|
On February 13 2011 23:41 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2011 22:38 greenwaves11 wrote:On February 13 2011 21:32 Nightfall.589 wrote:On February 13 2011 21:27 Gmslug wrote:On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote:
I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one. Got any names? Since there's thousands, I'm sure you could easily come up with a dozen. ... Didn't think so. Acuwill did post this above. http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htm2,745 to be exact with their credentials. Seems like a lot of flaming without actually reading his posts/replies. I believe, it's already been mentioned that engineering students, journalists, playwrights and hypnotherapists probably don't have the qualifications to evaluate the issue properly. If you only count the people with medical education the list shrinks quite a bit. If you browse through the remaining people you will see that most couldn't possibly be tracked since the only explanation about them is (person name, MD), which makes it questionable if they even exist... Furthermore, I randomly tried to find 5 professors listed there through google and on the sites of the universities they are supposed to work at. Only 1 of those 5 was indeed listed in the staff list of the university he was supposed to be. In addition, there are people on that list that have been denying the relation between HIV and AIDS decades ago, but have changed their views years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism#Former_dissidentsAll in all, that's quite a poor list with very shady credentials...
B-b-but, THEY'RE educated!
Thanks for doing what I was going to do. I love when conspiracy nuts link to poorly done websites and provide a list of "professionals" who believe in this before looking at their own evidence and credentials of people they believe in.
|
On February 13 2011 23:32 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2011 23:26 GreEny K wrote:On February 13 2011 21:30 mcc wrote:On February 13 2011 21:27 Gmslug wrote:On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote:
I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one. Yep that we are, and you are someone just blabbering happily without anything to back it up. So who are you to say he is wrong? Where is your medical degree and knowledge about the spread of AIDS and HIV? Who is to say that simple treatments could be effective, but it will not be tested because people like you dismiss it too quickly? No I don't believe it 100% but if there is a chance that it could save the world and rid us of AIDS and HIV then why not try out some of the research and fund it? Because there isn't any profit in it, sole reason. What the fuck are you on about? If you could patent a cheap, effective and easy to make AIDS medication you'd be a billionaire within a few months. Considering how relatively expensive the current stuff is you could have essentially a 100% market share.
Maybe you should learn to read because I'm saying there isn't any profit to be made in giving people nutrients. The only way they make money is with HIV/AIDS cocktails, which is just another reason why research into giving people nutrients to heal them will never get funded. Analyze statements before you post.
PS: Check your tone.
|
On February 13 2011 23:26 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2011 21:30 mcc wrote:On February 13 2011 21:27 Gmslug wrote:On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote:
I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one. Yep that we are, and you are someone just blabbering happily without anything to back it up. So who are you to say he is wrong? Where is your medical degree and knowledge about the spread of AIDS and HIV? Who is to say that simple treatments could be effective, but it will not be tested because people like you dismiss it too quickly? No I don't believe it 100% but if there is a chance that it could save the world and rid us of AIDS and HIV then why not try out some of the research and fund it? Because there isn't any profit in it, sole reason.
Because there is no evidence and there are million improbable theories out there that could (if true) save lives, but there is not enough money in the world to pay for them all. If someone comes to you and says that if you give him your CC number he will give you million dollars. Yes he might really mean it, but historical experience suggest that he has different goals. Why do you think we should apply looser standards to tax-payers money than every sane person applies to his own ?
|
On February 14 2011 00:37 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2011 23:26 GreEny K wrote:On February 13 2011 21:30 mcc wrote:On February 13 2011 21:27 Gmslug wrote:On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote:
I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one. Yep that we are, and you are someone just blabbering happily without anything to back it up. So who are you to say he is wrong? Where is your medical degree and knowledge about the spread of AIDS and HIV? Who is to say that simple treatments could be effective, but it will not be tested because people like you dismiss it too quickly? No I don't believe it 100% but if there is a chance that it could save the world and rid us of AIDS and HIV then why not try out some of the research and fund it? Because there isn't any profit in it, sole reason. Because there is no evidence and there are million improbable theories out there that could (if true) save lives, but there is not enough money in the world to pay for them all. If someone comes to you and says that if you give him your CC number he will give you million dollars. Yes he might really mean it, but historical experience suggest that he has different goals. Why do you think we should apply looser standards to tax-payers money than every sane person applies to his own ?
Yeah you're right about there being other theories that would take too much money to test but obviously there will be some that seem more reasonable than others, or at least more probable. But why not pick some weird ones and test those? Sure people think their chances of finding cures are more with drugs and so on but I still think that a couple odd theories should be tested out. Can't be that much, compared to the amounts they spend anyway.
|
I normally never reply to threads in the general forums because I never see discussions going anywhere and although sometimes compelling arguments are made, more or less its people stating their opinion with little or no factual information backing it up. I think that there will always be outlandish claims about major diseases/virii being fabricated to an extent, or the cure is being "hidden" because its profitable for big pharma to sell drugs rather than cure it. I think this is just one of the million examples of people claiming it.
|
On February 14 2011 00:34 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2011 23:32 KlaCkoN wrote:On February 13 2011 23:26 GreEny K wrote:On February 13 2011 21:30 mcc wrote:On February 13 2011 21:27 Gmslug wrote:On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote:
I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one. Yep that we are, and you are someone just blabbering happily without anything to back it up. So who are you to say he is wrong? Where is your medical degree and knowledge about the spread of AIDS and HIV? Who is to say that simple treatments could be effective, but it will not be tested because people like you dismiss it too quickly? No I don't believe it 100% but if there is a chance that it could save the world and rid us of AIDS and HIV then why not try out some of the research and fund it? Because there isn't any profit in it, sole reason. What the fuck are you on about? If you could patent a cheap, effective and easy to make AIDS medication you'd be a billionaire within a few months. Considering how relatively expensive the current stuff is you could have essentially a 100% market share. Maybe you should learn to read because I'm saying there isn't any profit to be made in giving people nutrients. The only way they make money is with HIV/AIDS cocktails, which is just another reason why research into giving people nutrients to heal them will never get funded. Analyze statements before you post. PS: Check your tone.
Faced with the options of either accepting that the dude I'm quoting seriously believes that "nutrients" is a potentially valid treatment for HIV or that I simply misunderstood him the latter seemed like the more reasonable one.
I suppose I was wrong :p
|
On February 13 2011 23:41 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2011 22:38 greenwaves11 wrote:On February 13 2011 21:32 Nightfall.589 wrote:On February 13 2011 21:27 Gmslug wrote:On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote:
I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one. Got any names? Since there's thousands, I'm sure you could easily come up with a dozen. ... Didn't think so. Acuwill did post this above. http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htm2,745 to be exact with their credentials. Seems like a lot of flaming without actually reading his posts/replies. I believe, it's already been mentioned that engineering students, journalists, playwrights and hypnotherapists probably don't have the qualifications to evaluate the issue properly. If you only count the people with medical education the list shrinks quite a bit. If you browse through the remaining people you will see that most couldn't possibly be tracked since the only explanation about them is (person name, MD), which makes it questionable if they even exist... Furthermore, I randomly tried to find 5 professors listed there through google and on the sites of the universities they are supposed to work at. Only 1 of those 5 was indeed listed in the staff list of the university he was supposed to be. In addition, there are people on that list that have been denying the relation between HIV and AIDS decades ago, but have changed their views years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism#Former_dissidentsAll in all, that's quite a poor list with very shady credentials...
The wikipedia paragraph is somehow very ironic:
Death of HIV-positive denialists
(...)the editors of the magazine Continuum consistently denied the existence of HIV/AIDS. The magazine shut down when its editors all died of AIDS-related causes(...)
Scientists can deny HIV as the sole cause for AIDS as much as they want, but anyone who denies that it is _a_ cause is simply stupid. AIDS exists and is killing people every day, every medical scientist active in that field should work on a cure, not deny a possible cause just because it might not have a 100% proof yet.
|
On February 14 2011 00:34 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2011 23:32 KlaCkoN wrote:On February 13 2011 23:26 GreEny K wrote:On February 13 2011 21:30 mcc wrote:On February 13 2011 21:27 Gmslug wrote:On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote:
I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one. Yep that we are, and you are someone just blabbering happily without anything to back it up. So who are you to say he is wrong? Where is your medical degree and knowledge about the spread of AIDS and HIV? Who is to say that simple treatments could be effective, but it will not be tested because people like you dismiss it too quickly? No I don't believe it 100% but if there is a chance that it could save the world and rid us of AIDS and HIV then why not try out some of the research and fund it? Because there isn't any profit in it, sole reason. What the fuck are you on about? If you could patent a cheap, effective and easy to make AIDS medication you'd be a billionaire within a few months. Considering how relatively expensive the current stuff is you could have essentially a 100% market share. Maybe you should learn to read because I'm saying there isn't any profit to be made in giving people nutrients. The only way they make money is with HIV/AIDS cocktails, which is just another reason why research into giving people nutrients to heal them will never get funded. Analyze statements before you post. PS: Check your tone.
I think it's fair to say that if "healthy living" involving things like a surplus of nutrients was all that was required for HIV to be cured then individuals may have come up with it themselves already. On that note, anyone wanting funding for homeopathy, healing crystals or anything else completely silly is free to pay for it and try it themselves.
Let's leave science to the scientists and health experts. As you were expostulating earlier.
Also your signature is ironically amusing in this case 
|
AIDS exists only because most "educated" people in this world have been told it exists, and most enjoy repeating exactly what they're told, in some form or another.
I find it incredible and bold that anybody can still believe there's proof for the existence of HIV. When a particle looks like a retrovirus, you have to isolate it, put it another culture, then show that cells in the secondary culture produce particles exactly like the particles from which they originated. That these two particles (one from both cultures) are exactly the same can be shown only by determining their constituent protein and RNA. In the 100s of billions on dollars spent on AIDS research and the hundreds of of thousands of published journals, not ONE has been able to isolate it in this way.
Think critically, look at the facts from the beginning, and follow the money people.
|
On February 14 2011 02:09 JeBi wrote:
AIDS exists only because most "educated" people in this world have been told it exists, and most enjoy repeating exactly what they're told, in some form or another.
I find it incredible and bold that anybody can still believe there's proof for the existence of HIV. When a particle looks like a retrovirus, you have to isolate it, put it another culture, then show that cells in the secondary culture produce particles exactly like the particles from which they originated. That these two particles (one from both cultures) are exactly the same can be shown only by determining their constituent protein and RNA. In the 100s of billions on dollars spent on AIDS research and the hundreds of of thousands of published journals, not ONE has been able to isolate it in this way.
Think critically, look at the facts from the beginning, and follow the money people.
Then what is the illness that kills so many people which we - in your opionion falsely - call AIDS?
|
On February 14 2011 00:59 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 00:34 GreEny K wrote:On February 13 2011 23:32 KlaCkoN wrote:On February 13 2011 23:26 GreEny K wrote:On February 13 2011 21:30 mcc wrote:On February 13 2011 21:27 Gmslug wrote:On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote:
I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one. Yep that we are, and you are someone just blabbering happily without anything to back it up. So who are you to say he is wrong? Where is your medical degree and knowledge about the spread of AIDS and HIV? Who is to say that simple treatments could be effective, but it will not be tested because people like you dismiss it too quickly? No I don't believe it 100% but if there is a chance that it could save the world and rid us of AIDS and HIV then why not try out some of the research and fund it? Because there isn't any profit in it, sole reason. What the fuck are you on about? If you could patent a cheap, effective and easy to make AIDS medication you'd be a billionaire within a few months. Considering how relatively expensive the current stuff is you could have essentially a 100% market share. Maybe you should learn to read because I'm saying there isn't any profit to be made in giving people nutrients. The only way they make money is with HIV/AIDS cocktails, which is just another reason why research into giving people nutrients to heal them will never get funded. Analyze statements before you post. PS: Check your tone. Faced with the options of either accepting that the dude I'm quoting seriously believes that "nutrients" is a potentially valid treatment for HIV or that I simply misunderstood him the latter seemed like the more reasonable one. I suppose I was wrong :p
If you would care to read my previous post, which came only a few posts earlier, I said I do not believe it either. However, I'm not an expert and don't claim to be so anything is possible from my point of view.
On February 14 2011 01:46 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 00:34 GreEny K wrote:On February 13 2011 23:32 KlaCkoN wrote:On February 13 2011 23:26 GreEny K wrote:On February 13 2011 21:30 mcc wrote:On February 13 2011 21:27 Gmslug wrote:On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote:
I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one. Yep that we are, and you are someone just blabbering happily without anything to back it up. So who are you to say he is wrong? Where is your medical degree and knowledge about the spread of AIDS and HIV? Who is to say that simple treatments could be effective, but it will not be tested because people like you dismiss it too quickly? No I don't believe it 100% but if there is a chance that it could save the world and rid us of AIDS and HIV then why not try out some of the research and fund it? Because there isn't any profit in it, sole reason. What the fuck are you on about? If you could patent a cheap, effective and easy to make AIDS medication you'd be a billionaire within a few months. Considering how relatively expensive the current stuff is you could have essentially a 100% market share. Maybe you should learn to read because I'm saying there isn't any profit to be made in giving people nutrients. The only way they make money is with HIV/AIDS cocktails, which is just another reason why research into giving people nutrients to heal them will never get funded. Analyze statements before you post. PS: Check your tone. I think it's fair to say that if "healthy living" involving things like a surplus of nutrients was all that was required for HIV to be cured then individuals may have come up with it themselves already. On that note, anyone wanting funding for homeopathy, healing crystals or anything else completely silly is free to pay for it and try it themselves. Let's leave science to the scientists and health experts. As you were expostulating earlier. Also your signature is ironically amusing in this case
Lol, I didn't even notice that.
|
You can't isolate the HIV virus becomes it evolves and mutates at such a staggering rate.
That's why you have to be so aggressive in attempting to fight it using cockatils of drugs not just one.
Even then the virus can sometimes outpace the drugs so HIV sufferers have to be incredibly careful to stay on their drug regime.
This is like evolutionists versus creationists. Creationist says "explain the cambrian explosion!", whilst ignoring the HUGE wealth of evidence for evolution that is all around us.
To quote the article:
"The number of HIVinfected people progressing to the life-threatening immunodeficiency that is full-blown AIDS living in Canada or anywhere else has plummeted wherever these medications are being widely used."
So professionals with years of experience are running around randomly treating people for no reason? All there results are false and they're wasting their time?
That's what you're suggesting if you believe in this conspiracy.
|
On February 14 2011 02:09 JeBi wrote:
AIDS exists only because most "educated" people in this world have been told it exists, and most enjoy repeating exactly what they're told, in some form or another.
I find it incredible and bold that anybody can still believe there's proof for the existence of HIV. When a particle looks like a retrovirus, you have to isolate it, put it another culture, then show that cells in the secondary culture produce particles exactly like the particles from which they originated. That these two particles (one from both cultures) are exactly the same can be shown only by determining their constituent protein and RNA. In the 100s of billions on dollars spent on AIDS research and the hundreds of of thousands of published journals, not ONE has been able to isolate it in this way.
Think critically, look at the facts from the beginning, and follow the money people.
What were these guys doing then, if not mapping out the entire RNA genome of the HIV virus?
->http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724670/?tool=pmcentrez
some more supplemental info:
->PDF with additional info
It's just about 10.000 nucleotides long...
|
On February 14 2011 02:21 GreEny K wrote:
If you would care to read my previous post, which came only a few posts earlier, I said I do not believe it either. However, I'm not an expert and don't claim to be so anything is possible from my point of view.
And that is the problem. If you know nothing about the subject I would rely on the opinion of the scientific community in that field until I can educate myself(you still have to rely on them anyway unless you will work in the field, but you will be able to distinguish if something is contested or basically "proven"). And on that topic there is not much real controversy.
Also if you do not want to trust the experts(vague but hopefully we both agree on the meaning) in some area, you are kind of hypocritical, since you are singling out some and relying on others with no reason for that distinction.
|
Lets post some facts here that I think everyone can agree on:
1) If you have unprotected sex with someone diagnosed with "AIDS" you have a high likelihood of getting "AIDS".
2) If you take ARV's, your likelihood of death if infected is much reduced.
3) If you don't take ARV's, your likelihood of death if infected is much elevated. Take Africa as an example.
4) If what causes AIDS is not an retrovirus, why is there a difference in mortality rates?
This isn't rocket science people.
|
Across history: Well accepted peer-reviewed science: 1000, Science debunkers: 0-1. (The word "peer-reviewed" is key).
|
On February 14 2011 02:40 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 02:21 GreEny K wrote:
If you would care to read my previous post, which came only a few posts earlier, I said I do not believe it either. However, I'm not an expert and don't claim to be so anything is possible from my point of view.
And that is the problem. If you know nothing about the subject I would rely on the opinion of the scientific community in that field until I can educate myself(you still have to rely on them anyway unless you will work in the field, but you will be able to distinguish if something is contested or basically "proven"). And on that topic there is not much real controversy. Also if you do not want to trust the experts(vague but hopefully we both agree on the meaning) in some area, you are kind of hypocritical, since you are singling out some and relying on others with no reason for that distinction.
So you are an expert? Didn't think so, which makes your statements just like mine; opinions. And everyone is allowed to have their own, so I fail to see your point. Just because you agree with the general consensus doesn't make your opinion any better than mine. And I never said I don't trust the experts. I'm just saying that other research is being ignored and looked over because it seems too out there.
|
On February 14 2011 03:17 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 02:40 mcc wrote:On February 14 2011 02:21 GreEny K wrote:
If you would care to read my previous post, which came only a few posts earlier, I said I do not believe it either. However, I'm not an expert and don't claim to be so anything is possible from my point of view.
And that is the problem. If you know nothing about the subject I would rely on the opinion of the scientific community in that field until I can educate myself(you still have to rely on them anyway unless you will work in the field, but you will be able to distinguish if something is contested or basically "proven"). And on that topic there is not much real controversy. Also if you do not want to trust the experts(vague but hopefully we both agree on the meaning) in some area, you are kind of hypocritical, since you are singling out some and relying on others with no reason for that distinction. So you are an expert? Didn't think so, which makes your statements just like mine; opinions. And everyone is allowed to have their own, so I fail to see your point. Just because you agree with the general consensus doesn't make your opinion any better than mine. And I never said I don't trust the experts. I'm just saying that other research is being ignored and looked over because it seems too out there.
Sorry but that's a stupid position.
My opinion is the Sun revolves around the Earth. I don't care if you agree with all the experts that the Earth revolves around the Sun. You're not an expert yourself so I don't see why your opinion is better than mine.
If there is compelling, peer-reviewed research that says HIV doesn't exist or doesn't cause AIDS, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, it is just another useless opinion out of an infinite number of useless opinions.
|
On February 14 2011 03:17 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 02:40 mcc wrote:On February 14 2011 02:21 GreEny K wrote:
If you would care to read my previous post, which came only a few posts earlier, I said I do not believe it either. However, I'm not an expert and don't claim to be so anything is possible from my point of view.
And that is the problem. If you know nothing about the subject I would rely on the opinion of the scientific community in that field until I can educate myself(you still have to rely on them anyway unless you will work in the field, but you will be able to distinguish if something is contested or basically "proven"). And on that topic there is not much real controversy. Also if you do not want to trust the experts(vague but hopefully we both agree on the meaning) in some area, you are kind of hypocritical, since you are singling out some and relying on others with no reason for that distinction. So you are an expert? Didn't think so, which makes your statements just like mine; opinions. And everyone is allowed to have their own, so I fail to see your point. Just because you agree with the general consensus doesn't make your opinion any better than mine. And I never said I don't trust the experts. I'm just saying that other research is being ignored and looked over because it seems too out there.
Nope I am not, but you are contradicting yourself. Since you disagree with experts it would seem you do not trust them ?
|
On February 14 2011 03:17 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 02:40 mcc wrote:On February 14 2011 02:21 GreEny K wrote:
If you would care to read my previous post, which came only a few posts earlier, I said I do not believe it either. However, I'm not an expert and don't claim to be so anything is possible from my point of view.
And that is the problem. If you know nothing about the subject I would rely on the opinion of the scientific community in that field until I can educate myself(you still have to rely on them anyway unless you will work in the field, but you will be able to distinguish if something is contested or basically "proven"). And on that topic there is not much real controversy. Also if you do not want to trust the experts(vague but hopefully we both agree on the meaning) in some area, you are kind of hypocritical, since you are singling out some and relying on others with no reason for that distinction. So you are an expert? Didn't think so, which makes your statements just like mine; opinions. And everyone is allowed to have their own, so I fail to see your point. Just because you agree with the general consensus doesn't make your opinion any better than mine. And I never said I don't trust the experts. I'm just saying that other research is being ignored and looked over because it seems too out there.
At this point, would it help to say that I'm an MD and I'm certain that HIV causes AIDS? (I am in fact both)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
