Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13
  1. #11
    shautieh's Avatar
    shautieh is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Skipea
    Posts
    5,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    And? A good scientist also knows when he's proven wrong. The scientific community would not accept an erraneous theory if a better alternative theory would be proven. The AIDS dissidents are just like creationists, they cling on to their outdated beliefs and ignore the facts.

    Yeah, they brought it up and they were proven wrong. The case is pretty much closed, or at least is should be. There might have been some doubt ten years ago, but today the HIV hypothesis has been conclusively proven.
    Most articles are quite old so maybe they did give up (i don't know), but at least you just agreed their points "were" legitimate (especially as the HIV theory was invented to explain what they didn't understand at the time, without much backing).
    Concerning erroneous theories, there are countless examples where the scientific community headed in the wrong direction and laughed at others works even though they were declared better in the end.


    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    And answer this: If the HIV virus doesn't exist, how come that modern antiretroviral drugs stop the progression of AIDS? This fact conclusively proves that AIDS is caused by a retrovirus.

    The evidence can be found here. I suggest that you read through the rest of the site as well.
    I am not so sure...
    First, the perth group and etc. do not say HIV doesn't exist (cf http://www.theperthgroup.com/FAQ/question2.html <= Btw, i find it highly unprofessional to call them AIDS denialist as they are not and it only proves the lack of facts the "non denialists aka good people" have against the others)
    Second, if antiretrovirals are effective for a percentage of people (and they are), it doesn't exclude the fact that a portion of what we call AIDS may not have been caused by a retroviral at all ! Especially as the tests in Africa are often primitive, and even for more advanced tests what is tested is only the proportion of some antibodies instead of the detection and isolation of the virus :P (again, unless it has changed since then)

  2. #12
    Saizou is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    1,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh View Post
    Most articles are quite old so maybe they did give up (i don't know), but at least you just agreed their points "were" legitimate (especially as the HIV theory was invented to explain what they didn't understand at the time, without much backing).
    Yes, the points might have been legitimate ten years ago. However, if you don't give up after you've been proven wrong you're not a good scientist.

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh
    Concerning erroneous theories, there are countless examples where the scientific community headed in the wrong direction and laughed at others works even though they were declared better in the end.
    The scientific community has accepted much more controversial theories in the past. And every time they did so because the theory could be proven in some way, often after only a few years. The AIDS dissidents haven't proven their theory, and the majority of experts think that it's wrong even after all these years. It seems pretty clear to me on which side the facts are.

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh
    I am not so sure...
    First, the perth group and etc. do not say HIV doesn't exist (cf http://www.theperthgroup.com/FAQ/question2.html <= Btw, i find it highly unprofessional to call them AIDS denialist as they are not and it only proves the lack of facts the "non denialists aka good people" have against the others)
    Have you considered the fact that if HIV does cause AIDS, the AIDS dissidents have blood on their hands. By denying the causation they facilitate the spread of AIDS and cause many unnecessary deaths. That is why they are not the average whackjobs, but genuinely dangerous.

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh
    Second, if antiretrovirals are effective for a percentage of people (and they are), it doesn't exclude the fact that a portion of what we call AIDS may not have been caused by a retroviral at all!
    What the hell does cause the rest then? Your immune system doesn't shut down for no reason, now does it?

    Quote Originally Posted by shautieh
    Especially as the tests in Africa are often primitive, and even for more advanced tests what is tested is only the proportion of some antibodies instead of the detection and isolation of the virus :P (again, unless it has changed since then)
    And why the fuck are there HIV antibodies in people if they don't have the virus? Antibodies aren't magicked there by fairies, you know.

  3. #13
    shautieh's Avatar
    shautieh is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Skipea
    Posts
    5,340

    Default

    if you read some of the links i posted you would see how non HIV antibodies could be mistaken as ones (no need for fairies ), cf the second part of http://www.theperthgroup.com/FAQ/question5.html. Also, there are lots of sickness, viruses, etc. that weaken one's immune system already...
    There is also the problem of the precision of the tests, especially in Africa.

    A quote of another article (http://www.theperthgroup.com/POPPAPERS/yinyang.html) :
    In 1988 Dr. Kary Mullis, the 1993 Nobel prize winner for Chemistry was employed by the US National Institutes for Health (NIH) to set up analyses for HIV testing. When preparing his report he asked a virologist colleague for a reference that HIV is "the probable cause of AIDS". He was told he did not need one. Mullis was surprised.(1)
    "I disagreed. It was totally remarkable to me that the individual who had discovered the cause of a deadly and as-yet-uncured disease would not be continually referenced in the scientific papers until that disease was cured and forgotten… There had to be a published paper, or perhaps several of them, which taken together indicated that HIV was the probable cause of AIDS". Otherwise, as Mullis was forced to conclude, "The entire campaign against a disease increasingly regarded as the twentieth-century Black Death was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall. That defied both scientific and common sense".
    A decade later Mullis was to write, "I finally understood why I was having so much trouble finding the references that linked HIV to AIDS. There weren’t any".(2) Indeed, an interested non-specialist observer, armed with a few contacts and a good library, merely has to scratch the surface to realise that the HIV theory of AIDS begs many more questions than it answers.(1-63 *)
    If even nobel prize winners are incompetent assholes now, we should indeed worry :P (This is just to show they arn't all ignorants or idiots, and they had some good reasons to reject the "bible").

    The scientific community has accepted much more controversial theories in the past. And every time they did so because the theory could be proven in some way, often after only a few years. The AIDS dissidents haven't proven their theory, and the majority of experts think that it's wrong even after all these years. It seems pretty clear to me on which side the facts are.
    What's weird is that, usually, it is to scientists to prove their own theories and NOT to those opposed to your theory to prove its contrary...
    If the facts are really against the dissidents years later then fine, but then they were still contributing for a healthy scientific discussion.



    Concerning some diseases which were seen wrongly by scientists for a LONG time, there are pellagra, beriberi and scurvy which are all caused by vitamin deficiencies but in the past were regarded as infectious and people who suffered from them were shunned and quarantined. And that was the case for a LONG time

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162