|
On February 14 2011 03:34 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 03:17 GreEny K wrote: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.
Ok, I'm not even going to justify this with a response since those two are not even comparable. And I'm not saying anything about AIDS or HIV not existing... I really don't know where you're getting this.
On February 14 2011 03:43 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 03:17 GreEny K wrote: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)
You could be a dermatologist for all I know, what kind of doctor are you?
|
On February 14 2011 06:40 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 03:34 Adila wrote:On February 14 2011 03:17 GreEny K wrote: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. Ok, I'm not even going to justify this with a response since those two are not even comparable. And I'm not saying anything about AIDS or HIV not existing... I really don't know where you're getting this. Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 03:43 Ghostcom wrote:On February 14 2011 03:17 GreEny K wrote: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) You could be a dermatologist for all I know, what kind of doctor are you?
I'm working at the department of infectious diseases atm. I'm in the process of deciding on what field I should specialize in.
|
On February 14 2011 06:40 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 03:34 Adila wrote:On February 14 2011 03:17 GreEny K wrote: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. Ok, I'm not even going to justify this with a response since those two are not even comparable. And I'm not saying anything about AIDS or HIV not existing... I really don't know where you're getting this. Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 03:43 Ghostcom wrote:On February 14 2011 03:17 GreEny K wrote: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) You could be a dermatologist for all I know, what kind of doctor are you?
You implied your opinion was equal to his. My point is not all opinions are equal.
|
On February 14 2011 06:49 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 06:40 GreEny K wrote:On February 14 2011 03:34 Adila wrote:On February 14 2011 03:17 GreEny K wrote: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. Ok, I'm not even going to justify this with a response since those two are not even comparable. And I'm not saying anything about AIDS or HIV not existing... I really don't know where you're getting this. On February 14 2011 03:43 Ghostcom wrote:On February 14 2011 03:17 GreEny K wrote: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) You could be a dermatologist for all I know, what kind of doctor are you? I'm working at the department of infectious diseases atm. I'm in the process of deciding on what field I should specialize in.
Very cool.
On February 14 2011 07:00 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 06:40 GreEny K wrote:On February 14 2011 03:34 Adila wrote:On February 14 2011 03:17 GreEny K wrote: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. Ok, I'm not even going to justify this with a response since those two are not even comparable. And I'm not saying anything about AIDS or HIV not existing... I really don't know where you're getting this. On February 14 2011 03:43 Ghostcom wrote:On February 14 2011 03:17 GreEny K wrote: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) You could be a dermatologist for all I know, what kind of doctor are you? You implied your opinion was equal to his. My point is not all opinions are equal.
I don't understand where the problem is here. I said that weird medicinal treatments will never get funded and that this whole nutrient thing, if it is true, will never take off because the cocktails and treatments bring in too much money and seem to work. On the other hand, I never once said I support the retro treatments...
|
On February 14 2011 07:04 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 06:49 Ghostcom wrote:On February 14 2011 06:40 GreEny K wrote:On February 14 2011 03:34 Adila wrote:On February 14 2011 03:17 GreEny K wrote: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. Ok, I'm not even going to justify this with a response since those two are not even comparable. And I'm not saying anything about AIDS or HIV not existing... I really don't know where you're getting this. On February 14 2011 03:43 Ghostcom wrote:On February 14 2011 03:17 GreEny K wrote: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) You could be a dermatologist for all I know, what kind of doctor are you? I'm working at the department of infectious diseases atm. I'm in the process of deciding on what field I should specialize in. Very cool. Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 07:00 Adila wrote:On February 14 2011 06:40 GreEny K wrote:On February 14 2011 03:34 Adila wrote:On February 14 2011 03:17 GreEny K wrote: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. Ok, I'm not even going to justify this with a response since those two are not even comparable. And I'm not saying anything about AIDS or HIV not existing... I really don't know where you're getting this. On February 14 2011 03:43 Ghostcom wrote:On February 14 2011 03:17 GreEny K wrote: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) You could be a dermatologist for all I know, what kind of doctor are you? You implied your opinion was equal to his. My point is not all opinions are equal. I don't understand where the problem is here. I said that weird medicinal treatments will never get funded and that this whole nutrient thing, if it is true, will never take off because the cocktails and treatments bring in too much money and seem to work. On the other hand, I never once said I support the retro treatments...
In countries where most research is state-funded, the profitability of the results of your research is not taken into accounts when assigning grant money.The quality of your results, on the other hand, is.
If someone could present a case for how they could cure AIDS with a diet of oatmeal and fruits, and run an experiment that would support those claims, they'd be a fucking hero. Unfortunately, hell freezing over is far more likely.
|
AIDS does not exist, HIV does not exist. If it had existed people would not be sitting in front of their computers arguing about this topic, because we would all have been extinct.
Think about it! You have sex with a woman/man particularly in older times with no protection, probably dozen of woman before/during marriage, you and your wife get aids and die.
If this happened to 5 out of 10 people, there would be no way for humans to become the majority of species.
Imagine say 5000 years ago people living on dirt and grass in dirt made houses, his penis, her vagina full of dirt and stuff and have sex and still nothing happens, no one dies. If they were all dying they'd be mostly dead now and people would have accounted for mostly 500 million of the world population today.
I don't believe anything that a USA government person will say, no matter if its a president, speaker, secretary, vice president, minister, chief, head of something, etc...
All USA do is lie and I would tryst my worst enemy more than any one from the US government or close to it. Its a bunch of corrupt people who will say and do anything for money.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
That has to be the stupidest and potentially most offensive thing anyone has said in this thread so far. Let me point out the blindingly obvious flaw in your thinking: communities of humans were mostly isolated from each other in our distant, long-ago pasts. Not just that, but the chance of actual transmission from single instances of sexual contact is actually quite low.
And I seem to recall that the theory is that the virus mutated and is relatively young, at least to our species. In any event, even if I recall incorrectly, my first 2 simple points, one of logic, the other of easy to gain knowledge, stand.
|
On February 14 2011 07:54 thehitman wrote:
AIDS does not exist, HIV does not exist. If it had existed people would not be sitting in front of their computers arguing about this topic, because we would all have been extinct.
Think about it! You have sex with a woman/man particularly in older times with no protection, probably dozen of woman before/during marriage, you and your wife get aids and die.
If this happened to 5 out of 10 people, there would be no way for humans to become the majority of species.
Imagine say 5000 years ago people living on dirt and grass in dirt made houses, his penis, her vagina full of dirt and stuff and have sex and still nothing happens, no one dies. If they were all dying they'd be mostly dead now and people would have accounted for mostly 500 million of the world population today.
I don't believe anything that a USA government person will say, no matter if its a president, speaker, secretary, vice president, minister, chief, head of something, etc...
All USA do is lie and I would tryst my worst enemy more than any one from the US government or close to it. Its a bunch of corrupt people who will say and do anything for money.
Poster boy for the completly clueless in this thread. What does a "
Penis and vagina full of dirt" has to do with HIV?
|
On February 14 2011 08:04 Subversive wrote:
That has to be the stupidest and potentially most offensive thing anyone has said in this thread so far. Let me point out the blindingly obvious flaw in your thinking: communities of humans were mostly isolated from each other in our distant, long-ago pasts. Not just that, but the chance of actual transmission from single instances of sexual contact is actually quite low.
And I seem to recall that the theory is that the virus mutated and is relatively young, at least to our species. In any event, even if I recall incorrectly, my first 2 simple points, one of logic, the other of easy to gain knowledge, stand.
Yep virus seems very new to our species(cca 100 years). Also if it was older we would probably be much more immune to it thanks to standard evolutionary processes.
|
On February 14 2011 08:57 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 08:04 Subversive wrote:
That has to be the stupidest and potentially most offensive thing anyone has said in this thread so far. Let me point out the blindingly obvious flaw in your thinking: communities of humans were mostly isolated from each other in our distant, long-ago pasts. Not just that, but the chance of actual transmission from single instances of sexual contact is actually quite low.
And I seem to recall that the theory is that the virus mutated and is relatively young, at least to our species. In any event, even if I recall incorrectly, my first 2 simple points, one of logic, the other of easy to gain knowledge, stand. Yep virus seems very new to our species(cca 100 years). Also if it was older we would probably be much more immune to it thanks to standard evolutionary processes.
No we wouldn't... Following that line of thought we should be immune to influenza as well by now. The rate of mutation of a vira is way higher than that of human cells...
|
On February 14 2011 05:01 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 04:31 tryummm wrote:On February 13 2011 09:54 Crushgroove wrote:
People will believe anything. Any individual who actually cares to not be an ignorant retard would study microbiology and the etiology of AIDS prior to misleading others. Having seen the virus under the microscope, most of this strikes me as sad/funny. 1) Everybody is ignorant. People just don't know some things. Your first sentence is now rendered invalid. 2) There are people who study microbiology who are HIV->AIDS deniers. Now your first sentence is completely invalid. 3) Have you ever seen the purified form of HIV under the conditions to classify it as a retrovirus under a microscope? If not, your second sentence is also rendered invalid to this debate. And I doubt you have. No dude there aren't. There's basically no one legitimate having this "debate". It really isn't one. Aids had been proven to result from HIV. The deniers have been at it since it was discovered. This whole spectacle and circus isn't anything new. If reading this thread and just listening to those informed vs those who aren't hasn't convinced you, I suggest following a few of the links provided on page 1. You can even read the links of the nay-sayers if you really have a lot of spare time. But there is no professionals out there saying HIV doesn't lead to AIDS. Edit: Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 04:58 AcuWill wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 14 2011 04:20 muse5187 wrote:
All the conspiracy theorists are more than welcome to shoot themselves up with HIV tainted blood. I watched my cousin slowly die because of aids in the 90s. It's a horrible disease and it affects millions of people world wide. It kind of pisses me off that someone could think it isnt real. Without the correct medicine it will kill you fairly quickly once your immune system finally starts to go, you'll catch every infection known to man until something minor finally kills you. it's a horrible way to die and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. The fact that some teenagers on a sc forum think they are qualified to dispute such a comPlicated virus is completely laughable. The level of intelligence has seriously taken a hit since sc2. Nobody is denying AIDS, simply that HIV is the causative factor. The foremost retro-virologist in the world, Peter Duesberg, multiple Nobel Prize winners, including Kary Mullis who invented PCR and Luc Montagnier who received the Nobel Prize for "discovering" HIV, David Rasnik who developed the first protease inhibitor, etc. are some of the individuals who question the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. For all of you stating that a physicist, a mathematician, etc., questioning that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS is irrelevant because they are not scientists in the immediate field are making an asinine argument. By that argument, all of your opinions are invalid as well, because you are not said researchers. This includes MDs, who are not scientists, simply clinicians. Further, by that logic, we should not be allowed our opinions on other topics as well. For example, the right to vote should immediately be stricken from anyone not a politician and all political matters should be left solely to their discretion. There should be no input from the public whatsoever and any decisions leading to wars, death, money allocation, etc., should be solely left to their discretion. Further, having and voicing an opinion on political matters will be leading to the deaths, economic hardships, etc., of millions of people, because they are made by non-politicians. Imagine what type of world that would lead to. That is exactly what the general argument is with regard to science and HIV/AIDS on this board. Why should such matters operate under different rules? Actually there are a good many things that shouldn't be left to 'democracy'. If I need to see a doctor for an illness, I don't get a jury of my peers to come to a consensus about the diagnosis. If I need my toliet fixed, I call a plumber, I don't take a random survey of suggestions from friends. The overwhelming majority of experts agree. Those you name, I believe, either don't support the position you're proposing or their expertise is suspect. Provide links with their supposed support - and not from a propaganda blog - real sources please.
Nowhere did I even express an opinion on the HIV/AIDS debate. I just said that your post was invalid because none of it was true. Here is a noble prize winner in biochemistry who argues HIV doesn't cause AIDS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_Mullis
Here is a PhD molecular biologist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg
That was less than 30 seconds of research...and I am sure I could find a lot more names if I spent a bit more time and actually looked through more than one paragraph of a single website.
Your entire argument has been 'shattered' once again. What you do is take what I say and you manipulate it to make what you say appear correct. This is how the human brain works, because it doesn't want to make you feel embarrassed.
|
On February 14 2011 09:13 tryummm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 05:01 Subversive wrote:On February 14 2011 04:31 tryummm wrote:On February 13 2011 09:54 Crushgroove wrote:
People will believe anything. Any individual who actually cares to not be an ignorant retard would study microbiology and the etiology of AIDS prior to misleading others. Having seen the virus under the microscope, most of this strikes me as sad/funny. 1) Everybody is ignorant. People just don't know some things. Your first sentence is now rendered invalid. 2) There are people who study microbiology who are HIV->AIDS deniers. Now your first sentence is completely invalid. 3) Have you ever seen the purified form of HIV under the conditions to classify it as a retrovirus under a microscope? If not, your second sentence is also rendered invalid to this debate. And I doubt you have. No dude there aren't. There's basically no one legitimate having this "debate". It really isn't one. Aids had been proven to result from HIV. The deniers have been at it since it was discovered. This whole spectacle and circus isn't anything new. If reading this thread and just listening to those informed vs those who aren't hasn't convinced you, I suggest following a few of the links provided on page 1. You can even read the links of the nay-sayers if you really have a lot of spare time. But there is no professionals out there saying HIV doesn't lead to AIDS. Edit: On February 14 2011 04:58 AcuWill wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 14 2011 04:20 muse5187 wrote:
All the conspiracy theorists are more than welcome to shoot themselves up with HIV tainted blood. I watched my cousin slowly die because of aids in the 90s. It's a horrible disease and it affects millions of people world wide. It kind of pisses me off that someone could think it isnt real. Without the correct medicine it will kill you fairly quickly once your immune system finally starts to go, you'll catch every infection known to man until something minor finally kills you. it's a horrible way to die and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. The fact that some teenagers on a sc forum think they are qualified to dispute such a comPlicated virus is completely laughable. The level of intelligence has seriously taken a hit since sc2. Nobody is denying AIDS, simply that HIV is the causative factor. The foremost retro-virologist in the world, Peter Duesberg, multiple Nobel Prize winners, including Kary Mullis who invented PCR and Luc Montagnier who received the Nobel Prize for "discovering" HIV, David Rasnik who developed the first protease inhibitor, etc. are some of the individuals who question the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. For all of you stating that a physicist, a mathematician, etc., questioning that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS is irrelevant because they are not scientists in the immediate field are making an asinine argument. By that argument, all of your opinions are invalid as well, because you are not said researchers. This includes MDs, who are not scientists, simply clinicians. Further, by that logic, we should not be allowed our opinions on other topics as well. For example, the right to vote should immediately be stricken from anyone not a politician and all political matters should be left solely to their discretion. There should be no input from the public whatsoever and any decisions leading to wars, death, money allocation, etc., should be solely left to their discretion. Further, having and voicing an opinion on political matters will be leading to the deaths, economic hardships, etc., of millions of people, because they are made by non-politicians. Imagine what type of world that would lead to. That is exactly what the general argument is with regard to science and HIV/AIDS on this board. Why should such matters operate under different rules? Actually there are a good many things that shouldn't be left to 'democracy'. If I need to see a doctor for an illness, I don't get a jury of my peers to come to a consensus about the diagnosis. If I need my toliet fixed, I call a plumber, I don't take a random survey of suggestions from friends. The overwhelming majority of experts agree. Those you name, I believe, either don't support the position you're proposing or their expertise is suspect. Provide links with their supposed support - and not from a propaganda blog - real sources please. Nowhere did I even express an opinion on the HIV/AIDS debate. I just said that your post was invalid because none of it was true. Here is a noble prize winner in biochemistry who argues HIV doesn't cause AIDS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_MullisHere is a PhD molecular biologist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_DuesbergThat was less than 30 seconds of research...and I am sure I could find a lot more names if I spent a bit more time and actually looked through more than one paragraph of a single website. Your entire argument has been 'shattered' once again. What you do is take what I say and you manipulate it to make what you say appear correct. This is how the human brain works, because it doesn't want to make you feel embarrassed.
Read the thread would you? Both of those have been brought up and talked about earlier... It would take you less than 30 seconds...
|
On February 14 2011 09:00 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 08:57 mcc wrote:On February 14 2011 08:04 Subversive wrote:
That has to be the stupidest and potentially most offensive thing anyone has said in this thread so far. Let me point out the blindingly obvious flaw in your thinking: communities of humans were mostly isolated from each other in our distant, long-ago pasts. Not just that, but the chance of actual transmission from single instances of sexual contact is actually quite low.
And I seem to recall that the theory is that the virus mutated and is relatively young, at least to our species. In any event, even if I recall incorrectly, my first 2 simple points, one of logic, the other of easy to gain knowledge, stand. Yep virus seems very new to our species(cca 100 years). Also if it was older we would probably be much more immune to it thanks to standard evolutionary processes. No we wouldn't... Following that line of thought we should be immune to influenza as well by now. The rate of mutation of a vira is way higher than that of human cells...
I guess with "more immune" he meant to say it would result in an illness with a low chance of death. Killing the human host means a lower chance to spread for a virus. Herpes, for example, is present in most adults because it only produces those blisters on the lips and does not interfere in any other way.
|
On February 14 2011 09:18 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 09:00 Ghostcom wrote:On February 14 2011 08:57 mcc wrote:On February 14 2011 08:04 Subversive wrote:
That has to be the stupidest and potentially most offensive thing anyone has said in this thread so far. Let me point out the blindingly obvious flaw in your thinking: communities of humans were mostly isolated from each other in our distant, long-ago pasts. Not just that, but the chance of actual transmission from single instances of sexual contact is actually quite low.
And I seem to recall that the theory is that the virus mutated and is relatively young, at least to our species. In any event, even if I recall incorrectly, my first 2 simple points, one of logic, the other of easy to gain knowledge, stand. Yep virus seems very new to our species(cca 100 years). Also if it was older we would probably be much more immune to it thanks to standard evolutionary processes. No we wouldn't... Following that line of thought we should be immune to influenza as well by now. The rate of mutation of a vira is way higher than that of human cells... I guess with "more immune" he meant to say it would result in an illness with a low chance of death. Killing the human host means a lower chance to spread for a virus. Herpes, for example, is present in most adults because it only produces those blisters on the lips and does not interfere in any other way.
HIV lies dormant for 8-12 years before the "host" get's seriously ill - plenty of time to spread... But for it to become less lethal it would have to totally change. We aren't talking like 1 or 2 proteins that would have to change; we are talking almost EVERY single protein produced by HIV as it would have to attack different cells than the T-cells and adapt to the internal millieu of said cells.
|
On February 14 2011 09:13 tryummm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 05:01 Subversive wrote:On February 14 2011 04:31 tryummm wrote:On February 13 2011 09:54 Crushgroove wrote:
People will believe anything. Any individual who actually cares to not be an ignorant retard would study microbiology and the etiology of AIDS prior to misleading others. Having seen the virus under the microscope, most of this strikes me as sad/funny. 1) Everybody is ignorant. People just don't know some things. Your first sentence is now rendered invalid. 2) There are people who study microbiology who are HIV->AIDS deniers. Now your first sentence is completely invalid. 3) Have you ever seen the purified form of HIV under the conditions to classify it as a retrovirus under a microscope? If not, your second sentence is also rendered invalid to this debate. And I doubt you have. No dude there aren't. There's basically no one legitimate having this "debate". It really isn't one. Aids had been proven to result from HIV. The deniers have been at it since it was discovered. This whole spectacle and circus isn't anything new. If reading this thread and just listening to those informed vs those who aren't hasn't convinced you, I suggest following a few of the links provided on page 1. You can even read the links of the nay-sayers if you really have a lot of spare time. But there is no professionals out there saying HIV doesn't lead to AIDS. Edit: On February 14 2011 04:58 AcuWill wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 14 2011 04:20 muse5187 wrote:
All the conspiracy theorists are more than welcome to shoot themselves up with HIV tainted blood. I watched my cousin slowly die because of aids in the 90s. It's a horrible disease and it affects millions of people world wide. It kind of pisses me off that someone could think it isnt real. Without the correct medicine it will kill you fairly quickly once your immune system finally starts to go, you'll catch every infection known to man until something minor finally kills you. it's a horrible way to die and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. The fact that some teenagers on a sc forum think they are qualified to dispute such a comPlicated virus is completely laughable. The level of intelligence has seriously taken a hit since sc2. Nobody is denying AIDS, simply that HIV is the causative factor. The foremost retro-virologist in the world, Peter Duesberg, multiple Nobel Prize winners, including Kary Mullis who invented PCR and Luc Montagnier who received the Nobel Prize for "discovering" HIV, David Rasnik who developed the first protease inhibitor, etc. are some of the individuals who question the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. For all of you stating that a physicist, a mathematician, etc., questioning that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS is irrelevant because they are not scientists in the immediate field are making an asinine argument. By that argument, all of your opinions are invalid as well, because you are not said researchers. This includes MDs, who are not scientists, simply clinicians. Further, by that logic, we should not be allowed our opinions on other topics as well. For example, the right to vote should immediately be stricken from anyone not a politician and all political matters should be left solely to their discretion. There should be no input from the public whatsoever and any decisions leading to wars, death, money allocation, etc., should be solely left to their discretion. Further, having and voicing an opinion on political matters will be leading to the deaths, economic hardships, etc., of millions of people, because they are made by non-politicians. Imagine what type of world that would lead to. That is exactly what the general argument is with regard to science and HIV/AIDS on this board. Why should such matters operate under different rules? Actually there are a good many things that shouldn't be left to 'democracy'. If I need to see a doctor for an illness, I don't get a jury of my peers to come to a consensus about the diagnosis. If I need my toliet fixed, I call a plumber, I don't take a random survey of suggestions from friends. The overwhelming majority of experts agree. Those you name, I believe, either don't support the position you're proposing or their expertise is suspect. Provide links with their supposed support - and not from a propaganda blog - real sources please. Nowhere did I even express an opinion on the HIV/AIDS debate. I just said that your post was invalid because none of it was true. Here is a noble prize winner in biochemistry who argues HIV doesn't cause AIDS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kary_MullisHere is a PhD molecular biologist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_DuesbergThat was less than 30 seconds of research...and I am sure I could find a lot more names if I spent a bit more time and actually looked through more than one paragraph of a single website. Your entire argument has been 'shattered' once again. What you do is take what I say and you manipulate it to make what you say appear correct. This is how the human brain works, because it doesn't want to make you feel embarrassed.
Instead of doing "30 seconds" of research on some scientists who deny the existence of AIDS, people should be spending hours, days, months reading all of the scientific papers published on the relationship between HIV and AIDS. Kary Mullis did an amazing service to molecular biology with the invention of PCR, but the fact that he is a nobel laureate does not mean he is automatically an expert in microbiology, pathology, electron microscopy, the list goes on. How people can point to one scientific paper as gospel and formulate "their" opinions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is beyond me.
|
What do Kary Mullis, Peter Duesberg and Luc Montaginer all have in common?
Scientific misconduct. Homeopathy, astrology, "aids denialism"? It's a real shame too, because they're all fine scientists in their own field I'm sure.
For every retarded opinion you can come up with you'll be able to find at least a couple of PhD's willing to back you up on it.
|
On February 14 2011 09:26 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 09:18 Ropid wrote:On February 14 2011 09:00 Ghostcom wrote:On February 14 2011 08:57 mcc wrote:On February 14 2011 08:04 Subversive wrote:
That has to be the stupidest and potentially most offensive thing anyone has said in this thread so far. Let me point out the blindingly obvious flaw in your thinking: communities of humans were mostly isolated from each other in our distant, long-ago pasts. Not just that, but the chance of actual transmission from single instances of sexual contact is actually quite low.
And I seem to recall that the theory is that the virus mutated and is relatively young, at least to our species. In any event, even if I recall incorrectly, my first 2 simple points, one of logic, the other of easy to gain knowledge, stand. Yep virus seems very new to our species(cca 100 years). Also if it was older we would probably be much more immune to it thanks to standard evolutionary processes. No we wouldn't... Following that line of thought we should be immune to influenza as well by now. The rate of mutation of a vira is way higher than that of human cells... I guess with "more immune" he meant to say it would result in an illness with a low chance of death. Killing the human host means a lower chance to spread for a virus. Herpes, for example, is present in most adults because it only produces those blisters on the lips and does not interfere in any other way. HIV lies dormant for 8-12 years before the "host" get's seriously ill - plenty of time to spread... But for it to become less lethal it would have to totally change. We aren't talking like 1 or 2 proteins that would have to change; we are talking almost EVERY single protein produced by HIV as it would have to attack different cells than the T-cells and adapt to the internal millieu of said cells.
Or we would change, if it had been around a long time...at least we would change culturally (those cultures that were more successful at encouraging monogamy would survive better.)
|
On February 14 2011 09:00 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 08:57 mcc wrote:On February 14 2011 08:04 Subversive wrote:
That has to be the stupidest and potentially most offensive thing anyone has said in this thread so far. Let me point out the blindingly obvious flaw in your thinking: communities of humans were mostly isolated from each other in our distant, long-ago pasts. Not just that, but the chance of actual transmission from single instances of sexual contact is actually quite low.
And I seem to recall that the theory is that the virus mutated and is relatively young, at least to our species. In any event, even if I recall incorrectly, my first 2 simple points, one of logic, the other of easy to gain knowledge, stand. Yep virus seems very new to our species(cca 100 years). Also if it was older we would probably be much more immune to it thanks to standard evolutionary processes. No we wouldn't... Following that line of thought we should be immune to influenza as well by now. The rate of mutation of a vira is way higher than that of human cells...
I said more immune(which is maybe bad wording), but I did not say totally immune. Since I think there exist only carriers for HIV that do not develop AIDS(can someone confirm ?), I would guess high enough lethality in preindustrial society would cause some rise in prevalence of this (supposedly) genetic trait. Your argument seems applicable to basically any viral disease, yet I would say that there are viral diseases that populations gained some immunity to by prolonged exposure.
|
On February 14 2011 09:26 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 09:18 Ropid wrote:On February 14 2011 09:00 Ghostcom wrote:On February 14 2011 08:57 mcc wrote:On February 14 2011 08:04 Subversive wrote:
That has to be the stupidest and potentially most offensive thing anyone has said in this thread so far. Let me point out the blindingly obvious flaw in your thinking: communities of humans were mostly isolated from each other in our distant, long-ago pasts. Not just that, but the chance of actual transmission from single instances of sexual contact is actually quite low.
And I seem to recall that the theory is that the virus mutated and is relatively young, at least to our species. In any event, even if I recall incorrectly, my first 2 simple points, one of logic, the other of easy to gain knowledge, stand. Yep virus seems very new to our species(cca 100 years). Also if it was older we would probably be much more immune to it thanks to standard evolutionary processes. No we wouldn't... Following that line of thought we should be immune to influenza as well by now. The rate of mutation of a vira is way higher than that of human cells... I guess with "more immune" he meant to say it would result in an illness with a low chance of death. Killing the human host means a lower chance to spread for a virus. Herpes, for example, is present in most adults because it only produces those blisters on the lips and does not interfere in any other way. HIV lies dormant for 8-12 years before the "host" get's seriously ill - plenty of time to spread... But for it to become less lethal it would have to totally change. We aren't talking like 1 or 2 proteins that would have to change; we are talking almost EVERY single protein produced by HIV as it would have to attack different cells than the T-cells and adapt to the internal millieu of said cells.
Fair enough, I am not totally convinced since we are kind of speculating. I was basing my opinion on the similarity to SIV and the fact that SIV does not cause (SAIDS ???) in some monkeys.
|
On February 14 2011 10:11 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 09:00 Ghostcom wrote:On February 14 2011 08:57 mcc wrote:On February 14 2011 08:04 Subversive wrote:
That has to be the stupidest and potentially most offensive thing anyone has said in this thread so far. Let me point out the blindingly obvious flaw in your thinking: communities of humans were mostly isolated from each other in our distant, long-ago pasts. Not just that, but the chance of actual transmission from single instances of sexual contact is actually quite low.
And I seem to recall that the theory is that the virus mutated and is relatively young, at least to our species. In any event, even if I recall incorrectly, my first 2 simple points, one of logic, the other of easy to gain knowledge, stand. Yep virus seems very new to our species(cca 100 years). Also if it was older we would probably be much more immune to it thanks to standard evolutionary processes. No we wouldn't... Following that line of thought we should be immune to influenza as well by now. The rate of mutation of a vira is way higher than that of human cells... I said more immune(which is maybe bad wording), but I did not say totally immune. Since I think there exist only carriers for HIV that do not develop AIDS(can someone confirm ?), I would guess high enough lethality in preindustrial society would cause some rise in prevalence of this (supposedly) genetic trait. Your argument seems applicable to basically any viral disease, yet I would say that there are viral diseases that populations gained some immunity to by prolonged exposure.
I think you're confusing immunity with susceptibility.
Susceptibility to a virus depends completely on the genetic predisposition of the person and the mutation rate of the virus. Some people will have a mutated CCR5 gene (the receptor in which HIV gains entry) and will become less susceptible to HIV despite prolonged exposure. I suppose it can be possible for human race to acquire this genetic trait, but it will require a lot of selective pressure and time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
