|
On February 14 2011 10:50 Capulet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 10:11 mcc 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 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.
I probably am  , sorry about the confusion.
I think in a society without modern medicine/medical science(for example because they would not be able to connect the dots) virus like HIV would cause a lot of selective pressure.
|
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.
Ghostcom, are you an IM resident? A lot of the sub-specialties in IM look interesting to me, but general internal medicine not so much. I'll probably end up choosing something totally different like rad-onc.
Anyway, considering all we have learned about virology (and retro-viruses in particular) as a result of decades of well-funded research, at this point face-palming really does seem like the only response to AIDS denialists. What I'm curious about is why people who have no personal stake in the debate get so emotionally attached to it.
Is the need to believe in a conspiracy really that strong?
|
On February 14 2011 09:29 Coca Cola Classic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 09:13 tryummm wrote: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.
There are people who specialize in medicine/biology, there are people who specialize in other sciences, there are people who specialize in investing, there are people who specialize in creating businesses, there are people who specialize in industry, etc...
Its ridiculous to argue that people should specialize in studying only medicine/biology.
Its up to those who specialize in medicine/biology/pathology/etc... to post their findings onto the internet and to debate their findings. You were replying to me, and I have not expressed any of my opinions on this issue. That's because my opinions on the issue mean absolutely nothing, since I have not specialized in any of the fields applicable to this debate. Rather, I pointed out some people who have specialized in this area of debate and sourced them to show somebody that there are people who specialized in these areas of study who are arguing the opposite of his opinion on the issue.
|
On February 14 2011 11:42 tryummm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 09:29 Coca Cola Classic wrote:On February 14 2011 09:13 tryummm wrote: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. There are people who specialize in medicine/biology, there are people who specialize in other sciences, there are people who specialize in investing, there are people who specialize in creating businesses, there are people who specialize in industry, etc... Its ridiculous to argue that people should specialize in studying only medicine/biology. Its up to those who specialize in medicine/biology/pathology/etc... to post their findings onto the internet and to debate their findings. You were replying to me, and I have not expressed any of my opinions on this issue. That's because my opinions on the issue mean absolutely nothing, since I have not specialized in any of the fields applicable to this debate. Rather, I pointed out some people who have specialized in this area of debate and sourced them to show somebody that there are people who specialized in these areas of study who are arguing the opposite of his opinion on the issue.
I don't think he meant everyone needs to specialize in that, but that if they really want to understand a debate that they need to put the time in to read and understand the body of scientific research in its own context. Spending a few hours a week reading websites like ageofautism.com, virusmyth.com, or fluoridealert.org will do nothing but a disservice if that's all you read. These are not peer-reviewed journals, they have an enormous bias, and if you think they're somehow more trustworthy than the scientific journals you've got your priorities seriously backwards.
|
Dr. Will makes me want to go sign the Oregon Petition. Hold on, let me get my CV and be as condescending as possible in the meantime. K.O., Kyoto!
|
Interesting topic, actually, I've always wondered about the HIV -> AIDS link. Now, put the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA in perspective for medical drugs are a billion dollar industry. There is also a lot of conflict of interest because a lot of the people sitting on the FDA boards are also part of the pharmaceutical industry.
There is no doubt that the HIV virus exist. However, I wonder if it can be more carefully managed without the use of the HIV drugs. I wonder if those drugs are actually causing the AIDS rather than the virus. The pharmaceutical industry has a lot of lose if the link were dis-proven, which is why it is not surprising that they will want to prevent debate on the subject.
Another thing is that AIDS is a big killer in Africa. Do these people have access to the drugs? Because if the HIV -> AIDS naturally happens there, then maybe it's enough proof.
|
On February 14 2011 12:18 Azzur wrote:
Interesting topic, actually, I've always wondered about the HIV -> AIDS link. Now, put the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA in perspective for medical drugs are a billion dollar industry. There is also a lot of conflict of interest because a lot of the people sitting on the FDA boards are also part of the pharmaceutical industry.
There is no doubt that the HIV virus exist. However, I wonder if it can be more carefully managed without the use of the HIV drugs. I wonder if those drugs are actually causing the AIDS rather than the virus. The pharmaceutical industry has a lot of lose if the link were dis-proven, which is why it is not surprising that they will want to prevent debate on the subject.
Another thing is that AIDS is a big killer in Africa. Do these people have access to the drugs? Because if the HIV -> AIDS naturally happens there, then maybe it's enough proof.
Any time you get into the whole Big Pharma conspiracy thing you're basically saying that literally millions of doctors, pharmacists, and biomedical researchers all around the world are in on it together. These are people that have devoted their lives to modern medicine in one way or another. You hear the exact same argument about cancer drugs and vaccines, for instance. I'm not going to say that money doesn't corrupt (it does), or that there aren't doctors who have forsaken their oath in pursuit of money (there are). But the vast, vast majority of them? I just don't understand how people can follow that line of reasoning.
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
Interesting discussion on the Africa bit.
I remember seeing the criteria for AIDS diagnoses in Africa. They don't seem to be accurate (I don't believe a formal blood test is used). But that is sort of irrelevant to the HIV-AIDS causality...
|
On February 14 2011 12:32 Igakusei wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 12:18 Azzur wrote:
Interesting topic, actually, I've always wondered about the HIV -> AIDS link. Now, put the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA in perspective for medical drugs are a billion dollar industry. There is also a lot of conflict of interest because a lot of the people sitting on the FDA boards are also part of the pharmaceutical industry.
There is no doubt that the HIV virus exist. However, I wonder if it can be more carefully managed without the use of the HIV drugs. I wonder if those drugs are actually causing the AIDS rather than the virus. The pharmaceutical industry has a lot of lose if the link were dis-proven, which is why it is not surprising that they will want to prevent debate on the subject.
Another thing is that AIDS is a big killer in Africa. Do these people have access to the drugs? Because if the HIV -> AIDS naturally happens there, then maybe it's enough proof. Any time you get into the whole Big Pharma conspiracy thing you're basically saying that literally millions of doctors, pharmacists, and biomedical researchers all around the world are in on it together. These are people that have devoted their lives to modern medicine in one way or another. You hear the exact same argument about cancer drugs and vaccines, for instance. I'm not going to say that money doesn't corrupt (it does), or that there aren't doctors who have forsaken their oath in pursuit of money (there are). But the vast, vast majority of them? I just don't understand how people can follow that line of reasoning.
No, I don't believe that all the doctors, researchers, etc are all in it altogether. I also believe that many of them genuinely believe they they are correct. What I'm stating is that those people high up in the industry have a vested interest in rejecting research and debate on the HIV -> AIDS causality. The doctors who spend a lot of time studying medicine frequently are just told the "facts" rather than having to research it themselves.
I'll give an example in physics. For a long time, Newtonian mechanics was considered the correct theory and there were many scientists who have devoted their lives believing in this. But we now know that Newtonian mechanics is incomplete, just like we're now discovering that Einstein's theory is also incomplete.
What is important is debate and research on the subject, rather than claiming that something is already "proven". It is my belief that modern medicine is too reliant on drugs and I would hope to see research on alternatives. Unfortunately, most of the money is generated on drugs and that is where the research goes.
|
On February 14 2011 12:52 Azzur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 12:32 Igakusei wrote:On February 14 2011 12:18 Azzur wrote:
Interesting topic, actually, I've always wondered about the HIV -> AIDS link. Now, put the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA in perspective for medical drugs are a billion dollar industry. There is also a lot of conflict of interest because a lot of the people sitting on the FDA boards are also part of the pharmaceutical industry.
There is no doubt that the HIV virus exist. However, I wonder if it can be more carefully managed without the use of the HIV drugs. I wonder if those drugs are actually causing the AIDS rather than the virus. The pharmaceutical industry has a lot of lose if the link were dis-proven, which is why it is not surprising that they will want to prevent debate on the subject.
Another thing is that AIDS is a big killer in Africa. Do these people have access to the drugs? Because if the HIV -> AIDS naturally happens there, then maybe it's enough proof. Any time you get into the whole Big Pharma conspiracy thing you're basically saying that literally millions of doctors, pharmacists, and biomedical researchers all around the world are in on it together. These are people that have devoted their lives to modern medicine in one way or another. You hear the exact same argument about cancer drugs and vaccines, for instance. I'm not going to say that money doesn't corrupt (it does), or that there aren't doctors who have forsaken their oath in pursuit of money (there are). But the vast, vast majority of them? I just don't understand how people can follow that line of reasoning. No, I don't believe that all the doctors, researchers, etc are all in it altogether. I also believe that many of them genuinely believe they they are correct. What I'm stating is that those people high up in the industry have a vested interest in rejecting research and debate on the HIV -> AIDS causality. The doctors who spend a lot of time studying medicine frequently are just told the "facts" rather than having to research it themselves. I'll give an example in physics. For a long time, Newtonian mechanics was considered the correct theory and there were many scientists who have devoted their lives believing in this. But we now know that Newtonian mechanics is incomplete, just like we're now discovering that Einstein's theory is also incomplete. What is important is debate and research on the subject, rather than claiming that something is already "proven". It is my belief that modern medicine is too reliant on drugs and I would hope to see research on alternatives. Unfortunately, most of the money is generated on drugs and that is where the research goes.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Scientists don't just blindly believe in whatever facts they are told, obviously you wouldn't know that because you aren't educated. There's nothing discovered in AIDS research that would suggest HIV is not the cause of AIDS, all current treatments are based on the fact that a retrovirus is causing the disease.
The current treatments involve disrupting part of the virus life cycle, such as nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, cd4 fusion inhibitors, and integrase inhibitors. All of these has been used on patients and shown to decrease the viral load. Only a simpleton would think that the only way of proving HIV causes AIDS is if you can isolate the virus and grow it in culture. Why is it the ignorant ones are always the ones voicing the loudest opinions?
Bottom line, if there is anyone out there who is somehow swayed by the debate, there is NO DEBATE whatsoever in the scientific community. This is pretty much the same as creationism, no respected PhD denies the HIV link to AIDS, and I would question the intelligence of any individual who chooses to do so.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On February 14 2011 13:13 EndlessRain wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 12:52 Azzur wrote:On February 14 2011 12:32 Igakusei wrote:On February 14 2011 12:18 Azzur wrote:
Interesting topic, actually, I've always wondered about the HIV -> AIDS link. Now, put the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA in perspective for medical drugs are a billion dollar industry. There is also a lot of conflict of interest because a lot of the people sitting on the FDA boards are also part of the pharmaceutical industry.
There is no doubt that the HIV virus exist. However, I wonder if it can be more carefully managed without the use of the HIV drugs. I wonder if those drugs are actually causing the AIDS rather than the virus. The pharmaceutical industry has a lot of lose if the link were dis-proven, which is why it is not surprising that they will want to prevent debate on the subject.
Another thing is that AIDS is a big killer in Africa. Do these people have access to the drugs? Because if the HIV -> AIDS naturally happens there, then maybe it's enough proof. Any time you get into the whole Big Pharma conspiracy thing you're basically saying that literally millions of doctors, pharmacists, and biomedical researchers all around the world are in on it together. These are people that have devoted their lives to modern medicine in one way or another. You hear the exact same argument about cancer drugs and vaccines, for instance. I'm not going to say that money doesn't corrupt (it does), or that there aren't doctors who have forsaken their oath in pursuit of money (there are). But the vast, vast majority of them? I just don't understand how people can follow that line of reasoning. No, I don't believe that all the doctors, researchers, etc are all in it altogether. I also believe that many of them genuinely believe they they are correct. What I'm stating is that those people high up in the industry have a vested interest in rejecting research and debate on the HIV -> AIDS causality. The doctors who spend a lot of time studying medicine frequently are just told the "facts" rather than having to research it themselves. I'll give an example in physics. For a long time, Newtonian mechanics was considered the correct theory and there were many scientists who have devoted their lives believing in this. But we now know that Newtonian mechanics is incomplete, just like we're now discovering that Einstein's theory is also incomplete. What is important is debate and research on the subject, rather than claiming that something is already "proven". It is my belief that modern medicine is too reliant on drugs and I would hope to see research on alternatives. Unfortunately, most of the money is generated on drugs and that is where the research goes. You have no idea what you're talking about. Scientists don't just blindly believe in whatever facts they are told, obviously you wouldn't know that because you aren't educated. There's nothing discovered in AIDS research that would suggest HIV is not the cause of AIDS, all current treatments are based on the fact that a retrovirus is causing the disease. The current treatments involve disrupting part of the virus life cycle, such as nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, cd4 fusion inhibitors, and integrase inhibitors. All of these has been used on patients and shown to decrease the viral load. Only a simpleton would think that the only way of proving HIV causes AIDS is if you can isolate the virus and grow it in culture. Why is it the ignorant ones are always the ones voicing the loudest opinions?
This post is an illustration of what I'm trying to point out. Debate and research is stifled because the people who want to argue otherwise are "obviously uneducated" and are "simpletons". Resorting to insults and personal attacks seem to be tool of choice to in order to make one's argument sound more "effective".
The fact of the matter is, many theories have been discovered which are later proven to be incorrect or incomplete (e.g. Newton and Einstein's theory). If the scientific community is not encouraged to critically examine existing theories, then we could be barking up the wrong tree for a long period of time.
|
On February 14 2011 12:52 Azzur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 12:32 Igakusei wrote:On February 14 2011 12:18 Azzur wrote:
Interesting topic, actually, I've always wondered about the HIV -> AIDS link. Now, put the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA in perspective for medical drugs are a billion dollar industry. There is also a lot of conflict of interest because a lot of the people sitting on the FDA boards are also part of the pharmaceutical industry.
There is no doubt that the HIV virus exist. However, I wonder if it can be more carefully managed without the use of the HIV drugs. I wonder if those drugs are actually causing the AIDS rather than the virus. The pharmaceutical industry has a lot of lose if the link were dis-proven, which is why it is not surprising that they will want to prevent debate on the subject.
Another thing is that AIDS is a big killer in Africa. Do these people have access to the drugs? Because if the HIV -> AIDS naturally happens there, then maybe it's enough proof. Any time you get into the whole Big Pharma conspiracy thing you're basically saying that literally millions of doctors, pharmacists, and biomedical researchers all around the world are in on it together. These are people that have devoted their lives to modern medicine in one way or another. You hear the exact same argument about cancer drugs and vaccines, for instance. I'm not going to say that money doesn't corrupt (it does), or that there aren't doctors who have forsaken their oath in pursuit of money (there are). But the vast, vast majority of them? I just don't understand how people can follow that line of reasoning. No, I don't believe that all the doctors, researchers, etc are all in it altogether. I also believe that many of them genuinely believe they they are correct. What I'm stating is that those people high up in the industry have a vested interest in rejecting research and debate on the HIV -> AIDS causality. The doctors who spend a lot of time studying medicine frequently are just told the "facts" rather than having to research it themselves. I'll give an example in physics. For a long time, Newtonian mechanics was considered the correct theory and there were many scientists who have devoted their lives believing in this. But we now know that Newtonian mechanics is incomplete, just like we're now discovering that Einstein's theory is also incomplete. What is important is debate and research on the subject, rather than claiming that something is already "proven". It is my belief that modern medicine is too reliant on drugs and I would hope to see research on alternatives. Unfortunately, most of the money is generated on drugs and that is where the research goes.
Your analogy is really bad but i wont get into that but why is it your belief "that modern medicine is too reliant on drugs and I would hope to see research on alternatives."?, do you have any experience in molecular biology research or in university's spending on research or is it just something you read?
And also what are the "alternatives"
|
On February 14 2011 13:23 shaunnn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2011 12:52 Azzur wrote:On February 14 2011 12:32 Igakusei wrote:On February 14 2011 12:18 Azzur wrote:
Interesting topic, actually, I've always wondered about the HIV -> AIDS link. Now, put the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA in perspective for medical drugs are a billion dollar industry. There is also a lot of conflict of interest because a lot of the people sitting on the FDA boards are also part of the pharmaceutical industry.
There is no doubt that the HIV virus exist. However, I wonder if it can be more carefully managed without the use of the HIV drugs. I wonder if those drugs are actually causing the AIDS rather than the virus. The pharmaceutical industry has a lot of lose if the link were dis-proven, which is why it is not surprising that they will want to prevent debate on the subject.
Another thing is that AIDS is a big killer in Africa. Do these people have access to the drugs? Because if the HIV -> AIDS naturally happens there, then maybe it's enough proof. Any time you get into the whole Big Pharma conspiracy thing you're basically saying that literally millions of doctors, pharmacists, and biomedical researchers all around the world are in on it together. These are people that have devoted their lives to modern medicine in one way or another. You hear the exact same argument about cancer drugs and vaccines, for instance. I'm not going to say that money doesn't corrupt (it does), or that there aren't doctors who have forsaken their oath in pursuit of money (there are). But the vast, vast majority of them? I just don't understand how people can follow that line of reasoning. No, I don't believe that all the doctors, researchers, etc are all in it altogether. I also believe that many of them genuinely believe they they are correct. What I'm stating is that those people high up in the industry have a vested interest in rejecting research and debate on the HIV -> AIDS causality. The doctors who spend a lot of time studying medicine frequently are just told the "facts" rather than having to research it themselves. I'll give an example in physics. For a long time, Newtonian mechanics was considered the correct theory and there were many scientists who have devoted their lives believing in this. But we now know that Newtonian mechanics is incomplete, just like we're now discovering that Einstein's theory is also incomplete. What is important is debate and research on the subject, rather than claiming that something is already "proven". It is my belief that modern medicine is too reliant on drugs and I would hope to see research on alternatives. Unfortunately, most of the money is generated on drugs and that is where the research goes. Your analogy is really bad but i wont get into that but why is it your belief "that modern medicine is too reliant on drugs and I would hope to see research on alternatives."?, do you have any experience in molecular biology research or in university's spending on research or is it just something you read? And also what are the "alternatives"
Nope, I don't have experience in molecular biology research but I can see the conflict of interest in the research of pharmaceutical drugs. This automatically raises alarm bells since there is a lot of money involved in the industry. Then there are scientists in the field claiming things contrary to the generally accepted opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism).
Whether these scientists are right or wrong, this raises questions on why research is stifled on the topic? Why have so many people come here using strong words to debunk these people? This is because we have been conditioned to believe in the established theories.
|
I find it funny when people debunk the ideas of prominent scientists because they are not "respected."
Take Duesberg for example. He was the internationally acknowledged foremost expert on retrovirology until 1986 when he published a dissenting opinion on HIV being the causative factor of AIDS. That is sole incident that lead to his disrespect. Even Robert Gallo (look him up) acknowledges Duesberg's impeccable record as a scientist and his work. Google quotes if you don't believe me. What did he get for his troubles of publishing what he truly believed and giving a critical edge to the topic? He had all his funding stripped, was kicked out of the National Academy of Science and was relegated to a basement at Berkley.
Further, Duesberg is the first person to identify a proto-oncogene. Why is this relevant to the topic? It is because this discovery was leading to serious discussion of a Nobel Prize. (This was after his HIV not causative factor of AIDS hypothesis.) Why didn't he get it? As he progressed in his research he found that the initial optimism was unfounded, so he dissented to his own research, which of course lead to uproar, being ostracized from his own founding line of research (lol) and losing out on the opportunity for a Nobel Prize. I doubt most of us would have the moral character to do such a thing.
If you go look up his most recent research, he once again, despite all the antipathy in the field that he has, is creating a Nobel Prize rumble for his newest research in cancer.
It makes me laugh to think of the slandering of his name that he has gotten on this board. Now, lets take a look at the original publisher of the paper that put HIV on the map (based on research that he has been proven in international court to have stolen from Luc Montagnier), Robert Gallo. He has a Congressional report recording his fraud and misconduct.
This is the guy who all of HIV causing AIDS is based on. He has been proven multiple times to be a fraud, yet NOBODY is slandering him on these boards. Further, many mainstream scientists are calling for the only evidence that has ever been published (and it is an awful paper, I doubt any of you have read it, I have, look it up HTLV-III around 1986 in Science) that HIV causes AIDS to be withdrawn by the journal Science from their publication. If you don't believe me about his fraud, read it in his own handwriting. http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/fraud-in-key-hiv-research-background
Now, stick up for the cascade of "science" who's founding research that has never been further verified in any form is without a doubt proven to be fake in the author's own handwriting.
You know why Kary Mullis (Nobel Laureate) is a dissenter on the HIV causing AIDS factor? He was publishing a paper on HIV and was looking for the citation that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. He could not find it after 2 years of searching and asking his peers in the HIV research community. Thus, he came to the conclusion that it does not exist. For the last 24 years him and others like him have been asking for that evidence and citation (the Science article by Gallo in no way proves it and don't say it does until you have read the paper, because if you do, you will know you will have no backing to say it is valid to make a causative claim) and still have not received something so simply as a 2 line citation.
|
There was a Doctor called Robert Willner who was a AIDS denialist. He went so far as to inject himself with HIV infected blood in order to prove once and for all that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
Unfortunately he died of a heart attack 6 months later so he didn't have time to develop AIDS.
|
Immensely appropriate for this thread. If only Gin Rummy were here to make sense of everything for us. NSFW.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
@ EcoWill
I will concede that upon a reading of your sources, that your position isn't as crazy at it seems...though your in effect assuming a giant conspiracy to keep AIDS denialism outside of the peer-reviewed world, which is a bit too much for me to accept absent actual explicit evidence. There's also a disturbing amount of "absence of evidence proves conspiracy" trains of logic among the AIDS skeptics.
However, the way at which you simply dismiss/ignore the counter-arguments presented and accuse everyone else of rhetorical unfairness when you do the exact same is repulsive.
|
On February 14 2011 14:46 maahes wrote:Immensely appropriate for this thread. If only Gin Rummy were here to make sense of everything for us. NSFW. + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w5JqQLqqTc
Didn't get any of the references, but made me laugh none the less ^^
Good stuff
|
I don't understand how people are saying AIDS isn't caused by HIV. AIDS is the same thing as HIV, except AIDS is just a separate classification for when the patient has multiple diseases alongside the HIV. My girlfriend has been working with HIV/AIDS patients for years and that's what I've been told.
|
Trash science like this infuriates me. It can be put into same category as astrology, alchemy, flat earthionism, holocaust denial and so on. I wouldnt be surprised if someone was going to publish punch of books in near future for lots of $$$ for people that like the idea.
It is a central part of science to question its self whitch does seem to give people a right to critisize most subjects, but HIV/AIDS is one of those cases that have so much evidence to back it up that not just any journalist or a lawyer with a laptop can go and challenge it. Sad thing is that there are so many people, that trash science like this will get promoted by atleast punch of people, who parrot each other till the end of the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
