The Gazette (Montreal newspaper) has recently published an article where the author (Terry Michale) denies the existence of AIDS and uses the boxer Tommy Morrison as an argument. The second article is a response by a physician associated with McGill University (Dr. Norbert Gilmore) who points out the fallacies in the first article and expands on the consequences of denying AIDS' existence.
"What if most everything you think you know about HIV and AIDS is wrong?"
That's the message U.S. boxer Tommy Morrison is sending to Canadian sports fans -and the world-in a confrontation with the Regie des alcools, des courses et des jeux. The gaming board is asking the 42-year-old fighter to take an HIV blood test to qualify for meeting Eric Barrak in a main event Feb. 25 at Pierre Charbonneau Centre.
Regulating a sport that often draws blood, RACJ says Morrison must submit to a test much of the world wrongly believes indicates presence of a pathogenic virus, a string of genetic code in nucleic acid covered in protein. Basing its claimontheworkof Dr. Robert Gallo, the U.S. government 27 years ago announced "the probable cause of AIDS" was indeed such a virus. President Ronald Reagan's Health Secretary, Margaret Heckler, told a press conference April 23, 1984, that immune systems of gay men were collapsing from a retrovirus Gallo claimed to isolate, a virus he said was transmitted through blood during sex.
A researcher at the National Institutes of Health, Gallo's ethics were later the subject of two government inquiries and a major Chicago Tribune investigation of the claim he discovered the "AIDS virus" and "AIDS blood test." When hailed by Heckler as discoverer of HIV, Gallo had published not a single peer-reviewed scientific paper backing his claim. In what might be termed a split decision in boxing, the U.S. and French governments decided in 1987 to share the disputed discovery between Gallo and Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Institut Pasteur -and more importantly, to divide the lucrative profits from the widely used blood test.
That 1984 media event came in a presidential election year, when Reagan was accused of insensitivity to gay men, refusing to utter the newly minted acronym AIDS. Gays embraced the "discovery" offered by the science bureaucrat Gallo, who had been trying with virtually no success for a dozen years to relate his retroviruses to cancer.
A 19th-century germ theory answer to what first was called Gay Related Immune Deficiency was welcomed by the gay community. It made AIDS "everybody's disease," trumping growing evidence it was actually of multifactorial causation, that immune systems were collapsing from: (1) frequent, multi-partner exchange of old pathogens in incestuous urban gay enclaves, causing diseases like gonorrhea and syphilis, heavily treated with antibiotics, which destroy immune-healthful gut bacteria; (2) ubiquitous use of immune suppressive toxins, including alcohol, cocaine, amphetamines and nitrites ( "poppers"), which fuelled partying in a small but significant subset of urban gay culture; and (3) the suppressive psychogenic effects of anxiety and stress on naive, youthful gay male immune systems, from blowback by newly politicized religious fundamentalists, pillorying "unclean gay lifestyles."
I write this with first-hand knowledge. I am a 63-year-old gay man, who participated in that "lifestyle" and who witnessed politicizing of medical science while serving as press secretary in the mid-1980s at the Democratic National Committee, the party opposing Ronald Reagan and supportive of gay rights.
With that brief history, I return to Tommy Morrison and the blood-test-about-nothing Quebec regulators are asking him to take. In fact, the test is nothing more than an assay for some blood proteins that can result from 70 different conditions, including pregnancy and flu vaccinations. Morrison tested reactive -the correct term for the meaningless result -- when he had blood drawn by the Nevada boxing commission before a 1996 fight. He later took "the test" several times and was "negative" -but after being placed on highly toxic, "antiretroviral" chemotherapy, drugs still administered to millions of humans, mostly gay men and black Africans, convinced they carry a lethal bug, not just proteins declared by Gallo to be markers for HIV.
Morrison eventually learned the truth about the test and the chemotherapy, which he stopped taking after it almost destroyed his health.
Thousands of us in the worldwide community of dissenters from the single pathogen theory of AIDS understand Tommy Morrison is really looking for more than a fight in Montreal. He is offering an important teaching moment to Quebecers, Canadians, and millions worldwide who are victims of the multi-billion dollar HIV-AIDS Industry.
The HIV-AIDS story is complex. Many of us have devoted years of study to it, and have concluded there is not now and there never was a human immunodeficiency virus. We ask the world to reassess 27-year-old politicized junk science. Canadians can contribute to that fight for truth by opposing injustice being visited on an American athlete who should be allowed to enter a ring Feb. 25 without taking a test about nothing.
Terry Michael is executive director of the Washington Centre for Politics & Journalism.
MONTREAL - How I wish that the opinion article "Junk science and AIDS" by Terry Michael (Gazette, Feb. 5) had begun: "Once upon a time there was a wicked journalist preying on sick and dying people ..." Instead, the article brought us a seemingly reputable journalist publishing a vitriolic and prejudiced rant exhorting Canadians to know that "there is not now and there never was a human immunodeficiency virus."
Michael is wrong - as are the arguments he uses to deny that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) can cause the fatal destruction of the immune system that we call AIDS. Were his article to have been government-sponsored, people would in all likelihood be crying propaganda! It is incongruous and inexplicable that the executive director of what is claimed to be a prestigious and responsible U.S. journalism foundation could write such a misleading and harmful article.
I will not address the prejudiced, pejorative nomenclature Michael uses -such as "lucrative profits," "incestuous urban gay enclaves," "victims of a multi-billion dollar HIV-AIDS industry." Nor will I address his distorted presentation of the science and history of HIV/ AIDS with which he justifies his denial that HIV can cause fatal illness. Science establishes its truths through reproducible and peer-reviewed evidence, not by what politicians, journalists, or even individual scientists might "declare." The quality of science that explains the cause and disease mechanisms of HIV infection that lead to AIDS, and that underlies the development of highly effective anti-HIV treatments, resulted in a 2008 Nobel Prize being awarded to the two scientists who discovered HIV.
The biggest danger from Michael's article is that it might mislead people into failing to understand that HIV is a killer. Without treatment, almost everyone who is infected with HIV will eventually die from the infection. There is abundant evidence that HIV can be transmitted from infected mothers to their babies, through contaminated blood transfusions, by sexual intercourse from HIV-infected wives, husbands or gay partners, or by sharing bloody injection equipment.
Today, the most convincing argument that HIV causes AIDS is that anti-HIV medications -often called antiretrovirals or ARVs - are prolonging the lives of millions of HIV-infected people. The number of HIVinfected people progressing to the life-threatening immunodeficiency that is full-blown AIDS living in Canada or anywhere else has plummeted wherever these medications are being widely used. Blood is now safe thanks to HIV screening tests. Just as impressive is that babies are born uninfected when their mothers are effectively treated. And many of the millions who are taking ARVs are no longer dying or ill but, instead, are returning to work, having babies, and planning a long life.
As a physician and a researcher who has studied HIV infection and cared for HIV-infected adults for 30 years, I am very worried by the real danger that an article such as Michael's might persuade some infected people to forgo prevention that can protect their partners from being exposed to or infected by HIV. And, sadly, it might also persuade some people who are infected to forgo life-saving treatments.
Michael focuses on the case of American boxer Tommy Morrison, who is refusing to undergo HIV testing to be eligible to fight in Quebec. He describes a situation where the boxer's HIV test was initially reactive and he began ARV treatment. Those drugs are only used to treat people who are HIV-infected (i. e. they have reactive tests that are confirmed positive) and who are likely to benefit from being treated. Even if Morrison's subsequent tests became "negative" when being treated with ARVs -an extremely unusual result -he nonetheless remains infected. If Morrison was once found to be HIV positive and needed treatment, then, like everyone else who has been infected with HIV, his infection is a lifelong one, and he remains infected and potentially infectious. As a boxer, he would be a danger were he to be cut, because this could expose others to his HIV-carrying blood.
Morrison's denial is exactly the danger that this article is likely to exacerbate. It's essential that all HIV-infected people accept that they are infected and can, at times, be a potential danger to others. In contrast to Morrison and Michael, all of us, especially anyone who is HIV-infected, need to send a clear prevention message that will help to protect others, instead of one that denies HIV and that suggests being exposed to HIV is not dangerous. This is a universal response to HIV that we hope everyone -especially those who are infected -will understand and pass on.
Norbert Gilmore is professor of medicine (emeritus) at McGill University and a senior physician at the McGill University Health Centre.
More importantly, if you read the comment section of the articles (especially the second one) you will see Tommy Morrison and Dr. Norbert Gilmore throwing interesting arguments at each other:
Tommy The Duke Morrison 12:58 PM on February 12, 2011
to: DrErD you wrote: 1)"and I described the HIV tests and their accuracy. As I told you, I've done these things myself, and they work. The tests are accurate and they detect HIV." IF YOU HAVE PERSONALLY DONE THESE "ACCURATE" HIV TESTS that detect the presence or absence of the HIV VIRUS...WHICH ONE did you take? 2)" All La RACJ wants is for you to take one of these accurate tests. Why won't you do it?" THE RACJ WON'T TELL ME WHAT TEST THEY WANT ME TO DO..THEY WANT TO TAKE ME TO AN UNDISCLOSED LOCATION. I WILL DO THE TEST THAT DETECTS 100% THE HIV VIRUS- 3)"If someone accused you of fathering a child and refusing to pay child support, and you knew you didn't do it, wouldn't you step up and take the DNA test to clear your name? " YOU CAN BUY PATERNITY TESTS AT WALGREENS. WHAT SHELF IS THE HIV VIRUS TEST DETECTING THE HIV VIRUS ON? DrErD...Gallo..FDA..CDC ...won't you tell me the name of the HIV VIRUS TEST? WHY are you all avoiding this one specific reques
DrErD 1:49 PM on February 12, 2011
Tommy, I gave several links to HIV test information. Pick any one , two, three or more of ten or fifteen available tests, some of which you can buy online to test yourself. Now, I don't recommend self-testing for HIV or paternity or anything else. It's more reliable to have an expert do the testing, just like it's better to have a qualified electrician install a new circuit breaker panel in your house than to try doing it yourself. But the at-home testing is available. The reason La RACJ wants you to be tested under supervised conditions is because you have been accused of blood sample fraud, like other athletes "urinate" from a pouch of someone else's urine in their pants to fake a steroid test. Everyone thinks you're lying and you're HIV positive and you're too scared to take the test. That's why you're saying the earth is flat and HIV doesn't exist. Prove them wrong, prove you're not the coward they think you are. Take whatever test RACJ wants; they're all accurate.
Having studied microbiology and immunology and having done laboratory research on HIV, I find it completely ridiculous to deny the existence of HIV and AIDS. It has killed millions and will continue to kill millions more if we just ignore it. However, I realize that I am completely against AIDS Denialism because I have spent my entire life in the scientific field and my thoughts may just be biased. Thus, I would like to have some unbiased opinions:
Some questions to think and discuss about: 1- Should Tommy Morrison be allowed to fight? Is he "innocent until proven guilty?" Keep in mind there is no "in between" answer for this because Tommy loses money by not fighting, but if he actually has HIV he will be jeopardizing the life of his opponent during the fight. 2- Is this an example of scientific illiteracy or does Terry Michael (author of the first article) and Tommy Morrison raise some valid points? 3- AIDS Denialsim vs Pharmaceutical companies making billions of $ selling anti-viral drugs.
tl;dr -Tommy Morrison is a boxer that is being barred from fighting because he tested positive for HIV in 1996, but has subsequently taken 3-4 more tests where he supposedly tested negative. He is not allowed to fight unless he takes another HIV test. But he refuses to take another test unless it is 100% accurate. In the mean time, he claims to have been robbed of millions of $ because of not being able to fight. -Terry Michael is a journalist who published an article denying the existence of HIV, and seems to have already convinced a few people. -Dr. Norbert Gilmore outlines the fatal repercussions ignoring HIV.
Once again, I would like to remind readers to also take a look at the comments section of these articles.
Good read for a basic understanding of a lot of the arguments of those challenging HIV=AIDS theory.
The term denialists is an ad hominum attack seeking to cause visions of individuals who deny that the holocaust ever occurred when referring those who question the scientific evidence of HIV = AIDs theory. By its nature it is bigoted.
Two people "discovered" the theory that HIV causes AIDS. Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier. Gallo was convicted in international court of fraud and stealing research from Montagnier. Montagnier never thought the research he was doing showed that HIV causes AIDS. He has stated his theory that what is called AIDS requires cofactors, ie. HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS and that AIDS (the syndrome of immune deficiency which he does not believe is solely caused by HIV) can be cured through nutritional means and treating root causes of presenting diseases.
So, HIV=AIDS theory is based on a fraud that stole research from an individual who does not believe his research indicated HIV causes AIDS.
And no, there has never been further research to show that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS since.
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.
See even scientists resort to CAPSLOCK and vitriolic slander, why can't we? Why can't I say someone is dumb for their ideas and provide illogical reasoning for it? These guys are my role models, Btw the Earth is flat and God created both himself and everything. Go prove me wrong and prove you're not the coward we all think you are.
OT: I'm pretty sure people are dying from something that causes there immune system to shut down... Whether we call it AIDS or flamferglebutt shouldn't matter... People are dying from a disease.
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.
Funny, as there has never been evidence to prove the existence of HIV published. You would be the first. All you need to do is publish evidence that what you were staring at actually causes AIDS, win a Nobel Prize. There are also other easy awards. Here, $100000 for the first person to provide evidence of the above.
Note, it should be simply for someone to claim this $100000, but nobody has. There are other such awards out there. You will be a millionaire, Nobel Prize winner and one of the most famous scientists alive in no time.
On February 13 2011 10:00 Kakera wrote: See even scientists resort to CAPSLOCK and vitriolic slander, why can't we? Why can't I say someone is dumb for their ideas and provide illogical reasoning for it? These guys are my role models, Btw the Earth is flat and God created both himself and everything. Go prove me wrong and prove you're not the coward we all think you are.
OT: I'm pretty sure people are dying from something that causes there immune system to shut down... Whether we call it AIDS or flamferglebutt shouldn't matter... People are dying from a disease.
The key question is whether HIV is causing it, not whether AIDS exists, which nobody would argue against.
False positives and false negatives do happen, but they are still rare. He should just take the test several times if he's worried about accuracy of the tests.
It really depends on what your definition of "proof" is. I have seen HIV under electron microscopy and I have worked with HIV proteins in various assays.
It's actually a very well-documented virus, your claim that it doesn't even exist is laughable. We know what kind of cells in the body it infects (primarily macrophages and CD4+ T Cells), we know its structure (pretty much your typical retrovirus, with its own unique markers, of course), and we know its taxonomic variations (see here). It's been examined more closely than almost any other pathogen in history.
On February 13 2011 10:00 AcuWill wrote: All you need to do is publish evidence that what you were staring at actually causes AIDS, win a Nobel Prize and be the first to publish such a thing
The link between HIV and AIDS is extremely well-supported. It fulfills all of Koch's postulates, as established by numerous studies. It must also be noted that AIDS-like, catastrophic immunodeficiency infections are extremely rare outside of those infected with HIV. I could give allkindsofsources to look at, if you're willing to seriously consider just how far you've been misled. AIDS denialism (arguably an ad-hominem term, I suppose, but certainly no worse than the language used in the first article) has been pseudoscience since the nineties. And unlike many popular conspiracy theories, it kills people, every day. Spreading this kind of nonsense is very dangerous, and you need to make sure that you're extremely confident in your beliefs before you try to convince others to risk their lives on it.
Oh wow, i just did a paper on aids denialism last week actually.
If you've heard about this issue before i'm sure that you've heard of duesberg and his shenanigans here and there. Lotsa relatively solid arguments from him on the surface that capable of convincing the mass majority (specially if published on a media network) but when investigating his methods, it almost seemed like he skipped all of the cellular mechanisms behind HIV infection and integration.
for example) one of his papers from 1989 went to disprove HIV as causative for AIDS by saying that it doesn't meet koch's postulate. The problem with that was koch's postulate, also supposed to work for pathogens in general, does have a number of limitations and retrograde viruses like HIV fall under that condition.
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.
Funny, as there has never been evidence to prove the existence of HIV published. You would be the first. All you need to do is publish evidence that what you were staring at actually causes AIDS, win a Nobel Prize. There are also other easy awards. Here, $100000 for the first person to provide evidence of the above.
Note, it should be simply for someone to claim this $100000, but nobody has. There are other such awards out there. You will be a millionaire, Nobel Prize winner and one of the most famous scientists alive in no time.
There are plenty of bogus prizes just like this. They are always offered by people/organizations with an agenda looking to sway public opinion. No one takes them seriously because no one expects them to be awarded even in the face of overwhelming proof. Witness the numerous open reward contests to provide proof of evolution.
It's a tired tactic, but it seems to have worked on you so I guess it's still effective.
herpderp obama is a muslim alien and hes UNAMERICAN herpderp fox news told me so!
in any case people like this are nuts. its the same as people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, evolution is a lie and the world is 6000 years old, or that vaccines cause autism in kids. stupid people will believe anything! and there are alot of stupid people in this world.
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.
Funny, as there has never been evidence to prove the existence of HIV published. You would be the first. All you need to do is publish evidence that what you were staring at actually causes AIDS, win a Nobel Prize. There are also other easy awards. Here, $100000 for the first person to provide evidence of the above.
Note, it should be simply for someone to claim this $100000, but nobody has. There are other such awards out there. You will be a millionaire, Nobel Prize winner and one of the most famous scientists alive in no time.
Why do you people always sound so sure of yourselves?
The less you know, the more you think you know, because you don't know you don't know.
Secondly to the person who said AIDS was an inside job, the diversity of current HIV strains point towards infected humans decades before we had even discovered the structure of DNA. Please try to convince me that we genetically engineered a retrovirus we didn't know was possible with information and technology that didn't exist yet.
On February 13 2011 10:36 Igakusei wrote: Secondly to the person who said AIDS was an inside job, the diversity of current HIV strains point towards infected humans decades before we had even discovered the structure of DNA. Please try to convince me that we genetically engineered a retrovirus we didn't know was possible with information and technology that didn't exist yet.
i believe it was a troll pun, buddy. look at the CAPS
ot: of course it's false. like the moon landing. unlike homeopathy. (before anyone responds: /troll)
Why is this discussion even going on. This is a stuff for psychologist to find out why he's avoiding tests. Either he is positive or negative. If he's negative, he could be scared someone will try to 'fake' tests to make them positive. In that case this boxer is not entirely alright, maybe too paranoid? Or he really is positive and in that case he's simply afraid that the truth will come out.
The 'denying' of existence of HIV is just ridiculous. HIV is a virus, AIDS is as name says - acquired immune deficiency syndrome and is a final state/symptom of HIV.
I am really shocked how can someone even try to refuse these things and try to pull off some 'conspiracy' when there are many people that even work with this virus. Soon someone will try to persuade me that homeopatics really modify the structure of water and electrons fly around atoms in circles or whatever.
On February 13 2011 10:36 Igakusei wrote: Secondly to the person who said AIDS was an inside job, the diversity of current HIV strains point towards infected humans decades before we had even discovered the structure of DNA. Please try to convince me that we genetically engineered a retrovirus we didn't know was possible with information and technology that didn't exist yet.
i believe it was a troll pun, buddy. look at the CAPS
ot: of course it's false. like the moon landing. unlike homeopathy. (before anyone responds: /troll)
It's not always obvious. My sister believes that AIDS as a human epidemic was created by HIV contamination (intentional or otherwise) of OPV vaccines, despite all evidence to the contrary. There are even a handful of scientists (Duesberg is the obvious example) who are outspoken against HIV-induced AIDS. You and I understand it's as ridiculous as homeopathy, but thousands of other people don't; and some of them are in this thread.
Time will prove HIV to be one of the biggest fallacies in modern medical history. As usual, there are lots of arguments in either direction, but the point is, that you CANNOT show me or anyone else the study that proves HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
This has been a request of those questioning HIV is the causative factor in AIDS from the beginning and it has never been brought forward. Frankly, the discussion is tiresome. For those interested, her is a video that provides some insight into some of the troubles with HIV theory.
On February 13 2011 10:29 ProjectVirtue wrote: Oh wow, i just did a paper on aids denialism last week actually.
If you've heard about this issue before i'm sure that you've heard of duesberg and his shenanigans here and there. Lotsa relatively solid arguments from him on the surface that capable of convincing the mass majority (specially if published on a media network) but when investigating his methods, it almost seemed like he skipped all of the cellular mechanisms behind HIV infection and integration.
for example) one of his papers from 1989 went to disprove HIV as causative for AIDS by saying that it doesn't meet koch's postulate. The problem with that was koch's postulate, also supposed to work for pathogens in general, does have a number of limitations and retrograde viruses like HIV fall under that condition.
I was going to agree with you but then you outed yourself as a ダメ人間
But to answer ops first question and third point, no he shouldn't be allowed to fight. The tests are there to ensure the safety of the fighters. The fighter may disagree, that's his choice to make, but when you willingly participate in a sport, you play by the rules which you have chosen to impose on yourself, regardless of what you may perceive to be fair. In other words, you don't like it? Tough titties.
Anti-corporate sentiment is standard when trying to drum up support (read: Greenpeace, PETA). It's just another persuasive device like appeals to patriotism/money/self-interest.
Time will prove HIV to be one of the biggest fallacies in modern medical history. As usual, there are lots of arguments in either direction, but the point is, that you CANNOT show me or anyone else the study that proves HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
1) Are you and I reading the same thread? I think that the NIH article provides a pretty compelling review showing that HIV transfer causes AIDS.
2) "Time will prove HIV to be one of the biggest fallacies in modern medical history. As usual, there are lots of arguments in either direction..." -- that's a bit of a self-destructive argument wouldn't you say?
3) You can't formally prove gravity exists either. You can't scientifically ~prove~ anything without assuming certain axioms.
4) Show me an example of one of the skeptics volunteering to be inoculated with HIV (a la Bernard Cohen's challenge to ingest as much plutonium as Ralph Nader would caffeine) and it would be pretty convincing.
On February 13 2011 11:04 AcuWill wrote: Time will prove HIV to be one of the biggest fallacies in modern medical history. As usual, there are lots of arguments in either direction, but the point is, that you CANNOT show me or anyone else the study that proves HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
This has been a request of those questioning HIV is the causative factor in AIDS from the beginning and it has never been brought forward. Frankly, the discussion is tiresome. For those interested, her is a video that provides some insight into some of the troubles with HIV theory.
On February 13 2011 11:04 AcuWill wrote: Time will prove HIV to be one of the biggest fallacies in modern medical history. As usual, there are lots of arguments in either direction, but the point is, that you CANNOT show me or anyone else the study that proves HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
This has been a request of those questioning HIV is the causative factor in AIDS from the beginning and it has never been brought forward. Frankly, the discussion is tiresome. For those interested, her is a video that provides some insight into some of the troubles with HIV theory.
Accepting 'scientific facts blindly' which were researched years and even decades ago could very well be dangerous for us as a species considering the rate at which technology improves in just a handful of years.
Its a sad state of affairs that studies aren't redone on so many major diseases and conditions from the ground up.
On February 13 2011 11:23 Adeeler wrote: Accepting 'scientific facts blindly' which were researched years and even decades ago could very well be dangerous for us as a species considering the rate at which technology improves in just a handful of years.
Its a sad state of affairs that studies aren't redone on so many major diseases and conditions from the ground up.
We do this, whenever there's a good reason to (see Einstein's theories replacing Newton's). Science is always growing and changing, and every now and then you DO see a major paradigm shift (Evolution is a good example). There are always assumptions that have been grandfathered in that may not have the firmest scientific understanding (there's a frightening amount of this in surgery, btw), but every time the models start to break down people DO go back to the drawing board. It happens all the time in sociology (look up the many, many theories that have come out to better and better explain why minorities have worse health outcomes than non-minorities), for example.
The reason we haven't done this with HIV/AIDS is because there is literally no good reason to do so. If you think there is, it's because you don't understand all the arguments.
Well if you're a germ theory denialist, then HIV comes from AIDS, which is caused by sinful living and stuff.
Oh cmon, there's no need to demagogue these skeptics as somehow related to somewhat exuberant Christian evangelists.
I suppose it's just my personal experience (I was raised in a fundamentalist environment and private schooled until college), but I've never met a germ-theory denialist who wasn't a fundamentalist Christian. Didn't mean to derail the thread or anything, but I often associate the two (perhaps incorrectly) together.
Its a sad state of affairs that studies aren't redone on so many major diseases and conditions from the ground up.
I don't suppose you know the price tag of said studies. Research is very much a time sink--even reproducing past results can be a pain in the ass.
Its easy to talk about doing things. But when it comes to paying for them...
Well if you're a germ theory denialist, then HIV comes from AIDS, which is caused by sinful living and stuff.
Oh cmon, there's no need to demagogue these skeptics as somehow related to somewhat exuberant Christian evangelists.
I suppose it's just my personal experience (I was raised in a fundamentalist environment and private schooled until college), but I've never met a germ-theory denialist who wasn't a fundamentalist Christian. Didn't mean to derail the thread or anything, but I often associate the two (perhaps incorrectly) together.
I was kind of thinking that this was some type of anti-prophylactics campaign and we all know what organization would condemn condom use before genocide.
Good read for a basic understanding of a lot of the arguments of those challenging HIV=AIDS theory.
The term denialists is an ad hominum attack seeking to cause visions of individuals who deny that the holocaust ever occurred when referring those who question the scientific evidence of HIV = AIDs theory. By its nature it is bigoted.
Two people "discovered" the theory that HIV causes AIDS. Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier. Gallo was convicted in international court of fraud and stealing research from Montagnier. Montagnier never thought the research he was doing showed that HIV causes AIDS. He has stated his theory that what is called AIDS requires cofactors, ie. HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS and that AIDS (the syndrome of immune deficiency which he does not believe is solely caused by HIV) can be cured through nutritional means and treating root causes of presenting diseases.
So, HIV=AIDS theory is based on a fraud that stole research from an individual who does not believe his research indicated HIV causes AIDS.
And no, there has never been further research to show that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS since.
On February 13 2011 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.
Funny, as there has never been evidence to prove the existence of HIV published. You would be the first. All you need to do is publish evidence that what you were staring at actually causes AIDS, win a Nobel Prize. There are also other easy awards. Here, $100000 for the first person to provide evidence of the above.
Note, it should be simply for someone to claim this $100000, but nobody has. There are other such awards out there. You will be a millionaire, Nobel Prize winner and one of the most famous scientists alive in no time.
Wow, did you type that with a keyboard, or do you have a program that converts the shit in your toilet into posts on TL?
Seriously, if you have managed to prove that HIV doesn't exist, then you would be writing papers for medical journals and not posting crap on TL. If you really think this, I'll raise your offer. You go hire three prostitutes with HIV and fuck them without a condom. I'll pay you back for the prostitutes if you contract HIV, and pay for penicillin if you get Syphilis, (you're on your own if you get the clap). Then, if you get AIDS, you give me $100000 or change your will to give me full inheritance (my choice). Sound fair? Obviously, it doesn't.
Having seen the virus under the microscope, most of this strikes me as sad/funny.
You saw something and were told it was AIDS. That doesn't mean it was AIDS. And even if it was AIDS, seeing it under a microscope tells you nothing about how it interacts with anything other than the slide it's on. Seeing doesn't mean shit without the research that leads to sound theory.
Being a 'scientist' myself one thing that is and will always be true is that scientists get things wrong quite often. Not saying they are in this case, but blindly following it because you 'learnt' it in ur edumacation' is far more retarded than denying the existence of aids.
AIDS happens when the HIV virus reaches a certain level in a person's body. That is how HIV causes AIDS, its really not that complicated.
How many people have seen this article? It reminds me of the one guy who said vaccines causes autism because my child was vaccinated around the same time that autism becomes evident in children! and because it was in a magazine, all the dumbasses in America believed it and a lot of kids died from not being vaccinated.
I don't see how he can use one person as an example while ignoring the millions of people with aids, and expect people to take him seriously.
Having seen the virus under the microscope, most of this strikes me as sad/funny.
You saw something and were told it was AIDS. That doesn't mean it was AIDS. And even if it was AIDS, seeing it under a microscope tells you nothing about how it interacts with anything other than the slide it's on. Seeing doesn't mean shit without the research that leads to sound theory.
Being a 'scientist' myself one thing that is and will always be true is that scientists get things wrong quite often. Not saying they are in this case, but blindly following it because you 'learnt' it in ur edumacation' is far more retarded than denying the existence of aids.
heh... You can't see AIDS. AIDS is a condition. You can, however, see the HIV under the electron microscope.
That being said, I see your point, but now we've entered a slippery slope. If what I saw wasn't HIV, then the circles I saw under the microscope yesterday may not be B10R macrophages either. They were just circles that someone told me were B10R macrophages and as a result my professor wasted 20 years of his life studying how circles interact with viral proteins.
And you most definitely can use a microscope to see how cells and viruses interact. In fact, that is the closest thing to "direct" proof we have. Molecular and biochemical assays can provide a foundation for a hypothesis which can then be reinforced with microscopic evidence.
Having seen the virus under the microscope, most of this strikes me as sad/funny.
You saw something and were told it was AIDS. That doesn't mean it was AIDS. And even if it was AIDS, seeing it under a microscope tells you nothing about how it interacts with anything other than the slide it's on. Seeing doesn't mean shit without the research that leads to sound theory.
Being a 'scientist' myself one thing that is and will always be true is that scientists get things wrong quite often. Not saying they are in this case, but blindly following it because you 'learnt' it in ur edumacation' is far more retarded than denying the existence of aids.
You can't really "see" a syndrome like that, he saw the HIVirus. And also, when you saw a dog for the first time, and your parents said dog, you believed them too.
I've never really been exposed to the debate that HIV causes AIDS, and I'm not really sure how I should take it. I've googled around a bit, but I can't help but feeling like it's people denying an absolute truth, but then again I've never been exposed to this information. Is there an actual valid claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS? Or is it something like Holocaust deniers saying that the holocaust never happened.
I have an Uncle with HIV/AIDS. He nearly died once from pneumonia. To hear people attempt to deny the existence of an HIV/AIDS relationship is terrible.
US anti-intellectualism at it's finest. Whenever science proves your worldview wrong, just get some crackpot to say otherwise and you have a genuine "competing theory". Evolution telling you the Earth is older then 6000 years? Don't worry, "magical forces" actually created all forms of life. STDs causing deaths instead of "God striking down sinful gays"? Don't worry, just deny the existence of such a disease, because I guess germ theory IS JUST A THEORY. THAT MEANS I'M ENTITLED TO A "THEORY" TOO!
On February 13 2011 09:38 AcuWill wrote:Good read for a basic understanding of a lot of the arguments of those challenging HIV=AIDS theory.
How is there even an argument about this? I've been working with women and children with HIV/AIDS for years, HIV isn't exactly the same thing as AIDS, obviously. You can live with HIV your whole life and be healthy. But HIV becomes AIDS once you have multiple infectious diseases.
Having seen the virus under the microscope, most of this strikes me as sad/funny.
You saw something and were told it was AIDS. That doesn't mean it was AIDS. And even if it was AIDS, seeing it under a microscope tells you nothing about how it interacts with anything other than the slide it's on. Seeing doesn't mean shit without the research that leads to sound theory.
Being a 'scientist' myself one thing that is and will always be true is that scientists get things wrong quite often. Not saying they are in this case, but blindly following it because you 'learnt' it in ur edumacation' is far more retarded than denying the existence of aids.
And this isn't a bannable post? How can TL have such morons? AIDS is a SYNDROME. You can't see it under a microscope.. It's the drastic lowering of immune function through CD4 T cells being attacked by HIV over a period of years. It's not a fantasy disease; I fail to see why ANYONE would have problems believing in it; the biochemistry and pharmacology of it is established and nothing out of the ordinary. You're not a scientist, much less someone who can quote accepted scientific findings (which is, again, a far cry from being a "scientist"). You're just a moron.
Honestly, Admins should just get rid of anyone who can't differentiate between AIDS and HIV conceptually.
Half of me wants this thread to remain open in hopes of educating the uninformed. The other half wants this thread closed to avoid giving credence to the anti-intellectual phenomenon that is HIV/AIDS Denialism.
On February 13 2011 12:51 Consolidate wrote: Half of me wants this thread to remain open in hopes of educating the uninformed. The other half wants this thread closed to avoid giving credence to the anti-intellectual phenomenon that is HIV/AIDS Denialism.
Additionally, you better have a solid fucking counter argument to 200+ years of research into germ theory and 30 years research into AIDS itself before anyone is going to take you seriously.
The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
Further, lumping me and someone who doesn't think the Earth is more than 6000 years old is laughable.
For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism, I give the evidence below that HIV positivity depends on what country you are in. Yes, you can take the same Western Blot test, and if you were to send your test results to different countries, you would be positive in some and not positive in others.
The countries are indicated on top with their criterion in the columns below them. The far column on the left represents proteins associated with HIV, specifically the gray portions are the specific proteins.
How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?
Questions to think about.
Also, a relatively short rebuttal to most of the viewpoints thrown around here like they were Gospel. And yes, I use that wording on purpose, since the ones accusing denialists of spouting rhetoric are doing just that. These include that HIV can be found in all persons having AIDS, that it has been isolated, and the discussion of "HIV proteins."
The group of individuals who question HIV not causing AIDS are fundamental Christians or radicals in any manner. Here is a list of 2,745 individuals who question the theory and their credentials.
On February 13 2011 11:04 AcuWill wrote: Time will prove HIV to be one of the biggest fallacies in modern medical history. As usual, there are lots of arguments in either direction, but the point is, that you CANNOT show me or anyone else the study that proves HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
This has been a request of those questioning HIV is the causative factor in AIDS from the beginning and it has never been brought forward. Frankly, the discussion is tiresome. For those interested, her is a video that provides some insight into some of the troubles with HIV theory.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
Further, lumping me and someone who doesn't think the Earth is more than 6000 years old is laughable.
For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism, I give the evidence below that HIV positivity depends on what country you are in. Yes, you can take the same Western Blot test, and if you were to send your test results to different countries, you would be positive in some and not positive in others.
The countries are indicated on top with their criterion in the columns below them. The far column on the left represents proteins associated with HIV, specifically the gray portions are the specific proteins.
How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?
Questions to think about.
Also, a relatively short rebuttal to most of the viewpoints thrown around here like they were Gospel. And yes, I use that wording on purpose, since the ones accusing denialists of spouting rhetoric are doing just that. These include that HIV can be found in all persons having AIDS, that it has been isolated, and the discussion of "HIV proteins."
acuwill i applaud your ability to apply reason and defend yourself from the hordes of sheeple. i wish more people would think about why there is an argument in the first place rather than drawing conclusions based on who shouts louder or who said first.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
Further, lumping me and someone who doesn't think the Earth is more than 6000 years old is laughable.
For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism, I give the evidence below that HIV positivity depends on what country you are in. Yes, you can take the same Western Blot test, and if you were to send your test results to different countries, you would be positive in some and not positive in others.
The countries are indicated on top with their criterion in the columns below them. The far column on the left represents proteins associated with HIV, specifically the gray portions are the specific proteins.
How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?
Questions to think about.
Also, a relatively short rebuttal to most of the viewpoints thrown around here like they were Gospel. And yes, I use that wording on purpose, since the ones accusing denialists of spouting rhetoric are doing just that. These include that HIV can be found in all persons having AIDS, that it has been isolated, and the discussion of "HIV proteins."
How about you source this from Medline or Ovid instead of some dotcom for a start? Published 1993... A mere decade after the discovery of hte disease itself...
"How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?"
Two different people in different circumstances and settings? Nowadays antiviral treatment means a person undergoing therapy will never have HIV develop into AIDS. You can't compare two individuals having their lab tests done in two different countries, it's just not scientific.
For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism
What the heck has this got to do with the holocaust? Besides no-one 'denies' the holocaust happened they just question how many people did actually die in those camps.
Likewise with climate change 'deniers' , noone actually denies that climate change occurs - like when the earth thawed from the last ice age 10,000 years ago or when it went through the medieval warm period or little ice ages 200 years ago.These are all proven examples of 'climate change' or global warming as it used to be known as.
Stop putting all these under the 'denier' bracket.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
Further, lumping me and someone who doesn't think the Earth is more than 6000 years old is laughable.
For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism, I give the evidence below that HIV positivity depends on what country you are in. Yes, you can take the same Western Blot test, and if you were to send your test results to different countries, you would be positive in some and not positive in others.
The countries are indicated on top with their criterion in the columns below them. The far column on the left represents proteins associated with HIV, specifically the gray portions are the specific proteins.
How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?
Questions to think about.
Also, a relatively short rebuttal to most of the viewpoints thrown around here like they were Gospel. And yes, I use that wording on purpose, since the ones accusing denialists of spouting rhetoric are doing just that. These include that HIV can be found in all persons having AIDS, that it has been isolated, and the discussion of "HIV proteins."
acuwill i applaud your ability to apply reason and defend yourself from the hordes of sheeple. i wish more people would think about why there is an argument in the first place rather than drawing conclusions based on who shouts louder or who said first.
You do realize that your criticism of HIV is true of pretty much all Western Blot procedures and is duly taken into account when regarding the results? When I was tested for Lyme disease, the standards were not the same across all institutions and the result was not with 100% certainty
In any case, the accuracy of serologic testing has been verified by isolation and culture of HIV and by detection of HIV RNA by PCR.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
Further, lumping me and someone who doesn't think the Earth is more than 6000 years old is laughable.
For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism, I give the evidence below that HIV positivity depends on what country you are in. Yes, you can take the same Western Blot test, and if you were to send your test results to different countries, you would be positive in some and not positive in others.
The countries are indicated on top with their criterion in the columns below them. The far column on the left represents proteins associated with HIV, specifically the gray portions are the specific proteins.
How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?
Questions to think about.
Also, a relatively short rebuttal to most of the viewpoints thrown around here like they were Gospel. And yes, I use that wording on purpose, since the ones accusing denialists of spouting rhetoric are doing just that. These include that HIV can be found in all persons having AIDS, that it has been isolated, and the discussion of "HIV proteins."
How about you source this from Medline or Ovid instead of some dotcom for a start? Published 1993... A mere decade after the discovery of hte disease itself...
"How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?"
Two different people in different circumstances and settings? Nowadays antiviral treatment means a person undergoing therapy will never have HIV develop into AIDS. You can't compare two individuals having their lab tests done in two different countries, it's just not scientific.
That is not what I said. I said, test one person's blood and get the results. Send the results to different countries. In some countries that person has HIV and will get AIDS (notice no discussion of the efficacy of treatment) as a result and in other countries they won't have HIV and therefore won't get AIDS. There is no discussion of two people in different countries or antiretroviral treatment.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
Further, lumping me and someone who doesn't think the Earth is more than 6000 years old is laughable.
For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism, I give the evidence below that HIV positivity depends on what country you are in. Yes, you can take the same Western Blot test, and if you were to send your test results to different countries, you would be positive in some and not positive in others.
The countries are indicated on top with their criterion in the columns below them. The far column on the left represents proteins associated with HIV, specifically the gray portions are the specific proteins.
How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?
Questions to think about.
Also, a relatively short rebuttal to most of the viewpoints thrown around here like they were Gospel. And yes, I use that wording on purpose, since the ones accusing denialists of spouting rhetoric are doing just that. These include that HIV can be found in all persons having AIDS, that it has been isolated, and the discussion of "HIV proteins."
How about you source this from Medline or Ovid instead of some dotcom for a start? Published 1993... A mere decade after the discovery of hte disease itself...
"How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?"
Two different people in different circumstances and settings? Nowadays antiviral treatment means a person undergoing therapy will never have HIV develop into AIDS. You can't compare two individuals having their lab tests done in two different countries, it's just not scientific.
That is not what I said. I said, test one person's blood and get the results. Send the results to different countries. In some countries that person has HIV and will get AIDS (notice no discussion of the efficacy of treatment) as a result and in other countries they won't have HIV and therefore won't get AIDS. There is no discussion of two people in different countries or antiretroviral treatment.
What exactly are you implying? AID's doesn't exist? HIV doesn't exist? There is a conspiracy to infect arbitrary HIV false-positive people with whatever causes AIDS?
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
Further, lumping me and someone who doesn't think the Earth is more than 6000 years old is laughable.
For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism, I give the evidence below that HIV positivity depends on what country you are in. Yes, you can take the same Western Blot test, and if you were to send your test results to different countries, you would be positive in some and not positive in others.
The countries are indicated on top with their criterion in the columns below them. The far column on the left represents proteins associated with HIV, specifically the gray portions are the specific proteins.
How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?
Questions to think about.
Also, a relatively short rebuttal to most of the viewpoints thrown around here like they were Gospel. And yes, I use that wording on purpose, since the ones accusing denialists of spouting rhetoric are doing just that. These include that HIV can be found in all persons having AIDS, that it has been isolated, and the discussion of "HIV proteins."
How about you source this from Medline or Ovid instead of some dotcom for a start? Published 1993... A mere decade after the discovery of hte disease itself...
"How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?"
Two different people in different circumstances and settings? Nowadays antiviral treatment means a person undergoing therapy will never have HIV develop into AIDS. You can't compare two individuals having their lab tests done in two different countries, it's just not scientific.
That is not what I said. I said, test one person's blood and get the results. Send the results to different countries. In some countries that person has HIV and will get AIDS (notice no discussion of the efficacy of treatment) as a result and in other countries they won't have HIV and therefore won't get AIDS. There is no discussion of two people in different countries or antiretroviral treatment.
Some of those tests are more likely to give either false positivesor false negatives, and the standard for such would be different in different countries. However just because the test has a different standard doesn't mean it will give different results if they are testing highly correlated things.
-Suppose there's something that can make HIV emerge from latency -Since effective anti-virals exist, this would in effect make it possible for HIV to be eradicated from the body -If that happened, according to the HIV-AIDS theory, the AIDS symptoms would disappear.
The twist is, said compound exists (prostatin) I believe its undergoing Phase I trails.
So I guess we'll find out soon who's right yes?
The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling.
BS, its because you're ignoring/avoiding the actual journal articles presented as counters to your arguments.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
Further, lumping me and someone who doesn't think the Earth is more than 6000 years old is laughable.
For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism, I give the evidence below that HIV positivity depends on what country you are in. Yes, you can take the same Western Blot test, and if you were to send your test results to different countries, you would be positive in some and not positive in others.
The countries are indicated on top with their criterion in the columns below them. The far column on the left represents proteins associated with HIV, specifically the gray portions are the specific proteins.
How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?
Questions to think about.
Also, a relatively short rebuttal to most of the viewpoints thrown around here like they were Gospel. And yes, I use that wording on purpose, since the ones accusing denialists of spouting rhetoric are doing just that. These include that HIV can be found in all persons having AIDS, that it has been isolated, and the discussion of "HIV proteins."
acuwill i applaud your ability to apply reason and defend yourself from the hordes of sheeple. i wish more people would think about why there is an argument in the first place rather than drawing conclusions based on who shouts louder or who said first.
You do realize that your criticism of HIV is true of pretty much all Western Blot procedures and is duly taken into account when regarding the results? When I was tested for Lyme disease, the standards were not the same across all institutions and the result was not with 100% certainty
In any case, the accuracy of serologic testing has been verified by isolation and culture of HIV and by detection of HIV RNA by PCR.
I cannot comment on a paper I cannot read. The abstract does not count.
PCR results have been shown to not adequately correlate with CD4+ decline. Here's a real paper, that I have actually read, not summary of a paper you never did.
Edit: Anyway, my last post on this thread. It's nice to see some positive replies, but I don't have the time or the energy make educated replies to every counter argument that is thrown at me in an offhanded manner, especially when there is a plethora of information out there already on the topic. If anyone is curious, the links below are a good place to start.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
Further, lumping me and someone who doesn't think the Earth is more than 6000 years old is laughable.
For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism, I give the evidence below that HIV positivity depends on what country you are in. Yes, you can take the same Western Blot test, and if you were to send your test results to different countries, you would be positive in some and not positive in others.
The countries are indicated on top with their criterion in the columns below them. The far column on the left represents proteins associated with HIV, specifically the gray portions are the specific proteins.
How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?
Questions to think about.
Also, a relatively short rebuttal to most of the viewpoints thrown around here like they were Gospel. And yes, I use that wording on purpose, since the ones accusing denialists of spouting rhetoric are doing just that. These include that HIV can be found in all persons having AIDS, that it has been isolated, and the discussion of "HIV proteins."
acuwill i applaud your ability to apply reason and defend yourself from the hordes of sheeple. i wish more people would think about why there is an argument in the first place rather than drawing conclusions based on who shouts louder or who said first.
You do realize that your criticism of HIV is true of pretty much all Western Blot procedures and is duly taken into account when regarding the results? When I was tested for Lyme disease, the standards were not the same across all institutions and the result was not with 100% certainty
In any case, the accuracy of serologic testing has been verified by isolation and culture of HIV and by detection of HIV RNA by PCR.
I cannot comment on a paper I cannot read. The abstract does not count.
PCR results have been shown to not adequately correlate with CD4+ decline. Here's a real paper, that I have actually read, not summary of a paper you never did.
Direct HIV RNA levels may not correlate with CD4 cell loss. However, it is entirely possible for HIV RNA levels to remain variable while still instigating the death of CD4 cells.
More HIV =/= fewer helper t-cells.
This is without regard to your apparent claim that HIV doesn't exist at all....
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
Further, lumping me and someone who doesn't think the Earth is more than 6000 years old is laughable.
For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism, I give the evidence below that HIV positivity depends on what country you are in. Yes, you can take the same Western Blot test, and if you were to send your test results to different countries, you would be positive in some and not positive in others.
The countries are indicated on top with their criterion in the columns below them. The far column on the left represents proteins associated with HIV, specifically the gray portions are the specific proteins.
How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?
Questions to think about.
Also, a relatively short rebuttal to most of the viewpoints thrown around here like they were Gospel. And yes, I use that wording on purpose, since the ones accusing denialists of spouting rhetoric are doing just that. These include that HIV can be found in all persons having AIDS, that it has been isolated, and the discussion of "HIV proteins."
How about you source this from Medline or Ovid instead of some dotcom for a start? Published 1993... A mere decade after the discovery of hte disease itself...
"How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?"
Two different people in different circumstances and settings? Nowadays antiviral treatment means a person undergoing therapy will never have HIV develop into AIDS. You can't compare two individuals having their lab tests done in two different countries, it's just not scientific.
That is not what I said. I said, test one person's blood and get the results. Send the results to different countries. In some countries that person has HIV and will get AIDS (notice no discussion of the efficacy of treatment) as a result and in other countries they won't have HIV and therefore won't get AIDS. There is no discussion of two people in different countries or antiretroviral treatment.
Some of those tests are more likely to give either false positivesor false negatives, and the standard for such would be different in different countries. However just because the test has a different standard doesn't mean it will give different results if they are testing highly correlated things.
One test, same results, interpreted under different clinical guidelines in different countries. There is no discussion of standards, only of data interpretation. This is like having the equation 2+2 given to different countries and getting different answers.
It is very interesting how numerous posters have needed to create their own "data" or "mental arguments" so that they don't actually have to acknowledge the point I am making. Cognitive dissonance anyone?
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
Further, lumping me and someone who doesn't think the Earth is more than 6000 years old is laughable.
For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism, I give the evidence below that HIV positivity depends on what country you are in. Yes, you can take the same Western Blot test, and if you were to send your test results to different countries, you would be positive in some and not positive in others.
The countries are indicated on top with their criterion in the columns below them. The far column on the left represents proteins associated with HIV, specifically the gray portions are the specific proteins.
How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?
Questions to think about.
Also, a relatively short rebuttal to most of the viewpoints thrown around here like they were Gospel. And yes, I use that wording on purpose, since the ones accusing denialists of spouting rhetoric are doing just that. These include that HIV can be found in all persons having AIDS, that it has been isolated, and the discussion of "HIV proteins."
How about you source this from Medline or Ovid instead of some dotcom for a start? Published 1993... A mere decade after the discovery of hte disease itself...
"How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?"
Two different people in different circumstances and settings? Nowadays antiviral treatment means a person undergoing therapy will never have HIV develop into AIDS. You can't compare two individuals having their lab tests done in two different countries, it's just not scientific.
That is not what I said. I said, test one person's blood and get the results. Send the results to different countries. In some countries that person has HIV and will get AIDS (notice no discussion of the efficacy of treatment) as a result and in other countries they won't have HIV and therefore won't get AIDS. There is no discussion of two people in different countries or antiretroviral treatment.
Some of those tests are more likely to give either false positivesor false negatives, and the standard for such would be different in different countries. However just because the test has a different standard doesn't mean it will give different results if they are testing highly correlated things.
One test, same results, interpreted under different clinical guidelines in different countries. There is no discussion of standards, only of data interpretation. This is like having the equation 2+2 given to different countries and getting different answers.
It is very interesting how numerous posters have needed to create their own "data" or "mental arguments" so that they don't actually have to acknowledge the point I am making. Cognitive dissonance anyone?
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
Further, lumping me and someone who doesn't think the Earth is more than 6000 years old is laughable.
For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism, I give the evidence below that HIV positivity depends on what country you are in. Yes, you can take the same Western Blot test, and if you were to send your test results to different countries, you would be positive in some and not positive in others.
The countries are indicated on top with their criterion in the columns below them. The far column on the left represents proteins associated with HIV, specifically the gray portions are the specific proteins.
How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?
Questions to think about.
Also, a relatively short rebuttal to most of the viewpoints thrown around here like they were Gospel. And yes, I use that wording on purpose, since the ones accusing denialists of spouting rhetoric are doing just that. These include that HIV can be found in all persons having AIDS, that it has been isolated, and the discussion of "HIV proteins."
Can I ask for the original source of this picture? It is taken out of context, but at first glance your interpretation of it is completely wrong. It simply tells us what which HIV proteins were able to be isolated at which specific country. Eg: AFR was able to consistently isolate and 2 of the Env proteins. If anything, it tells us that they were able to consistently isolate HIV proteins, and it is to be expected that you won't be able to find the same proteins in every country because, like almost all viruses, HIV has many strains. In fact, it is a very variable virus that mutates readily, So if you use the exact same Ab in your western blott and you test different strains of HIV, you're obviously not going see the presence of the exact same strain. But like I said, without context your interpretation, as well as mine, mean nothing.
And I read through the article, despite it not being from a reputable source. One particular section of interest is the "HIV can be detected in virtually everyone with AIDS". The author uses circular logic to defend his point - follow my train of thought: Criticizing the 3 techniques mentioned in the article that are were used to detect HIV will only show (assuming the foundation for the criticism is strong) that the techniques used to detect the virus were not adequate - nothing more. If one wants to prove that HIV is not present, then one must use a technique to demonstrate this. The author explains that the best technique to prove the virus is present is by viral purification through culturing it. However, this technique is not used in hospitals because it is not refined enough yet (or it may not even be possible with this technique). Thus, if you use this technique, you will obviously not find any viruses. Yet the author goes on to source an article where the investigator was unable to culture viruses from people who had "viral loads". He then uses this as an argument to demonstrate the inability to isolate the virus from HIV sufferers.
This is widely discussed topic in biomedical and bioscience labs in my university, my friend was doing a research on this and said there is an overwhelming amount of evidence and facts denying AIDS.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
Further, lumping me and someone who doesn't think the Earth is more than 6000 years old is laughable.
For those wondering if there is any real evidence or whether this should be categorized with Holocaust denialism, I give the evidence below that HIV positivity depends on what country you are in. Yes, you can take the same Western Blot test, and if you were to send your test results to different countries, you would be positive in some and not positive in others.
The countries are indicated on top with their criterion in the columns below them. The far column on the left represents proteins associated with HIV, specifically the gray portions are the specific proteins.
How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?
Questions to think about.
Also, a relatively short rebuttal to most of the viewpoints thrown around here like they were Gospel. And yes, I use that wording on purpose, since the ones accusing denialists of spouting rhetoric are doing just that. These include that HIV can be found in all persons having AIDS, that it has been isolated, and the discussion of "HIV proteins."
How about you source this from Medline or Ovid instead of some dotcom for a start? Published 1993... A mere decade after the discovery of hte disease itself...
"How is it if an individual's lab results are sent to the UK, they have HIV and then slowly develop AIDS in 10+ years, but in France, they don't even have HIV and never develop AIDS?"
Two different people in different circumstances and settings? Nowadays antiviral treatment means a person undergoing therapy will never have HIV develop into AIDS. You can't compare two individuals having their lab tests done in two different countries, it's just not scientific.
That is not what I said. I said, test one person's blood and get the results. Send the results to different countries. In some countries that person has HIV and will get AIDS (notice no discussion of the efficacy of treatment) as a result and in other countries they won't have HIV and therefore won't get AIDS. There is no discussion of two people in different countries or antiretroviral treatment.
Sadly it's exactly what you said. One person cannot exist in two different countries and get AIDS and not get AIDS. Are you trying to say that in using Western Blot tests in different countries may result in different conclusions for the same sample? Doesn't mean much for one thing - this happens with any test. No test has 100% specificity. In fact you can send the same test result to the same lab and have it tested twice and get two different results. That in itself is nothing.
Whether a person is validated as having HIV positive status and whether they are not (due to Western Blotting) is a totally seperate issue to whether they have HIV and will get AIDS in reality. The reality is, if you have HIV, and it is not detected and noted and do not get re-tested after a negative result, you will most likely have AIDS within the timeframe of a few decades. The reality is, if you have HIV and you do get it detected, and do not do anything about it, you will most likely have AIDS within the timeframe of a few decades. [QUOTE: in other countries they won't have HIV and therefore won't get AIDS]
Western Blotting accurate or not, countless papers have shown HIV is correlated and in most probability, the cause for AIDS. And Western Blotting is pretty a pretty standard analytical technique, so if you want to go at the AIDS is not caused by HIV argument, start somewhere else, because this line of attack is simply weak.
Edit: Anyway, my last post on this thread. It's nice to see some positive replies, but I don't have the time or the energy make educated replies to every counter argument that is thrown at me in an offhanded manner, especially when there is a plethora of information out there already on the topic. If anyone is curious, the links below are a good place to start.
When the best ammo you have is a blog and some wiki articles, its not hard to see why people are quickly dismissive of your position, whether it in fact is truly right or wrong.
It is a general trend of the internet that in blogs you can generally get away with saying stupid shit. Not saying that's the case here, just saying that it happens enough to diminish any evidentiary value they have.
Your current argument seems to be: "the HIV test has an error rate, therefore HIV doesn't cause AIDS". I can sort of see where you're going but there's a couple of logical links you have to make to create a solid case.
It is very interesting how numerous posters have needed to create their own "data" or "mental arguments" so that they don't actually have to acknowledge the point I am making.
While its a flattering thought I don't think you'll find said poster's names on the papers they cite...
EDIT: It seems that your reference conflate the loose standards surrounding AIDS diagnoses in Africa with the HIV-AIDS causality itself.
While I think the former point is somewhat valid, that doesn't make the latter any more strong.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
Nice how you ignore conveniently YoungNeil's post on the first page.
As for the topic, there is probably as much real scientific controversy as in creationism's case. At least the denialists use the same rhetorical tactics.
This is awful. This kind of rhetoric literally kills people. This is very serious because blaming aids on nutrition is a lot more intuitive for most people, and those without access/interest to an education in science will probably find this explanation the more logical alternative and won't distinguish between the presentation of the actual scientific data and this kind of dribble.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
Nice how you ignore conveniently YoungNeil's post on the first page.
As for the topic, there is probably as much real scientific controversy as in creationism's case. At least the denialists use the same rhetorical tactics.
Add to the fact nearly no-one's actually attacked AcuWill at all in this thread.
I'll set a precedence. AcuWill, you're a fucking moron.
This thread has a textbook troll arc. You almost forget that this is how almost every thread on the internet looks after being a TL member for so long.
On subject, (if people remember it after expert troll-session) I would definitely not want someone with a contagious virus bleeding on me. I'd just take the TKO...
On February 13 2011 09:38 AcuWill wrote:He has stated his theory that what is called AIDS requires cofactors, ie. HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS and that AIDS (the syndrome of immune deficiency which he does not believe is solely caused by HIV) can be cured through nutritional means and treating root causes of presenting diseases.
Here you are using the argument that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS and that cofactors exist. Implicit in this argument is that HIV does in fact contribute to AIDS, albiet partially.
On February 13 2011 11:04 AcuWill wrote:As usual, there are lots of arguments in either direction, but the point is, that you CANNOT show me or anyone else the study that proves HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
You then argue that HIV does not contribute to AIDS. This contradicts your previous argument.
On February 13 2011 14:19 AcuWill wrote: I cannot comment on a paper I cannot read. The abstract does not count.
Of course, you completely ignored this post. I notice that the links YoungNeil provided for you do in fact contain a large number of freely available articles for your perusal. Maybe you should comment on these other papers instead?
You said "you CANNOT show me or anyone else...". On the contrary, it is just you who cannot be shown, because you ignore the evidence when it is shown to you. You have been quick to cry "ad hominem" point to the trolls, while ignoring serious responses. You have you used contradictory arguments and have displayed broad ignorance of the general topic. For example you claimed:
All you need to do is publish evidence that what you were staring at actually causes AIDS, win a Nobel Prize.
Yet as you were shown by YoungNeil, such a prize was presented. In fact, in the exact link he provided you, Luc Montagnier, whose work you put forward as supporting your own views was the recipient of this prize. In his own words:
The surprise came when we compared the viability in his medium of lymphocytes from healthy donors and those from HIV infected patients, even in their early asymptomatic stage of infection. While the former could survive several days without dying, the majority (more than 50%) of the latter died very quickly.
Your opening post on the topic already betrays either remarkable ignorance of the research or outright deception - you attempted to represent the very person who was awarded the Nobel prize for showing HIV caused AIDS as someone sceptical about the link between HIV and AIDS.
Your intellectual dishonesty disgusts me, and your views, when held by people with more power, are responsible for the loss of many, many lives. I sincerely hope you have only been trolling.
On February 13 2011 18:29 meegrean wrote: Get over it man. AIDS is real and killing people. Why is this even a thread?
Money makes you do things. This is just one of them. If you had a killer contract that says "DENY AIDS AND THE FACTS SHOWN TO YOU" for a couple million dollars, why not?
A classic example of Poe's Law in action. I wish idiocy like this was a bannable offense because it's indistinguishable from trolling.*
If it weren't for his previous, more rational posts in other threads, I would have unequivocably stated that he's a troll. In my opinion, this has far worse implications than if he was merely trolling. I can only hope that he doesn't know how to use a ballot box or cast a vote.
On February 13 2011 18:33 aidss wrote: I don't even understand what the denialists are trying to say, HIV doesn't exist? AIDS doesn't exist? Or that HIV doesn't cause AIDS?
Go to south africa... where the percentage of people with aids is over 15%. I doubt anyone will agree with you there.
We all live in a big organism, Humans not good we kill our world (may a life?).May this is the weapon from outside its send by something we cant explain.Its not good it exist and it kills, so just use condoms, if all use condoms aids die, if aids die no more human die.Dont think about what aids is, just look at the people who died by this, and USE CONDOMS and nothing can happen 2 us anymore.
I read through those new pages and 'graphs' and it reminded me of.. this.
-------- I would like to present one of studies that happened few years back, some of you may or may not know.
this will be slightly off topic, it is just illustration similar to current issue.
As the general public probably agrees, global warming is an undeniable issue in current world. Many studies have been performed but none of them found solid answers to how to deal with this problem. Our research group has been investigating in this topic for few last years and we came with an unexpected results.
The most important graph with all the relevant information is shown beneath.
As you can clearly see, this graph represents correlation between global average temperature on our planet and amount of pirates (it's hard to count pirates, so this was done in a very precise approximational way, we have very good sources). This trend cannot be a coincidence, and we have no reason not to believe it. We have not found any facts that would contradict this conclusion either.
So, the solution to global warming is in fact very simple. We have to increase amount of pirates, be it on seas or lands, and the global warming will stop. Please take this message seriously, millions of people depend on you! Think about your children!
sorry for maybe slight off-topic, and I'm not sure if it counts as trolling. I'd call it more of an attempt to bring some amusement in this topic (however, the topic on its own is kind of amusement) I respect FSM. But I trust in science
Yeah, and I want to see how you want to give millions of condoms to people in Africa.
And to original post, no sportsman that refuses to do such tests should be allowed to participate in any events. He's either clear or he's not. It's not about him, it's about safety of other people.
edit - just to make it clear, the text is written by me, not FSM. I just took the graph and built the text around it
It's mostly a destruction of immune system, that's why it appeared during peak of technocracy and use of hazardous chemicals. The first party victims were all gays who led a dirty life doing lots of drugs and AIDS was called GRID (as gay related) first, do you know that?
so... all those people dying of aids in africa arent really dying at all since it doesn't exist? few, what a relieve. next stop, disprove dying from hunger!
On February 13 2011 19:49 Magic84 wrote: It's mostly a destruction of immune system, that's why it appeared during peak of technocracy and use of hazardous chemicals. The first party victims were all gays who led a dirty life doing lots of drugs and AIDS was called GRID (as gay related) first, do you know that?
Yeah, same for all the HIV-positive children in Africa. All of them, party victims, and users... Oh, right. I suppose not.
I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Yep that we are, and you are someone just blabbering happily without anything to back it up.
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Got any names? Since there's thousands, I'm sure you could easily come up with a dozen.
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Yes, there are people that believe in homeopatics and religion too, while HIV/AIDS has more proof and research done than the two above mentioned.
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Got any names? Since there's thousands, I'm sure you could easily come up with a dozen.
Stuff like this bullshit makes me always really angry, because it can actually affect peoples health, if they decide to not protect themselves while having sex or not getting the treatment they need. This whole stuff is just so ridiculous, it is not even funny. The HI Virus is one, if not the most studied virus of all. There are so many facts and details known about it. Actually i made an EM Picture of it myself. We even know where it comes from and how it developed.
There is absolutly no question that it exists. It is the same sad state we have with evolution. The objections come from a few conspiracy theorists and religious zelots(and yes, you can be crazy even if you have a degree). People just believe this stuff without doing some basic research themselves.
The whole AIDS Myth stuff is btw. especially prevalent in Africa for some reason. Anyway, if there is one Virus that exists, it is HIV. There is really no Virus that is nearly as well known as this one.
An important thing to note is that many of the AIDS denialist groups that came up based around these theories, have been having a difficult time in the past ten years. As all these HIV infected people seem to be dying of some strange illness, which is obviously not at all related to them all having HIV.
On February 13 2011 21:27 Gmslug wrote: There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Soooo, AIDS is a popular scientific theory because the one who disagree are executed by Big Pharms? Yeah, that's a good argument.
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Got any names? Since there's thousands, I'm sure you could easily come up with a dozen.
2,745 to be exact with their credentials. Seems like a lot of flaming without actually reading his posts/replies.
Did you yourself take a look at the list? If so, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain to me what credentials a math proff. holds in regards to the immunesystem? Because as a MD I'm having a hard time figuring it out - and I would like to believe that having studied medicine for 6 years actually wasn't just wasting time. But perhaps I should've studied math instead?
I'm litterally slamming my head against the wall right now. I didn't have a lot of faith in humanity in the first place, but holy fucking christ, I swear, this thread just demolished what little faith I had left.
EDIT: Or what about the homeopathic doctor? Or the nuclear scientist? Or the journalist? Or the engineer? Or the social worker? Or the film maker? And that is not even mentioning the shitton of med. students at sketchy universities or nurses with equally sketchy employment...
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Got any names? Since there's thousands, I'm sure you could easily come up with a dozen.
2,745 to be exact with their credentials. Seems like a lot of flaming without actually reading his posts/replies.
Considering how the guy acted in this thread the flaming is quite understandable =p And that list of yours does not contain the names of "1000's" and scientists who does not believe in the existance of HIV =p (which is what Acuwill actually argued in some of his posts lol) There is a handful or so names there which are relevant, maybe even a dozen. Their credibility while signing this list is quite low though considering they stand next to people with titles as assuring as "homeopathic doctor" and "psychotherapist" I think I even saw a "poet" lol.
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Yep that we are, and you are someone just blabbering happily without anything to back it up.
So who are you to say he is wrong? Where is your medical degree and knowledge about the spread of AIDS and HIV? Who is to say that simple treatments could be effective, but it will not be tested because people like you dismiss it too quickly? No I don't believe it 100% but if there is a chance that it could save the world and rid us of AIDS and HIV then why not try out some of the research and fund it? Because there isn't any profit in it, sole reason.
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Yep that we are, and you are someone just blabbering happily without anything to back it up.
So who are you to say he is wrong? Where is your medical degree and knowledge about the spread of AIDS and HIV? Who is to say that simple treatments could be effective, but it will not be tested because people like you dismiss it too quickly? No I don't believe it 100% but if there is a chance that it could save the world and rid us of AIDS and HIV then why not try out some of the research and fund it? Because there isn't any profit in it, sole reason.
What the fuck are you on about? If you could patent a cheap, effective and easy to make AIDS medication you'd be a billionaire within a few months. Considering how relatively expensive the current stuff is you could have essentially a 100% market share.
God damnit. This is global warming all over again.
Edit: To further elaborate, I mean the linking of sources when it's clear the sources have no god damn idea what's going on. As others have pointed out, math professors? Journalists? Their names shouldn't be on the list, as they obviously have no fucking idea. It should be as simple as: if you don't know about something, don't comment on it like its a definite fact and challenge for others to disprove you rather than presenting any decent proof yourself. God damn.
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Yep that we are, and you are someone just blabbering happily without anything to back it up.
So who are you to say he is wrong? Where is your medical degree and knowledge about the spread of AIDS and HIV? Who is to say that simple treatments could be effective, but it will not be tested because people like you dismiss it too quickly? No I don't believe it 100% but if there is a chance that it could save the world and rid us of AIDS and HIV then why not try out some of the research and fund it? Because there isn't any profit in it, sole reason.
Because it takes away money from research that is actually useful ? These conspiracy groups will never change their view on the subject. Their theories just don't hold up to scientific scrutiny. If the government would give money to every fringe group with some ridiculous theory, there would be nothing left for the researchers who actually do something that helps the patients. The life expectancy of people suffering from an HIV infection has risen dramatically because of that research.
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Got any names? Since there's thousands, I'm sure you could easily come up with a dozen.
2,745 to be exact with their credentials. Seems like a lot of flaming without actually reading his posts/replies.
I believe, it's already been mentioned that engineering students, journalists, playwrights and hypnotherapists probably don't have the qualifications to evaluate the issue properly. If you only count the people with medical education the list shrinks quite a bit. If you browse through the remaining people you will see that most couldn't possibly be tracked since the only explanation about them is (person name, MD), which makes it questionable if they even exist... Furthermore, I randomly tried to find 5 professors listed there through google and on the sites of the universities they are supposed to work at. Only 1 of those 5 was indeed listed in the staff list of the university he was supposed to be. In addition, there are people on that list that have been denying the relation between HIV and AIDS decades ago, but have changed their views years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism#Former_dissidents
All in all, that's quite a poor list with very shady credentials...
Morrison tested reactive -the correct term for the meaningless result -- when he had blood drawn by the Nevada boxing commission before a 1996 fight. He later took "the test" several times and was "negative" -but after being placed on highly toxic, "antiretroviral" chemotherapy,
I may be thinking this wrong but...
he got tested postivie, got ARV therapy and suddenly he tests negative. Since the body's natural response to combat the loss of macrophages / dendrictic cells is to increase the production of them in the body and along with the ARV therapy managed to suppress the effect of the HIV virus he managed to push his T-cell numbers that high the HIV-test resulted negative (many HIV tests are based on the specific number of t-cells in a blood sample).
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Got any names? Since there's thousands, I'm sure you could easily come up with a dozen.
2,745 to be exact with their credentials. Seems like a lot of flaming without actually reading his posts/replies.
That list is laughable : naturopaths, holistic medicine practitioners, laweyrs ? If we include all those as scientists , than it is 2745 people out of close to 7 billion
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Got any names? Since there's thousands, I'm sure you could easily come up with a dozen.
2,745 to be exact with their credentials. Seems like a lot of flaming without actually reading his posts/replies.
I believe, it's already been mentioned that engineering students, journalists, playwrights and hypnotherapists probably don't have the qualifications to evaluate the issue properly. If you only count the people with medical education the list shrinks quite a bit. If you browse through the remaining people you will see that most couldn't possibly be tracked since the only explanation about them is (person name, MD), which makes it questionable if they even exist... Furthermore, I randomly tried to find 5 professors listed there through google and on the sites of the universities they are supposed to work at. Only 1 of those 5 was indeed listed in the staff list of the university he was supposed to be. In addition, there are people on that list that have been denying the relation between HIV and AIDS decades ago, but have changed their views years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism#Former_dissidents
All in all, that's quite a poor list with very shady credentials...
B-b-but, THEY'RE educated!
Thanks for doing what I was going to do. I love when conspiracy nuts link to poorly done websites and provide a list of "professionals" who believe in this before looking at their own evidence and credentials of people they believe in.
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Yep that we are, and you are someone just blabbering happily without anything to back it up.
So who are you to say he is wrong? Where is your medical degree and knowledge about the spread of AIDS and HIV? Who is to say that simple treatments could be effective, but it will not be tested because people like you dismiss it too quickly? No I don't believe it 100% but if there is a chance that it could save the world and rid us of AIDS and HIV then why not try out some of the research and fund it? Because there isn't any profit in it, sole reason.
What the fuck are you on about? If you could patent a cheap, effective and easy to make AIDS medication you'd be a billionaire within a few months. Considering how relatively expensive the current stuff is you could have essentially a 100% market share.
Maybe you should learn to read because I'm saying there isn't any profit to be made in giving people nutrients. The only way they make money is with HIV/AIDS cocktails, which is just another reason why research into giving people nutrients to heal them will never get funded. Analyze statements before you post.
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Yep that we are, and you are someone just blabbering happily without anything to back it up.
So who are you to say he is wrong? Where is your medical degree and knowledge about the spread of AIDS and HIV? Who is to say that simple treatments could be effective, but it will not be tested because people like you dismiss it too quickly? No I don't believe it 100% but if there is a chance that it could save the world and rid us of AIDS and HIV then why not try out some of the research and fund it? Because there isn't any profit in it, sole reason.
Because there is no evidence and there are million improbable theories out there that could (if true) save lives, but there is not enough money in the world to pay for them all. If someone comes to you and says that if you give him your CC number he will give you million dollars. Yes he might really mean it, but historical experience suggest that he has different goals. Why do you think we should apply looser standards to tax-payers money than every sane person applies to his own ?
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Yep that we are, and you are someone just blabbering happily without anything to back it up.
So who are you to say he is wrong? Where is your medical degree and knowledge about the spread of AIDS and HIV? Who is to say that simple treatments could be effective, but it will not be tested because people like you dismiss it too quickly? No I don't believe it 100% but if there is a chance that it could save the world and rid us of AIDS and HIV then why not try out some of the research and fund it? Because there isn't any profit in it, sole reason.
Because there is no evidence and there are million improbable theories out there that could (if true) save lives, but there is not enough money in the world to pay for them all. If someone comes to you and says that if you give him your CC number he will give you million dollars. Yes he might really mean it, but historical experience suggest that he has different goals. Why do you think we should apply looser standards to tax-payers money than every sane person applies to his own ?
Yeah you're right about there being other theories that would take too much money to test but obviously there will be some that seem more reasonable than others, or at least more probable. But why not pick some weird ones and test those? Sure people think their chances of finding cures are more with drugs and so on but I still think that a couple odd theories should be tested out. Can't be that much, compared to the amounts they spend anyway.
I normally never reply to threads in the general forums because I never see discussions going anywhere and although sometimes compelling arguments are made, more or less its people stating their opinion with little or no factual information backing it up. I think that there will always be outlandish claims about major diseases/virii being fabricated to an extent, or the cure is being "hidden" because its profitable for big pharma to sell drugs rather than cure it. I think this is just one of the million examples of people claiming it.
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Yep that we are, and you are someone just blabbering happily without anything to back it up.
So who are you to say he is wrong? Where is your medical degree and knowledge about the spread of AIDS and HIV? Who is to say that simple treatments could be effective, but it will not be tested because people like you dismiss it too quickly? No I don't believe it 100% but if there is a chance that it could save the world and rid us of AIDS and HIV then why not try out some of the research and fund it? Because there isn't any profit in it, sole reason.
What the fuck are you on about? If you could patent a cheap, effective and easy to make AIDS medication you'd be a billionaire within a few months. Considering how relatively expensive the current stuff is you could have essentially a 100% market share.
Maybe you should learn to read because I'm saying there isn't any profit to be made in giving people nutrients. The only way they make money is with HIV/AIDS cocktails, which is just another reason why research into giving people nutrients to heal them will never get funded. Analyze statements before you post.
PS: Check your tone.
Faced with the options of either accepting that the dude I'm quoting seriously believes that "nutrients" is a potentially valid treatment for HIV or that I simply misunderstood him the latter seemed like the more reasonable one. I suppose I was wrong :p
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Got any names? Since there's thousands, I'm sure you could easily come up with a dozen.
2,745 to be exact with their credentials. Seems like a lot of flaming without actually reading his posts/replies.
I believe, it's already been mentioned that engineering students, journalists, playwrights and hypnotherapists probably don't have the qualifications to evaluate the issue properly. If you only count the people with medical education the list shrinks quite a bit. If you browse through the remaining people you will see that most couldn't possibly be tracked since the only explanation about them is (person name, MD), which makes it questionable if they even exist... Furthermore, I randomly tried to find 5 professors listed there through google and on the sites of the universities they are supposed to work at. Only 1 of those 5 was indeed listed in the staff list of the university he was supposed to be. In addition, there are people on that list that have been denying the relation between HIV and AIDS decades ago, but have changed their views years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism#Former_dissidents
All in all, that's quite a poor list with very shady credentials...
The wikipedia paragraph is somehow very ironic:
Death of HIV-positive denialists (...)the editors of the magazine Continuum consistently denied the existence of HIV/AIDS. The magazine shut down when its editors all died of AIDS-related causes(...)
Scientists can deny HIV as the sole cause for AIDS as much as they want, but anyone who denies that it is _a_ cause is simply stupid. AIDS exists and is killing people every day, every medical scientist active in that field should work on a cure, not deny a possible cause just because it might not have a 100% proof yet.
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Yep that we are, and you are someone just blabbering happily without anything to back it up.
So who are you to say he is wrong? Where is your medical degree and knowledge about the spread of AIDS and HIV? Who is to say that simple treatments could be effective, but it will not be tested because people like you dismiss it too quickly? No I don't believe it 100% but if there is a chance that it could save the world and rid us of AIDS and HIV then why not try out some of the research and fund it? Because there isn't any profit in it, sole reason.
What the fuck are you on about? If you could patent a cheap, effective and easy to make AIDS medication you'd be a billionaire within a few months. Considering how relatively expensive the current stuff is you could have essentially a 100% market share.
Maybe you should learn to read because I'm saying there isn't any profit to be made in giving people nutrients. The only way they make money is with HIV/AIDS cocktails, which is just another reason why research into giving people nutrients to heal them will never get funded. Analyze statements before you post.
PS: Check your tone.
I think it's fair to say that if "healthy living" involving things like a surplus of nutrients was all that was required for HIV to be cured then individuals may have come up with it themselves already. On that note, anyone wanting funding for homeopathy, healing crystals or anything else completely silly is free to pay for it and try it themselves.
Let's leave science to the scientists and health experts. As you were expostulating earlier.
Also your signature is ironically amusing in this case
AIDS exists only because most "educated" people in this world have been told it exists, and most enjoy repeating exactly what they're told, in some form or another.
I find it incredible and bold that anybody can still believe there's proof for the existence of HIV. When a particle looks like a retrovirus, you have to isolate it, put it another culture, then show that cells in the secondary culture produce particles exactly like the particles from which they originated. That these two particles (one from both cultures) are exactly the same can be shown only by determining their constituent protein and RNA. In the 100s of billions on dollars spent on AIDS research and the hundreds of of thousands of published journals, not ONE has been able to isolate it in this way.
Think critically, look at the facts from the beginning, and follow the money people.
On February 14 2011 02:09 JeBi wrote: AIDS exists only because most "educated" people in this world have been told it exists, and most enjoy repeating exactly what they're told, in some form or another.
I find it incredible and bold that anybody can still believe there's proof for the existence of HIV. When a particle looks like a retrovirus, you have to isolate it, put it another culture, then show that cells in the secondary culture produce particles exactly like the particles from which they originated. That these two particles (one from both cultures) are exactly the same can be shown only by determining their constituent protein and RNA. In the 100s of billions on dollars spent on AIDS research and the hundreds of of thousands of published journals, not ONE has been able to isolate it in this way.
Think critically, look at the facts from the beginning, and follow the money people.
Then what is the illness that kills so many people which we - in your opionion falsely - call AIDS?
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Yep that we are, and you are someone just blabbering happily without anything to back it up.
So who are you to say he is wrong? Where is your medical degree and knowledge about the spread of AIDS and HIV? Who is to say that simple treatments could be effective, but it will not be tested because people like you dismiss it too quickly? No I don't believe it 100% but if there is a chance that it could save the world and rid us of AIDS and HIV then why not try out some of the research and fund it? Because there isn't any profit in it, sole reason.
What the fuck are you on about? If you could patent a cheap, effective and easy to make AIDS medication you'd be a billionaire within a few months. Considering how relatively expensive the current stuff is you could have essentially a 100% market share.
Maybe you should learn to read because I'm saying there isn't any profit to be made in giving people nutrients. The only way they make money is with HIV/AIDS cocktails, which is just another reason why research into giving people nutrients to heal them will never get funded. Analyze statements before you post.
PS: Check your tone.
Faced with the options of either accepting that the dude I'm quoting seriously believes that "nutrients" is a potentially valid treatment for HIV or that I simply misunderstood him the latter seemed like the more reasonable one. I suppose I was wrong :p
If you would care to read my previous post, which came only a few posts earlier, I said I do not believe it either. However, I'm not an expert and don't claim to be so anything is possible from my point of view.
On February 13 2011 20:49 esperanto wrote: I cant believe how people fall for stuff like this. There are thousands of professionell HIV/AIDS research institutes all over the world even one in the university I study in. And you belive that one conspiracy "scientist" with the crazy ideas and a video...
There are thousands of scientists that dispute this and many other points as well, but aren't given the exposure and the prime time on tv and magazines, only killed instead. You're a good slave to the criminals that rewrite history, manage the media, government and medicine. They consider you a cattle and a scum, worthy only to rob, and you are one.
Yep that we are, and you are someone just blabbering happily without anything to back it up.
So who are you to say he is wrong? Where is your medical degree and knowledge about the spread of AIDS and HIV? Who is to say that simple treatments could be effective, but it will not be tested because people like you dismiss it too quickly? No I don't believe it 100% but if there is a chance that it could save the world and rid us of AIDS and HIV then why not try out some of the research and fund it? Because there isn't any profit in it, sole reason.
What the fuck are you on about? If you could patent a cheap, effective and easy to make AIDS medication you'd be a billionaire within a few months. Considering how relatively expensive the current stuff is you could have essentially a 100% market share.
Maybe you should learn to read because I'm saying there isn't any profit to be made in giving people nutrients. The only way they make money is with HIV/AIDS cocktails, which is just another reason why research into giving people nutrients to heal them will never get funded. Analyze statements before you post.
PS: Check your tone.
I think it's fair to say that if "healthy living" involving things like a surplus of nutrients was all that was required for HIV to be cured then individuals may have come up with it themselves already. On that note, anyone wanting funding for homeopathy, healing crystals or anything else completely silly is free to pay for it and try it themselves.
Let's leave science to the scientists and health experts. As you were expostulating earlier.
Also your signature is ironically amusing in this case
You can't isolate the HIV virus becomes it evolves and mutates at such a staggering rate. That's why you have to be so aggressive in attempting to fight it using cockatils of drugs not just one. Even then the virus can sometimes outpace the drugs so HIV sufferers have to be incredibly careful to stay on their drug regime.
This is like evolutionists versus creationists. Creationist says "explain the cambrian explosion!", whilst ignoring the HUGE wealth of evidence for evolution that is all around us.
To quote the article: "The number of HIVinfected people progressing to the life-threatening immunodeficiency that is full-blown AIDS living in Canada or anywhere else has plummeted wherever these medications are being widely used." So professionals with years of experience are running around randomly treating people for no reason? All there results are false and they're wasting their time?
That's what you're suggesting if you believe in this conspiracy.
On February 14 2011 02:09 JeBi wrote: AIDS exists only because most "educated" people in this world have been told it exists, and most enjoy repeating exactly what they're told, in some form or another.
I find it incredible and bold that anybody can still believe there's proof for the existence of HIV. When a particle looks like a retrovirus, you have to isolate it, put it another culture, then show that cells in the secondary culture produce particles exactly like the particles from which they originated. That these two particles (one from both cultures) are exactly the same can be shown only by determining their constituent protein and RNA. In the 100s of billions on dollars spent on AIDS research and the hundreds of of thousands of published journals, not ONE has been able to isolate it in this way.
Think critically, look at the facts from the beginning, and follow the money people.
What were these guys doing then, if not mapping out the entire RNA genome of the HIV virus?
On February 14 2011 02:21 GreEny K wrote: If you would care to read my previous post, which came only a few posts earlier, I said I do not believe it either. However, I'm not an expert and don't claim to be so anything is possible from my point of view.
And that is the problem. If you know nothing about the subject I would rely on the opinion of the scientific community in that field until I can educate myself(you still have to rely on them anyway unless you will work in the field, but you will be able to distinguish if something is contested or basically "proven"). And on that topic there is not much real controversy.
Also if you do not want to trust the experts(vague but hopefully we both agree on the meaning) in some area, you are kind of hypocritical, since you are singling out some and relying on others with no reason for that distinction.
Lets post some facts here that I think everyone can agree on:
1) If you have unprotected sex with someone diagnosed with "AIDS" you have a high likelihood of getting "AIDS". 2) If you take ARV's, your likelihood of death if infected is much reduced. 3) If you don't take ARV's, your likelihood of death if infected is much elevated. Take Africa as an example. 4) If what causes AIDS is not an retrovirus, why is there a difference in mortality rates?
On February 14 2011 02:21 GreEny K wrote: If you would care to read my previous post, which came only a few posts earlier, I said I do not believe it either. However, I'm not an expert and don't claim to be so anything is possible from my point of view.
And that is the problem. If you know nothing about the subject I would rely on the opinion of the scientific community in that field until I can educate myself(you still have to rely on them anyway unless you will work in the field, but you will be able to distinguish if something is contested or basically "proven"). And on that topic there is not much real controversy.
Also if you do not want to trust the experts(vague but hopefully we both agree on the meaning) in some area, you are kind of hypocritical, since you are singling out some and relying on others with no reason for that distinction.
So you are an expert? Didn't think so, which makes your statements just like mine; opinions. And everyone is allowed to have their own, so I fail to see your point. Just because you agree with the general consensus doesn't make your opinion any better than mine. And I never said I don't trust the experts. I'm just saying that other research is being ignored and looked over because it seems too out there.
On February 14 2011 02:21 GreEny K wrote: If you would care to read my previous post, which came only a few posts earlier, I said I do not believe it either. However, I'm not an expert and don't claim to be so anything is possible from my point of view.
And that is the problem. If you know nothing about the subject I would rely on the opinion of the scientific community in that field until I can educate myself(you still have to rely on them anyway unless you will work in the field, but you will be able to distinguish if something is contested or basically "proven"). And on that topic there is not much real controversy.
Also if you do not want to trust the experts(vague but hopefully we both agree on the meaning) in some area, you are kind of hypocritical, since you are singling out some and relying on others with no reason for that distinction.
So you are an expert? Didn't think so, which makes your statements just like mine; opinions. And everyone is allowed to have their own, so I fail to see your point. Just because you agree with the general consensus doesn't make your opinion any better than mine. And I never said I don't trust the experts. I'm just saying that other research is being ignored and looked over because it seems too out there.
Sorry but that's a stupid position.
My opinion is the Sun revolves around the Earth. I don't care if you agree with all the experts that the Earth revolves around the Sun. You're not an expert yourself so I don't see why your opinion is better than mine.
If there is compelling, peer-reviewed research that says HIV doesn't exist or doesn't cause AIDS, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, it is just another useless opinion out of an infinite number of useless opinions.
On February 14 2011 02:21 GreEny K wrote: If you would care to read my previous post, which came only a few posts earlier, I said I do not believe it either. However, I'm not an expert and don't claim to be so anything is possible from my point of view.
And that is the problem. If you know nothing about the subject I would rely on the opinion of the scientific community in that field until I can educate myself(you still have to rely on them anyway unless you will work in the field, but you will be able to distinguish if something is contested or basically "proven"). And on that topic there is not much real controversy.
Also if you do not want to trust the experts(vague but hopefully we both agree on the meaning) in some area, you are kind of hypocritical, since you are singling out some and relying on others with no reason for that distinction.
So you are an expert? Didn't think so, which makes your statements just like mine; opinions. And everyone is allowed to have their own, so I fail to see your point. Just because you agree with the general consensus doesn't make your opinion any better than mine. And I never said I don't trust the experts. I'm just saying that other research is being ignored and looked over because it seems too out there.
Nope I am not, but you are contradicting yourself. Since you disagree with experts it would seem you do not trust them ?
On February 14 2011 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)
Yawn, another so called "controversy" driven up by idiots with no background in science backed up by arguments appealing to emotion and 5 minute youtube clips.
This is exact same as creationism, the anti-flouridation, anti-vaccine, homeopathy morons.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
You pretty obviously don't know what a clinician actually does. Ever heard of Cochrane?
I really really hope for the sake of some of the people in this thread that this is a troll thread. If not, hard luck guys, you've been dealt a rough hand.
ok what I didn't really get is, if AIDS is not caused by HIV. what does cause it? I mean the creationists have god to blame. but how does this play out with AIDS. god punishing all the sinful children in africa because they are black? seriously. there is just one mayor cause and it is HIV.
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?
You pretty obviously don't know what a clinician actually does. Ever heard of Cochrane?
imo, if they are going to deny something they should at lest have some kind of theory other than, "it doesn't exist". Scientists who didn't believe in creationism came up with some great theories for counter points but all I hear from this is look at me I am a doctor and I wrote this so i'm correct. While on the other hand there are sick people who are dying...
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?
You pretty obviously don't know what a clinician actually does. Ever heard of Cochrane?
And your ad hominem attack is baseless. You have no idea of my knowledge, profession or clinical experience.
I don't know what you tried to prove with your article? Except that you don't know what cochrane is and neither does Henry Bauer...
But congratz on proving just that and making my point for me. And making my ad hominem attack anything but baseless in the process.
I'll give you (and Henry Bauer) as much as that it is true a lot of medicine is still based on anecdotes and historical succes, but cochrane which is now considered more or less the holy grail of good medical practice is exactly the attempt at making up for that.
On February 14 2011 05:32 Jayjay54 wrote: nice. we're still discussing this.
ok what I didn't really get is, if AIDS is not caused by HIV. what does cause it? I mean the creationists have god to blame. but how does this play out with AIDS. god punishing all the sinful children in africa because they are black? seriously. there is just one mayor cause and it is HIV.
Thank you for your post.
That is a very broad question. There are a number of opinions and theories regarding the actual cause of AIDS. The issue is that the burden of proof rests on those touting HIV is the causative factor of AIDS, not those with dissenting opinions.
The causative factor of AIDS varies from region to region, lifestyle to lifestyle, and country to country. After all, it is simply a failing of an individual's immune system. It does not need to have only one cause.
For example, for healthy individuals who test positive to HIV on the (imo) non-specific tests, then have high viral load levels (which have been shown to not correlate to CD4+ lymphocyte decline, see citation below which is a .pdf of the JAMA article), they begin chemotherapy (which is what antiretrovirals are) for the rest of their life. These chemotherapeutic agents are the causative factor to their immune decline and lead to the primary cause of death of Western AIDS patients, liver failure.
In Africa, AIDS presents very differently, the primary cause of death of "HIV+" individuals are TB and dysentery. I use the quotes to indicate HIV+ because they are not even diagnosed with the (imo) non-specific tests. They are diagnosed by clinical signs which are as follows:
Major signs: - weight loss 10% - chronic diarrhoea 1 month - fever 1 month (intermittent or constant) -herpes zoster -non-healing genital sores
Minor signs: - cough for > 1 month - generalized itching - recurrent herpes zoster - oro-pharyngeal candidiasis - chronic progressive and disseminated herpes simplex infection - generalized lymphadenopathy
Diagnosis criterion requires at least 2 major signs and 1 minor sign or cryptococcal meningitis.
Well, diarrhoea, weight loss and TB or any cough are not exactly new to or specific diagnostically in Africa. Therefore the causative factors in Africa are likely poverty, lack of clean drinking water, caloric deficiency and respiratory ailments.
Also, any death relating to any of the conditions above in Africa is automatically counted as an AIDS death. One can see how African statistics can get out of hand rapidly.
Here is a video of Luc Montagnier, the Nobel Prize winner and "discoverer" of HIV commenting on how the best method to treat AIDS in Africa is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQoNW7lOnT4 .
If you are interested in more specifics, I encourage you to read up on more yourself.
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?
You pretty obviously don't know what a clinician actually does. Ever heard of Cochrane?
And your ad hominem attack is baseless. You have no idea of my knowledge, profession or clinical experience.
I don't care for his CV really. His general point is correct, but many of his arguments are stupid. Yes, medicine is not science, it is to science like engineering is to science. So yes there are regional differences, but the core should be the same, and if it is not than one of them is doing something wrong. In engineering the color of the car or its shape might depend on cultural differences, but none of the cars should have randomly exploding engines. In medicine bedside manner or placebo handling might differ but for treating a disease the same most efficient procedure should be selected where variables are patient dependent, not doctor or country dependent. If countries differ in those core procedures one of them is doing something wrong or the science does not give any inclination to which is proper one. Basically there is no relevant point in that article. And that does not inspire any confidence in his other insights.
On February 14 2011 04:08 EndlessRain wrote: Yawn, another so called "controversy" driven up by idiots with no background in science backed up by arguments appealing to emotion and 5 minute youtube clips.
This is exact same as creationism, the anti-flouridation, anti-vaccine, homeopathy morons.
Pretty much my views exactly, just plain ignorance of anything to do with science and disrespect for people much smarter then them that dedicated their lifes to studying these things
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?
You pretty obviously don't know what a clinician actually does. Ever heard of Cochrane?
And your ad hominem attack is baseless. You have no idea of my knowledge, profession or clinical experience.
Saying it's an ad hominen attack is a stretch. You've neither shown nor stated that you have any knowledge or training as a clinician. It's a reasonable assumption to me.
As for Peter Duesberg, he's a fairly discredited maverick whose arguments were repudiated here source
And Luc Montagnier has disavowed the claims from denialists that he has sympathy for their position. A read of his Nobel Lecture clears up his position anyway source
Yeah and Bauer is a guy whose degree is in Chemisty, believes in UFO's and the Loch Ness Monster, was against affirmative action, who once said of homosexuality "I regard homosexuality as an aberration or illness, not as an ‘equally valid life-style’ or whatever the current euphemism is" and whose views on HIV/AIDS have been rejected by members of the scientific community, with Seth Kalichman saying "Bauer is unfamiliar with the scientific literature on HIV/AIDS and has performed no AIDS research, presenting his ideas only at conferences on fringe science and without supporting evidence." and that his arguments "rest on flawed analytical methods and misuse of data sources".
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.
Let's see: Neither Karry Mullis nor David Rasnik have ever done any research on HIV/AIDS. Luc Montagnier does not question the relation between HIV and AIDS. A brief search in google reveals that. As far as Duesberg is concerned, he indeed is a well-known retro-virologist. However, basically every other well-known retro-virologist does not agree with Duesberg's hypothesis. And honestly claiming that drugs cause AIDS and that there is no AIDS in Africa is kind of crazy in my eyes...
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.
If you'd like that better, let's consider only arguments from people doing any research on HIV/AIDS valid. So we have Duesberg and let's say a dozen others on the one side and tens of thousands of researchers on the other side... Plain probabilisticly who is more likely to be wrong?
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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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 08:04 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 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.
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
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 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.
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
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.
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 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 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 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.
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
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.
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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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.
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
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 12:18 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 12:18 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.
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 12:18 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Research hasn't been stifled on the topic, in fact it's one of the most researched viruses of all time. Also, while you looked up some of the more famous denialists, you should read more into the particulars of their cases and some of the counter claims discrediting them to get a fuller picture here.
The reason that it's relevant that it would take a conspiracy involving millions of researchers/doctors etc outside of the States is because all funding isn't through the major Pharmaceutical companies nor does it all originate in the US. So while it's a beguiling idea to consider the possibility of corruption and vested interests, in this case it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
@AcuWill
First you quote Bauer. Then someone responds why he isn't revelant. Then you try to enlist Luc Montagnier, again, someone who isn't sympathetic to your case. Then in this latest post you jump back to Duesberg, mentioning how respected he is by Gallo, before going on to attack Gallo as a fraud.
At no point in this thread do you ever respond to the points made by others, instead you leap from one subtopic to another, without showing how they're relevant beyond wild claims and links to dubious sources. Your whole argument is disjointed and doesn't seem to be coherent.
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.
Research hasn't been stifled on the topic, in fact it's one of the most researched viruses of all time. Also, while you looked up some of the more famous denialists, you should read more into the particulars of their cases and some of the counter claims discrediting them to get a fuller picture here.
The reason that it's relevant that it would take a conspiracy involving millions of researchers/doctors etc outside of the States is because all funding isn't through the major Pharmaceutical companies nor does it all originate in the US. So while it's a beguiling idea to consider the possibility of corruption and vested interests, in this case it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
This basicly, HIV and aids research are done and have been done in dozens of coutries without any link to the States, the conspiracy theory just do not hold up and the results and general concensus all agree regardless of country.
I have yet seen a single actual argument based on science backed up by research from a source that holds up to the minimal scrutiny that 5 minutes of googling entails. That tells me one thing, this is just all complete bullshit.
But hey, i am not HIV positive but if i ever got infected i would rely on all the medication i could get my hands on to prevent me from developing Aids. If anyone out there is HIV positive and refuse treatment that is up to them, it is a human right to be as stupid as you want and i wont force feed ayone meds.
Meanwhile, even if the US somehow buy into this (and i really really doubt it would ever happen) i am sure scientists in Europe and other countries will still do actual science based on facts and dictated by what the experts in the field are reccomending not what people with lots of opinions but little knowledge are reccomending.
On February 14 2011 13:30 Azzur wrote: 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 thank you for linking me to that wikipedia article.
When I first read that article, my initial reaction was "wow, this is really biased against aids denialism". So I checked out what was going on in the talk page, and apparently one of the reason why the article was so harsh against aids denialism is that multiple pages on aids were sabotaged by members of the site questioningaids.com and as a result, aids denialists were labeled a fringe group by wikipedia editors. In wiki policy this means two things - one, proponents of fringe science are routinely banned from editing wikipedia (scientologists and dianetics is the most famous example of this) - two, what you'd expect NPOV to look like essentially goes out the window, because the NPOV on a fringe group is "these guys are insane".
First I would like to introduce myself. I am a third year student in an Oriental Medicine program. I have been a “dissident” for 5-6 years. What began as a pre-med Biochemistry major’s academic pursuit of studying two opposing sides of a scientific theory ended up with the complete and utter questioning of science in general and all medical paradigm. This culminated in me finding Oriental Medicine and a physiological/healing system that did make sense.
Then it suddenly hit me - AcuWill stands for Acupuncture Will. This guy has been running through this thread claiming to have done substantial medical research on HIV when in reality his medical research is on traditional chinese medicine. At any rate, AcuWill has made it quite clear that he doesn't believe HIV is the cause of AIDS. So, what does Acuwill believe is the real cause of AIDS?
This phenomenon transpires because there is a similarity in the stressors, and subsequently the terrain, that cause AIDS. This will lead to many of the same underlying patterns. For example, symptoms associated with Yin deficiency (I’m using this example to be consistent) include: night sweats, afternoon sensations of fever, anorexia, dry, deformed and brittle nails, black floaters in the eye (or symptoms associated with CMV-retinitis), constipation, dry and persistent cough, dry eyes, dry mouth with desire to drink in small sips throughout day, thirst that is not satisfied with drinking, grasshopper mind, difficulty falling asleep, agitation, restlessness, etc. What can cause this pattern? Worry, fear, over thinking, over work, the “gay party scene”, lack of sleep, drugs like meth, cocaine, smoking, smoking marijuana, lack of proper nourishment, excessive cleansing, diarrhea, alcohol, medications, etc. Proceeding further with the example above, when one has a profound Yin deficiency, the body’s Yang (Yin being the moist, cooling, physical substance of the body, and Yang being the metabolic force, heat and capacity of the body to perform its physiological duties) can separate, causing chaos. When one takes drugs that suppress the body’s motive force, like chemotherapy, then the negative physiological expression of the chaos will temporarily cease. This is one example as to why the drugs can be effective to alleviate some of the symptoms associated with AIDS.
In plain English, the cause of AIDS isn't a retrovirus, but rather, is caused by Yin deficiency.
Now, I don't have anything against traditional chinese medicine at all (some of it has been proven to have scientific value, although most of it hasn't), but when you reread his posts in this thread knowing this information, suddenly there's some underlying logic to his train of thought. The reason why he doesn't believe that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, is because he doesn't believe any disease is caused by a virus.
At first I thought it was quite ironic that a person who's profession is dealing with needles doesn't believe that a virus in which one of its primary methods of transfer from person to person is contaminated needles doesn't believe this virus causes any harm, then I realized how incredibly disturbing this is. If he is sincerely attempting to cure AIDS with acupuncture, I sincerely hope that he properly sterilizes his equipment.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
I would like to apologize for this on behalf of the TL community. We originally had you figured as some sort of christian religious zealot, when in reality we had the wrong religion all along.
On February 14 2011 13:30 Azzur wrote: 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 thank you for linking me to that wikipedia article.
When I first read that article, my initial reaction was "wow, this is really biased against aids denialism". So I checked out what was going on in the talk page, and apparently one of the reason why the article was so harsh against aids denialism is that multiple pages on aids were sabotaged by members of the site questioningaids.com and as a result, aids denialists were labeled a fringe group by wikipedia editors. In wiki policy this means two things - one, proponents of fringe science are routinely banned from editing wikipedia (scientologists and dianetics is the most famous example of this) - two, what you'd expect NPOV to look like essentially goes out the window, because the NPOV on a fringe group is "these guys are insane".
First I would like to introduce myself. I am a third year student in an Oriental Medicine program. I have been a “dissident” for 5-6 years. What began as a pre-med Biochemistry major’s academic pursuit of studying two opposing sides of a scientific theory ended up with the complete and utter questioning of science in general and all medical paradigm. This culminated in me finding Oriental Medicine and a physiological/healing system that did make sense.
Then it suddenly hit me - AcuWill stands for Acupuncture Will. This guy has been running through this thread claiming to have done substantial medical research on HIV when in reality his medical research is on traditional chinese medicine. At any rate, AcuWill has made it quite clear that he doesn't believe HIV is the cause of AIDS. So, what does Acuwill believe is the real cause of AIDS?
This phenomenon transpires because there is a similarity in the stressors, and subsequently the terrain, that cause AIDS. This will lead to many of the same underlying patterns. For example, symptoms associated with Yin deficiency (I’m using this example to be consistent) include: night sweats, afternoon sensations of fever, anorexia, dry, deformed and brittle nails, black floaters in the eye (or symptoms associated with CMV-retinitis), constipation, dry and persistent cough, dry eyes, dry mouth with desire to drink in small sips throughout day, thirst that is not satisfied with drinking, grasshopper mind, difficulty falling asleep, agitation, restlessness, etc. What can cause this pattern? Worry, fear, over thinking, over work, the “gay party scene”, lack of sleep, drugs like meth, cocaine, smoking, smoking marijuana, lack of proper nourishment, excessive cleansing, diarrhea, alcohol, medications, etc. Proceeding further with the example above, when one has a profound Yin deficiency, the body’s Yang (Yin being the moist, cooling, physical substance of the body, and Yang being the metabolic force, heat and capacity of the body to perform its physiological duties) can separate, causing chaos. When one takes drugs that suppress the body’s motive force, like chemotherapy, then the negative physiological expression of the chaos will temporarily cease. This is one example as to why the drugs can be effective to alleviate some of the symptoms associated with AIDS.
In plain English, the cause of AIDS isn't a retrovirus, but rather, is caused by Yin deficiency.
Now, I don't have anything against traditional chinese medicine at all (some of it has been proven to have scientific value, although most of it hasn't), but when you reread his posts in this thread knowing this information, suddenly there's some underlying logic to his train of thought. The reason why he doesn't believe that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, is because he doesn't believe any disease is caused by a virus.
At first I thought it was quite ironic that a person who's profession is dealing with needles doesn't believe that a virus in which one of its primary methods of transfer from person to person is contaminated needles doesn't believe this virus causes any harm, then I realized how incredibly disturbing this is. If he is sincerely attempting to cure AIDS with acupuncture, I sincerely hope that he properly sterilizes his equipment.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
I would like to apologize for this on behalf of the TL community. We originally had you figured as some sort of christian religious zealot, when in reality we had the wrong religion all along.[/QUOTE
LMAO this is gold. Thank you. I'd already had enough of trying to debate with him, but this really clinches it.
I'm posting this video in response to why people get so angry at AIDS denialists. It's not that we're suppressing science and forcing AIDS research down specific pathways, it's because of people like this:
On February 14 2011 13:30 Azzur wrote: 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 thank you for linking me to that wikipedia article.
When I first read that article, my initial reaction was "wow, this is really biased against aids denialism". So I checked out what was going on in the talk page, and apparently one of the reason why the article was so harsh against aids denialism is that multiple pages on aids were sabotaged by members of the site questioningaids.com and as a result, aids denialists were labeled a fringe group by wikipedia editors. In wiki policy this means two things - one, proponents of fringe science are routinely banned from editing wikipedia (scientologists and dianetics is the most famous example of this) - two, what you'd expect NPOV to look like essentially goes out the window, because the NPOV on a fringe group is "these guys are insane".
First I would like to introduce myself. I am a third year student in an Oriental Medicine program. I have been a “dissident” for 5-6 years. What began as a pre-med Biochemistry major’s academic pursuit of studying two opposing sides of a scientific theory ended up with the complete and utter questioning of science in general and all medical paradigm. This culminated in me finding Oriental Medicine and a physiological/healing system that did make sense.
Then it suddenly hit me - AcuWill stands for Acupuncture Will. This guy has been running through this thread claiming to have done substantial medical research on HIV when in reality his medical research is on traditional chinese medicine. At any rate, AcuWill has made it quite clear that he doesn't believe HIV is the cause of AIDS. So, what does Acuwill believe is the real cause of AIDS?
This phenomenon transpires because there is a similarity in the stressors, and subsequently the terrain, that cause AIDS. This will lead to many of the same underlying patterns. For example, symptoms associated with Yin deficiency (I’m using this example to be consistent) include: night sweats, afternoon sensations of fever, anorexia, dry, deformed and brittle nails, black floaters in the eye (or symptoms associated with CMV-retinitis), constipation, dry and persistent cough, dry eyes, dry mouth with desire to drink in small sips throughout day, thirst that is not satisfied with drinking, grasshopper mind, difficulty falling asleep, agitation, restlessness, etc. What can cause this pattern? Worry, fear, over thinking, over work, the “gay party scene”, lack of sleep, drugs like meth, cocaine, smoking, smoking marijuana, lack of proper nourishment, excessive cleansing, diarrhea, alcohol, medications, etc. Proceeding further with the example above, when one has a profound Yin deficiency, the body’s Yang (Yin being the moist, cooling, physical substance of the body, and Yang being the metabolic force, heat and capacity of the body to perform its physiological duties) can separate, causing chaos. When one takes drugs that suppress the body’s motive force, like chemotherapy, then the negative physiological expression of the chaos will temporarily cease. This is one example as to why the drugs can be effective to alleviate some of the symptoms associated with AIDS.
In plain English, the cause of AIDS isn't a retrovirus, but rather, is caused by Yin deficiency.
Now, I don't have anything against traditional chinese medicine at all (some of it has been proven to have scientific value, although most of it hasn't), but when you reread his posts in this thread knowing this information, suddenly there's some underlying logic to his train of thought. The reason why he doesn't believe that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, is because he doesn't believe any disease is caused by a virus.
At first I thought it was quite ironic that a person who's profession is dealing with needles doesn't believe that a virus in which one of its primary methods of transfer from person to person is contaminated needles doesn't believe this virus causes any harm, then I realized how incredibly disturbing this is. If he is sincerely attempting to cure AIDS with acupuncture, I sincerely hope that he properly sterilizes his equipment.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
I would like to apologize for this on behalf of the TL community. We originally had you figured as some sort of christian religious zealot, when in reality we had the wrong religion all along.
Thanks for posting that. Actually I don't think that AIDS is solely caused by Yin Deficiency. If you go to read my entire posting, you will find that it is simply a very common theme within many of the Western manifestations of the disease. Further, I have never once stated that I am trying to cure anything with needles Rather, I am pointing out how a different system of physiology can be used to explain a lot of the disjointed phenomena regarding Western manifested AIDS.
Also, you make claims that my understanding of HIV and AIDS is based on Oriental medicine, not Western backed research. This is also false and not a claim that I ever made at all. If you were to read my actual and entire posting, it would be clear that I spent 2 years during my undergrad analyzing Peter Duesberg's and the orthodoxy's position for fun as an exercise to see how someone like Duesberg could have such an odd position.
During this time I read thousands of pages of research and articles, something I doubt that you have ever done. What lead me to my conclusions was not Duesberg's research or arguments, but the lack of evidence and terrible foundational science I found with the "normal" research.
This then lead me to have to severely reevaluate my life goals, which included being on the fast track to medical school. I have held a license and been practicing in the medical profession in some form or another since I was 18, all through my undergrad studies. I had to make a hard decision and decided that the easy way, to simply ignore my misgivings and become part of a system I did not believe in, was not something I could do.
I then looked for something else, as I always wanted to be a healer. Towards the end of my senior year I discovered a medical system that fulfilled what I was looking for. Also, acupuncture is not Oriental Medicine, it is simply a modality therein.
I am proud of my decision, am now a conventional PhD candidate and applying the differences in physiological ideology to other hard to treat diseases that have not had and development like cystic fibrosis. But that is neither here nor there and unrelated to the discussion at hand.
All of this is own post that you have spliced and diced, but I don't think you truly read it for comprehension in the first place, did you?
Regarding viruses in general, I do believe that the general accepted disease mechanism is actually a misinterpretation of microvesicle intercellular communication during oxidative stress. Once again, this stems from reading of foundational research and methods used in labs. A good overview of the concept can be found in the book Fear of the Invisible by Janine Roberts. Once again this opinion was developed by reading foundational research regarding the tobacco mosaic virus if anyone is interested to look into it.
Oh, and to add more relevant information to the discussion of HIV/AIDS, I have voted Republican in the last three elections and am a non-practicing Catholic. I enjoy surfing, chess, have a chow chow, ferret. and very happy it finally stopped raining the last 2 days.
Also, the reason that I have not responded to all hundreds of counter arguments made is that I do have a real life and am not interested in spending inordinate quantities of time making the proper counter arguments to each "herp derp what about Africa, people are dying." Those arguments are discussed in the links I have provided and I am uninterested in doing a dissertation's worth of work to make each one on my own to people that cannot even click on links.
And I have jumped from topic to topic because that has been the nature of responses and there are a lot of things wrong with HIV/AIDS theory. That includes testing, treatment, isolation, foundational proof, silencing of dissenting opinions by black listing of research, racism, homophobia, etc. If you are interested in an overview, what some videos like "The House of Numbers" which details a lot of the isolation and testing issues. You can get it straight from Gallo's, Montagnier's, etc. At the bottom left of this page are links to a host of such videos, most with Google links. http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Main_Page
And that her daughter was never even tested for HIV antibodies? A fact that lead Los Angeles county to settle a suit out of court for more than the initial law suit was for?
Why is that ironic? You linked to her book (a picture of which appears in the video) as if I didn't know she was an AIDS denialist (which is a major portion of the video). I don't understand.
Also lol iatrogenic. You quacks think all AIDS deaths that are being treated by modern medicine are iatrogenic. Eliza Jane's death was infanticide, but you probably think that was iatrogenic too.
On February 14 2011 22:42 Igakusei wrote: Why is that ironic? You linked to her book (a picture of which appears in the video) as if I didn't know she was an AIDS denialist (which is a major portion of the video). I don't understand.
Also lol iatrogenic. You quacks think all AIDS deaths that are being treated by modern medicine are iatrogenic. Eliza Jane's death was infanticide, but you probably think that was iatrogenic too.
Reread my edit and do some research before you base all that you know on a YouTube video made by a group (AIDsTruth) that disseminates false information about dissident leaders. And it is false, look at the links above, which is actual evidence to your and the video's claims.
On February 14 2011 13:30 Azzur wrote: 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 thank you for linking me to that wikipedia article.
When I first read that article, my initial reaction was "wow, this is really biased against aids denialism". So I checked out what was going on in the talk page, and apparently one of the reason why the article was so harsh against aids denialism is that multiple pages on aids were sabotaged by members of the site questioningaids.com and as a result, aids denialists were labeled a fringe group by wikipedia editors. In wiki policy this means two things - one, proponents of fringe science are routinely banned from editing wikipedia (scientologists and dianetics is the most famous example of this) - two, what you'd expect NPOV to look like essentially goes out the window, because the NPOV on a fringe group is "these guys are insane".
First I would like to introduce myself. I am a third year student in an Oriental Medicine program. I have been a “dissident” for 5-6 years. What began as a pre-med Biochemistry major’s academic pursuit of studying two opposing sides of a scientific theory ended up with the complete and utter questioning of science in general and all medical paradigm. This culminated in me finding Oriental Medicine and a physiological/healing system that did make sense.
Then it suddenly hit me - AcuWill stands for Acupuncture Will. This guy has been running through this thread claiming to have done substantial medical research on HIV when in reality his medical research is on traditional chinese medicine. At any rate, AcuWill has made it quite clear that he doesn't believe HIV is the cause of AIDS. So, what does Acuwill believe is the real cause of AIDS?
This phenomenon transpires because there is a similarity in the stressors, and subsequently the terrain, that cause AIDS. This will lead to many of the same underlying patterns. For example, symptoms associated with Yin deficiency (I’m using this example to be consistent) include: night sweats, afternoon sensations of fever, anorexia, dry, deformed and brittle nails, black floaters in the eye (or symptoms associated with CMV-retinitis), constipation, dry and persistent cough, dry eyes, dry mouth with desire to drink in small sips throughout day, thirst that is not satisfied with drinking, grasshopper mind, difficulty falling asleep, agitation, restlessness, etc. What can cause this pattern? Worry, fear, over thinking, over work, the “gay party scene”, lack of sleep, drugs like meth, cocaine, smoking, smoking marijuana, lack of proper nourishment, excessive cleansing, diarrhea, alcohol, medications, etc. Proceeding further with the example above, when one has a profound Yin deficiency, the body’s Yang (Yin being the moist, cooling, physical substance of the body, and Yang being the metabolic force, heat and capacity of the body to perform its physiological duties) can separate, causing chaos. When one takes drugs that suppress the body’s motive force, like chemotherapy, then the negative physiological expression of the chaos will temporarily cease. This is one example as to why the drugs can be effective to alleviate some of the symptoms associated with AIDS.
In plain English, the cause of AIDS isn't a retrovirus, but rather, is caused by Yin deficiency.
Now, I don't have anything against traditional chinese medicine at all (some of it has been proven to have scientific value, although most of it hasn't), but when you reread his posts in this thread knowing this information, suddenly there's some underlying logic to his train of thought. The reason why he doesn't believe that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, is because he doesn't believe any disease is caused by a virus.
At first I thought it was quite ironic that a person who's profession is dealing with needles doesn't believe that a virus in which one of its primary methods of transfer from person to person is contaminated needles doesn't believe this virus causes any harm, then I realized how incredibly disturbing this is. If he is sincerely attempting to cure AIDS with acupuncture, I sincerely hope that he properly sterilizes his equipment.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
I would like to apologize for this on behalf of the TL community. We originally had you figured as some sort of christian religious zealot, when in reality we had the wrong religion all along.
Thanks for posting that. Actually I don't think that AIDS is solely caused by Yin Deficiency. If you go to read my entire posting, you will find that it is simply a very common theme within many of the Western manifestations of the disease. Further, I have never once stated that I am trying to cure anything with needles Rather, I am pointing out how a different system of physiology can be used to explain a lot of the disjointed phenomena regarding Western manifested AIDS.
Also, you make claims that my understanding of HIV and AIDS is based on Oriental medicine, not Western backed research. This is also false and not a claim that I ever made at all. If you were to read my actual and entire posting, it would be clear that I spent 2 years during my undergrad analyzing Peter Duesberg's and the orthodoxy's position for fun as an exercise to see how someone like Duesberg could have such an odd position.
During this time I read thousands of pages of research and articles, something I doubt that you have ever done. What lead me to my conclusions was not Duesberg's research or arguments, but the lack of evidence and terrible foundational science I found with the "normal" research.
This then lead me to have to severely reevaluate my life goals, which included being on the fast track to medical school. I have held a license and been practicing in the medical profession in some form or another since I was 18, all through my undergrad studies. I had to make a hard decision and decided that the easy way, to simply ignore my misgivings and become part of a system I did not believe in, was not something I could do.
I then looked for something else, as I always wanted to be a healer. Towards the end of my senior year I discovered a medical system that fulfilled what I was looking for. Also, acupuncture is not Oriental Medicine, it is simply a modality therein.
I am proud of my decision, am now a conventional PhD candidate and applying the differences in physiological ideology to other hard to treat diseases that have not had and development like cystic fibrosis. But that is neither here nor there and unrelated to the discussion at hand.
All of this is own post that you have spliced and diced, but I don't think you truly read it for comprehension in the first place, did you?
Regarding viruses in general, I do believe that the general accepted disease mechanism is actually a misinterpretation of microvesicle intercellular communication during oxidative stress. Once again, this stems from reading of foundational research and methods used in labs. A good overview of the concept can be found in the book Fear of the Invisible by Janine Roberts. Once again this opinion was developed by reading foundational research regarding the tobacco mosaic virus if anyone is interested to look into it.
Oh, and to add more relevant information to the discussion of HIV/AIDS, I have voted Republican in the last three elections and am a non-practicing Catholic. I enjoy surfing, chess, have a chow chow, ferret. and very happy it finally stopped raining the last 2 days.
Also, the reason that I have not responded to all hundreds of counter arguments made is that I do have a real life and am not interested in spending inordinate quantities of time making the proper counter arguments to each "herp derp what about Africa, people are dying." Those arguments are discussed in the links I have provided and I am uninterested in doing a dissertation's worth of work to make each one on my own to people that cannot even click on links.
And I have jumped from topic to topic because that has been the nature of responses and there are a lot of things wrong with HIV/AIDS theory. That includes testing, treatment, isolation, foundational proof, silencing of dissenting opinions by black listing of research, racism, homophobia, etc. If you are interested in an overview, what some videos like "The House of Numbers" which details a lot of the isolation and testing issues. You can get it straight from Gallo's, Montagnier's, etc. At the bottom left of this page are links to a host of such videos, most with Google links. http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Main_Page
Yeah you've easily been the most active participant in this thread, and this wall of text shows you have plenty of time to write responses so I'm not buying any of the "I have a social life so therefore I don't have time to respond to any of my critics". I haven't actually seen you respond to any of the counter-arguments put to you yet. All I see is you continually pushing your own ideology on the subject and then usually linking to a youtube video or a particularly biased source.
Actually a good idea is that if you're far to busy to respond to the arguments put to your assertions/citations then it's probably best not to enter the debate in the first place.
On February 14 2011 13:30 Azzur wrote: 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 thank you for linking me to that wikipedia article.
When I first read that article, my initial reaction was "wow, this is really biased against aids denialism". So I checked out what was going on in the talk page, and apparently one of the reason why the article was so harsh against aids denialism is that multiple pages on aids were sabotaged by members of the site questioningaids.com and as a result, aids denialists were labeled a fringe group by wikipedia editors. In wiki policy this means two things - one, proponents of fringe science are routinely banned from editing wikipedia (scientologists and dianetics is the most famous example of this) - two, what you'd expect NPOV to look like essentially goes out the window, because the NPOV on a fringe group is "these guys are insane".
First I would like to introduce myself. I am a third year student in an Oriental Medicine program. I have been a “dissident” for 5-6 years. What began as a pre-med Biochemistry major’s academic pursuit of studying two opposing sides of a scientific theory ended up with the complete and utter questioning of science in general and all medical paradigm. This culminated in me finding Oriental Medicine and a physiological/healing system that did make sense.
Then it suddenly hit me - AcuWill stands for Acupuncture Will. This guy has been running through this thread claiming to have done substantial medical research on HIV when in reality his medical research is on traditional chinese medicine. At any rate, AcuWill has made it quite clear that he doesn't believe HIV is the cause of AIDS. So, what does Acuwill believe is the real cause of AIDS?
This phenomenon transpires because there is a similarity in the stressors, and subsequently the terrain, that cause AIDS. This will lead to many of the same underlying patterns. For example, symptoms associated with Yin deficiency (I’m using this example to be consistent) include: night sweats, afternoon sensations of fever, anorexia, dry, deformed and brittle nails, black floaters in the eye (or symptoms associated with CMV-retinitis), constipation, dry and persistent cough, dry eyes, dry mouth with desire to drink in small sips throughout day, thirst that is not satisfied with drinking, grasshopper mind, difficulty falling asleep, agitation, restlessness, etc. What can cause this pattern? Worry, fear, over thinking, over work, the “gay party scene”, lack of sleep, drugs like meth, cocaine, smoking, smoking marijuana, lack of proper nourishment, excessive cleansing, diarrhea, alcohol, medications, etc. Proceeding further with the example above, when one has a profound Yin deficiency, the body’s Yang (Yin being the moist, cooling, physical substance of the body, and Yang being the metabolic force, heat and capacity of the body to perform its physiological duties) can separate, causing chaos. When one takes drugs that suppress the body’s motive force, like chemotherapy, then the negative physiological expression of the chaos will temporarily cease. This is one example as to why the drugs can be effective to alleviate some of the symptoms associated with AIDS.
In plain English, the cause of AIDS isn't a retrovirus, but rather, is caused by Yin deficiency.
Now, I don't have anything against traditional chinese medicine at all (some of it has been proven to have scientific value, although most of it hasn't), but when you reread his posts in this thread knowing this information, suddenly there's some underlying logic to his train of thought. The reason why he doesn't believe that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, is because he doesn't believe any disease is caused by a virus.
At first I thought it was quite ironic that a person who's profession is dealing with needles doesn't believe that a virus in which one of its primary methods of transfer from person to person is contaminated needles doesn't believe this virus causes any harm, then I realized how incredibly disturbing this is. If he is sincerely attempting to cure AIDS with acupuncture, I sincerely hope that he properly sterilizes his equipment.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
I would like to apologize for this on behalf of the TL community. We originally had you figured as some sort of christian religious zealot, when in reality we had the wrong religion all along.
Thanks for posting that. Actually I don't think that AIDS is solely caused by Yin Deficiency. If you go to read my entire posting, you will find that it is simply a very common theme within many of the Western manifestations of the disease. Further, I have never once stated that I am trying to cure anything with needles Rather, I am pointing out how a different system of physiology can be used to explain a lot of the disjointed phenomena regarding Western manifested AIDS.
Also, you make claims that my understanding of HIV and AIDS is based on Oriental medicine, not Western backed research. This is also false and not a claim that I ever made at all. If you were to read my actual and entire posting, it would be clear that I spent 2 years during my undergrad analyzing Peter Duesberg's and the orthodoxy's position for fun as an exercise to see how someone like Duesberg could have such an odd position.
During this time I read thousands of pages of research and articles, something I doubt that you have ever done. What lead me to my conclusions was not Duesberg's research or arguments, but the lack of evidence and terrible foundational science I found with the "normal" research.
This then lead me to have to severely reevaluate my life goals, which included being on the fast track to medical school. I have held a license and been practicing in the medical profession in some form or another since I was 18, all through my undergrad studies. I had to make a hard decision and decided that the easy way, to simply ignore my misgivings and become part of a system I did not believe in, was not something I could do.
I then looked for something else, as I always wanted to be a healer. Towards the end of my senior year I discovered a medical system that fulfilled what I was looking for. Also, acupuncture is not Oriental Medicine, it is simply a modality therein.
I am proud of my decision, am now a conventional PhD candidate and applying the differences in physiological ideology to other hard to treat diseases that have not had and development like cystic fibrosis. But that is neither here nor there and unrelated to the discussion at hand.
All of this is own post that you have spliced and diced, but I don't think you truly read it for comprehension in the first place, did you?
Regarding viruses in general, I do believe that the general accepted disease mechanism is actually a misinterpretation of microvesicle intercellular communication during oxidative stress. Once again, this stems from reading of foundational research and methods used in labs. A good overview of the concept can be found in the book Fear of the Invisible by Janine Roberts. Once again this opinion was developed by reading foundational research regarding the tobacco mosaic virus if anyone is interested to look into it.
Oh, and to add more relevant information to the discussion of HIV/AIDS, I have voted Republican in the last three elections and am a non-practicing Catholic. I enjoy surfing, chess, have a chow chow, ferret. and very happy it finally stopped raining the last 2 days.
Also, the reason that I have not responded to all hundreds of counter arguments made is that I do have a real life and am not interested in spending inordinate quantities of time making the proper counter arguments to each "herp derp what about Africa, people are dying." Those arguments are discussed in the links I have provided and I am uninterested in doing a dissertation's worth of work to make each one on my own to people that cannot even click on links.
And I have jumped from topic to topic because that has been the nature of responses and there are a lot of things wrong with HIV/AIDS theory. That includes testing, treatment, isolation, foundational proof, silencing of dissenting opinions by black listing of research, racism, homophobia, etc. If you are interested in an overview, what some videos like "The House of Numbers" which details a lot of the isolation and testing issues. You can get it straight from Gallo's, Montagnier's, etc. At the bottom left of this page are links to a host of such videos, most with Google links. http://reviewingaids.com/awiki/index.php/Main_Page
Yeah you've easily been the most active participant in this thread, and this wall of text shows you have plenty of time to write responses so I'm not buying any of the "I have a social life so therefore I don't have time to respond to any of my critics". I haven't actually seen you respond to any of the counter-arguments put to you yet. All I see is you continually pushing your own ideology on the subject and then usually linking to a youtube video or a particularly biased source.
Actually a good idea is that if you're far to busy to respond to the arguments put to your assertions/citations then it's probably best not to enter the debate in the first place.
Are not the sources the HIV causes AIDS (which none were posted) biased as well? That is the nature of having a position either way.
Also, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not the skeptic. The claim is that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS. Someone post me evidence of that and I will counter argue it.
On February 13 2011 14:19 AcuWill wrote: Anyway, my last post on this thread. It's nice to see some positive replies, but I don't have the time or the energy make educated replies to every counter argument that is thrown at me in an offhanded manner, especially when there is a plethora of information out there already on the topic. If anyone is curious, the links below are a good place to start.
On February 14 2011 22:25 AcuWill wrote: Also, the reason that I have not responded to all hundreds of counter arguments made is that I do have a real life and am not interested in spending inordinate quantities of time making the proper counter arguments...
The good old "I have better things to do, but I'll suffer one more response" hypocrisy.
Please stick to the discussion. If your real-life really can't be bothered, then don't waste your time justifying your reluctance to engage in debate.
And that her daughter was never even tested for HIV antibodies? A fact that lead Los Angeles county to settle a suit out of court for more than the initial law suit was for?
It looks like the suit had to do with the unauthorized release of private medical records, which doesn't exactly have anything to do with whether or not she actually had AIDS.
And what's the deal with Al-Bayati? The fact that he's such an outspoken and prolific denialist casts suspicion over everything he does. The fact that they got him to release that report instead of a real medical pathologist that doesn't have any personal stake in the issue says a lot. If she really died from iatrogneic causes, shouldn't that be obvious to ANY pathologist?
Edit: I've been familiar with the creator of that video for awhile. I have found a trend, and it's that every virologist I've met thinks HIV is a primary cause of AIDS.
On February 13 2011 14:19 AcuWill wrote: Anyway, my last post on this thread. It's nice to see some positive replies, but I don't have the time or the energy make educated replies to every counter argument that is thrown at me in an offhanded manner, especially when there is a plethora of information out there already on the topic. If anyone is curious, the links below are a good place to start.
On February 14 2011 22:25 AcuWill wrote: Also, the reason that I have not responded to all hundreds of counter arguments made is that I do have a real life and am not interested in spending inordinate quantities of time making the proper counter arguments...
The good old "I have better things to do, but I'll suffer one more response" hypocrisy.
Please stick to the discussion. If your real-life really can't be bothered, then don't waste your time justifying your reluctance to engage in debate.
Burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim. Provide proof that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS and I will argue it. I have yet to see it.
And that her daughter was never even tested for HIV antibodies? A fact that lead Los Angeles county to settle a suit out of court for more than the initial law suit was for?
It looks like the suit had to do with the unauthorized release of private medical records, which doesn't exactly have anything to do with whether or not she actually had AIDS.
And what's the deal with Al-Bayati? The fact that he's such an outspoken and prolific denialist casts suspicion over everything he does. The fact that they got him to release that report instead of a real medical pathologist that doesn't have any personal stake in the issue says a lot. If she really died from iatrogneic causes, shouldn't that be obvious to ANY pathologist?
In the article you ignore this quote, "Eliza Jane Scovill had never been tested for HIV."
And once again the circular logic. You are saying that Al-Bayati is unqualified to make his report because of the very nature of his argument, that his argument invalidates itself? That his pathology/toxicology report is invalid because of what the evidence that it indicates?
Seriously?
Yet, your youtube video made by AIDsTruth is valid and real evidence?
And that her daughter was never even tested for HIV antibodies? A fact that lead Los Angeles county to settle a suit out of court for more than the initial law suit was for?
It looks like the suit had to do with the unauthorized release of private medical records, which doesn't exactly have anything to do with whether or not she actually had AIDS.
And what's the deal with Al-Bayati? The fact that he's such an outspoken and prolific denialist casts suspicion over everything he does. The fact that they got him to release that report instead of a real medical pathologist that doesn't have any personal stake in the issue says a lot. If she really died from iatrogneic causes, shouldn't that be obvious to ANY pathologist?
Edit: I've been familiar with the creator of that video for awhile. I have found a trend, and it's that every virologist I've met thinks HIV is a primary cause of AIDS.
So your evidence that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS is that "every virologist I've met thinks HIV is a primary cause of AIDS." Ok.
My counter argument for your astounding argument and providing such strong case with the burden of proof on your shoulders: I have met virologists that think otherwise.
And that her daughter was never even tested for HIV antibodies? A fact that lead Los Angeles county to settle a suit out of court for more than the initial law suit was for?
It looks like the suit had to do with the unauthorized release of private medical records, which doesn't exactly have anything to do with whether or not she actually had AIDS.
And what's the deal with Al-Bayati? The fact that he's such an outspoken and prolific denialist casts suspicion over everything he does. The fact that they got him to release that report instead of a real medical pathologist that doesn't have any personal stake in the issue says a lot. If she really died from iatrogneic causes, shouldn't that be obvious to ANY pathologist?
In the article you ignore this quote, "Eliza Jane Scovill had never been tested for HIV."
And once again the circular logic. You are saying that Al-Bayati is unqualified to make his report because of the very nature of his argument, that his argument invalidates itself? That his pathology/toxicology report is invalid because of what the evidence that it indicates?
Seriously?
Yet, your youtube video made by AIDsTruth is valid and real evidence?
All your posts are pure rhetoric and your modus operandi is to ignore facts and evidence and react only to those parts of posts that contain opinions and then claiming that noone actually posted any evidence.
Point of that youtube video was not to provide evidence, but point out the dangers people like you pose to others.
And that her daughter was never even tested for HIV antibodies? A fact that lead Los Angeles county to settle a suit out of court for more than the initial law suit was for?
It looks like the suit had to do with the unauthorized release of private medical records, which doesn't exactly have anything to do with whether or not she actually had AIDS.
And what's the deal with Al-Bayati? The fact that he's such an outspoken and prolific denialist casts suspicion over everything he does. The fact that they got him to release that report instead of a real medical pathologist that doesn't have any personal stake in the issue says a lot. If she really died from iatrogneic causes, shouldn't that be obvious to ANY pathologist?
In the article you ignore this quote, "Eliza Jane Scovill had never been tested for HIV."
And once again the circular logic. You are saying that Al-Bayati is unqualified to make his report because of the very nature of his argument, that his argument invalidates itself? That his pathology/toxicology report is invalid because of what the evidence that it indicates?
Seriously?
Yet, your youtube video made by AIDsTruth is valid and real evidence?
All your posts are pure rhetoric and your modus operandi is to ignore facts and evidence and react only to those parts of posts that contain opinions and then claiming that noone actually posted any evidence.
Point of that youtube video was not to provide evidence, but point out the dangers people like you pose to others.
Provide me with those facts that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. You are making a claim, back it up. Burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine.
Think of it this way. I say, "The Jolly Green Giant is real." It is not your job to go out to prove that he isn't. It is my job to prove that he is.
And that her daughter was never even tested for HIV antibodies? A fact that lead Los Angeles county to settle a suit out of court for more than the initial law suit was for?
It looks like the suit had to do with the unauthorized release of private medical records, which doesn't exactly have anything to do with whether or not she actually had AIDS.
And what's the deal with Al-Bayati? The fact that he's such an outspoken and prolific denialist casts suspicion over everything he does. The fact that they got him to release that report instead of a real medical pathologist that doesn't have any personal stake in the issue says a lot. If she really died from iatrogneic causes, shouldn't that be obvious to ANY pathologist?
In the article you ignore this quote, "Eliza Jane Scovill had never been tested for HIV."
And once again the circular logic. You are saying that Al-Bayati is unqualified to make his report because of the very nature of his argument, that his argument invalidates itself? That his pathology/toxicology report is invalid because of what the evidence that it indicates?
Seriously?
Yet, your youtube video made by AIDsTruth is valid and real evidence?
I never said the youtube video was valid or real evidence. Look at the context I posted it in again. I also didn't say Al Bayati's report was invalid- I don't have the medical education at this point to properly understand it, so I'll leave that to the professionals.
This sorta ties into my whole point here: I don't have the education to fully understand every scientific, political, or philosophical argument out there, so I generally align myself with the scientific consensus. When dissenters break away from said consensus, I expect them to provide extraordinary evidence as to why they think the majority of scientists in said field are wrong.
I'm not seeing that with AIDS. Your argument with Eliza-Jane is essentially that it was not PROVEN that she had AIDS. Sure, you're absolutely right. But her symptoms do line up exactly with what might be expected if HIV did cause AIDS.
What I see here are people cherry-picking experts to do autopsy reports and provided diagnoses. That's not extraordinary evidence, that's just sad.
Anyway, I've got a virology exam in a couple hours that I need to study for.
On February 13 2011 14:19 AcuWill wrote: Anyway, my last post on this thread. It's nice to see some positive replies, but I don't have the time or the energy make educated replies to every counter argument that is thrown at me in an offhanded manner, especially when there is a plethora of information out there already on the topic. If anyone is curious, the links below are a good place to start.
On February 14 2011 22:25 AcuWill wrote: Also, the reason that I have not responded to all hundreds of counter arguments made is that I do have a real life and am not interested in spending inordinate quantities of time making the proper counter arguments...
The good old "I have better things to do, but I'll suffer one more response" hypocrisy.
Please stick to the discussion. If your real-life really can't be bothered, then don't waste your time justifying your reluctance to engage in debate.
Burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim. Provide proof that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS and I will argue it. I have yet to see it.
If HIV isn't the cause of AIDS, please tell me what, what is the cause of AIDS? Apparently you don't even believe that the explanation for the cause of AIDS that you yourself wrote is the cause of AIDS - so what is it?
On February 13 2011 14:19 AcuWill wrote: Anyway, my last post on this thread. It's nice to see some positive replies, but I don't have the time or the energy make educated replies to every counter argument that is thrown at me in an offhanded manner, especially when there is a plethora of information out there already on the topic. If anyone is curious, the links below are a good place to start.
On February 14 2011 22:25 AcuWill wrote: Also, the reason that I have not responded to all hundreds of counter arguments made is that I do have a real life and am not interested in spending inordinate quantities of time making the proper counter arguments...
The good old "I have better things to do, but I'll suffer one more response" hypocrisy.
Please stick to the discussion. If your real-life really can't be bothered, then don't waste your time justifying your reluctance to engage in debate.
Burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim. Provide proof that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS and I will argue it. I have yet to see it.
Ok I ask you not to refute every argument in this thread, you're right, that'd take a very long time and is unreasonable to expect of anyone. So I'll just ask you to critically respond to one argument made in this thread (and the sources it cites), which you haven't done so far.
Because so far it seems you pick and choose which arguments to have in this thread, specifically you avoid anyone who answers the question you keep hammering at "show me proof that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS".
So answer YoungNeil's post as I believe it adequately provides proof.
This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration?
From wikipedia: "The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]"
From the declaration: · Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV. (3-7) · If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. · People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6) · Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8) · In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5) · Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%. (9) · Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. (10)
On February 13 2011 14:19 AcuWill wrote: Anyway, my last post on this thread. It's nice to see some positive replies, but I don't have the time or the energy make educated replies to every counter argument that is thrown at me in an offhanded manner, especially when there is a plethora of information out there already on the topic. If anyone is curious, the links below are a good place to start.
On February 14 2011 22:25 AcuWill wrote: Also, the reason that I have not responded to all hundreds of counter arguments made is that I do have a real life and am not interested in spending inordinate quantities of time making the proper counter arguments...
The good old "I have better things to do, but I'll suffer one more response" hypocrisy.
Please stick to the discussion. If your real-life really can't be bothered, then don't waste your time justifying your reluctance to engage in debate.
Burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim. Provide proof that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS and I will argue it. I have yet to see it.
If HIV isn't the cause of AIDS, please tell me what, what is the cause of AIDS? Apparently you don't even believe that the explanation for the cause of AIDS that you yourself wrote is the cause of AIDS - so what is it?
That is not the discussion. See this is the crux of it all, it is not my job to tell you what the cause is to disprove your claim. It is your job to prove your claim, that is that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. This has been the discussion since 1986.
And please read what I actually wrote. Not once anywhere do I say what the cause of AIDS is. Not once did I say anywhere that I do not believe what I wrote. Those are things you said and then proceeded to argue against.
If you would like to explore some possible causes of AIDS, feel free to. You can look at some of the links that I have provided, especially Duesberg's paper. However, that is not the discussion at hand.
You say, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS." I say, "Prove it."
On February 14 2011 23:27 DND_Enkil wrote: This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration?
From wikipedia: "The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]"
From the declaration: · Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV. (3-7) · If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. · People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6) · Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8) · In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5) · Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%. (9) · Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. (10)
That was 11 years ago, today the evidence is even stronger...
The Durban declaration is not evidence that the causative factor of AIDS is HIV. It is a bunch of people signing a document that says that they are behind the HIV causes AIDS theory.
Essentially what was asked was, show of hands, who thinks HIV causes AIDS and then people offered their signatures.
Of course every vested individual in the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS department is going to say they think it does. You have provided nothing more.
And that her daughter was never even tested for HIV antibodies? A fact that lead Los Angeles county to settle a suit out of court for more than the initial law suit was for?
It looks like the suit had to do with the unauthorized release of private medical records, which doesn't exactly have anything to do with whether or not she actually had AIDS.
And what's the deal with Al-Bayati? The fact that he's such an outspoken and prolific denialist casts suspicion over everything he does. The fact that they got him to release that report instead of a real medical pathologist that doesn't have any personal stake in the issue says a lot. If she really died from iatrogneic causes, shouldn't that be obvious to ANY pathologist?
In the article you ignore this quote, "Eliza Jane Scovill had never been tested for HIV."
And once again the circular logic. You are saying that Al-Bayati is unqualified to make his report because of the very nature of his argument, that his argument invalidates itself? That his pathology/toxicology report is invalid because of what the evidence that it indicates?
Seriously?
Yet, your youtube video made by AIDsTruth is valid and real evidence?
All your posts are pure rhetoric and your modus operandi is to ignore facts and evidence and react only to those parts of posts that contain opinions and then claiming that noone actually posted any evidence.
Point of that youtube video was not to provide evidence, but point out the dangers people like you pose to others.
Provide me with those facts that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. You are making a claim, back it up. Burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine.
Think of it this way. I say, "The Jolly Green Giant is real." It is not your job to go out to prove that he isn't. It is my job to prove that he is.
I am still waiting for cogent data.
I know very well how burden of proof works, I have no interest to post evidence, because you will ignore it and because there is a lot of people in this thread better qualified to do so and they already did so. I just pointed out your debating tactics and explained to you that that youtube video was not meant as evidence.
And that her daughter was never even tested for HIV antibodies? A fact that lead Los Angeles county to settle a suit out of court for more than the initial law suit was for?
It looks like the suit had to do with the unauthorized release of private medical records, which doesn't exactly have anything to do with whether or not she actually had AIDS.
And what's the deal with Al-Bayati? The fact that he's such an outspoken and prolific denialist casts suspicion over everything he does. The fact that they got him to release that report instead of a real medical pathologist that doesn't have any personal stake in the issue says a lot. If she really died from iatrogneic causes, shouldn't that be obvious to ANY pathologist?
In the article you ignore this quote, "Eliza Jane Scovill had never been tested for HIV."
And once again the circular logic. You are saying that Al-Bayati is unqualified to make his report because of the very nature of his argument, that his argument invalidates itself? That his pathology/toxicology report is invalid because of what the evidence that it indicates?
Seriously?
Yet, your youtube video made by AIDsTruth is valid and real evidence?
All your posts are pure rhetoric and your modus operandi is to ignore facts and evidence and react only to those parts of posts that contain opinions and then claiming that noone actually posted any evidence.
Point of that youtube video was not to provide evidence, but point out the dangers people like you pose to others.
Provide me with those facts that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. You are making a claim, back it up. Burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine.
Think of it this way. I say, "The Jolly Green Giant is real." It is not your job to go out to prove that he isn't. It is my job to prove that he is.
I am still waiting for cogent data.
On February 14 2011 23:18 Igakusei wrote: This sorta ties into my whole point here: I don't have the education to fully understand every scientific, political, or philosophical argument out there, so I generally align myself with the scientific consensus. When dissenters break away from said consensus, I expect them to provide extraordinary evidence as to why they think the majority of scientists in said field are wrong
On February 14 2011 23:27 DND_Enkil wrote: This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration?
From wikipedia: "The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]"
I think this sums up the difference of opinion on burden of proof well. Basically, you think that we have to prove HIV causes AIDS. To my mind, and the great majority of experts and the general public, this has already been done. It is now on you to provide 'extraordinary evidence' as Igakusei put it quite nicely, that the offical proven position is wrong. Whereas you don't accept said evidence, so you believe the burden of proof lies with us. So we're at an impasse. I don't think debating this further is helpful.
I also note you're still picking out which comments to respond to. So I'll just ask you again to counter or respond to his arguments and citations please.
On February 14 2011 23:27 DND_Enkil wrote: This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration?
From wikipedia: "The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]"
From the declaration: · Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV. (3-7) · If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. · People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6) · Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8) · In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5) · Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%. (9) · Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. (10)
That was 11 years ago, today the evidence is even stronger...
The Durban declaration is not evidence that the causative factor of AIDS is HIV. It is a bunch of people signing a document that says that they are behind the HIV causes AIDS theory.
Essentially what was asked was, show of hands, who thinks HIV causes AIDS and then people offered their signatures.
Of course every vested individual in the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS department is going to say they think it does. You have provided nothing more.
That is not how arguing works, you see i have one opinion "HIV causes AIDS" and you have another opinion "HIV does not cause AIDS", i present my arguments:
· Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV. (3-7) · If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. · People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6) · Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8) · In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5) · Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%. (9) · Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. (10)
And then you preferably: 1) Prove my arguments wrong 2) Present your own arguments
You are not arguing, you are repeating your opinion over and over again. It is like discussing evolution with a Creationist (who does not even adhere to the "intelligent design" belif), he will never be able to actually respond to any argument so arguing with him is pointless.
You present yourself as a well-educated man who has done extensive research on this subject, now prove that and argue your case. It is not up to us to prove HIV causes Aids, that is the general consensus already, you are the one trying to advocate something different. Prove it.
If i where to claim that time is non-linear and slowing/speeding up of time is possible, the burden of proof would be on me since the general consensus is that it is linear.
And that her daughter was never even tested for HIV antibodies? A fact that lead Los Angeles county to settle a suit out of court for more than the initial law suit was for?
It looks like the suit had to do with the unauthorized release of private medical records, which doesn't exactly have anything to do with whether or not she actually had AIDS.
And what's the deal with Al-Bayati? The fact that he's such an outspoken and prolific denialist casts suspicion over everything he does. The fact that they got him to release that report instead of a real medical pathologist that doesn't have any personal stake in the issue says a lot. If she really died from iatrogneic causes, shouldn't that be obvious to ANY pathologist?
In the article you ignore this quote, "Eliza Jane Scovill had never been tested for HIV."
And once again the circular logic. You are saying that Al-Bayati is unqualified to make his report because of the very nature of his argument, that his argument invalidates itself? That his pathology/toxicology report is invalid because of what the evidence that it indicates?
Seriously?
Yet, your youtube video made by AIDsTruth is valid and real evidence?
All your posts are pure rhetoric and your modus operandi is to ignore facts and evidence and react only to those parts of posts that contain opinions and then claiming that noone actually posted any evidence.
Point of that youtube video was not to provide evidence, but point out the dangers people like you pose to others.
Provide me with those facts that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. You are making a claim, back it up. Burden of proof is on your shoulders, not mine.
Think of it this way. I say, "The Jolly Green Giant is real." It is not your job to go out to prove that he isn't. It is my job to prove that he is.
I am still waiting for cogent data.
Here is a good 2000 Article, which describes the body of knowledge on HIV and AIDS at that time quite well and rather laymans terms imo:
On February 14 2011 23:27 DND_Enkil wrote: This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration?
From wikipedia: "The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]"
From the declaration: · Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV. (3-7) · If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. · People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6) · Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8) · In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5) · Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%. (9) · Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. (10)
That was 11 years ago, today the evidence is even stronger...
The Durban declaration is not evidence that the causative factor of AIDS is HIV. It is a bunch of people signing a document that says that they are behind the HIV causes AIDS theory.
Essentially what was asked was, show of hands, who thinks HIV causes AIDS and then people offered their signatures.
Of course every vested individual in the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS department is going to say they think it does. You have provided nothing more.
LOOOOL, just few posts after people accuse you of ignoring evidence you do it so blatantly Nice of you to ignore second part of his post.
On February 13 2011 14:19 AcuWill wrote: Anyway, my last post on this thread. It's nice to see some positive replies, but I don't have the time or the energy make educated replies to every counter argument that is thrown at me in an offhanded manner, especially when there is a plethora of information out there already on the topic. If anyone is curious, the links below are a good place to start.
On February 14 2011 22:25 AcuWill wrote: Also, the reason that I have not responded to all hundreds of counter arguments made is that I do have a real life and am not interested in spending inordinate quantities of time making the proper counter arguments...
The good old "I have better things to do, but I'll suffer one more response" hypocrisy.
Please stick to the discussion. If your real-life really can't be bothered, then don't waste your time justifying your reluctance to engage in debate.
Burden of proof lies upon the one making the claim. Provide proof that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS and I will argue it. I have yet to see it.
Ok I ask you not to refute every argument in this thread, you're right, that'd take a very long time and is unreasonable to expect of anyone. So I'll just ask you to critically respond to one argument made in this thread (and the sources it cites), which you haven't done so far.
Because so far it seems you pick and choose which arguments to have in this thread, specifically you avoid anyone who answers the question you keep hammering at "show me proof that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS".
So answer YoungNeil's post as I believe it adequately provides proof.
I would like to point out that he provided a drawing and a photograph that was show that HIV exists, not that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS. So that is not evidence and the discussion of whether or not HIV has ever been truly isolated is a different topic altogether that I am not going to get into at this time.
Then he made a blanket statement, "It must also be noted that AIDS-like, catastrophic immunodeficiency infections are extremely rare outside of those infected with HIV."
Further, if one looks at the diagnostic criterion for AIDS in Africa that I had posted earlier, one can see that the AIDS defining diseases are not rare at all.
Major signs: - weight loss 10% - chronic diarrhoea 1 month - fever 1 month (intermittent or constant) -herpes zoster -non-healing genital sores
Minor signs: - cough for > 1 month - generalized itching - recurrent herpes zoster - oro-pharyngeal candidiasis - chronic progressive and disseminated herpes simplex infection - generalized lymphadenopathy
As he does not provide evidence what "AIDS-like, catastrophic immunodeficiency infections" are specifically or his source for the data, I cannot really argue any further on that point.
Further, evidence is further clouded by the fact that AIDS defining diseases are not specific to AIDS.
AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine.
Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works.
The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want?
On February 14 2011 23:27 DND_Enkil wrote: This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration?
From wikipedia: "The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]"
From the declaration: · Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV. (3-7) · If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. · People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6) · Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8) · In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5) · Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%. (9) · Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. (10)
That was 11 years ago, today the evidence is even stronger...
The Durban declaration is not evidence that the causative factor of AIDS is HIV. It is a bunch of people signing a document that says that they are behind the HIV causes AIDS theory.
Essentially what was asked was, show of hands, who thinks HIV causes AIDS and then people offered their signatures.
Of course every vested individual in the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS department is going to say they think it does. You have provided nothing more.
LOOOOL, just few posts after people accuse you of ignoring evidence you do it so blatantly Nice of you to ignore second part of his post.
The second part is a quote from the Durban Declaration. I posted replies of scientists with citations that counters that particular section. How did I ignore it?
On February 14 2011 23:27 DND_Enkil wrote: This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration?
From wikipedia: "The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]"
From the declaration: · Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV. (3-7) · If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. · People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6) · Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8) · In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5) · Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%. (9) · Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. (10)
That was 11 years ago, today the evidence is even stronger...
The Durban declaration is not evidence that the causative factor of AIDS is HIV. It is a bunch of people signing a document that says that they are behind the HIV causes AIDS theory.
Essentially what was asked was, show of hands, who thinks HIV causes AIDS and then people offered their signatures.
Of course every vested individual in the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS department is going to say they think it does. You have provided nothing more.
Lets see... the first list shows 12 people that signed. After a quick look i couldn't find more, but maybe you can enlighten me. After skipping through the second i couldn't find any more people signing it.
The third link... well, we already had it in the thread, but i will still quote an excerpt from the first few names for you:
Kofi Ababio. Assistant Professor of Anthropology Ono A. Abada. MSc (Economics) Folarin Abimbola. Medical student Jotham Achineku. Engineer Zdenka Acin. PhD, Journalist Leonardo Acosta. Journalist Mark Adams. Faculty Member, Department of Mathematics and Computing Science Faculty Mike Adams. Holistic nutritionist Gabriela Adelstein. Translator
Now what exactly are their references? Journalists? Anthropology? Translator? Engineer? Medical student? Yes, there are some names on the list that might have some experience with the matter, though i bet most of them already changed their mind.
No, HIV is definatly a cause for AIDS. Anyone denying it is either blind or... well, lacks the usually suprisingly uncommon common sense.
On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote: This thread is going to ruin my grade
AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine.
Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works.
The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want?
I am just asking for the citation that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. Is that really so challenging? That is the burden of proof that I am asking about. Then I can respond to it. That is what I need to make a counter argument.
I would like to have a discussion, truly, but it is not possible with the, "Disprove that HIV doesn't cause AIDS" rhetoric.
If you notice in that account, Kary Mullis does not agree with Duesberg in everything, actually, they disagree on a lot, as I don't either, which is why often times there are conflicting opinions on things that I have posted. However, the fundament that the evidence that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS cannot be found is agreed upon.
Why is that question so avoided and why does standing up for the fact that nobody can answer it label one as a zealot or instantaneously no longer able to be qualified? Why does the question lead to the absence of good discussion?
It's actually a very well-documented virus, your claim that it doesn't even exist is laughable. We know what kind of cells in the body it infects (primarily macrophages and CD4+ T Cells), we know its structure (pretty much your typical retrovirus, with its own unique markers, of course), and we know its taxonomic variations (see here). It's been examined more closely than almost any other pathogen in history.
On February 13 2011 10:00 AcuWill wrote: All you need to do is publish evidence that what you were staring at actually causes AIDS, win a Nobel Prize and be the first to publish such a thing
The link between HIV and AIDS is extremely well-supported. It fulfills all of Koch's postulates, as established by numerous studies. It must also be noted that AIDS-like, catastrophic immunodeficiency infections are extremely rare outside of those infected with HIV. I could give allkindsofsources to look at, if you're willing to seriously consider just how far you've been misled. AIDS denialism (arguably an ad-hominem term, I suppose, but certainly no worse than the language used in the first article) has been pseudoscience since the nineties. And unlike many popular conspiracy theories, it kills people, every day. Spreading this kind of nonsense is very dangerous, and you need to make sure that you're extremely confident in your beliefs before you try to convince others to risk their lives on it.
Note everyone, the drawing and photograph were for your benefit AcuWill, as you had claimed that there isn't proof that HIV exists. He didn't mention Africa, now you're off on a tangent again. Lastly, although I didn't think you'd respond to the sources he provided, I figured I'd give it a shot for you to prove me wrong. However I think everyone should now see it's clearly useless discussing this with you further, as you ignore parts of arguments that contradict your position and then try to resteer the conversation onto topics of your own choosing - like you've just done with Africa. Further, you deliberately try and obfuscate matters as now, with how you've mentioned the seemingly inexplicable relevance of the picture and drawing that show HIV exists - without acknowledging this was in response to your own claim.
On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote: This thread is going to ruin my grade
AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine.
Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works.
The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want?
While you are technically correct, the evidence for HIV/AIDS is actually much better since there have been abundant trials with animals (esp. Rhesus macaque) with SIV and HIV-2. The insights gained in these experiments quite convincingly confirmed the supposed link between SIV and HIV as can be read up here for instance:
On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote: This thread is going to ruin my grade
AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine.
Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works.
The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want?
I am just asking for the citation that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. Is that really so challenging? That is the burden of proof that I am asking about. Then I can respond to it. That is what I need to make a counter argument.
I would like to have a discussion, truly, but it is not possible with the, "Disprove that HIV doesn't cause AIDS" rhetoric.
If you notice in that account, Kary Mullis does not agree with Duesberg in everything, actually, they disagree on a lot, as I don't either, which is why often times there are conflicting opinions on things that I have posted. However, the fundament that the evidence that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS cannot be found is agreed upon.
Why is that question so avoided and why does standing up for the fact that nobody can answer it label one as a zealot or instantaneously no longer able to be qualified? Why does the question lead to the absence of good discussion?
Did you read the articles I linked for you? What exactly disqualifies their findings?
On February 14 2011 23:27 DND_Enkil wrote: This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration?
From wikipedia: "The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]"
From the declaration: · Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV. (3-7) · If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. · People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6) · Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8) · In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5) · Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%. (9) · Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. (10)
That was 11 years ago, today the evidence is even stronger...
The Durban declaration is not evidence that the causative factor of AIDS is HIV. It is a bunch of people signing a document that says that they are behind the HIV causes AIDS theory.
Essentially what was asked was, show of hands, who thinks HIV causes AIDS and then people offered their signatures.
Of course every vested individual in the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS department is going to say they think it does. You have provided nothing more.
LOOOOL, just few posts after people accuse you of ignoring evidence you do it so blatantly Nice of you to ignore second part of his post.
The second part is a quote from the Durban Declaration. I posted replies of scientists with citations that counters that particular section. How did I ignore it?
The second part contains the evidence with sources in the PDF. You did not counter any of it with your "source" with the names of dozen (maybe) scientists. The 2745 people thing was already dealt with in this thread. Every post you make only reinforces my description of your debating tactics.
On February 14 2011 23:27 DND_Enkil wrote: This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration?
From wikipedia: "The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]"
From the declaration: · Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV. (3-7) · If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. · People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6) · Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8) · In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5) · Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%. (9) · Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. (10)
That was 11 years ago, today the evidence is even stronger...
The Durban declaration is not evidence that the causative factor of AIDS is HIV. It is a bunch of people signing a document that says that they are behind the HIV causes AIDS theory.
Essentially what was asked was, show of hands, who thinks HIV causes AIDS and then people offered their signatures.
Of course every vested individual in the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS department is going to say they think it does. You have provided nothing more.
LOOOOL, just few posts after people accuse you of ignoring evidence you do it so blatantly Nice of you to ignore second part of his post.
The second part is a quote from the Durban Declaration. I posted replies of scientists with citations that counters that particular section. How did I ignore it?
Exept, they did not actually respond to any of the argument, the arguments are STILL left unanswered. All they did was the same thing you do, ignore the argument and state your opinion again.
But want more? Sure, i got a whole website full of people way way smarter than me i can quote, i can understand what they are saying and would be generally interested in seeing evedice for the opposite:
Lets start with a simple argument, to make it easier for you to disprove it. If you can do that we will go on to the bigger ones!
"Transmission pathogenesis: transfer of the suspected pathogen to an uninfected host, man or animal, produces the disease in that host."
Meaning, if a healthy person/monkey gets injected with HIV they will develop AIDS. It is a simple argument really, you test and see what happens. Basic science!
Postulate #3 has been fulfilled in tragic incidents involving three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated, cloned HIV in the laboratory. In all three cases, HIV was isolated from the infected individual, sequenced and shown to be the infecting strain of virus. In another tragic incident, transmission of HIV from a Florida dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of virus isolated from both the dentist and the patients. The dentist and three of the patients developed AIDS and died, and at least one of the other patients has developed AIDS. Five of the patients had no HIV risk factors other than multiple visits to the dentist for invasive procedures (O'Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613; O'Brien, 1997; Ciesielski et al. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:886).
In addition, through December 1999, the CDC had received reports of 56 health care workers in the United States with documented, occupationally acquired HIV infection, of whom 25 have developed AIDS in the absence of other risk factors. The development of AIDS following known HIV seroconversion also has been repeatedly observed in pediatric and adult blood transfusion cases, in mother-to-child transmission, and in studies of hemophilia, injection-drug use and sexual transmission in which seroconversion can be documented using serial blood samples (CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; AIDS Knowledge Base, 1999). For example, in a 10-year study in the Netherlands, researchers followed 11 children who had become infected with HIV as neonates by small aliquots of plasma from a single HIV-infected donor. During the 10-year period, eight of the children died of AIDS. Of the remaining three children, all showed a progressive decline in cellular immunity, and two of the three had symptoms probably related to HIV infection (van den Berg et al. Acta Paediatr 1994;83:17).
Koch's postulates also have been fulfilled in animal models of human AIDS. Chimpanzees experimentally infected with HIV have developed severe immunosuppression and AIDS. In severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) mice given a human immune system, HIV produces similar patterns of cell killing and pathogenesis as seen in people. HIV-2, a less virulent variant of HIV which causes AIDS in people, also causes an AIDS-like syndrome in baboons. More than a dozen strains of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), a close cousin of HIV, cause AIDS in Asian macaques. In addition, chimeric viruses known as SHIVs, which contain an SIV backbone with various HIV genes in place of the corresponding SIV genes, cause AIDS in macaques. Further strengthening the association of these viruses with AIDS, researchers have shown that SIV/SHIVs isolated from animals with AIDS cause AIDS when transmitted to uninfected animals (O'Neil et al. J Infect Dis 2000;182:1051; Aldrovandi et al. Nature 1993;363:732; Liska et al. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1999;15:445; Locher et al. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;22:523; Hirsch et al. Virus Res 1994;32:183; Joag et al. J Virol 1996;70:3189).
For me the best evidence would be the animal testing. If you have 10 monkies, you inject 5 of them with HIV and they develop AIDS and the rest dont that is pretty much proven beyond any resonable doubt that HIV causes AIDS.
I really really urge you to try the same and see if you can inject a mammal with a HIV-strain that effects it in a similar way as humans are effected and prove that they do *not* develop AIDS despite having untreated HIV.
On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote: This thread is going to ruin my grade
AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine.
Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works.
The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want?
I am just asking for the citation that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. Is that really so challenging? That is the burden of proof that I am asking about. Then I can respond to it. That is what I need to make a counter argument.
I would like to have a discussion, truly, but it is not possible with the, "Disprove that HIV doesn't cause AIDS" rhetoric.
If you notice in that account, Kary Mullis does not agree with Duesberg in everything, actually, they disagree on a lot, as I don't either, which is why often times there are conflicting opinions on things that I have posted. However, the fundament that the evidence that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS cannot be found is agreed upon.
Why is that question so avoided and why does standing up for the fact that nobody can answer it label one as a zealot or instantaneously no longer able to be qualified? Why does the question lead to the absence of good discussion?
Did you read the articles I linked for you? What exactly disqualifies their findings?
Nah he doesn't do that. He just goes in circles repeating the same claims, and cherry-picking his responses, in much the way we cycle in here from time to time with relevant sources for him to read.
It's actually a very well-documented virus, your claim that it doesn't even exist is laughable. We know what kind of cells in the body it infects (primarily macrophages and CD4+ T Cells), we know its structure (pretty much your typical retrovirus, with its own unique markers, of course), and we know its taxonomic variations (see here). It's been examined more closely than almost any other pathogen in history.
On February 13 2011 10:00 AcuWill wrote: All you need to do is publish evidence that what you were staring at actually causes AIDS, win a Nobel Prize and be the first to publish such a thing
The link between HIV and AIDS is extremely well-supported. It fulfills all of Koch's postulates, as established by numerous studies. It must also be noted that AIDS-like, catastrophic immunodeficiency infections are extremely rare outside of those infected with HIV. I could give allkindsofsources to look at, if you're willing to seriously consider just how far you've been misled. AIDS denialism (arguably an ad-hominem term, I suppose, but certainly no worse than the language used in the first article) has been pseudoscience since the nineties. And unlike many popular conspiracy theories, it kills people, every day. Spreading this kind of nonsense is very dangerous, and you need to make sure that you're extremely confident in your beliefs before you try to convince others to risk their lives on it.
Note everyone, the drawing and photograph were for your benefit AcuWill, as you had claimed that there isn't proof that HIV exists. He didn't mention Africa, now you're off on a tangent again. Lastly, although I didn't think you'd respond to the sources he provided, I figured I'd give it a shot for you to prove me wrong. However I think everyone should now see it's clearly useless discussing this with your further, as you ignore parts of arguments that contradict your position and then try to resteer the conversation onto topics of your own choosing - like you've just done with Africa. Further, you deliberately try and obfuscate matters as now, with how you've mentioned the seemingly inexplicable relevance of the picture and drawing that show HIV exists - without acknowledge this was in response to your own claim.
I did not notice the links on my first read.
They are simply links to tens of HIV/AIDS research articles. Not one shows that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS.
They talk about CD4+ lymphocytes, transmission, assays, but not the probable cause of AIDS. There are tons of citations for the above, but I would like to quote a section that does discuss the "numerous studies" indicating HIV as the probable cause of AIDS.
Many studies agree that only a single factor, HIV, predicts whether a person will develop AIDS.
Other viral infections, bacterial infections, sexual behavior patterns and drug abuse patterns do not predict who develops AIDS. Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including heterosexual men and women, homosexual men and women, hemophiliacs, sexual partners of hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients, injection-drug users and infants have all developed AIDS, with the only common denominator being their infection with HIV (NIAID, 1995).http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Understanding/howHIVCausesAIDS/Pages/HIVcausesAIDS.aspx
Odd how this is nestled neatly in the middle of so many sections with tens of citations, but this one is completely devoid of any? Is that not what I have been saying the whole time?
There are 4 links regarding "The Discovery of HIV and its relationship to AIDS". Note that does not say that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS.
The first is simply stating that they have found a retrovirus in a host of people with AIDS defining diseases. That is not causation, rather an observation, much like, murders and ice-cream sales go up in the summer.
The second is an awful paper by Gallo that if you actually read, which I did state in an earlier post, shows nothing more than a less than casual evidence of HTLV-III (precursor name to HIV) in AIDS risk patients. If you actually read the paper, there is no way this casual evidence of HTLV-III even indicates a correlation to AIDS patients, let alone causation. Further, you can see his original publication document and Gallo's own fraud with regard to this paper in his own handwriting at the link I posted earlier. http://www.fearoftheinvisible.com/fraud-in-key-hiv-research-background
The third link is a citation-less discussion about how Gallo and Montagnier went about discovering HIV. Once again, no HIV is the causative factor of AIDS.
The fourth link is a paper on the importance of epidemiology and HIV, that doesn't even provide an abstract when clicked, it is broken. One again no discussion of HIV causative factor of AIDS.
There is one paper that discusses the immunopathogenesis of HIV, but it too does not show that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. Instead it starts with the following caveat, "Although the precise mechanisms of immune dysfunction remain incompletely understood, virtually every arm of the immune response may be affected by HIV infection," it goes on to try to cite how every arm of the immune response may be effected. No HIV is the causative factor of AIDS, just lots of beating around the bush, discussion secondary markers, immune response, etc. This is not the same thing as HIV is the causative factor of AIDS.
So, where in any of those postings is the evidence that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS? Did I miss something, because if so, please point it out. I will happily reply to an argument of that nature.
On February 14 2011 23:27 DND_Enkil wrote: This whole thread and no one quoted the durban declaration?
From wikipedia: "The Durban Declaration is a statement signed by over 5,000 physicians and scientists in the year 2000, affirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS. The declaration was drafted in response to AIDS denialism, and particularly to address South African president Thabo Mbeki's support for AIDS denialists.[1] It was written several weeks prior to the 2000 International AIDS Conference, held in Durban, South Africa from July 9-14, 2000, and was published in the medical journal Nature to coincide with the Durban conference. The declaration called the evidence that HIV causes AIDS "clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous".[2]"
From the declaration: · Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV. (3-7) · If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within five to ten years. (6, 7) HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections. · People who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not. (6) · Most children who develop AIDS are born to HIV- infected mothers. The higher the viral load in the mother, the greater the risk of the child becoming infected. (8) · In the laboratory, HIV infects the exact type of white blood cell (CD4 lymphocytes) that becomes depleted in people with AIDS. (3-5) · Drugs that block HIV replication in the test tube also reduce virus load in people and delay progression to AIDS. Where available, treatment has reduced AIDS mortality by more than 80%. (9) · Monkeys inoculated with cloned SIV DNA become infected and develop AIDS. (10)
That was 11 years ago, today the evidence is even stronger...
The Durban declaration is not evidence that the causative factor of AIDS is HIV. It is a bunch of people signing a document that says that they are behind the HIV causes AIDS theory.
Essentially what was asked was, show of hands, who thinks HIV causes AIDS and then people offered their signatures.
Of course every vested individual in the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS department is going to say they think it does. You have provided nothing more.
LOOOOL, just few posts after people accuse you of ignoring evidence you do it so blatantly Nice of you to ignore second part of his post.
The second part is a quote from the Durban Declaration. I posted replies of scientists with citations that counters that particular section. How did I ignore it?
Exept, they did not actually respond to any of the argument, the arguments are STILL left unanswered. All they did was the same thing you do, ignore the argument and state your opinion again.
But want more? Sure, i got a whole website full of people way way smarter than me i can quote, i can understand what they are saying and would be generally interested in seeing evedice for the opposite:
Lets start with a simple argument, to make it easier for you to disprove it. If you can do that we will go on to the bigger ones!
"Transmission pathogenesis: transfer of the suspected pathogen to an uninfected host, man or animal, produces the disease in that host."
Meaning, if a healthy person/monkey gets injected with HIV they will develop AIDS. It is a simple argument really, you test and see what happens. Basic science!
Postulate #3 has been fulfilled in tragic incidents involving three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated, cloned HIV in the laboratory. In all three cases, HIV was isolated from the infected individual, sequenced and shown to be the infecting strain of virus. In another tragic incident, transmission of HIV from a Florida dentist to six patients has been documented by genetic analyses of virus isolated from both the dentist and the patients. The dentist and three of the patients developed AIDS and died, and at least one of the other patients has developed AIDS. Five of the patients had no HIV risk factors other than multiple visits to the dentist for invasive procedures (O'Brien, Goedert. Curr Opin Immunol 1996;8:613; O'Brien, 1997; Ciesielski et al. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:886).
In addition, through December 1999, the CDC had received reports of 56 health care workers in the United States with documented, occupationally acquired HIV infection, of whom 25 have developed AIDS in the absence of other risk factors. The development of AIDS following known HIV seroconversion also has been repeatedly observed in pediatric and adult blood transfusion cases, in mother-to-child transmission, and in studies of hemophilia, injection-drug use and sexual transmission in which seroconversion can be documented using serial blood samples (CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; AIDS Knowledge Base, 1999). For example, in a 10-year study in the Netherlands, researchers followed 11 children who had become infected with HIV as neonates by small aliquots of plasma from a single HIV-infected donor. During the 10-year period, eight of the children died of AIDS. Of the remaining three children, all showed a progressive decline in cellular immunity, and two of the three had symptoms probably related to HIV infection (van den Berg et al. Acta Paediatr 1994;83:17).
Koch's postulates also have been fulfilled in animal models of human AIDS. Chimpanzees experimentally infected with HIV have developed severe immunosuppression and AIDS. In severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID) mice given a human immune system, HIV produces similar patterns of cell killing and pathogenesis as seen in people. HIV-2, a less virulent variant of HIV which causes AIDS in people, also causes an AIDS-like syndrome in baboons. More than a dozen strains of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), a close cousin of HIV, cause AIDS in Asian macaques. In addition, chimeric viruses known as SHIVs, which contain an SIV backbone with various HIV genes in place of the corresponding SIV genes, cause AIDS in macaques. Further strengthening the association of these viruses with AIDS, researchers have shown that SIV/SHIVs isolated from animals with AIDS cause AIDS when transmitted to uninfected animals (O'Neil et al. J Infect Dis 2000;182:1051; Aldrovandi et al. Nature 1993;363:732; Liska et al. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1999;15:445; Locher et al. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;22:523; Hirsch et al. Virus Res 1994;32:183; Joag et al. J Virol 1996;70:3189).
For me the best evidence would be the animal testing. If you have 10 monkies, you inject 5 of them with HIV and they develop AIDS and the rest dont that is pretty much proven beyond any resonable doubt that HIV causes AIDS.
I really really urge you to try the same and see if you can inject a mammal with a HIV-strain that effects it in a similar way as humans are effected and prove that they do *not* develop AIDS despite having untreated HIV.
You do realize that not one of the citations and discussions actually talk about HIV being the causative factor of AIDS? They talk around it, but not about it.
Once again I quote:
Many studies agree that only a single factor, HIV, predicts whether a person will develop AIDS.
Other viral infections, bacterial infections, sexual behavior patterns and drug abuse patterns do not predict who develops AIDS. Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including heterosexual men and women, homosexual men and women, hemophiliacs, sexual partners of hemophiliacs and transfusion recipients, injection-drug users and infants have all developed AIDS, with the only common denominator being their infection with HIV (NIAID, 1995).
No citation. When they actually get to talking about it, there are no citations. They nestle this inbetween lots of peripheral discussion with citations, but this section get none.
So, where is the evidence in the link you provided?
You have to be a real hack to use Tommy Morrison in your article condemning the integrity of the test and the business behind the tests. Morris is a dude who is down on his luck and broke, without any other skills besides punching people, and he was butthurt for years by the stigma that AIDS is only for gays.
The fact that this writer would essentially use the argument of 'pharm companies stand to gain a lot on this lie' and use Tommy as evidence of that.... holy shit.
It's honestly more depressing that the length of this thread indicates there's actually morons here who'd do anything other that laugh at this.
On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote: This thread is going to ruin my grade
AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine.
Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works.
The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want?
While you are technically correct, the evidence for HIV/AIDS is actually much better since there have been abundant trials with animals (esp. Rhesus macaque) with SIV and HIV-2. The insights gained in these experiments quite convincingly confirmed the supposed link between SIV and HIV as can be read up here for instance:
There is nothing here but an abstract that discusses how the SIV model has lead to understandings of HIV pathogenesis, not that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. There is a big difference.
Let me make an example:
Claim-Truck can pull heavy load up mountain. Your link-The understandings how Geo Metros drive around leads to a better understanding how the truck could pull a heavy load up the mountatin. Lacking-Evidence that the truck ever pulled the heavy load up the mountain.
There is no evidence in this link that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS in your link.
Here is an article which directly deals with Duesberg and the like and provides lots of references to actual studies. And the best thing: it's freely accessible so not only "proud phd candidates" like you can read it, but everybody on this forum:
On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote: This thread is going to ruin my grade
AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine.
Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works.
The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want?
While you are technically correct, the evidence for HIV/AIDS is actually much better since there have been abundant trials with animals (esp. Rhesus macaque) with SIV and HIV-2. The insights gained in these experiments quite convincingly confirmed the supposed link between SIV and HIV as can be read up here for instance:
There is nothing here but an abstract that discusses how the SIV model has lead to understandings of HIV pathogenesis, not that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. There is a big difference.
Let me make an example:
Claim-Truck can pull heavy load up mountain. Your link-The understandings how Geo Metros drive around leads to a better understanding how the truck could pull a heavy load up the mountatin. Lacking-Evidence that the truck ever pulled the heavy load up the mountain.
There is no evidence in this link that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS in your link.
Did you read the article and not just the abstract!?
On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote: This thread is going to ruin my grade
AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine.
Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works.
The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want?
While you are technically correct, the evidence for HIV/AIDS is actually much better since there have been abundant trials with animals (esp. Rhesus macaque) with SIV and HIV-2. The insights gained in these experiments quite convincingly confirmed the supposed link between SIV and HIV as can be read up here for instance:
There is nothing here but an abstract that discusses how the SIV model has lead to understandings of HIV pathogenesis, not that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. There is a big difference.
Let me make an example:
Claim-Truck can pull heavy load up mountain. Your link-The understandings how Geo Metros drive around leads to a better understanding how the truck could pull a heavy load up the mountatin. Lacking-Evidence that the truck ever pulled the heavy load up the mountain.
There is no evidence in this link that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS in your link.
Did you read the article and not just the abstract!?
The speed at which he is replying has made it quite clear that he isn't actually reading anything at all :p Why someone would act all high and mighty and demand rigorous explanations of a scientific topic while at the same time refusing to (or more reasonably, being unable to) actually read scientific literature is beyond me but I must admit it is kind of funny. However I have the utmost respect for your (and others in this thread) perseverence considering how important the topic is. If you guys managed to stop even one person from believing that "AIDS denialism" is a valid position then you could literaly have saved a life ~~
On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote: This thread is going to ruin my grade
AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine.
Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works.
The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want?
While you are technically correct, the evidence for HIV/AIDS is actually much better since there have been abundant trials with animals (esp. Rhesus macaque) with SIV and HIV-2. The insights gained in these experiments quite convincingly confirmed the supposed link between SIV and HIV as can be read up here for instance:
There is nothing here but an abstract that discusses how the SIV model has lead to understandings of HIV pathogenesis, not that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. There is a big difference.
Let me make an example:
Claim-Truck can pull heavy load up mountain. Your link-The understandings how Geo Metros drive around leads to a better understanding how the truck could pull a heavy load up the mountatin. Lacking-Evidence that the truck ever pulled the heavy load up the mountain.
There is no evidence in this link that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS in your link.
This is what I was talking about with your irrational desire for "proof." Again to use the evolution analogy:
Claim-We share a common ancestor with Chimpanzees Evidence-morphology, DNA similarities and divergences, ERVs, fused chromosome 2, embryology, etc. Lacking-DNA samples from every individual in the succession from a current human back to that common ancestor and then back forward in time to a modern Chimp.
Is that reasonable? Of course not. It's like taking an HIV test; you may never have the 100% proof you want, but you can get pretty damn close.
Okay, how about this Accuwill. Lets start with CD4+ cells. We can see them through microscopy. We know their function, a type of T cell that aids (lol) the immune system as usually a regulatory or memory T cell. Agree or disagree?
Okay then, you don't dispute the presence of the HIV correct? We can also see this through microscopy. We know that HIV infects CD4+ T cells by utilizing the CCR5 and CXCR4 receptors (source). Agree or disagree?
Lets assume you agree that HIV infevts CD4+ T cells. We know that when HIV infects a CD4+ T cell, it causes it to die either through a successful takeover of the cell or an abortive infection which leads to apoptosis (Source). Agree or disagree?
If we accept the previous 3 points, then we must accept the fact that HIV destroys CD4+ T cells. Knowing what CD4+ T cells do and knowing that an infection of HIV leads to a decrease in CD4+ T cells means that infection with HIV must lead to some manner of decrease in the ability of the immune system.
Here is an article which directly deals with Duesberg and the like and provides lots of references to actual studies. And the best thing: it's freely accessible so not only "proud phd candidates" like you can read it, but everybody on this forum:
All of the individuals that received those exposures were put on chemotherapeutic agents and then developed immune suppression, which is actually exactly Duesberg's arguments. Your evidence validates his theory.
Further, the nature of what you have posted does not indicate that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS. The evidence you have indicates that individuals after HIV exposure and taking long term chemotherapy develop immune suppression. The claims that individuals get AIDS after HIV exposure are cited by reports, not research studies indicating HIV is the causative factor of AIDS [Citation: (CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; AIDS Knowledge Base, 1999)].
And then you cite that animals that are chemically given "human immune systems" get immunosupression. Really? You mean the animals that are immunosupressed animals get immunosupressed?
Without seeing the actual studies regarding the chimps and baboons it would be difficult to comment. But the typical way of introducing the foreign matter is by repeatedly injecting reasonably large quantities of it directly into their central nervous systems. No wonder they present with some of the AIDS defining diseases, like diarrhea, weight loss, and immunosupression. Note the several steps away from HIV is the causative factor of AIDS to, in primates when injected (somewhere, likely their central nervous system) with repeated doses of foreign matter they present with some AIDS defining diseases. Hardly proof that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS.
On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote: This thread is going to ruin my grade
AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine.
Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works.
The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want?
While you are technically correct, the evidence for HIV/AIDS is actually much better since there have been abundant trials with animals (esp. Rhesus macaque) with SIV and HIV-2. The insights gained in these experiments quite convincingly confirmed the supposed link between SIV and HIV as can be read up here for instance:
There is nothing here but an abstract that discusses how the SIV model has lead to understandings of HIV pathogenesis, not that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. There is a big difference.
Let me make an example:
Claim-Truck can pull heavy load up mountain. Your link-The understandings how Geo Metros drive around leads to a better understanding how the truck could pull a heavy load up the mountatin. Lacking-Evidence that the truck ever pulled the heavy load up the mountain.
There is no evidence in this link that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS in your link.
Did you read the article and not just the abstract!?
You did not provide me with the article, but the abstract has nothing to do with HIV being the causative factor of AIDS, so I doubt the article does. Did you read the article? If so, why did you bother posting this?
And with regard to the articles and the speed of my replies in my previous posts, there were 4 actual articles, 3 of which I had read before.
1. HIV enters human body. 2. HIV proceeds to latch onto T cells. 3. T cells die, spreading HIV throughout the human body. 4. Process repeats until T cells are destroyed. 5. Immune system is effectively destroyed.
Here is an article which directly deals with Duesberg and the like and provides lots of references to actual studies. And the best thing: it's freely accessible so not only "proud phd candidates" like you can read it, but everybody on this forum:
All of the individuals that received those exposures were put on chemotherapeutic agents and then developed immune suppression, which is actually exactly Duesberg's arguments. Your evidence validates his theory.
Further, the nature of what you have posted does not indicate that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS. The evidence you have indicates that individuals after HIV exposure and taking long term chemotherapy develop immune suppression. The claims that individuals get AIDS after HIV exposure are cited by reports, not research studies indicating HIV is the causative factor of AIDS [Citation: (CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; AIDS Knowledge Base, 1999)].
And then you cite that animals that are chemically given "human immune systems" get immunosupression. Really? You mean the animals that are immunosupressed animals get immunosupressed?
Without seeing the actual studies regarding the chimps and baboons it would be difficult to comment. But the typical way of introducing the foreign matter is by repeatedly injecting reasonably large quantities of it directly into their central nervous systems. No wonder they present with some of the AIDS defining diseases, like diarrhea, weight loss, and immunosupression. Note the several steps away from HIV is the causative factor of AIDS to, in primates when injected (somewhere, likely their central nervous system) with repeated doses of foreign matter they present with some AIDS defining diseases. Hardly proof that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS.
I directly linked a source for you which contains ample details of the similarities between SIV, HIV and how they lead to AIDS and the paper by Chigwedere and Essex lists further clinical studies, mechanistic analyses and demographic surveys, lots of which carried out in the last five years and you answer by posting a paper by Duesberg from 2003? Do you realize that Chigwedere and Essex explicitly cite and discuss the paper of Duesberg from 2003? Can you tell me how he could possibly reply to a critique put forward to him in 2010 in a paper he wrote 7 years earlier?
Do you actually have access to pubmed articles (no, not just the abstracts, the real articles)? Are you really a phd student?
On February 15 2011 01:01 ZeaL. wrote: Okay, how about this Accuwill. Lets start with CD4+ cells. We can see them through microscopy. We know their function, a type of T cell that aids (lol) the immune system as usually a regulatory or memory T cell. Agree or disagree?
Okay then, you don't dispute the presence of the HIV correct? We can also see this through microscopy. We know that HIV infects CD4+ T cells by utilizing the CCR5 and CXCR4 receptors (source). Agree or disagree?
Lets assume you agree that HIV infevts CD4+ T cells. We know that when HIV infects a CD4+ T cell, it causes it to die either through a successful takeover of the cell or an abortive infection which leads to apoptosis (Source). Agree or disagree?
If we accept the previous 3 points, then we must accept the fact that HIV destroys CD4+ T cells. Knowing what CD4+ T cells do and knowing that an infection of HIV leads to a decrease in CD4+ T cells means that infection with HIV must lead to some manner of decrease in the ability of the immune system.
As simple as this argument may be, it is the strongest I've seen on this thread.
Why is this still being argued? I'm starting to think that this is just a huge troll thread. I'm not even sure there's anything more I can add to the previous 12 pages without repeating someone. There's just so much overwhelming proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS. As a graduate student looking to get a PhD in immunology and microbiology, I can tell you rather definitively that we've invested millions of dollars in HIV/AIDS research (thank you for paying my salary, NIH!) and I've read more papers than I care to cite on HIV from every possible scientific field (immunology, epidemiology, microbiology...). As everyone has already pointed out countless sources, I really don't know what else to add. At the most basic level, I don't understand how you can't see that:
1. Untreated AIDS patients are in terrible shape and die within a few years 2. Scientists make drugs and treatments for HIV 3. AIDS patients who undergo HIV treatment have a return to their normal quality of life and can live 20+ years. Pregnant women with AIDS are given HIV treatment and have a near 0% of giving their babies AIDS.
So you have ARVs that are specifically designed to inhibit HIV mechanisms and through some miracle, it helps with AIDS. Coincidence?
AcuWill, regardless who who's burden it is to provide the proof, aren't you at least glad that we've developed treatments based on our understanding of the disease that is effective across all patient types (homosexuals, drug users, heterosexuals, children)? If it's not the cause of AIDS, well then God is fucking with us and healing AIDS patients who happen to be receiving HIV treatments at the same time.
On February 15 2011 01:01 ZeaL. wrote: Okay, how about this Accuwill. Lets start with CD4+ cells. We can see them through microscopy. We know their function, a type of T cell that aids (lol) the immune system as usually a regulatory or memory T cell. Agree or disagree?
Okay then, you don't dispute the presence of the HIV correct? We can also see this through microscopy. We know that HIV infects CD4+ T cells by utilizing the CCR5 and CXCR4 receptors (source). Agree or disagree?
Lets assume you agree that HIV infevts CD4+ T cells. We know that when HIV infects a CD4+ T cell, it causes it to die either through a successful takeover of the cell or an abortive infection which leads to apoptosis (Source). Agree or disagree?
If we accept the previous 3 points, then we must accept the fact that HIV destroys CD4+ T cells. Knowing what CD4+ T cells do and knowing that an infection of HIV leads to a decrease in CD4+ T cells means that infection with HIV must lead to some manner of decrease in the ability of the immune system.
As simple as this argument may be, it is the strongest I've seen on this thread.
On February 15 2011 01:01 ZeaL. wrote: Okay, how about this Accuwill. Lets start with CD4+ cells. We can see them through microscopy. We know their function, a type of T cell that aids (lol) the immune system as usually a regulatory or memory T cell. Agree or disagree?
Okay then, you don't dispute the presence of the HIV correct? We can also see this through microscopy. We know that HIV infects CD4+ T cells by utilizing the CCR5 and CXCR4 receptors (source). Agree or disagree?
Lets assume you agree that HIV infevts CD4+ T cells. We know that when HIV infects a CD4+ T cell, it causes it to die either through a successful takeover of the cell or an abortive infection which leads to apoptosis (Source). Agree or disagree?
If we accept the previous 3 points, then we must accept the fact that HIV destroys CD4+ T cells. Knowing what CD4+ T cells do and knowing that an infection of HIV leads to a decrease in CD4+ T cells means that infection with HIV must lead to some manner of decrease in the ability of the immune system.
I do not agree with your third statement, and have questions about your second.
Also a quote from your last source, "Despite more than 20 years of study, the mechanism by which HIV so effectively depletes CD4 T cells in untreated, infected subjects remains a mystery." That is hardly proof that HIV infects CD4+ lymphocytes and causes them to die. In fact, your source indicates that how it occurs is a mystery, ie. there is no evidence.
Then in the next sentence: "It is precisely this progressive elimination of CD4 T cells that leads to AIDS." So it is precisely this mystery pathway with no evidence that leads to the progressive elimination of CD4+ lymphocytes? With what evidence? The previous sentence stated there was no evidence and it was unknown. So how can one make a such a statement. Well lets refer to the proof, the evidence the HIV is the causative factor of AIDS.
No such evidence exists.
Once again, this discussion does not provide evidence that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS.
You have resorted to arguing other points, leading further and further from the crux of the argument, that there is no proof that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. You are in fact supporting my argument by doing so.
On February 15 2011 01:01 ZeaL. wrote: Okay, how about this Accuwill. Lets start with CD4+ cells. We can see them through microscopy. We know their function, a type of T cell that aids (lol) the immune system as usually a regulatory or memory T cell. Agree or disagree?
Okay then, you don't dispute the presence of the HIV correct? We can also see this through microscopy. We know that HIV infects CD4+ T cells by utilizing the CCR5 and CXCR4 receptors (source). Agree or disagree?
Lets assume you agree that HIV infevts CD4+ T cells. We know that when HIV infects a CD4+ T cell, it causes it to die either through a successful takeover of the cell or an abortive infection which leads to apoptosis (Source). Agree or disagree?
If we accept the previous 3 points, then we must accept the fact that HIV destroys CD4+ T cells. Knowing what CD4+ T cells do and knowing that an infection of HIV leads to a decrease in CD4+ T cells means that infection with HIV must lead to some manner of decrease in the ability of the immune system.
As simple as this argument may be, it is the strongest I've seen on this thread.
Betting he doesn't attempt to answer it though.
There is a lag time between the initial post and the follow up.
On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote: This thread is going to ruin my grade
AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine.
Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works.
The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want?
While you are technically correct, the evidence for HIV/AIDS is actually much better since there have been abundant trials with animals (esp. Rhesus macaque) with SIV and HIV-2. The insights gained in these experiments quite convincingly confirmed the supposed link between SIV and HIV as can be read up here for instance:
The interesting thing about this is that SIV affects different types of nonhuman primates differently. One of the researchers at my grad school is going to start a project to sequence two types of primates, sooty mangabeys and rhesus macaques. Both are infected with SIV but sooty mangabeys manage to maintain a steady level of cd4 cells while rhesus macaques are affected deleteriously. I really want to do a rotation with him to maybe work on this as my graduate thesis.
Here's an interesting article on an experiment where they infected 3 rhesus macaques and 3 sooty mangabeys with a version of SIV and monitored the viral loads and host responses.
You know, AcuWill, you argue that the mechanism is unknown. But he's not arguing anything about the mechanism. He's arguing that the act of infection exists. Last time I checked, when a virus can gain access to a cell, it will typically proceed to destroy it and use it to replicate itself. Fuck HOW it does it.
Here is an article which directly deals with Duesberg and the like and provides lots of references to actual studies. And the best thing: it's freely accessible so not only "proud phd candidates" like you can read it, but everybody on this forum:
All of the individuals that received those exposures were put on chemotherapeutic agents and then developed immune suppression, which is actually exactly Duesberg's arguments. Your evidence validates his theory.
Further, the nature of what you have posted does not indicate that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS. The evidence you have indicates that individuals after HIV exposure and taking long term chemotherapy develop immune suppression. The claims that individuals get AIDS after HIV exposure are cited by reports, not research studies indicating HIV is the causative factor of AIDS [Citation: (CDC. HIV AIDS Surveillance Report 1999;11[2]:1; AIDS Knowledge Base, 1999)].
And then you cite that animals that are chemically given "human immune systems" get immunosupression. Really? You mean the animals that are immunosupressed animals get immunosupressed?
Without seeing the actual studies regarding the chimps and baboons it would be difficult to comment. But the typical way of introducing the foreign matter is by repeatedly injecting reasonably large quantities of it directly into their central nervous systems. No wonder they present with some of the AIDS defining diseases, like diarrhea, weight loss, and immunosupression. Note the several steps away from HIV is the causative factor of AIDS to, in primates when injected (somewhere, likely their central nervous system) with repeated doses of foreign matter they present with some AIDS defining diseases. Hardly proof that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS.
I directly linked a source for you which contains ample details of the similarities between SIV, HIV and AIDS and the paper by Chigwedere and Essex lists further clinical studies, mechanistic analyses and demographic surveys, lots of which carried out in the last five years and you answer by posting a paper by Duesberg from 2003? Do you realize that Chigwedere and Essex explicitly cite and discuss the paper of Duesberg from 2003? Can you tell me how he could possibly reply to a critique put forward to him in 2010 in a paper he wrote 7 years earlier?
Do you actually have access to pubmed articles (no, not just the abstracts, the real articles)? Are you really a phd student?
You have provided me with a link to a paper that states HIV causes AIDS and that the evidence has been available for 20 years. It then cites a book that is a compilation of the cited evidence, instead of citing said evidence directly. It then goes on to cite epidemiological studies, etc., without providing the actual evidence. Isn't it odd how every time that statement has been made in every posting directed at me, there is no actual citation to review for that claim? The paper is not an actual study indicating that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS rather a review of literature of that. When it gets to providing the actual literature, the author simply cites themselves in a book.
How is this paper supposed to show that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS? It responds to many of Duesberg's theories, which I have not had time to analyze, but once again is simply beating around the bush and not proving the actual evidence that HIV is the probable cause of AIDS. If it exists and is so easy, surely one of the now tens of items posted in this thread should have the citation, yet none have.
On February 15 2011 01:27 LunarC wrote: You know, AcuWill, you argue that the mechanism is unknown. But he's not arguing anything about the mechanism. He's arguing that the act of infection exists. Last time I checked, when a virus can gain access to a cell, it will typically proceed to destroy it and use it to replicate itself. Fuck HOW it does it.
It's not that it cannot be shown how it does it, rather that it does it at all. That is what is the point. Further, only 1-500 CD4+ lymphocytes are infected, with no evidence that HIV causes cell death.
I have to go now and do some real life, but I would like to point out that HIV causes AIDS theory came about in the mid 1980s. So, posting articles proving the causative factor of AIDS is HIV that are recent is a bit of an issue.
Further, secondary studies indicating correlations trying to prove an existing theory far later in time are also inherently not really valid. In fact, scientifically, it is wrong to try to provide evidence for a theory far after its practical implementation. This should be provided before hand, if not, it is not science at all, rather guessing.
The fact that nothing can be dredged up, has never been dredged up as indicated by Kary Mullis in the link below, and still has not been dredged at the very least should raise a red flag. http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/kintro.html
I am not trying convince anyone of anything, but questioning should never be wrong. It can only serve to strengthen an argument if it is truly valid. What I am trying to do is show that there are questions that have never been answered and the should not be swept under the rug. If the questions are proven to be baseless, well then that only serves to strengthen the orthodox position and will be a benefit to us all. In the process, much would be learned and it could lead to the breakthrough that is truly needed.
If the questions cannot be shown to be baseless, then a reevaluation is ethically and morally necessary. Nobody should fear such an evaluation if what they believe to be true is actually true. However, such calls for reevaluation are instead met with personal attacks, the attempt to end careers, black listing, and the like. That should never be, and certainly not in science, for that is what science is by its nature, the seeking of answers to questions.
Anytime people are silenced in science, no matter how off the wall their ideas are, a fundamental violation of the spirit of science is committed, and a slippery slope is entered.
Remember, not long ago a man was ostracized and thrown out from his profession for voicing such opinions. If his ideas had been analyzed or simply been allowed to be freely expressed, thousands of lives could have been saved and a new era of disease pathogenesis would have been ushered in. His name was Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis and all he introduced was the concept that washing of one's hands could prevent sepsis. The uproar in the medical community was far greater then the uproar generated by questioning whether HIV is the causative effect of AIDS.
Anyway, I am off and likely will not post again in this thread. I have responded to most of the more cogent arguments made, but still ask the question:
Where is the evidence that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS?
The evidence that HIV causes AIDS is overwhelming. Instead of posting your 'arguments' on a gaming forum, do some simple Google searches and read the evidence yourself.
Eh, his debating technique boils down to posting walls of texts, ignoring arguments or replying to arguments with illogical/non-related responses, repeating everything over and over until opponents give up in desperation Where have I seen this approach
On February 15 2011 01:20 AcuWill wrote: I do not agree with your third statement, and have questions about your second.
For point 2: Multiple studies have been done. Knockouts of CCR5 or CXCR4 result in little to no infection of CD4+ cells with HIV in vitro. Antibodies specific to these cell surface receptors also result in reduced infection of CD4+ cells with HIV.
Also a quote from your last source, "Despite more than 20 years of study, the mechanism by which HIV so effectively depletes CD4 T cells in untreated, infected subjects remains a mystery." That is hardly proof that HIV infects CD4+ lymphocytes and causes them to die. In fact, your source indicates that how it occurs is a mystery, ie. there is no evidence.
What he's saying is that previous research has been unable to figure out how HIV kills so many CD4+ cells while seemingly only infecting a few. What his research is showing is that many cells successfully fight off an HIV infection but apoptose suggesting an explanation for why CD4+ depletion happens when only 1% of CD4+ cells seem like they are infected.
Asides from the actual mechanism of CD4+ depletion, time course studies have been done on subjects infected with HIV as well as studies on primates infected with HIV showing a marked decrease in CD4+ cell count. Similarly, treatment with antiretrovirals shows an increase in CD4+ count. The logical explanation is that HIV depletes CD4+ cell count and that ARV's, by preventing HIV from multiplying prevent that depletion. Just because there is a gap in understanding does not mean that it is suddenly false.
You have resorted to arguing other points, leading further and further from the crux of the argument, that there is no proof that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. You are in fact supporting my argument by doing so.
Apparently trying to discuss the mechanism of HIV is "detracting from the crux of the argument".
I think your fuckin sick in the head.... Ive always told people this, some people are too smart for their own good. I respect all of your opinions, trust me it makes sense... OF COURSE IT MAKES SENSE TO HOLD AN ARGUMENT VERY STRONGLY when you are putting as simple as "pic or it didnt happen"
this is just an example: Proof of god or he doesnt exist! (well guess what? its your own opinion AND WE RESPECT IT! of course there are always people that judge) But guess what? the way you come about saying things about not being able to prove something makes it a little moronic...
Most people in this thread that disagree with you still you somewhat credit for whatever the fuck you talk about.... they re just simply telling you to fuckin be positive, they are not assuming HIV causes AIDS to fuckin make money out of shit or to feel smarter than others... THEY ARE DOING IT AND ASSUMING IT FOR GOOD! TO FUCKIN SAVE LIVES! even if they cant prove it , they believe what they are doing is the right thing to do to save sick people...
If you are so smart to always end your posts with "Where is the proof that Hiv etc etc etc" I have a little tip for you: - Keep things simple bro, Life is easier that way. - Lots of things in this life started out with assumptions that made somewhat sense through visions, evidence, statistics, later down the road... when we knew it worked it was a lot easier to proof how. - Its like trying to show evidence of God, Ghosts, Trying to understand women LOL etc....
You type huge walls of text talking your crap to then conclude cockly "show me evidence or its not factual or real" dont even bother dude
Try explaining to a 90 year old man, how a router wirelessly connects through a laptop and then somehow you travel the web. He will never get it , he ll just use it and move on and wont get stuck thinking how does it work?
People cant fuckin prove it but its more important at this point to help the sick than to figure out , WHATS THE CAUSE? Im sure they are still researching, but you work with what you have and thats how life is... remember this: "They will find the factual source of how you get AIDS" if you are right no1 will care that you were right and if you were wrong people wont care either... ALL PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO TELL U IN THIS THREAD is that they cant prove it but they are working with lil knowledge they have for a good cause like saving people s lives
On February 15 2011 01:53 AcuWill wrote: I have to go now and do some real life, but I would like to point out that HIV causes AIDS theory came about in the mid 1980s. So, posting articles proving the causative factor of AIDS is HIV that are recent is a bit of an issue.
Why? Evolution was "discovered in the 1800's. We're still discovering relatively new things today. You can't expect the problem to be fully understood immediately after. Science works by continuous refinement of ideas.
Further, secondary studies indicating correlations trying to prove an existing theory far later in time are also inherently not really valid. In fact, scientifically, it is wrong to try to provide evidence for a theory far after its practical implementation. This should be provided before hand, if not, it is not science at all, rather guessing.
wat.
The fact that nothing can be dredged up, has never been dredged up as indicated by Kary Mullis in the link below, and still has not been dredged at the very least should raise a red flag. http://www.duesberg.com/viewpoints/kintro.html
Another link to this Duesberg and to a non-biologist to boot. Lets just take her word for it.
I am not trying convince anyone of anything, but questioning should never be wrong. It can only serve to strengthen an argument if it is truly valid. What I am trying to do is show that there are questions that have never been answered and the should not be swept under the rug. If the questions are proven to be baseless, well then that only serves to strengthen the orthodox position and will be a benefit to us all. In the process, much would be learned and it could lead to the breakthrough that is truly needed.
Its true, there are questions that haven't been answered. If we truly understood AIDs then it wouldn't be a problem anymore. There are still many things we have to figure out, but that doesn't mean that the whole idea is bunk. To refer to evolution again, in the course of the last 100 or so years since the discovery there have been many questions, some have been answered some haven't, yet the evidence that we have found is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution being true. Perhaps it would do you a little bit of good to question your own source, specifically your precious table 4.
If the questions cannot be shown to be baseless, then a reevaluation is ethically and morally necessary. Nobody should fear such an evaluation if what they believe to be true is actually true. However, such calls for reevaluation are instead met with personal attacks, the attempt to end careers, black listing, and the like. That should never be, and certainly not in science, for that is what science is by its nature, the seeking of answers to questions.
We all think your questions are pretty baseless. That's why we're not reevaluating anything
Anytime people are silenced in science, no matter how off the wall their ideas are, a fundamental violation of the spirit of science is committed, and a slippery slope is entered.
Remember, not long ago a man was ostracized and thrown out from his profession for voicing such opinions. If his ideas had been analyzed or simply been allowed to be freely expressed, thousands of lives could have been saved and a new era of disease pathogenesis would have been ushered in. His name was Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis and all he introduced was the concept that washing of one's hands could prevent sepsis. The uproar in the medical community was far greater then the uproar generated by questioning whether HIV is the causative effect of AIDS.
For every Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis there are thousands if not hundreds of thousnads of Franz Joseph Gall.
Anyway, I am off and likely will not post again in this thread. I have responded to most of the more cogent arguments made, but still ask the question:
Where is the evidence that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS?
All the best,
Acuwill
You will never find the evidence because you have already decided what to be true.
User was warned for an image macro that used to be in this post
Humans are pretty well known to have killer instincts to survive! they find out facts and proof sometimes after they've acted upon it with common sense. Its gotten us pretty far so far, some subjects take longer than others... specially medicine, come on bro.
On February 14 2011 23:55 Igakusei wrote: This thread is going to ruin my grade
AcuWill, I feel like you have unreasonable expectations of proof. In Science, very few things are "proven." What happens is we collect evidence, and then make conclusions about where the evidence seems to point. Proof lies within the realm of mathematics, not medicine.
Your approach here reminds me very much of Kent Hovind's "quarter-million-dollar challenge." He said he'd give $250,000 to anyone who could provide proof of evolution. Sound familiar? It works because again, that's not how science works.
The only way I can think of to provide significantly more evidence than we already have (and even then it still wouldn't be proof) would be to intentionally infect thousands of people with HIV and then observe them over the following years. We obviously can't and shouldn't do this, so what more do you want?
While you are technically correct, the evidence for HIV/AIDS is actually much better since there have been abundant trials with animals (esp. Rhesus macaque) with SIV and HIV-2. The insights gained in these experiments quite convincingly confirmed the supposed link between SIV and HIV as can be read up here for instance:
The interesting thing about this is that SIV affects different types of nonhuman primates differently. One of the researchers at my grad school is going to start a project to sequence two types of primates, sooty mangabeys and rhesus macaques. Both are infected with SIV but sooty mangabeys manage to maintain a steady level of cd4 cells while rhesus macaques are affected deleteriously. I really want to do a rotation with him to maybe work on this as my graduate thesis.
Here's an interesting article on an experiment where they infected 3 rhesus macaques and 3 sooty mangabeys with a version of SIV and monitored the viral loads and host responses.
Thanks for the link ZeaL and also for your valiant effort in this thread! I am out now too to get some Sushi. Take care!
[...]They frequently invoke the meme of a "courageous independent scientist resisting orthodoxy", invoking the name of persecuted physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei[...]
AcuWill:
Remember, not long ago a man was ostracized and thrown out from his profession for voicing such opinions. If his ideas had been analyzed or simply been allowed to be freely expressed, thousands of lives could have been saved and a new era of disease pathogenesis would have been ushered in. His name was Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis and all he introduced was the concept that washing of one's hands could prevent sepsis. The uproar in the medical community was far greater then the uproar generated by questioning whether HIV is the causative effect of AIDS.
Denialists often use their critique of the link between HIV and AIDS to promote alternative medicine as a cure, and attempt to convince HIV-infected individuals to avoid ARV therapy in favour of vitamins, massage, yoga and other unproven treatments. Despite this promotion, denialists will often downplay any association with alternative therapies, and attempt to portray themselves as "dissidents". An article in the Skeptical Inquirer stated:
AIDS denialists [prefer] to characterize themselves as brave "dissidents" attempting to engage a hostile medical/industrial establishment in genuine scientific "debate." They complain that their attempts to raise questions and pose alternative hypotheses have been unjustly rejected or ignored at the cost of scientific progress itself...Given their resistance to all evidence to the contrary, today’s AIDS dissidents are more aptly referred to as AIDS denialists. —Nattrass, 2007[43]
AcuWill:
First I would like to introduce myself. I am a third year student in an Oriental Medicine program. I have been a “dissident” for 5-6 years. What began as a pre-med Biochemistry major’s academic pursuit of studying two opposing sides of a scientific theory ended up with the complete and utter questioning of science in general and all medical paradigm. This culminated in me finding Oriental Medicine and a physiological/healing system that did make sense.
Thanks for posting that. Actually I don't think that AIDS is solely caused by Yin Deficiency. If you go to read my entire posting, you will find that it is simply a very common theme within many of the Western manifestations of the disease. Further, I have never once stated that I am trying to cure anything with needles Rather, I am pointing out how a different system of physiology can be used to explain a lot of the disjointed phenomena regarding Western manifested AIDS.
Also, you make claims that my understanding of HIV and AIDS is based on Oriental medicine, not Western backed research. This is also false and not a claim that I ever made at all. If you were to read my actual and entire posting, it would be clear that I spent 2 years during my undergrad analyzing Peter Duesberg's and the orthodoxy's position for fun as an exercise to see how someone like Duesberg could have such an odd position.
talk about downplaying association with alternative therapies.
I honestly couldn't give two fucks about what AcuWill thinks and nobody should else either, because he is not in any sort of position to cause a major shift in medical thought or pharmaceutical practice.
On February 15 2011 02:40 denzelz wrote: There are those who deny AIDS just as there are people who deny global climate change. There are always outliers in science.
Well the argument is whether that climate change is instigated by man or completely natural, but that's for a different thread.
[...]They frequently invoke the meme of a "courageous independent scientist resisting orthodoxy", invoking the name of persecuted physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei[...]
Remember, not long ago a man was ostracized and thrown out from his profession for voicing such opinions. If his ideas had been analyzed or simply been allowed to be freely expressed, thousands of lives could have been saved and a new era of disease pathogenesis would have been ushered in. His name was Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis and all he introduced was the concept that washing of one's hands could prevent sepsis. The uproar in the medical community was far greater then the uproar generated by questioning whether HIV is the causative effect of AIDS.
Denialists often use their critique of the link between HIV and AIDS to promote alternative medicine as a cure, and attempt to convince HIV-infected individuals to avoid ARV therapy in favour of vitamins, massage, yoga and other unproven treatments. Despite this promotion, denialists will often downplay any association with alternative therapies, and attempt to portray themselves as "dissidents". An article in the Skeptical Inquirer stated:
AIDS denialists [prefer] to characterize themselves as brave "dissidents" attempting to engage a hostile medical/industrial establishment in genuine scientific "debate." They complain that their attempts to raise questions and pose alternative hypotheses have been unjustly rejected or ignored at the cost of scientific progress itself...Given their resistance to all evidence to the contrary, today’s AIDS dissidents are more aptly referred to as AIDS denialists. —Nattrass, 2007[43]
First I would like to introduce myself. I am a third year student in an Oriental Medicine program. I have been a “dissident” for 5-6 years. What began as a pre-med Biochemistry major’s academic pursuit of studying two opposing sides of a scientific theory ended up with the complete and utter questioning of science in general and all medical paradigm. This culminated in me finding Oriental Medicine and a physiological/healing system that did make sense.
Thanks for posting that. Actually I don't think that AIDS is solely caused by Yin Deficiency. If you go to read my entire posting, you will find that it is simply a very common theme within many of the Western manifestations of the disease. Further, I have never once stated that I am trying to cure anything with needles Rather, I am pointing out how a different system of physiology can be used to explain a lot of the disjointed phenomena regarding Western manifested AIDS.
Also, you make claims that my understanding of HIV and AIDS is based on Oriental medicine, not Western backed research. This is also false and not a claim that I ever made at all. If you were to read my actual and entire posting, it would be clear that I spent 2 years during my undergrad analyzing Peter Duesberg's and the orthodoxy's position for fun as an exercise to see how someone like Duesberg could have such an odd position.
talk about downplaying association with alternative therapies.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the debate. This thread is a joke as almost all debates of this nature are a joke. There is no sharing and discussion of information, only personal attacks and logical fallacies.
Must say, this has been an interesting thread, particularly AcuWill's contributions. If you look at the background of all the sources (notably the earlier ones in the thread), they all have something dodgy about them, usually having received heavy, heavy criticism (The 'House of Numbers' doco for example).
On February 14 2011 13:30 Azzur wrote: 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 thank you for linking me to that wikipedia article.
When I first read that article, my initial reaction was "wow, this is really biased against aids denialism". So I checked out what was going on in the talk page, and apparently one of the reason why the article was so harsh against aids denialism is that multiple pages on aids were sabotaged by members of the site questioningaids.com and as a result, aids denialists were labeled a fringe group by wikipedia editors. In wiki policy this means two things - one, proponents of fringe science are routinely banned from editing wikipedia (scientologists and dianetics is the most famous example of this) - two, what you'd expect NPOV to look like essentially goes out the window, because the NPOV on a fringe group is "these guys are insane".
First I would like to introduce myself. I am a third year student in an Oriental Medicine program. I have been a “dissident” for 5-6 years. What began as a pre-med Biochemistry major’s academic pursuit of studying two opposing sides of a scientific theory ended up with the complete and utter questioning of science in general and all medical paradigm. This culminated in me finding Oriental Medicine and a physiological/healing system that did make sense.
Then it suddenly hit me - AcuWill stands for Acupuncture Will. This guy has been running through this thread claiming to have done substantial medical research on HIV when in reality his medical research is on traditional chinese medicine. At any rate, AcuWill has made it quite clear that he doesn't believe HIV is the cause of AIDS. So, what does Acuwill believe is the real cause of AIDS?
This phenomenon transpires because there is a similarity in the stressors, and subsequently the terrain, that cause AIDS. This will lead to many of the same underlying patterns. For example, symptoms associated with Yin deficiency (I’m using this example to be consistent) include: night sweats, afternoon sensations of fever, anorexia, dry, deformed and brittle nails, black floaters in the eye (or symptoms associated with CMV-retinitis), constipation, dry and persistent cough, dry eyes, dry mouth with desire to drink in small sips throughout day, thirst that is not satisfied with drinking, grasshopper mind, difficulty falling asleep, agitation, restlessness, etc. What can cause this pattern? Worry, fear, over thinking, over work, the “gay party scene”, lack of sleep, drugs like meth, cocaine, smoking, smoking marijuana, lack of proper nourishment, excessive cleansing, diarrhea, alcohol, medications, etc. Proceeding further with the example above, when one has a profound Yin deficiency, the body’s Yang (Yin being the moist, cooling, physical substance of the body, and Yang being the metabolic force, heat and capacity of the body to perform its physiological duties) can separate, causing chaos. When one takes drugs that suppress the body’s motive force, like chemotherapy, then the negative physiological expression of the chaos will temporarily cease. This is one example as to why the drugs can be effective to alleviate some of the symptoms associated with AIDS.
In plain English, the cause of AIDS isn't a retrovirus, but rather, is caused by Yin deficiency.
Now, I don't have anything against traditional chinese medicine at all (some of it has been proven to have scientific value, although most of it hasn't), but when you reread his posts in this thread knowing this information, suddenly there's some underlying logic to his train of thought. The reason why he doesn't believe that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, is because he doesn't believe any disease is caused by a virus.
At first I thought it was quite ironic that a person who's profession is dealing with needles doesn't believe that a virus in which one of its primary methods of transfer from person to person is contaminated needles doesn't believe this virus causes any harm, then I realized how incredibly disturbing this is. If he is sincerely attempting to cure AIDS with acupuncture, I sincerely hope that he properly sterilizes his equipment.
On February 13 2011 13:21 AcuWill wrote: The fact that a large number of the posts replying to me attack me and basically accuse me of being a religious zealot is telling. It is difficult to discuss things in a rational manner which give rise to a lot of emotion. Paradigms fall under this tenant and HIV/AIDS discussions especially get the blood boiling.
I would like to apologize for this on behalf of the TL community. We originally had you figured as some sort of christian religious zealot, when in reality we had the wrong religion all along.
On February 15 2011 01:27 LunarC wrote: You know, AcuWill, you argue that the mechanism is unknown. But he's not arguing anything about the mechanism. He's arguing that the act of infection exists. Last time I checked, when a virus can gain access to a cell, it will typically proceed to destroy it and use it to replicate itself. Fuck HOW it does it.
It's not that it cannot be shown how it does it, rather that it does it at all. That is what is the point. Further, only 1-500 CD4+ lymphocytes are infected, with no evidence that HIV causes cell death.
Once again, that is not evidence that HIV is the causative factor in AIDS either way.
Actually had to laugh several times while reading that table. Not only are you linking to an article published by a scientist who has been widely discredited and had published articles retracted due to inaccuracy and ethics concerns, but 8 of the citations for that specific table are to his own work. The quality of that paper as scientific evidence could be seen as dodgy at best, and after reading the figure i wouldnt cite the article as a source for fear of being laughed at. I find it funny how you are ignoring the massive amount of reliable research that clearly indicates HIV is the main cause of AIDS (no im not going to link to any, its been done many times already in this thread and you are clearly intent on ignoring the evidence) and cite a source not worth the paper its printed on as all the evidence you need that AIDS is not caused by HIV. Conclusion: (and im fully prepared to accept a band/warning for this) AcuWill your a fucking retard mate.
Duesberg and his work with the former southafrican president Mbeki killed thousands of people. And Kary Mullis believes in aliens... (you dont need to respond to this)
This thread reminds me of a german Doctor that said cancer can 100% be cured if you only take vitamins. Chemotherapy or normal cancer threadment would kill people and it all would be a big consipracy by the pharma-industrie. Many actually believed him and there was a big wave of people denying normal threadment because of his theories. Many of them died that could have been helped with a normal threadment. (bevor ppl debate this, the main-stream medicine sure knows that certain effects with vitamins can influence a cancer development, but it is in no way a 100% alternative to normal medicine yet)
I have over the last 13 pages of thread tried to understand your viewpoints and read some of the material presented by you (linked videos and websites). And while i think it is a remarkable effort by you, and that you use some form of valid arguing at some points in time, i think you need to rethink your position in this debate.
First off i would like to call out your argument, that the people claiming that HIV is causative for AIDS, must prove that to you and that there is no such proof. This is a clever use of an argument, but invalid nonetheless. You see, while clinicians and scientist have a hard time elaborating on how HIV in fact causes our immune system to deteriorate and cause a syndrome described as being unable to efficiently protect the human body against certain life threating diseases ( Also called AIDS), it is hard to argue with the fact that every single person who suffers or have suffered (they are now dead) from AIDS have in cases when tested or otherwise been observed all been affected by HIV.
Whether or not a person have AIDS and hasn't previously been tested for HIV is irrelevant to the point of discussion of whether or not they then might not have had HIV before being diagnosed with full-blown AIDS, because in all cases of the opposite it has always proven to be true (because, as we will come to later, that AIDS is in fact a syndrome "caused" by a virus - not a virus that then evolves into a illness - its all cause and effect).
So to use argument repellent in this situation i will ask you in the same way, 'If AcuWill HIV is not the causative of AIDS, give me proof in an example, that untreated HIV has not later let to AIDS (this is kind of a trick) - and you may not use an example of a person still living and having untreated HIV (because these may later develop AIDS - *wink wink*) At the same time you must proof through example a case of AIDS where the person previously have been tested for HIV numerously times, all resulting negative in all cases (this is also a trick) - this person must have been proven unaffected by HIV'.
You see the reason why i used your own argument against you is because it will be hard for you to comply and find an answer to my "challenge".
Now back to the discussion about HIV and AIDS. First lets talk about what they stand for (verbally). HIV is Human Immunodeficiency Virus - What this means is that (and yes it does) the body has been affected with a virus that starts to deteriorate our immune system to a point where it gets hard /impossible to avoid certain infections (this is the short explanation - please lets keep this simple) - Then at some point (this varies greatly depending on a lot of things) we get to a stage of infection where we are then affected by certain other infections that can prove to be live threatening, this stage is where we call it AIDS or "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome" - We call it that because we have in fact gotten a infection as a direct cause of deficiency in our immune-system. We could get tuberculoses if exposed to it and we might not be able to recover from it, thus we are not dying because of "AIDS" we are dying because of an infection has entered our body and our immune-system is unable to recover, thus we have a syndrome. What HIV actually does is, that the virus need to multiply in order to survive, but unfortunately for us, it needs our already existing cells to do so. So what this ugly bugger does is that it finds the "director" in our immune-system the so called CD4 cell, it then inhabits this (yes i know, but lets keep it simple for everyone) cell and the cell dies /is replaced by the infectious virus, thus multiplying. The problem with this is, that every time it does this, we have less directors of our immune-system, meaning less capacity to deal with infections.
The funny thing is ( i know its not really funny) that you seem to completely forgo this process in your logic making, seemingly thinking that AIDS is a illness in itself (it is, as it is a syndrome), and that lots of things can cause this. You are right in thinking that a lot of different things can cause AIDS (meaning being classified with the syndrome AIDS which is due to a infection caused by HIV) - in that to have the "syndrome" AIDS you must be infected with a disease or illness as a result of a destroyed immune-system. The two things i am afraid goes hand in hand - HIV is a virus that leads to SERIOUS LACK OF CAPACITY TO DEAL WITH HARMFUL INFECTIONS THAT IN TURN LEADS TO HAVING A SYNDROME OF THIS EFFECT!
Its is important for me that everyone understands that HIV and AIDS are not explicitly two separate things, but merely words used to describe the process that happens when you are affected by the virus HIV and what happens after that to the point of illness as a direct consequence of HIV - diagnosed as the syndrome AIDS - You are treated for the infection that leads to AIDS (cancer for example - though a rare example) and HIV until your immune-system recovers (which it rarely does at this point because you are so ill that you cant be treated for HIV fully).
so please AcuWill while i understand wanting to "change" peoples view - at this point it is a harmful and directly wrong way to view these matters, and if you indeed are educated on this area - i strongly recommend you coming up with solid way of presenting your views and convincing people otherwise. Yin-deficiency............ You know, i do not even want to comment your ideas regarding this, but please trying to convince people that HIV is not the cause of AIDS is not only stupid and mis-informed but directly harmful. Debating the workings of HIV virus and how it behaves in different environments is a completely different and interesting matter - one with many unanswered questions - BUT it is important that you try to understand what you are talking about.
TLDR - to everyone else "AIDS is explanatory degree of the HIV virus - or stage if you will" -
On February 14 2011 21:07 Igakusei wrote: Wow, nice.
I'm posting this video in response to why people get so angry at AIDS denialists. It's not that we're suppressing science and forcing AIDS research down specific pathways, it's because of people like this:
@AcuWill It is one thing to be sceptical and wanting more evidence and another to claim there is "no probable cause of AIDS". For being such an educated person you seem to have a lack of scientific understanding.
@AcuWill It is one thing to be sceptical and wanting more evidence and another to claim there is "no probable cause of AIDS". For being such an educated person you seem to have a lack of scientific understanding.
Well he DID forsake standard medical training for... Oriental medicine. Seems like he's one of the types that are more prone to taking an argumentative approach rather than an unbiased, scientific one.
I'd like to point out that from a scientific standpoint, causation can never be proven by experiment, only correlation. Correlation does not prove causation, meaning that we can only work with correlations.
AcuWill demands scientific proof of causation. That is an impossible request.
I think it's great that people out there do question what's going on, and that nobody should personally attack someone just for disagreeing with the norms, as long as they have evidence to back up their claims somewhat.
I do disagree, however, with the standpoint that HIV is not a causative factor of AIDS, for reasons that have already been posted in this thread.
@AcuWill It is one thing to be sceptical and wanting more evidence and another to claim there is "no probable cause of AIDS". For being such an educated person you seem to have a lack of scientific understanding.
Well he DID forsake standard medical training for... Oriental medicine. Seems like he's one of the types that are more prone to taking an argumentative approach rather than an unbiased, scientific one.
I'd like to point out that from a scientific standpoint, causation can never be proven by experiment, only correlation. Correlation does not prove causation, meaning that we can only work with correlations.
AcuWill demands scientific proof of causation. That is an impossible request.
I would argue that you can "prove" causation if you describe the mechanism and support that with evidence. Of course I use "prove" loosely not in the mathematical sense. Basically in the beginning we had correlation between people having AIDS and those infected with HIV. But we are getting closer to have comprehensive mechanism for how HIV causes AIDS and mechanism is reasonable "proof" of causation.
On February 15 2011 01:20 AcuWill wrote: I do not agree with your third statement, and have questions about your second.
For point 2: Multiple studies have been done. Knockouts of CCR5 or CXCR4 result in little to no infection of CD4+ cells with HIV in vitro. Antibodies specific to these cell surface receptors also result in reduced infection of CD4+ cells with HIV.
Also a quote from your last source, "Despite more than 20 years of study, the mechanism by which HIV so effectively depletes CD4 T cells in untreated, infected subjects remains a mystery." That is hardly proof that HIV infects CD4+ lymphocytes and causes them to die. In fact, your source indicates that how it occurs is a mystery, ie. there is no evidence.
What he's saying is that previous research has been unable to figure out how HIV kills so many CD4+ cells while seemingly only infecting a few. What his research is showing is that many cells successfully fight off an HIV infection but apoptose suggesting an explanation for why CD4+ depletion happens when only 1% of CD4+ cells seem like they are infected.
Asides from the actual mechanism of CD4+ depletion, time course studies have been done on subjects infected with HIV as well as studies on primates infected with HIV showing a marked decrease in CD4+ cell count. Similarly, treatment with antiretrovirals shows an increase in CD4+ count. The logical explanation is that HIV depletes CD4+ cell count and that ARV's, by preventing HIV from multiplying prevent that depletion. Just because there is a gap in understanding does not mean that it is suddenly false.
You have resorted to arguing other points, leading further and further from the crux of the argument, that there is no proof that HIV is the causative factor of AIDS. You are in fact supporting my argument by doing so.
Apparently trying to discuss the mechanism of HIV is "detracting from the crux of the argument".
@AcuWill It is one thing to be sceptical and wanting more evidence and another to claim there is "no probable cause of AIDS". For being such an educated person you seem to have a lack of scientific understanding.
Well he DID forsake standard medical training for... Oriental medicine. Seems like he's one of the types that are more prone to taking an argumentative approach rather than an unbiased, scientific one.
I'd like to point out that from a scientific standpoint, causation can never be proven by experiment, only correlation. Correlation does not prove causation, meaning that we can only work with correlations.
AcuWill demands scientific proof of causation. That is an impossible request.
i think he switched to oriental medicine because he bombed the mcat and couldn't get into med school. or he did well on the mcat and didn't pass any interviews and still couldn't get into med school.
On February 15 2011 04:37 LeoTheLion wrote: i think he switched to oriental medicine because he bombed the mcat and couldn't get into med school. or he did well on the mcat and didn't pass any interviews and still couldn't get into med school.
I'm not sure that's fair. In my experience intelligence doesn't seem to correlate very strongly with decreased belief in pseudoscience. I wouldn't be surprised if it did, but the host of highly intelligent people who believe in various fairy tales certainly makes your inference that anyone this deluded must also be stupid seem rather empty.
http://www.drday.com/ for instance. Total and complete crackpot, but she apparently managed to have a successful career for years before she finally went over the edge.
Here's an excerpt:
You see, these supposed "infective agents" such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, and now Prions, are NOT the CAUSE of the diseases, they are the RESULT of a diseased body caused by the wrong diet and lifestyle. These bacteria, viruses, fungi and prions are actually the "clean-up crew", formed by the body, to get rid of the mess and clean out the body.
We have been taught that germs CAUSE disease. But germs DON'T cause disease anymore than flies cause garbage! This is explained in detail on my video "Drugs NEVER Cure Disease."
On February 15 2011 02:43 LunarC wrote: I honestly couldn't give two fucks about what AcuWill thinks and nobody should else either, because he is not in any sort of position to cause a major shift in medical thought or pharmaceutical practice.
No they shouldn't, but sadly many will. If people like this, who are well spoken and relatively convincing, don't have anyone who stands up to them and point out the errors they are making they would most likely be able to convince a fair bunch of people. In the best case this is simply luring people into believing things that are blatantly false and undermining most of what science has tried to accomplish. In the worst cases, like this I might add, it's not only dangerous but potentially lethal.
People who actually stand up to these phonies and pseudo-scientists, be it creationists, aids denialists or holocaust denialists, and take the seemingly pointless debate get far too little credit. Hats off to all people who actually keep arguing the truth in this thread. I for one appreciate it a lot.
On February 15 2011 01:53 AcuWill wrote: I have to go now and do some real life, but I would like to point out that HIV causes AIDS theory came about in the mid 1980s. So, posting articles proving the causative factor of AIDS is HIV that are recent is a bit of an issue
Am I missing something here or is this really as stupid as it seems to me? However I try to wrap my head around it this is one of the more stupid things I've read in a long time.
On February 15 2011 05:10 Badboyrune wrote: Am I missing something here or is this really as stupid as it seems to me? However I try to wrap my head around it this is one of the more stupid things I've read in a long time.
Acuwill has posted a few articles that call into question the consistency of testing for HIV in patients and a few other bits that attack the methodology of specific parts of AIDS research. He hasn't actually shown anything that disproves that HIV causes AIDS.
Whether or not he recognizes that he presents a logical fallacy as fact is another thing. Seeing as he's a proponent of alternative medicine, I'm inclined to think he actually believes what he says.
ok i just read the 2010 review paper by chigwedere and essex (http://www.springerlink.com/content/108174nr1788q73w/fulltext.pdf) and it provides pretty clear and strong evidence that HIV infection is the causative agent of AIDS. acuwill you sure you read this? essex also quotes a bunch of primary literature sources which you can look at and sift through the primary data.
On February 15 2011 03:49 TWIX_Heaven wrote: sigh............
/end of thread
Actually people have a tremendous capacity for ignoring things they don't like.
On February 13 2011 12:35 Space Invader wrote: How is there even an argument about this? I've been working with women and children with HIV/AIDS for years, HIV isn't exactly the same thing as AIDS, obviously. You can live with HIV your whole life and be healthy. But HIV becomes AIDS once you have multiple infectious diseases.
EPT
Why can't I say someone is dumb for their ideas and provide illogical reasoning for it? These guys are my role models, Btw the Earth is flat and God created both himself and everything. Go prove me wrong and prove you're not the coward we all think you are.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aOCNS.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/3rtn3.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://molbio.med.miami.edu/HIV-Aids/Pictures/wbtests.gif)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/RO2k5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.lakersbrethren.net/files/FlingPooLMAO.jpg)
