• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 04:51
CEST 10:51
KST 17:51
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202557RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension4
StarCraft 2
General
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 2025 The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings What tournaments are world championships? RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams BW General Discussion [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance [BSL 2v2] ProLeague Season 3 - Friday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? [G] Mineral Boosting Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Post Pic of your Favorite Food! Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 898 users

AIDS Denialism? - Page 13

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 11 12 13 14 Next All
pyrogenetix
Profile Blog Joined March 2006
China5094 Posts
February 14 2011 16:23 GMT
#241
all these people that dont believe in aids should get a generous injection of the HIV virus so we can skip listening to their rubbish.
Yea that looks just like Kang Min... amazing game sense... and uses mind games well, but has the micro of a washed up progamer.
ZeaL.
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
United States5955 Posts
February 14 2011 16:24 GMT
#242
On February 15 2011 00:10 MiraMax 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?


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 ...



The interesting thing about this is that SIV affects different types of nonhuman primates differently. One of the researchers at my grad school is going to start a project to sequence two types of primates, sooty mangabeys and rhesus macaques. Both are infected with SIV but sooty mangabeys manage to maintain a steady level of cd4 cells while rhesus macaques are affected deleteriously. I really want to do a rotation with him to maybe work on this as my graduate thesis.

Here's an interesting article on an experiment where they infected 3 rhesus macaques and 3 sooty mangabeys with a version of SIV and monitored the viral loads and host responses.
LunarC
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
United States1186 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-14 16:28:13
February 14 2011 16:27 GMT
#243
You know, AcuWill, you argue that the mechanism is unknown. But he's not arguing anything about the mechanism. He's arguing that the act of infection exists. Last time I checked, when a virus can gain access to a cell, it will typically proceed to destroy it and use it to replicate itself. Fuck HOW it does it.
REEBUH!!!
Prfx
Profile Joined July 2010
51 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-14 16:38:03
February 14 2011 16:29 GMT
#244
As far as monkeys go this is what i could find:

[Edit: "find" means taken from the citations of this article:
http://www.aidstruth.org/NIAIDEvidenceThatHIVCausesAIDS
paragraph: "Koch's postulates also have been fulfilled in animal models of human AIDS."]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10195754?dopt=abstract
3 rhesus macaques are inoculated with SIV intramuscularly and develop AIDS

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/182/4/1051.full
10 chimpanzees are inoculated with HIV, one develops AIDS

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9625420?dopt=abstract
2 out of 5 baboons, inoculated with HIV-2UC2 intravenously, develop a "immunodeficiency syndrome-like disease"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8627799?dopt=abstract
3 of 9 pig-tailed macaques develop AIDS after being infected via bone marrow-to-marrow transfer.

AcuWill
Profile Joined August 2010
United States281 Posts
February 14 2011 16:31 GMT
#245
On February 15 2011 01:17 MiraMax wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 15 2011 01:02 AcuWill wrote:
On February 15 2011 00:44 MiraMax wrote:


Here is an article which directly deals with Duesberg and the like and provides lots of references to actual studies. And the best thing: it's freely accessible so not only "proud phd candidates" like you can read it, but everybody on this forum:

AIDS Denialism and Public Health Policy

Enjoy!

All of the individuals that received those exposures were put on chemotherapeutic agents and then developed immune suppression, which is actually exactly Duesberg's arguments. Your evidence validates his theory.

He actually discusses and refutes exactly what you have posted in his article: http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html .

Further, the nature of what you have posted does not indicate that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS. The evidence you have indicates that individuals after HIV exposure and taking long term chemotherapy develop immune suppression. The claims that individuals get AIDS after HIV exposure are cited by reports, not research studies indicating HIV is the causative factor of AIDS [Citation: (CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; AIDS Knowledge Base, 1999)].

And then you cite that animals that are chemically given "human immune systems" get immunosupression. Really? You mean the animals that are immunosupressed animals get immunosupressed?

Without seeing the actual studies regarding the chimps and baboons it would be difficult to comment. But the typical way of introducing the foreign matter is by repeatedly injecting reasonably large quantities of it directly into their central nervous systems. No wonder they present with some of the AIDS defining diseases, like diarrhea, weight loss, and immunosupression. Note the several steps away from HIV is the causative factor of AIDS to, in primates when injected (somewhere, likely their central nervous system) with repeated doses of foreign matter they present with some AIDS defining diseases. Hardly proof that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS.

Aids defining diseases.
• 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


I directly linked a source for you which contains ample details of the similarities between SIV, HIV and AIDS and the paper by Chigwedere and Essex lists further clinical studies, mechanistic analyses and demographic surveys, lots of which carried out in the last five years and you answer by posting a paper by Duesberg from 2003? Do you realize that Chigwedere and Essex explicitly cite and discuss the paper of Duesberg from 2003? Can you tell me how he could possibly reply to a critique put forward to him in 2010 in a paper he wrote 7 years earlier?

Do you actually have access to pubmed articles (no, not just the abstracts, the real articles)? Are you really a phd student?

You have provided me with a link to a paper that states HIV causes AIDS and that the evidence has been available for 20 years. It then cites a book that is a compilation of the cited evidence, instead of citing said evidence directly. It then goes on to cite epidemiological studies, etc., without providing the actual evidence. Isn't it odd how every time that statement has been made in every posting directed at me, there is no actual citation to review for that claim? The paper is not an actual study indicating that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS rather a review of literature of that. When it gets to providing the actual literature, the author simply cites themselves in a book.

How is this paper supposed to show that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS? It responds to many of Duesberg's theories, which I have not had time to analyze, but once again is simply beating around the bush and not proving the actual evidence that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. If it exists and is so easy, surely one of the now tens of items posted in this thread should have the citation, yet none have.
AcuWill
Profile Joined August 2010
United States281 Posts
February 14 2011 16:35 GMT
#246
On February 15 2011 01:27 LunarC wrote:
You know, AcuWill, you argue that the mechanism is unknown. But he's not arguing anything about the mechanism. He's arguing that the act of infection exists. Last time I checked, when a virus can gain access to a cell, it will typically proceed to destroy it and use it to replicate itself. Fuck HOW it does it.

It's not that it cannot be shown how it does it, rather that it does it at all. That is what is the point. Further, only 1-500 CD4+ lymphocytes are infected, with no evidence that HIV causes cell death.

http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html Please see table 4, number 4 for the citations.

Once again, that is not evidence that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS either way.
Subversive
Profile Joined October 2009
Australia2229 Posts
February 14 2011 16:45 GMT
#247
Ok have it your way . I just hope you never become any type of health practitioner and inflict your ideas onto sick people.
#1 Great fan ~ // Khan // FlaSh // JangBi // EffOrt //
AcuWill
Profile Joined August 2010
United States281 Posts
February 14 2011 16:53 GMT
#248
I have to go now and do some real life, but I would like to point out that HIV causes AIDS theory came about in the mid 1980s. So, posting articles proving the causative factor of AIDS is HIV that are recent is a bit of an issue.

Further, secondary studies indicating correlations trying to prove an existing theory far later in time are also inherently not really valid. In fact, scientifically, it is wrong to try to provide evidence for a theory far after its practical implementation. This should be provided before hand, if not, it is not science at all, rather guessing.

The fact that nothing can be dredged up, has never been dredged up as indicated by Kary Mullis in the link below, and still has not been dredged at the very least should raise a red flag. http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/kintro.html

I am not trying convince anyone of anything, but questioning should never be wrong. It can only serve to strengthen an argument if it is truly valid. What I am trying to do is show that there are questions that have never been answered and the should not be swept under the rug. If the questions are proven to be baseless, well then that only serves to strengthen the orthodox position and will be a benefit to us all. In the process, much would be learned and it could lead to the breakthrough that is truly needed.

If the questions cannot be shown to be baseless, then a reevaluation is ethically and morally necessary. Nobody should fear such an evaluation if what they believe to be true is actually true. However, such calls for reevaluation are instead met with personal attacks, the attempt to end careers, black listing, and the like. That should never be, and certainly not in science, for that is what science is by its nature, the seeking of answers to questions.

Anytime people are silenced in science, no matter how off the wall their ideas are, a fundamental violation of the spirit of science is committed, and a slippery slope is entered.

Remember, not long ago a man was ostracized and thrown out from his profession for voicing such opinions. If his ideas had been analyzed or simply been allowed to be freely expressed, thousands of lives could have been saved and a new era of disease pathogenesis would have been ushered in. His name was Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis and all he introduced was the concept that washing of one's hands could prevent sepsis. The uproar in the medical community was far greater then the uproar generated by questioning whether HIV is the causative effect of AIDS.

Anyway, I am off and likely will not post again in this thread. I have responded to most of the more cogent arguments made, but still ask the question:

Where is the evidence that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS?

All the best,

Acuwill
theSAiNT
Profile Joined July 2009
United States726 Posts
February 14 2011 16:54 GMT
#249
AcuWill: Stop trolling TL forums.

The evidence that HIV causes AIDS is overwhelming. Instead of posting your 'arguments' on a gaming forum, do some simple Google searches and read the evidence yourself.

Or, talk to any medical student/doctor.
mcc
Profile Joined October 2010
Czech Republic4646 Posts
February 14 2011 17:01 GMT
#250
Eh, his debating technique boils down to posting walls of texts, ignoring arguments or replying to arguments with illogical/non-related responses, repeating everything over and over until opponents give up in desperation Where have I seen this approach
ZeaL.
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
United States5955 Posts
February 14 2011 17:05 GMT
#251
On February 15 2011 01:20 AcuWill wrote:
I do not agree with your third statement, and have questions about your second.


For point 2:
Multiple studies have been done. Knockouts of CCR5 or CXCR4 result in little to no infection of CD4+ cells with HIV in vitro. Antibodies specific to these cell surface receptors also result in reduced infection of CD4+ cells with HIV.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v385/n6617/pdf/385645a0.pdf

The β-Chemokine Receptors CCR3 and CCR5 Facilitate Infection by Primary HIV-1 Isolates

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v4/n1/abs/nm0198-072.html

Also a quote from your last source, "Despite more than 20 years of study, the mechanism by which HIV so effectively depletes CD4 T cells in untreated, infected subjects remains a mystery." That is hardly proof that HIV infects CD4+ lymphocytes and causes them to die. In fact, your source indicates that how it occurs is a mystery, ie. there is no evidence.


What he's saying is that previous research has been unable to figure out how HIV kills so many CD4+ cells while seemingly only infecting a few. What his research is showing is that many cells successfully fight off an HIV infection but apoptose suggesting an explanation for why CD4+ depletion happens when only 1% of CD4+ cells seem like they are infected.

Asides from the actual mechanism of CD4+ depletion, time course studies have been done on subjects infected with HIV as well as studies on primates infected with HIV showing a marked decrease in CD4+ cell count. Similarly, treatment with antiretrovirals shows an increase in CD4+ count. The logical explanation is that HIV depletes CD4+ cell count and that ARV's, by preventing HIV from multiplying prevent that depletion. Just because there is a gap in understanding does not mean that it is suddenly false.

You have resorted to arguing other points, leading further and further from the crux of the argument, that there is no proof that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. You are in fact supporting my argument by doing so.


Apparently trying to discuss the mechanism of HIV is "detracting from the crux of the argument".
InfeSteD
Profile Blog Joined December 2006
United States4658 Posts
February 14 2011 17:15 GMT
#252
I think your fuckin sick in the head.... Ive always told people this, some people are too smart for their own good. I respect all of your opinions, trust me it makes sense... OF COURSE IT MAKES SENSE TO HOLD AN ARGUMENT VERY STRONGLY when you are putting as simple as "pic or it didnt happen"

this is just an example:
Proof of god or he doesnt exist! (well guess what? its your own opinion AND WE RESPECT IT! of course there are always people that judge) But guess what? the way you come about saying things about not being able to prove something makes it a little moronic...

Most people in this thread that disagree with you still you somewhat credit for whatever the fuck you talk about.... they re just simply telling you to fuckin be positive, they are not assuming HIV causes AIDS to fuckin make money out of shit or to feel smarter than others... THEY ARE DOING IT AND ASSUMING IT FOR GOOD! TO FUCKIN SAVE LIVES! even if they cant prove it , they believe what they are doing is the right thing to do to save sick people...

If you are so smart to always end your posts with "Where is the proof that Hiv etc etc etc" I have a little tip for you:
- Keep things simple bro, Life is easier that way.
- Lots of things in this life started out with assumptions that made somewhat sense through visions, evidence, statistics, later down the road... when we knew it worked it was a lot easier to proof how.
- Its like trying to show evidence of God, Ghosts, Trying to understand women LOL etc....

You type huge walls of text talking your crap to then conclude cockly "show me evidence or its not factual or real" dont even bother dude

Try explaining to a 90 year old man, how a router wirelessly connects through a laptop and then somehow you travel the web. He will never get it , he ll just use it and move on and wont get stuck thinking how does it work?

People cant fuckin prove it but its more important at this point to help the sick than to figure out , WHATS THE CAUSE? Im sure they are still researching, but you work with what you have and thats how life is... remember this: "They will find the factual source of how you get AIDS" if you are right no1 will care that you were right and if you were wrong people wont care either... ALL PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO TELL U IN THIS THREAD is that they cant prove it but they are working with lil knowledge they have for a good cause like saving people s lives

I hope that makes any sense to you
w/e
ZeaL.
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
United States5955 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-14 20:39:25
February 14 2011 17:20 GMT
#253
On February 15 2011 01:53 AcuWill wrote:
I have to go now and do some real life, but I would like to point out that HIV causes AIDS theory came about in the mid 1980s. So, posting articles proving the causative factor of AIDS is HIV that are recent is a bit of an issue.


Why? Evolution was "discovered in the 1800's. We're still discovering relatively new things today. You can't expect the problem to be fully understood immediately after. Science works by continuous refinement of ideas.

Further, secondary studies indicating correlations trying to prove an existing theory far later in time are also inherently not really valid. In fact, scientifically, it is wrong to try to provide evidence for a theory far after its practical implementation. This should be provided before hand, if not, it is not science at all, rather guessing.


wat.

The fact that nothing can be dredged up, has never been dredged up as indicated by Kary Mullis in the link below, and still has not been dredged at the very least should raise a red flag. http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/kintro.html


Another link to this Duesberg and to a non-biologist to boot. Lets just take her word for it.

I am not trying convince anyone of anything, but questioning should never be wrong. It can only serve to strengthen an argument if it is truly valid. What I am trying to do is show that there are questions that have never been answered and the should not be swept under the rug. If the questions are proven to be baseless, well then that only serves to strengthen the orthodox position and will be a benefit to us all. In the process, much would be learned and it could lead to the breakthrough that is truly needed.


Its true, there are questions that haven't been answered. If we truly understood AIDs then it wouldn't be a problem anymore. There are still many things we have to figure out, but that doesn't mean that the whole idea is bunk. To refer to evolution again, in the course of the last 100 or so years since the discovery there have been many questions, some have been answered some haven't, yet the evidence that we have found is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution being true. Perhaps it would do you a little bit of good to question your own source, specifically your precious table 4.


If the questions cannot be shown to be baseless, then a reevaluation is ethically and morally necessary. Nobody should fear such an evaluation if what they believe to be true is actually true. However, such calls for reevaluation are instead met with personal attacks, the attempt to end careers, black listing, and the like. That should never be, and certainly not in science, for that is what science is by its nature, the seeking of answers to questions.


We all think your questions are pretty baseless. That's why we're not reevaluating anything

Anytime people are silenced in science, no matter how off the wall their ideas are, a fundamental violation of the spirit of science is committed, and a slippery slope is entered.

Remember, not long ago a man was ostracized and thrown out from his profession for voicing such opinions. If his ideas had been analyzed or simply been allowed to be freely expressed, thousands of lives could have been saved and a new era of disease pathogenesis would have been ushered in. His name was Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis and all he introduced was the concept that washing of one's hands could prevent sepsis. The uproar in the medical community was far greater then the uproar generated by questioning whether HIV is the causative effect of AIDS.


For every Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis there are thousands if not hundreds of thousnads of Franz Joseph Gall.

Anyway, I am off and likely will not post again in this thread. I have responded to most of the more cogent arguments made, but still ask the question:

Where is the evidence that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS?

All the best,

Acuwill


You will never find the evidence because you have already decided what to be true.

User was warned for an image macro that used to be in this post
InfeSteD
Profile Blog Joined December 2006
United States4658 Posts
February 14 2011 17:28 GMT
#254
to keep it more simple,

Humans are pretty well known to have killer instincts to survive! they find out facts and proof sometimes after they've acted upon it with common sense. Its gotten us pretty far so far, some subjects take longer than others... specially medicine, come on bro.
w/e
MiraMax
Profile Joined July 2009
Germany532 Posts
February 14 2011 17:30 GMT
#255
On February 15 2011 01:24 ZeaL. wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 15 2011 00:10 MiraMax wrote:
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 ...



The interesting thing about this is that SIV affects different types of nonhuman primates differently. One of the researchers at my grad school is going to start a project to sequence two types of primates, sooty mangabeys and rhesus macaques. Both are infected with SIV but sooty mangabeys manage to maintain a steady level of cd4 cells while rhesus macaques are affected deleteriously. I really want to do a rotation with him to maybe work on this as my graduate thesis.

Here's an interesting article on an experiment where they infected 3 rhesus macaques and 3 sooty mangabeys with a version of SIV and monitored the viral loads and host responses.


Thanks for the link ZeaL and also for your valiant effort in this thread! I am out now too to get some Sushi. Take care!
Prfx
Profile Joined July 2010
51 Posts
February 14 2011 17:35 GMT
#256
Ok this is overwhelming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism#AIDS_denialists.27_claims
[...]They frequently invoke the meme of a "courageous independent scientist resisting orthodoxy", invoking the name of persecuted physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei[...]


AcuWill:
Remember, not long ago a man was ostracized and thrown out from his profession for voicing such opinions. If his ideas had been analyzed or simply been allowed to be freely expressed, thousands of lives could have been saved and a new era of disease pathogenesis would have been ushered in. His name was Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis and all he introduced was the concept that washing of one's hands could prevent sepsis. The uproar in the medical community was far greater then the uproar generated by questioning whether HIV is the causative effect of AIDS.

not exactly Galileo but close enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism#The_AIDS_denialist_community
Denialists often use their critique of the link between HIV and AIDS to promote alternative medicine as a cure, and attempt to convince HIV-infected individuals to avoid ARV therapy in favour of vitamins, massage, yoga and other unproven treatments. Despite this promotion, denialists will often downplay any association with alternative therapies, and attempt to portray themselves as "dissidents". An article in the Skeptical Inquirer stated:

AIDS denialists [prefer] to characterize themselves as brave "dissidents" attempting to engage a hostile medical/industrial establishment in genuine scientific "debate." They complain that their attempts to raise questions and pose alternative hypotheses have been unjustly rejected or ignored at the cost of scientific progress itself...Given their resistance to all evidence to the contrary, today’s AIDS dissidents are more aptly referred to as AIDS denialists.
—Nattrass, 2007[43]


AcuWill:

First I would like to introduce myself. I am a third year student in an Oriental Medicine program. I have been a “dissident” for 5-6 years. What began as a pre-med Biochemistry major’s academic pursuit of studying two opposing sides of a scientific theory ended up with the complete and utter questioning of science in general and all medical paradigm. This culminated in me finding Oriental Medicine and a physiological/healing system that did make sense.


Thanks for posting that. Actually I don't think that AIDS is solely caused by Yin Deficiency. If you go to read my entire posting, you will find that it is simply a very common theme within many of the Western manifestations of the disease. Further, I have never once stated that I am trying to cure anything with needles Rather, I am pointing out how a different system of physiology can be used to explain a lot of the disjointed phenomena regarding Western manifested AIDS.

Also, you make claims that my understanding of HIV and AIDS is based on Oriental medicine, not Western backed research. This is also false and not a claim that I ever made at all. If you were to read my actual and entire posting, it would be clear that I spent 2 years during my undergrad analyzing Peter Duesberg's and the orthodoxy's position for fun as an exercise to see how someone like Duesberg could have such an odd position.

talk about downplaying association with alternative therapies.


denzelz
Profile Blog Joined November 2009
United States604 Posts
February 14 2011 17:40 GMT
#257
There are those who deny AIDS just as there are people who deny global climate change. There are always outliers in science.
LunarC
Profile Blog Joined October 2009
United States1186 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-14 17:44:15
February 14 2011 17:43 GMT
#258
I honestly couldn't give two fucks about what AcuWill thinks and nobody should else either, because he is not in any sort of position to cause a major shift in medical thought or pharmaceutical practice.

On February 15 2011 02:40 denzelz wrote:
There are those who deny AIDS just as there are people who deny global climate change. There are always outliers in science.

Well the argument is whether that climate change is instigated by man or completely natural, but that's for a different thread.
REEBUH!!!
Treemonkeys
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States2082 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-14 17:46:03
February 14 2011 17:44 GMT
#259
On February 15 2011 02:35 Prfx wrote:
Ok this is overwhelming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism#AIDS_denialists.27_claims
Show nested quote +
[...]They frequently invoke the meme of a "courageous independent scientist resisting orthodoxy", invoking the name of persecuted physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei[...]


AcuWill:
Show nested quote +
Remember, not long ago a man was ostracized and thrown out from his profession for voicing such opinions. If his ideas had been analyzed or simply been allowed to be freely expressed, thousands of lives could have been saved and a new era of disease pathogenesis would have been ushered in. His name was Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis and all he introduced was the concept that washing of one's hands could prevent sepsis. The uproar in the medical community was far greater then the uproar generated by questioning whether HIV is the causative effect of AIDS.

not exactly Galileo but close enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism#The_AIDS_denialist_community
Show nested quote +
Denialists often use their critique of the link between HIV and AIDS to promote alternative medicine as a cure, and attempt to convince HIV-infected individuals to avoid ARV therapy in favour of vitamins, massage, yoga and other unproven treatments. Despite this promotion, denialists will often downplay any association with alternative therapies, and attempt to portray themselves as "dissidents". An article in the Skeptical Inquirer stated:

AIDS denialists [prefer] to characterize themselves as brave "dissidents" attempting to engage a hostile medical/industrial establishment in genuine scientific "debate." They complain that their attempts to raise questions and pose alternative hypotheses have been unjustly rejected or ignored at the cost of scientific progress itself...Given their resistance to all evidence to the contrary, today’s AIDS dissidents are more aptly referred to as AIDS denialists.
—Nattrass, 2007[43]


AcuWill:

Show nested quote +
First I would like to introduce myself. I am a third year student in an Oriental Medicine program. I have been a “dissident” for 5-6 years. What began as a pre-med Biochemistry major’s academic pursuit of studying two opposing sides of a scientific theory ended up with the complete and utter questioning of science in general and all medical paradigm. This culminated in me finding Oriental Medicine and a physiological/healing system that did make sense.

Show nested quote +

Thanks for posting that. Actually I don't think that AIDS is solely caused by Yin Deficiency. If you go to read my entire posting, you will find that it is simply a very common theme within many of the Western manifestations of the disease. Further, I have never once stated that I am trying to cure anything with needles Rather, I am pointing out how a different system of physiology can be used to explain a lot of the disjointed phenomena regarding Western manifested AIDS.

Also, you make claims that my understanding of HIV and AIDS is based on Oriental medicine, not Western backed research. This is also false and not a claim that I ever made at all. If you were to read my actual and entire posting, it would be clear that I spent 2 years during my undergrad analyzing Peter Duesberg's and the orthodoxy's position for fun as an exercise to see how someone like Duesberg could have such an odd position.

talk about downplaying association with alternative therapies.




This has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. This thread is a joke as almost all debates of this nature are a joke. There is no sharing and discussion of information, only personal attacks and logical fallacies.
http://shroomspiration.blogspot.com/
BasilPesto
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
Australia624 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-02-14 17:50:14
February 14 2011 17:48 GMT
#260
Must say, this has been an interesting thread, particularly AcuWill's contributions. If you look at the background of all the sources (notably the earlier ones in the thread), they all have something dodgy about them, usually having received heavy, heavy criticism (The 'House of Numbers' doco for example).

Anyway, here's some further reading material, slightly more easy to consume, for your unaverage Joe HIV-AIDS denialist:
http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/myths#m1
http://www.avert.org/hiv-causes-aids.htm
"I before E...*sunglasses*... except after C." - Jim Carrey
Prev 1 11 12 13 14 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 2h 9m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Creator 96
ProTech81
StarCraft: Brood War
Nal_rA 6351
BeSt 633
ToSsGirL 454
Larva 287
Pusan 102
JulyZerg 73
ggaemo 68
Backho 66
Dewaltoss 58
ZerO 38
[ Show more ]
NotJumperer 14
yabsab 11
ajuk12(nOOB) 10
Britney 0
Dota 2
XaKoH 740
XcaliburYe232
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1301
Other Games
summit1g7047
ceh9606
singsing296
Fuzer 171
SortOf69
Beastyqt32
ZerO(Twitch)1
Organizations
StarCraft: Brood War
UltimateBattle 30
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 12 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• StrangeGG 47
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Stunt920
Upcoming Events
Esports World Cup
2h 9m
Serral vs Cure
Solar vs Classic
OSC
5h 9m
CranKy Ducklings
1d 1h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 5h
CSO Cup
1d 7h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 9h
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
[ Show More ]
Online Event
4 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.