EPTAIDS Denialism? - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
pyrogenetix
United Arab Emirates5090 Posts
| ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On February 15 2011 00:10 MiraMax wrote: 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
United States1186 Posts
| ||
|
Prfx
51 Posts
[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
United States281 Posts
On February 15 2011 01:17 MiraMax wrote: 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
United States281 Posts
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
Australia2229 Posts
 . I just hope you never become any type of health practitioner and inflict your ideas onto sick people. | ||
|
AcuWill
United States281 Posts
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
United States726 Posts
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
Czech Republic4646 Posts
Where have I seen this approach | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
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
United States4658 Posts
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 | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
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
United States4658 Posts
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. | ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
On February 15 2011 01:24 ZeaL. wrote: 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
51 Posts
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
United States604 Posts
| ||
|
LunarC
United States1186 Posts
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. | ||
|
Treemonkeys
United States2082 Posts
On February 15 2011 02:35 Prfx wrote: Ok this is overwhelming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism#AIDS_denialists.27_claims AcuWill: not exactly Galileo but close enough. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism#The_AIDS_denialist_community AcuWill: 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. | ||
|
BasilPesto
Australia624 Posts
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 | ||
| ||
