I never said the youtube video was valid or real evidence. Look at the context I posted it in again. I also didn't say Al Bayati's report was invalid- I don't have the medical education at this point to properly understand it, so I'll leave that to the professionals.
This sorta ties into my whole point here: I don't have the education to fully understand every scientific, political, or philosophical argument out there, so I generally align myself with the scientific consensus. When dissenters break away from said consensus, I expect them to provide extraordinary evidence as to why they think the majority of scientists in said field are wrong.
I'm not seeing that with AIDS. Your argument with Eliza-Jane is essentially that it was not PROVEN that she had AIDS. Sure, you're absolutely right. But her symptoms do line up exactly with what might be expected if HIV did cause AIDS.
What I see here are people cherry-picking experts to do autopsy reports and provided diagnoses. That's not extraordinary evidence, that's just sad.
Anyway, I've got a virology exam in a couple hours that I need to study for.
|
On February 14 2011 23:00 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 22:53 Consolidate wrote:On February 13 2011 14:19 AcuWill wrote: Anyway, my last post on this thread. It's nice to see some positive replies, but I don't have the time or the energy make educated replies to every counter argument that is thrown at me in an offhanded manner, especially when there is a plethora of information out there already on the topic. If anyone is curious, the links below are a good place to start. http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Main_Pagehttp://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/ On February 14 2011 22:25 AcuWill wrote:
Also, the reason that I have not responded to all hundreds of counter arguments made is that I do have a real life and am not interested in spending inordinate quantities of time making the proper counter arguments...
The good old "I have better things to do, but I'll suffer one more response" hypocrisy. Please stick to the discussion. If your real-life really can't be bothered, then don't waste your time justifying your reluctance to engage in debate. Burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim. Provide proof that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS and I will argue it. I have yet to see it. If HIV isn't the cause of AIDS, please tell me what, what is the cause of AIDS? Apparently you don't even believe that the explanation for the cause of AIDS that you yourself wrote is the cause of AIDS - so what is it?
|
On February 14 2011 23:00 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 22:53 Consolidate wrote:On February 13 2011 14:19 AcuWill wrote: Anyway, my last post on this thread. It's nice to see some positive replies, but I don't have the time or the energy make educated replies to every counter argument that is thrown at me in an offhanded manner, especially when there is a plethora of information out there already on the topic. If anyone is curious, the links below are a good place to start. http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Main_Pagehttp://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/ On February 14 2011 22:25 AcuWill wrote:
Also, the reason that I have not responded to all hundreds of counter arguments made is that I do have a real life and am not interested in spending inordinate quantities of time making the proper counter arguments...
The good old "I have better things to do, but I'll suffer one more response" hypocrisy. Please stick to the discussion. If your real-life really can't be bothered, then don't waste your time justifying your reluctance to engage in debate. Burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim. Provide proof that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS and I will argue it. I have yet to see it.
Ok I ask you not to refute every argument in this thread, you're right, that'd take a very long time and is unreasonable to expect of anyone. So I'll just ask you to critically respond to one argument made in this thread (and the sources it cites), which you haven't done so far.
from page 1 of this thread
Because so far it seems you pick and choose which arguments to have in this thread, specifically you avoid anyone who answers the question you keep hammering at "show me proof that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS".
So answer YoungNeil's post as I believe it adequately provides proof.
|
This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration?
From wikipedia:
"The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]"
From the declaration:
· Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they
live, are infected with HIV. (3-7)
· If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to
ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene
sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting
other virus infections.
· People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS,
whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6)
· Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher
the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8)
· In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4
lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5)
· Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people
and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS
mortality by more than 80%. (9)
· Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS.
(10)
Declaration with sources:
http://www.aidstruth.org/documents/the-durban-declaration.pdf
That was 11 years ago, today the evidence is even stronger...
|
On February 14 2011 23:19 Zanno wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 23:00 AcuWill wrote:On February 14 2011 22:53 Consolidate wrote:On February 13 2011 14:19 AcuWill wrote: Anyway, my last post on this thread. It's nice to see some positive replies, but I don't have the time or the energy make educated replies to every counter argument that is thrown at me in an offhanded manner, especially when there is a plethora of information out there already on the topic. If anyone is curious, the links below are a good place to start. http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Main_Pagehttp://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/ On February 14 2011 22:25 AcuWill wrote:
Also, the reason that I have not responded to all hundreds of counter arguments made is that I do have a real life and am not interested in spending inordinate quantities of time making the proper counter arguments...
The good old "I have better things to do, but I'll suffer one more response" hypocrisy. Please stick to the discussion. If your real-life really can't be bothered, then don't waste your time justifying your reluctance to engage in debate. Burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim. Provide proof that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS and I will argue it. I have yet to see it. If HIV isn't the cause of AIDS, please tell me what, what is the cause of AIDS? Apparently you don't even believe that the explanation for the cause of AIDS that you yourself wrote is the cause of AIDS - so what is it?
That is not the discussion. See this is the crux of it all, it is not my job to tell you what the cause is to disprove your claim. It is your job to prove your claim, that is that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. This has been the discussion since 1986.
And please read what I actually wrote. Not once anywhere do I say what the cause of AIDS is. Not once did I say anywhere that I do not believe what I wrote. Those are things you said and then proceeded to argue against.
If you would like to explore some possible causes of AIDS, feel free to. You can look at some of the links that I have provided, especially Duesberg's paper. However, that is not the discussion at hand.
You say, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS." I say, "Prove it."
|
On February 14 2011 23:27 DND_Enkil wrote:This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration? From wikipedia: "The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]" From the declaration: · Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV. (3-7) · If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. · People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6) · Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8) · In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5) · Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%. (9) · Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. (10) Declaration with sources: http://www.aidstruth.org/documents/the-durban-declaration.pdfThat was 11 years ago, today the evidence is even stronger...
The Durban declaration is not evidence that the causative factor of AIDS is HIV. It is a bunch of people signing a document that says that they are behind the HIV causes AIDS theory.
Essentially what was asked was, show of hands, who thinks HIV causes AIDS and then people offered their signatures.
See, I can do that too.
http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Document:Durban_Declaration_Stewart_Response
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/eprepdurbdec.htm
And a list of 2745 people that think otherwise.
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htm
Of course every vested individual in the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS department is going to say they think it does. You have provided nothing more.
|
On February 14 2011 23:16 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 23:15 mcc wrote:On February 14 2011 23:05 AcuWill wrote:On February 14 2011 22:59 Igakusei wrote:It looks like the suit had to do with the unauthorized release of private medical records, which doesn't exactly have anything to do with whether or not she actually had AIDS. And what's the deal with Al-Bayati? The fact that he's such an outspoken and prolific denialist casts suspicion over everything he does. The fact that they got him to release that report instead of a real medical pathologist that doesn't have any personal stake in the issue says a lot. If she really died from iatrogneic causes, shouldn't that be obvious to ANY pathologist? In the article you ignore this quote, "Eliza Jane Scovill had never been tested for HIV." And once again the circular logic. You are saying that Al-Bayati is unqualified to make his report because of the very nature of his argument, that his argument invalidates itself? That his pathology/toxicology report is invalid because of what the evidence that it indicates? Seriously? Yet, your youtube video made by AIDsTruth is valid and real evidence? All your posts are pure rhetoric and your modus operandi is to ignore facts and evidence and react only to those parts of posts that contain opinions and then claiming that noone actually posted any evidence. Point of that youtube video was not to provide evidence, but point out the dangers people like you pose to others. Provide me with those facts that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. You are making a claim, back it up. Burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine. Think of it this way. I say, "The Jolly Green Giant is real." It is not your job to go out to prove that he isn't. It is my job to prove that he is. I am still waiting for cogent data.
I know very well how burden of proof works, I have no interest to post evidence, because you will ignore it and because there is a lot of people in this thread better qualified to do so and they already did so. I just pointed out your debating tactics and explained to you that that youtube video was not meant as evidence.
|
On February 14 2011 23:16 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 23:15 mcc wrote:On February 14 2011 23:05 AcuWill wrote:On February 14 2011 22:59 Igakusei wrote:It looks like the suit had to do with the unauthorized release of private medical records, which doesn't exactly have anything to do with whether or not she actually had AIDS. And what's the deal with Al-Bayati? The fact that he's such an outspoken and prolific denialist casts suspicion over everything he does. The fact that they got him to release that report instead of a real medical pathologist that doesn't have any personal stake in the issue says a lot. If she really died from iatrogneic causes, shouldn't that be obvious to ANY pathologist? In the article you ignore this quote, "Eliza Jane Scovill had never been tested for HIV." And once again the circular logic. You are saying that Al-Bayati is unqualified to make his report because of the very nature of his argument, that his argument invalidates itself? That his pathology/toxicology report is invalid because of what the evidence that it indicates? Seriously? Yet, your youtube video made by AIDsTruth is valid and real evidence? All your posts are pure rhetoric and your modus operandi is to ignore facts and evidence and react only to those parts of posts that contain opinions and then claiming that noone actually posted any evidence. Point of that youtube video was not to provide evidence, but point out the dangers people like you pose to others. Provide me with those facts that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. You are making a claim, back it up. Burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine. Think of it this way. I say, "The Jolly Green Giant is real." It is not your job to go out to prove that he isn't. It is my job to prove that he is. I am still waiting for cogent data.
On February 14 2011 23:18 Igakusei wrote:
This sorta ties into my whole point here: I don't have the education to fully understand every scientific, political, or philosophical argument out there, so I generally align myself with the scientific consensus. When dissenters break away from said consensus, I expect them to provide extraordinary evidence as to why they think the majority of scientists in said field are wrong
On February 14 2011 23:27 DND_Enkil wrote:
This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration?
From wikipedia:
"The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]"
I think this sums up the difference of opinion on burden of proof well. Basically, you think that we have to prove HIV causes AIDS. To my mind, and the great majority of experts and the general public, this has already been done. It is now on you to provide 'extraordinary evidence' as Igakusei put it quite nicely, that the offical proven position is wrong. Whereas you don't accept said evidence, so you believe the burden of proof lies with us. So we're at an impasse. I don't think debating this further is helpful.
You're still welcome to comment on this post though if you like
I also note you're still picking out which comments to respond to. So I'll just ask you again to counter or respond to his arguments and citations please.
|
On February 14 2011 23:35 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 23:27 DND_Enkil wrote:This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration? From wikipedia: "The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]" From the declaration: · Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV. (3-7) · If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. · People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6) · Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8) · In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5) · Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%. (9) · Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. (10) Declaration with sources: http://www.aidstruth.org/documents/the-durban-declaration.pdfThat was 11 years ago, today the evidence is even stronger... The Durban declaration is not evidence that the causative factor of AIDS is HIV. It is a bunch of people signing a document that says that they are behind the HIV causes AIDS theory. Essentially what was asked was, show of hands, who thinks HIV causes AIDS and then people offered their signatures. See, I can do that too. http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Document:Durban_Declaration_Stewart_Responsehttp://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/eprepdurbdec.htmAnd a list of 2745 people that think otherwise. http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htmOf course every vested individual in the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS department is going to say they think it does. You have provided nothing more.
That is not how arguing works, you see i have one opinion "HIV causes AIDS" and you have another opinion "HIV does not cause AIDS", i present my arguments:
+ Show Spoiler +· Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they
live, are infected with HIV. (3-7)
· If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to
ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene
sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting
other virus infections.
· People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS,
whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6)
· Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher
the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8)
· In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4
lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5)
· Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people
and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS
mortality by more than 80%. (9)
· Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS.
(10)
And then you preferably:
1) Prove my arguments wrong
2) Present your own arguments
You are not arguing, you are repeating your opinion over and over again. It is like discussing evolution with a Creationist (who does not even adhere to the "intelligent design" belif), he will never be able to actually respond to any argument so arguing with him is pointless.
You present yourself as a well-educated man who has done extensive research on this subject, now prove that and argue your case. It is not up to us to prove HIV causes Aids, that is the general consensus already, you are the one trying to advocate something different. Prove it.
If i where to claim that time is non-linear and slowing/speeding up of time is possible, the burden of proof would be on me since the general consensus is that it is linear.
|
On February 14 2011 23:16 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 23:15 mcc wrote:On February 14 2011 23:05 AcuWill wrote:On February 14 2011 22:59 Igakusei wrote:It looks like the suit had to do with the unauthorized release of private medical records, which doesn't exactly have anything to do with whether or not she actually had AIDS. And what's the deal with Al-Bayati? The fact that he's such an outspoken and prolific denialist casts suspicion over everything he does. The fact that they got him to release that report instead of a real medical pathologist that doesn't have any personal stake in the issue says a lot. If she really died from iatrogneic causes, shouldn't that be obvious to ANY pathologist? In the article you ignore this quote, "Eliza Jane Scovill had never been tested for HIV." And once again the circular logic. You are saying that Al-Bayati is unqualified to make his report because of the very nature of his argument, that his argument invalidates itself? That his pathology/toxicology report is invalid because of what the evidence that it indicates? Seriously? Yet, your youtube video made by AIDsTruth is valid and real evidence? All your posts are pure rhetoric and your modus operandi is to ignore facts and evidence and react only to those parts of posts that contain opinions and then claiming that noone actually posted any evidence. Point of that youtube video was not to provide evidence, but point out the dangers people like you pose to others. Provide me with those facts that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. You are making a claim, back it up. Burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine. Think of it this way. I say, "The Jolly Green Giant is real." It is not your job to go out to prove that he isn't. It is my job to prove that he is. I am still waiting for cogent data.
Here is a good 2000 Article, which describes the body of knowledge on HIV and AIDS at that time quite well and rather laymans terms imo:
Biology and Evolution of HIV
A very recent analysis of the pathogenic mechanism for the HI virus can be found here:
Pathogenic Mechanisms of HIV Disease
Be careful though, both articles are heavily biased in favor of good research ...
|
On February 14 2011 23:35 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 23:27 DND_Enkil wrote:This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration? From wikipedia: "The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]" From the declaration: · Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV. (3-7) · If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. · People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6) · Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8) · In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5) · Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%. (9) · Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. (10) Declaration with sources: http://www.aidstruth.org/documents/the-durban-declaration.pdfThat was 11 years ago, today the evidence is even stronger... The Durban declaration is not evidence that the causative factor of AIDS is HIV. It is a bunch of people signing a document that says that they are behind the HIV causes AIDS theory. Essentially what was asked was, show of hands, who thinks HIV causes AIDS and then people offered their signatures. See, I can do that too. http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Document:Durban_Declaration_Stewart_Responsehttp://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/eprepdurbdec.htmAnd a list of 2745 people that think otherwise. http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htmOf course every vested individual in the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS department is going to say they think it does. You have provided nothing more.
LOOOOL, just few posts after people accuse you of ignoring evidence you do it so blatantly  Nice of you to ignore second part of his post.
|
On February 14 2011 23:23 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 23:00 AcuWill wrote:On February 14 2011 22:53 Consolidate wrote:On February 13 2011 14:19 AcuWill wrote: Anyway, my last post on this thread. It's nice to see some positive replies, but I don't have the time or the energy make educated replies to every counter argument that is thrown at me in an offhanded manner, especially when there is a plethora of information out there already on the topic. If anyone is curious, the links below are a good place to start. http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Main_Pagehttp://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/ On February 14 2011 22:25 AcuWill wrote:
Also, the reason that I have not responded to all hundreds of counter arguments made is that I do have a real life and am not interested in spending inordinate quantities of time making the proper counter arguments...
The good old "I have better things to do, but I'll suffer one more response" hypocrisy. Please stick to the discussion. If your real-life really can't be bothered, then don't waste your time justifying your reluctance to engage in debate. Burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim. Provide proof that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS and I will argue it. I have yet to see it. Ok I ask you not to refute every argument in this thread, you're right, that'd take a very long time and is unreasonable to expect of anyone. So I'll just ask you to critically respond to one argument made in this thread (and the sources it cites), which you haven't done so far. from page 1 of this threadBecause so far it seems you pick and choose which arguments to have in this thread, specifically you avoid anyone who answers the question you keep hammering at "show me proof that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS". So answer YoungNeil's post as I believe it adequately provides proof.
I would like to point out that he provided a drawing and a photograph that was show that HIV exists, not that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS. So that is not evidence and the discussion of whether or not HIV has ever been truly isolated is a different topic altogether that I am not going to get into at this time.
Then he made a blanket statement, "It must also be noted that AIDS-like, catastrophic immunodeficiency infections are extremely rare outside of those infected with HIV."
On table 7, page 394 are the citations for 13 studies that show otherwise.
http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html
Further, if one looks at the diagnostic criterion for AIDS in Africa that I had posted earlier, one can see that the AIDS defining diseases are not rare at all.
Major signs:
- weight loss 10%
- chronic diarrhoea 1 month
- fever 1 month (intermittent or constant)
-herpes zoster
-non-healing genital sores
Minor signs:
- cough for > 1 month
- generalized itching
- recurrent herpes zoster
- oro-pharyngeal candidiasis
- chronic progressive and disseminated herpes simplex infection
- generalized lymphadenopathy
As he does not provide evidence what "AIDS-like, catastrophic immunodeficiency infections" are specifically or his source for the data, I cannot really argue any further on that point.
Further, evidence is further clouded by the fact that AIDS defining diseases are not specific to AIDS.
• Candidiasis
• Cervical cancer (invasive)
• Coccidioidomycosis, Cryptococcosis, Cryptosporidiosis
• Cytomegalovirus disease
• Encephalopathy (HIV-related)
• Herpes simplex (severe infection)
• Histoplasmosis
• Isosporiasis
• Kaposi’s sarcoma
• Lymphoma (certain types)
• Mycobacterium avium complex
• Pneumocystis carinii/jiroveci pneumonia
• Pneumonia (recurrent)
• Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
• Salmonella septicemia (recurrent)
• Toxoplasmosis of the brain
• Tuberculosis
• Wasting syndrome
Taken from http://www.aidsinfo.nih.gov/contentfiles/TestingPositive_FS_en.pdf which I would like to point out does not have a single citation.
As one can see, those are hardly specific at all.
Once again, there was no evidence was provided that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS and his blanket statement is not true.
|
This thread is going to ruin my grade 
AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine.
Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works.
The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want?
|
On February 14 2011 23:49 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 23:35 AcuWill wrote:On February 14 2011 23:27 DND_Enkil wrote:This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration? From wikipedia: "The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]" From the declaration: · Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV. (3-7) · If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. · People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6) · Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8) · In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5) · Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%. (9) · Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. (10) Declaration with sources: http://www.aidstruth.org/documents/the-durban-declaration.pdfThat was 11 years ago, today the evidence is even stronger... The Durban declaration is not evidence that the causative factor of AIDS is HIV. It is a bunch of people signing a document that says that they are behind the HIV causes AIDS theory. Essentially what was asked was, show of hands, who thinks HIV causes AIDS and then people offered their signatures. See, I can do that too. http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Document:Durban_Declaration_Stewart_Responsehttp://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/eprepdurbdec.htmAnd a list of 2745 people that think otherwise. http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htmOf course every vested individual in the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS department is going to say they think it does. You have provided nothing more. LOOOOL, just few posts after people accuse you of ignoring evidence you do it so blatantly Nice of you to ignore second part of his post.
The second part is a quote from the Durban Declaration. I posted replies of scientists with citations that counters that particular section. How did I ignore it?
|
On February 14 2011 23:35 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 23:27 DND_Enkil wrote:This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration? From wikipedia: "The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]" From the declaration: · Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV. (3-7) · If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. · People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6) · Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8) · In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5) · Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%. (9) · Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. (10) Declaration with sources: http://www.aidstruth.org/documents/the-durban-declaration.pdfThat was 11 years ago, today the evidence is even stronger... The Durban declaration is not evidence that the causative factor of AIDS is HIV. It is a bunch of people signing a document that says that they are behind the HIV causes AIDS theory. Essentially what was asked was, show of hands, who thinks HIV causes AIDS and then people offered their signatures. See, I can do that too. http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Document:Durban_Declaration_Stewart_Responsehttp://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/eprepdurbdec.htmAnd a list of 2745 people that think otherwise. http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htmOf course every vested individual in the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS department is going to say they think it does. You have provided nothing more.
Lets see... the first list shows 12 people that signed. After a quick look i couldn't find more, but maybe you can enlighten me.
After skipping through the second i couldn't find any more people signing it.
The third link... well, we already had it in the thread, but i will still quote an excerpt from the first few names for you:
Kofi Ababio. Assistant Professor of Anthropology
Ono A. Abada. MSc (Economics)
Folarin Abimbola. Medical student
Jotham Achineku. Engineer
Zdenka Acin. PhD, Journalist
Leonardo Acosta. Journalist
Mark Adams. Faculty Member, Department of Mathematics and Computing Science Faculty
Mike Adams. Holistic nutritionist
Gabriela Adelstein. Translator
Now what exactly are their references? Journalists? Anthropology? Translator? Engineer? Medical student?
Yes, there are some names on the list that might have some experience with the matter, though i bet most of them already changed their mind.
No, HIV is definatly a cause for AIDS. Anyone denying it is either blind or... well, lacks the usually suprisingly uncommon common sense.
|
On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote:This thread is going to ruin my grade AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine. Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works. The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want?
I am just asking for the citation that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. Is that really so challenging? That is the burden of proof that I am asking about. Then I can respond to it. That is what I need to make a counter argument.
Here is an account of Kary Mullis looking for the same thing in his own words. http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/kintro.html
I would like to have a discussion, truly, but it is not possible with the, "Disprove that HIV doesn't cause AIDS" rhetoric.
If you notice in that account, Kary Mullis does not agree with Duesberg in everything, actually, they disagree on a lot, as I don't either, which is why often times there are conflicting opinions on things that I have posted. However, the fundament that the evidence that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS cannot be found is agreed upon.
Why is that question so avoided and why does standing up for the fact that nobody can answer it label one as a zealot or instantaneously no longer able to be qualified? Why does the question lead to the absence of good discussion?
|
Ok, you didn't refer to his sources, so I'm reposting his post:
On February 13 2011 10:24 YoungNeil wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2011 10:00 AcuWill wrote:
Funny, as there has never been evidence to prove the existence of HIV published. You would be the first. Do pictures count? + Show Spoiler +It's actually a very well-documented virus, your claim that it doesn't even exist is laughable. We know what kind of cells in the body it infects (primarily macrophages and CD4+ T Cells), we know its structure (pretty much your typical retrovirus, with its own unique markers, of course), and we know its taxonomic variations ( see here). It's been examined more closely than almost any other pathogen in history. Show nested quote +On February 13 2011 10:00 AcuWill wrote:
All you need to do is publish evidence that what you were staring at actually causes AIDS, win a Nobel Prize and be the first to publish such a thing Yeah, that happened.The link between HIV and AIDS is extremely well-supported. It fulfills all of Koch's postulates, as established by numerous studies. It must also be noted that AIDS-like, catastrophic immunodeficiency infections are extremely rare outside of those infected with HIV. I could give all kinds of sources to look at, if you're willing to seriously consider just how far you've been misled. AIDS denialism (arguably an ad-hominem term, I suppose, but certainly no worse than the language used in the first article) has been pseudoscience since the nineties. And unlike many popular conspiracy theories, it kills people, every day. Spreading this kind of nonsense is very dangerous, and you need to make sure that you're extremely confident in your beliefs before you try to convince others to risk their lives on it.
Note everyone, the drawing and photograph were for your benefit AcuWill, as you had claimed that there isn't proof that HIV exists. He didn't mention Africa, now you're off on a tangent again. Lastly, although I didn't think you'd respond to the sources he provided, I figured I'd give it a shot for you to prove me wrong. However I think everyone should now see it's clearly useless discussing this with you further, as you ignore parts of arguments that contradict your position and then try to resteer the conversation onto topics of your own choosing - like you've just done with Africa. Further, you deliberately try and obfuscate matters as now, with how you've mentioned the seemingly inexplicable relevance of the picture and drawing that show HIV exists - without acknowledging this was in response to your own claim.
|
On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote:This thread is going to ruin my grade AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine. Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works. The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want?
While you are technically correct, the evidence for HIV/AIDS is actually much better since there have been abundant trials with animals (esp. Rhesus macaque) with SIV and HIV-2. The insights gained in these experiments quite convincingly confirmed the supposed link between SIV and HIV as can be read up here for instance:
Current concepts in AIDS ...
|
On February 15 2011 00:04 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote:This thread is going to ruin my grade AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine. Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works. The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want? I am just asking for the citation that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. Is that really so challenging? That is the burden of proof that I am asking about. Then I can respond to it. That is what I need to make a counter argument. Here is an account of Kary Mullis looking for the same thing in his own words. http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/kintro.htmlI would like to have a discussion, truly, but it is not possible with the, "Disprove that HIV doesn't cause AIDS" rhetoric. If you notice in that account, Kary Mullis does not agree with Duesberg in everything, actually, they disagree on a lot, as I don't either, which is why often times there are conflicting opinions on things that I have posted. However, the fundament that the evidence that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS cannot be found is agreed upon. Why is that question so avoided and why does standing up for the fact that nobody can answer it label one as a zealot or instantaneously no longer able to be qualified? Why does the question lead to the absence of good discussion?
Did you read the articles I linked for you? What exactly disqualifies their findings?
|
On February 14 2011 23:56 AcuWill wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 23:49 mcc wrote:On February 14 2011 23:35 AcuWill wrote:On February 14 2011 23:27 DND_Enkil wrote:This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration? From wikipedia: "The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]" From the declaration: · Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV. (3-7) · If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. · People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6) · Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8) · In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5) · Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%. (9) · Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. (10) Declaration with sources: http://www.aidstruth.org/documents/the-durban-declaration.pdfThat was 11 years ago, today the evidence is even stronger... The Durban declaration is not evidence that the causative factor of AIDS is HIV. It is a bunch of people signing a document that says that they are behind the HIV causes AIDS theory. Essentially what was asked was, show of hands, who thinks HIV causes AIDS and then people offered their signatures. See, I can do that too. http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Document:Durban_Declaration_Stewart_Responsehttp://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/eprepdurbdec.htmAnd a list of 2745 people that think otherwise. http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htmOf course every vested individual in the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS department is going to say they think it does. You have provided nothing more. LOOOOL, just few posts after people accuse you of ignoring evidence you do it so blatantly Nice of you to ignore second part of his post. The second part is a quote from the Durban Declaration. I posted replies of scientists with citations that counters that particular section. How did I ignore it?
The second part contains the evidence with sources in the PDF. You did not counter any of it with your "source" with the names of dozen (maybe) scientists. The 2745 people thing was already dealt with in this thread. Every post you make only reinforces my description of your debating tactics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aOCNS.jpg)
