| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
AcuWill
United States281 Posts
This has been a request of those questioning HIV is the causative factor in AIDS from the beginning and it has never been brought forward. Frankly, the discussion is tiresome. For those interested, her is a video that provides some insight into some of the troubles with HIV theory. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3983706668483511310# | ||
|
TMStarcraft
Australia686 Posts
On February 13 2011 10:29 ProjectVirtue wrote: Oh wow, i just did a paper on aids denialism last week actually. If you've heard about this issue before i'm sure that you've heard of duesberg and his shenanigans here and there. Lotsa relatively solid arguments from him on the surface that capable of convincing the mass majority (specially if published on a media network) but when investigating his methods, it almost seemed like he skipped all of the cellular mechanisms behind HIV infection and integration. for example) one of his papers from 1989 went to disprove HIV as causative for AIDS by saying that it doesn't meet koch's postulate. The problem with that was koch's postulate, also supposed to work for pathogens in general, does have a number of limitations and retrograde viruses like HIV fall under that condition. I was going to agree with you but then you outed yourself as a ダメ人間  But to answer ops first question and third point, no he shouldn't be allowed to fight. The tests are there to ensure the safety of the fighters. The fighter may disagree, that's his choice to make, but when you willingly participate in a sport, you play by the rules which you have chosen to impose on yourself, regardless of what you may perceive to be fair. In other words, you don't like it? Tough titties. Anti-corporate sentiment is standard when trying to drum up support (read: Greenpeace, PETA). It's just another persuasive device like appeals to patriotism/money/self-interest. | ||
|
419
Russian Federation3632 Posts
Time will prove HIV to be one of the biggest fallacies in modern medical history. As usual, there are lots of arguments in either direction, but the point is, that you CANNOT show me or anyone else the study that proves HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. 1) Are you and I reading the same thread? I think that the NIH article provides a pretty compelling review showing that HIV transfer causes AIDS. 2) "Time will prove HIV to be one of the biggest fallacies in modern medical history. As usual, there are lots of arguments in either direction..." -- that's a bit of a self-destructive argument wouldn't you say? 3) You can't formally prove gravity exists either. You can't scientifically ~prove~ anything without assuming certain axioms. 4) Show me an example of one of the skeptics volunteering to be inoculated with HIV (a la Bernard Cohen's challenge to ingest as much plutonium as Ralph Nader would caffeine) and it would be pretty convincing. | ||
|
Capulet
Canada686 Posts
On February 13 2011 11:04 AcuWill wrote: Time will prove HIV to be one of the biggest fallacies in modern medical history. As usual, there are lots of arguments in either direction, but the point is, that you CANNOT show me or anyone else the study that proves HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. This has been a request of those questioning HIV is the causative factor in AIDS from the beginning and it has never been brought forward. Frankly, the discussion is tiresome. For those interested, her is a video that provides some insight into some of the troubles with HIV theory. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3983706668483511310# Can it just be a coincidence that all AIDS patients happen to have HIV? | ||
|
Igakusei
United States610 Posts
On February 13 2011 11:17 Capulet wrote: Can it just be a coincidence that all AIDS patients happen to have HIV? Well if you're a germ theory denialist, then HIV comes from AIDS, which is caused by sinful living and stuff. | ||
|
Adeeler
United Kingdom764 Posts
Its a sad state of affairs that studies aren't redone on so many major diseases and conditions from the ground up. | ||
|
419
Russian Federation3632 Posts
Its a sad state of affairs that studies aren't redone on so many major diseases and conditions from the ground up. I don't suppose you know the price tag of said studies. Research is very much a time sink--even reproducing past results can be a pain in the ass. Its easy to talk about doing things. But when it comes to paying for them... Well if you're a germ theory denialist, then HIV comes from AIDS, which is caused by sinful living and stuff. Oh cmon, there's no need to demagogue these skeptics as somehow related to somewhat exuberant Christian evangelists. | ||
|
LSB
United States5171 Posts
| ||
|
Igakusei
United States610 Posts
On February 13 2011 11:23 Adeeler wrote: Accepting 'scientific facts blindly' which were researched years and even decades ago could very well be dangerous for us as a species considering the rate at which technology improves in just a handful of years. Its a sad state of affairs that studies aren't redone on so many major diseases and conditions from the ground up. We do this, whenever there's a good reason to (see Einstein's theories replacing Newton's). Science is always growing and changing, and every now and then you DO see a major paradigm shift (Evolution is a good example). There are always assumptions that have been grandfathered in that may not have the firmest scientific understanding (there's a frightening amount of this in surgery, btw), but every time the models start to break down people DO go back to the drawing board. It happens all the time in sociology (look up the many, many theories that have come out to better and better explain why minorities have worse health outcomes than non-minorities), for example. The reason we haven't done this with HIV/AIDS is because there is literally no good reason to do so. If you think there is, it's because you don't understand all the arguments. | ||
|
Igakusei
United States610 Posts
On February 13 2011 11:26 419 wrote: I don't suppose you know the price tag of said studies. Research is very much a time sink--even reproducing past results can be a pain in the ass. Its easy to talk about doing things. But when it comes to paying for them... Oh cmon, there's no need to demagogue these skeptics as somehow related to somewhat exuberant Christian evangelists. I suppose it's just my personal experience (I was raised in a fundamentalist environment and private schooled until college), but I've never met a germ-theory denialist who wasn't a fundamentalist Christian. Didn't mean to derail the thread or anything, but I often associate the two (perhaps incorrectly) together. | ||
|
Jswizzy
United States791 Posts
On February 13 2011 11:35 Igakusei wrote: I suppose it's just my personal experience (I was raised in a fundamentalist environment and private schooled until college), but I've never met a germ-theory denialist who wasn't a fundamentalist Christian. Didn't mean to derail the thread or anything, but I often associate the two (perhaps incorrectly) together. I was kind of thinking that this was some type of anti-prophylactics campaign and we all know what organization would condemn condom use before genocide. | ||
|
Nydus Wurm
United States42 Posts
On February 13 2011 09:38 AcuWill wrote: http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html Good read for a basic understanding of a lot of the arguments of those challenging HIV=AIDS theory. The term denialists is an ad hominum attack seeking to cause visions of individuals who deny that the holocaust ever occurred when referring those who question the scientific evidence of HIV = AIDs theory. By its nature it is bigoted. Two people "discovered" the theory that HIV causes AIDS. Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier. Gallo was convicted in international court of fraud and stealing research from Montagnier. Montagnier never thought the research he was doing showed that HIV causes AIDS. He has stated his theory that what is called AIDS requires cofactors, ie. HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS and that AIDS (the syndrome of immune deficiency which he does not believe is solely caused by HIV) can be cured through nutritional means and treating root causes of presenting diseases. So, HIV=AIDS theory is based on a fraud that stole research from an individual who does not believe his research indicated HIV causes AIDS. And no, there has never been further research to show that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS since. 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. All you need to do is publish evidence that what you were staring at actually causes AIDS, win a Nobel Prize. There are also other easy awards. Here, $100000 for the first person to provide evidence of the above. http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=125730915349&topic=15265 Note, it should be simply for someone to claim this $100000, but nobody has. There are other such awards out there. You will be a millionaire, Nobel Prize winner and one of the most famous scientists alive in no time. Wow, did you type that with a keyboard, or do you have a program that converts the shit in your toilet into posts on TL? Seriously, if you have managed to prove that HIV doesn't exist, then you would be writing papers for medical journals and not posting crap on TL. If you really think this, I'll raise your offer. You go hire three prostitutes with HIV and fuck them without a condom. I'll pay you back for the prostitutes if you contract HIV, and pay for penicillin if you get Syphilis, (you're on your own if you get the clap). Then, if you get AIDS, you give me $100000 or change your will to give me full inheritance (my choice). Sound fair? Obviously, it doesn't. User was warned for this post | ||
|
starcraft911
Korea (South)1263 Posts
Having seen the virus under the microscope, most of this strikes me as sad/funny. You saw something and were told it was AIDS. That doesn't mean it was AIDS. And even if it was AIDS, seeing it under a microscope tells you nothing about how it interacts with anything other than the slide it's on. Seeing doesn't mean shit without the research that leads to sound theory. Being a 'scientist' myself one thing that is and will always be true is that scientists get things wrong quite often. Not saying they are in this case, but blindly following it because you 'learnt' it in ur edumacation' is far more retarded than denying the existence of aids. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Doomblaze
United States1292 Posts
How many people have seen this article? It reminds me of the one guy who said vaccines causes autism because my child was vaccinated around the same time that autism becomes evident in children! and because it was in a magazine, all the dumbasses in America believed it and a lot of kids died from not being vaccinated. I don't see how he can use one person as an example while ignoring the millions of people with aids, and expect people to take him seriously. | ||
|
Capulet
Canada686 Posts
On February 13 2011 11:48 starcraft911 wrote: You saw something and were told it was AIDS. That doesn't mean it was AIDS. And even if it was AIDS, seeing it under a microscope tells you nothing about how it interacts with anything other than the slide it's on. Seeing doesn't mean shit without the research that leads to sound theory. Being a 'scientist' myself one thing that is and will always be true is that scientists get things wrong quite often. Not saying they are in this case, but blindly following it because you 'learnt' it in ur edumacation' is far more retarded than denying the existence of aids. heh... You can't see AIDS. AIDS is a condition. You can, however, see the HIV under the electron microscope. That being said, I see your point, but now we've entered a slippery slope. If what I saw wasn't HIV, then the circles I saw under the microscope yesterday may not be B10R macrophages either. They were just circles that someone told me were B10R macrophages and as a result my professor wasted 20 years of his life studying how circles interact with viral proteins. And you most definitely can use a microscope to see how cells and viruses interact. In fact, that is the closest thing to "direct" proof we have. Molecular and biochemical assays can provide a foundation for a hypothesis which can then be reinforced with microscopic evidence. | ||
|
Body_Shield
Canada3373 Posts
On February 13 2011 11:48 starcraft911 wrote: You saw something and were told it was AIDS. That doesn't mean it was AIDS. And even if it was AIDS, seeing it under a microscope tells you nothing about how it interacts with anything other than the slide it's on. Seeing doesn't mean shit without the research that leads to sound theory. Being a 'scientist' myself one thing that is and will always be true is that scientists get things wrong quite often. Not saying they are in this case, but blindly following it because you 'learnt' it in ur edumacation' is far more retarded than denying the existence of aids. You can't really "see" a syndrome like that, he saw the HIVirus. And also, when you saw a dog for the first time, and your parents said dog, you believed them too. (Actually they lied to you, it's a yeruble) | ||
|
Relickey
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
US anti-intellectualism at it's finest. Whenever science proves your worldview wrong, just get some crackpot to say otherwise and you have a genuine "competing theory". Evolution telling you the Earth is older then 6000 years? Don't worry, "magical forces" actually created all forms of life. STDs causing deaths instead of "God striking down sinful gays"? Don't worry, just deny the existence of such a disease, because I guess germ theory IS JUST A THEORY. THAT MEANS I'M ENTITLED TO A "THEORY" TOO! | ||
|
Space Invader
Australia291 Posts
On February 13 2011 09:38 AcuWill wrote:Good read for a basic understanding of a lot of the arguments of those challenging HIV=AIDS theory. How is there even an argument about this? I've been working with women and children with HIV/AIDS for years, HIV isn't exactly the same thing as AIDS, obviously. You can live with HIV your whole life and be healthy. But HIV becomes AIDS once you have multiple infectious diseases. | ||
|
nihoh
Australia978 Posts
On February 13 2011 11:48 starcraft911 wrote: You saw something and were told it was AIDS. That doesn't mean it was AIDS. And even if it was AIDS, seeing it under a microscope tells you nothing about how it interacts with anything other than the slide it's on. Seeing doesn't mean shit without the research that leads to sound theory. Being a 'scientist' myself one thing that is and will always be true is that scientists get things wrong quite often. Not saying they are in this case, but blindly following it because you 'learnt' it in ur edumacation' is far more retarded than denying the existence of aids. And this isn't a bannable post? How can TL have such morons? AIDS is a SYNDROME. You can't see it under a microscope.. It's the drastic lowering of immune function through CD4 T cells being attacked by HIV over a period of years. It's not a fantasy disease; I fail to see why ANYONE would have problems believing in it; the biochemistry and pharmacology of it is established and nothing out of the ordinary. You're not a scientist, much less someone who can quote accepted scientific findings (which is, again, a far cry from being a "scientist"). You're just a moron. Honestly, Admins should just get rid of anyone who can't differentiate between AIDS and HIV conceptually. | ||
| ||
|
|
The PondCast
WardiTV Qualifier
OSC
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Soulkey
CranKy Ducklings
AI Arena Tournament
BSL Open Qualifier
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
