nobel prize winner challenges the myths about aids

[mealticket]

It does make you wonder though...Why not treat the symptoms instead of the disease? If a person has a cold because they have AIDS, giving them AZTs doesnt seem like itd make them better only worse...people don't die from AIDS they die of the illnesses they contract due to having AIDS...

[Stavros]

It does make you wonder though...Why not treat the symptoms instead of the disease? If a person has a cold because they have AIDS, giving them AZTs doesnt seem like itd make them better only worse...people don't die from AIDS they die of the illnesses they contract due to having AIDS...

A large number of the people who 'die' from Malaria actually die from liver failure -so what is the cause of death? Is it, strictly speaking, liver failure? -Does this mean that there is a conspiracy to make money from research into Malaria in Africa and that the real problem is liver disease? Here is a factual statement on malaria from the WHO:
Most deaths occur among children living in Africa where a child dies every 45 seconds of malaria and the disease accounts for approximately 20% of all childhood deaths.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs094/en/

No -doctors treat the symptons of malaria -fever- then have to cope with the impact the disease has on the liver, because the symptoms are part of a developing crisis for the patient which, if not dealt with early enough, cannot be controlled. Preventing infections in the first place is the key to defeating malaria, as it is with all diseases. The film is poorly structured, incoherent at times, and creates more confusion than is needed at a time when attitudes to science seem to be reckless rather than cautious, and merely a matter of opinion rather than fact. Scientists will always disagree with each other, but there ae ways of handling this debate, just as there are ways of debating the science of climate change and global warming; but introduce some politics, and the focus becomes blurred and suddenly everyone -including me, and you- has an opinion; having an expertise in science is apparently of little importance.

There are better ways of discussing these issues.

[daman232323]

You're right Bella, one small group of scientists denies the existence of AIDS headed by Kerry Mullis who won a nobel prize for developing PCR (amazing invention and definitely deserving of the nobel prize). If you did any sort of research on Mullis at all you would find out that he is an adamant believer in astrology, once talked to a green glowing raccoon, and attributes his development of PCR to his use of LSD. This is exactly the problem in America, the country that on the whole detests science in favor of religion (you want to talk about dogma Bella), but yet will back someone who has had one to many acid trips. You talk about letters after names and degrees, who are you to assume that I have none of those? I'm fairly certain that I've read more about HIV/AIDS in peer reviewed journals then you ever will and like any good science curriculum will do they will show you the antagonistic view point as well. I spent an entire semester learning about HIV/AIDS and also HIV/AIDS denialism. Why don't you ask South Africa how denialism worked out for them under the leadership of their former president Mbeki. So not sure how when all the evidence is backing the overwhelming majority in the scientific community how you consider this dogma (which actually means supporting an opinion or belief without the backing of evidence, thus why religious views are often referred to as dogmatic). Next thing you are going to tell me that the intelligent design movement is legitimate science rather than pseudoscience.

Its funny how you also claim that I don't support skepticism when I am fully skeptical about religion. As a matter of fact I am an atheist, so there goes that nice little hypothesis of yours. I live my life and form my views based on real evidence, not based on one doped up man's thoughts that he has done no research on and the ignorant individuals that he's convinced he's correct. I truly hope you are just being a contrarian here, because you seem to enjoy playing that role.

Mealticket, what you describe is often actually a problem in modern western medicine. We often treat the symptoms that a patient presents with, which is definitely an important part of medicine, but fail to acknowledge or treat the underlying causes, which are generally based in behaviors. Preventative medicine has been shown to be much more effective at low and behold, preventing morbidity and mortality than treating just symptoms alone.

So would I encourage everyone to watch that wonderful little 2 hour denialism documentary, definitely. But I would caution any who watch it to do so with skepticism and if you aren't familiar with the reasons that the scientific community has concluded that HIV and subsequent development of AIDS is a real issue, that you should do some research (not on wikipedia) in peer reviewed journals to understand more about the problem.

[BellaBellucci]

This is exactly the problem in America, the country that on the whole detests science in favor of religion (you want to talk about dogma Bella), but yet will back someone who has had one to many acid trips.

I'm not a member of 'the whole' in this regard. And I'm not arguing on behalf of anybody in particular. I just think that when smart people dispense their knowledge, we should pay attention. We don't have to agree, but we should most definitely consider. Furthermore, it's easy to dismiss an idea because you don't like the messenger, but lots of really smart people, scientists especially, are eccentric because they keep an open mind, something it doesn't seem you're willing to do.

And there are multiple scientists who don't believe that HIV causes AIDS, not just one, plus you can't argue with the numbers regarding the spread of the disease.

I for one, as a former member of the cisgendered, heterosexual population, have met very few people with AIDS (although I personally know one of the longest-living survivors), and none who were straight men or women, so while there's no doubt in my mind that there are some people who have been hit hard by this disease and I sympathize with them, the way AIDS affects one is simply a matter of the company one keeps.

And like 9/11 explanations, there are a lot of inconsistencies in the orthodox theory. Again, I'm not advocating that everyone go out and have unprotected sex, but how nice would it be to find out that we can without the risk of death?

You talk about letters after names and degrees, who are you to assume that I have none of those? I'm fairly certain that I've read more about HIV/AIDS in peer reviewed journals then you ever will and like any good science curriculum will do they will show you the antagonistic view point as well.

Of course they do. How else could they create and perpetuate a counter-argument? Just because you were taught how to defend an allegation, in this case, that AIDS is caused by HIV, that doesn't mean that the arguments are correct, only that they're valid until otherwise proven, but so are the counter-arguments.

What really gets me is that kings and religious leaders have manipulated the general population for thousands of years, and that somehow, even though AIDS disproportionally affects those groups that the latter would like to see disappear from the face of the earth, you don't believe that the so-called 'experts' could be lying to us about this.

I spent an entire semester learning about HIV/AIDS and also HIV/AIDS denialism. Why don't you ask South Africa how denialism worked out for them under the leadership of their former president Mbeki.

If AIDS causes the destruction of the immune system, you don't think that something other than a retrovirus could cause it, such as, oh, I don't know... malnutrition?!

So not sure how when all the evidence is backing the overwhelming majority in the scientific community how you consider this dogma (which actually means supporting an opinion or belief without the backing of evidence, thus why religious views are often referred to as dogmatic). Next thing you are going to tell me that the intelligent design movement is legitimate science rather than pseudoscience.

Pseudoscience is regurgitating what you are taught without critical analysis, and it corrupted mainstream science years ago. Why did we stop studying alternative theories to HIV/AIDS? Because we were so desperate for an explanation back in those days and probably would have accepted anything.

Its funny how you also claim that I don't support skepticism when I am fully skeptical about religion. As a matter of fact I am an atheist, so there goes that nice little hypothesis of yours. I live my life and form my views based on real evidence, not based on one doped up man's thoughts that he has done no research on and the ignorant individuals that he's convinced he's correct.

If you're skeptical of religion, then you should see how religion and a disease that largely targets its enemies should be scrutinized as closely as possible.

I truly hope you are just being a contrarian here, because you seem to enjoy playing that role.

I fight to keep minds open. That's all.

~BB~

[MdR Dave]

An admitted LSD user? I knew he was dosed in that video!

[fred41]

once talked to a green glowing raccoon, dogmatic).

Mullis writes of having once spoken to a glowing green raccoon. Mullis arrived at his cabin in the woods of northern California around midnight one night in 1985, and, having turned on the lights and left sacks of groceries on the floor, set off for the outhouse with a flashlight. "On the way, he saw something glowing under a fir tree. Shining the flashlight on this glow, it seemed to be a raccoon with little black eyes. The raccoon spoke, saying, ‘Good evening, doctor,’ and he replied with a hello." Mullis later speculated that the raccoon ‘was some sort of holographic projection and … that multidimensional physics on a macroscopic scale may be responsible

[BellaBellucci]

Mullis writes of having once spoken to a glowing green raccoon. Mullis arrived at his cabin in the woods of northern California around midnight one night in 1985, and, having turned on the lights and left sacks of groceries on the floor, set off for the outhouse with a flashlight. "On the way, he saw something glowing under a fir tree. Shining the flashlight on this glow, it seemed to be a raccoon with little black eyes. The raccoon spoke, saying, ‘Good evening, doctor,’ and he replied with a hello." Mullis later speculated that the raccoon ‘was some sort of holographic projection and … that multidimensional physics on a macroscopic scale may be responsible

That's funny and distracting but not relevant to the argument. I just hope you're not a Timothy Leary fan. People thought he was pretty crazy too, but he was also a genius. The two tend to go hand-in-hand.

~BB~

[fred41]

That's funny and distracting but not relevant to the argument. I just hope you're not a Timothy Leary fan. People thought he was pretty crazy too, but he was also a genius. The two tend to go hand-in-hand.

~BB~

You're right! Conspiracy theorists usually save someone from murder or assassination, UFO believers protect us from evil aliens and the mentally ill are always harmless eccentrics who remind you of Santa Claus.

...Oh wait a minute, that's the movies.

I'm sorry, but when you combine his raccoon quote with his belief in Astrology (...really ??!!)...he loses vast amounts of credibility.

[BellaBellucci]

You're right! Conspiracy theorists usually save someone from murder or assassination, UFO believers protect us from evil aliens and the mentally ill are always harmless eccentrics who remind you of Santa Claus.

...Oh wait a minute, that's the movies.

I'm sorry, but when you combine his raccoon quote with his belief in Astrology (...really ??!!)...he loses vast amounts of credibility.

That's mighty open minded of you to reduce a man to two issues that are only minor aspects of his character. If credibility is lost that easily with you, where a few things you don't like about a person makes you completely lose faith in them, despite their credentials, then your approval must be reserved only for the perfect, AKA 'God.'

This guy's already gotten his worldwide recognition despite your objections. Get with the program.

~BB~

[MatiasTz]

Well, to start with, that video was made in 1994 -- oh, to hell with it -- here's some places to start reading:

http://www.aidstruth.org/NIAIDEvidenceThatHIVCausesAIDS

This site, unlike anything I've seen from Gary Null, Kari Mullis or Peter Duesenberg actually cites studies and information. Mullis and Duesenberg still claim that the HIV virus has never been isolated or photographed. Both are totally incorrect.

Here's some fun about Gary Null --

http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/null.html

Don't listen to me and certainly don't listen to Bella. Talk to your doctors.