nobel prize winner challenges the myths about aids

[addicted]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IifgAvXU3ts&feature=player_embedded#!

[addicted]

The Greatest Medical Fraud in History - The Pain, Profit and Politics of AIDS - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vT3b_0doyRk&feature=related)

[daman232323]

You are an absolute moron...that is all.

[BellaBellucci]

You are an absolute moron...that is all.

You're welcome to your opinion, but so is he, and so are the makers of the documentary. If we don't question everything in this age of science and reason, then why do we patronize those virtues in the first place? I'm not saying I'm sold, but you have to concede the possibility.

~BB~

[addicted]

You are an absolute moron...that is all.

you sound offended that this challenges your somewhat religous view of hiv and aids. this was meant for people like you.

[BellaBellucci]

you sound offended that this challenges your somewhat religous view of hiv and aids. this was meant for people like you.

Never question the orthodoxy. Someone might call you a bad name. :rolleyes:

~BB~

[MdR Dave]

All those lights and his pupils are HUGE! What do you think he dosed?

[WooWoo]

Run it through the Baloney Detection Kit

1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
2. Does the source make similar claims?
3. Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
4. Does this fit with the way the world works?
5. Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
6. Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
7. Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
8. Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
9. Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
10. Are personal beliefs driving the claim?

See instructions on its use.
(http://www.michaelshermer.com/2009/06/baloney-detection-kit/)

[daman232323]

Nothing religious about my views of HIV/AIDS. Purely scientific, your video has as much credibility as the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Am I personally offended by these, of course not. But I'm sure the many who have had family members die from HIV and or AIDS would be very offended. I happen to be a member of the scientific and medical communities and its sickening to have some moron post something about which he/she clearly understands nothing. Bella, I have nothing against skepticism, but you post about science and reason when addicted's post and linked video have neither of. So the only thing I'm skeptical of is the OP.

[BellaBellucci]

Nothing religious about my views of HIV/AIDS.

I think a better word would be 'dogmatic.'


Purely scientific, your video has as much credibility as the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

That's just your opinion. And you should question 9/11.


Am I personally offended by these, of course not. But I'm sure the many who have had family members die from HIV and or AIDS would be very offended.

You know what else might offend them? Finding out that they were lied to, leading to the loss of said family members. Yet I for one would like to know if my child was a victim of something like this.



I happen to be a member of the scientific and medical communities and its sickening to have some moron post something about which he/she clearly understands nothing.

I know, right? Those guys with all of those abbreviations after their names and that Nobel Prize winner are a bunch of dopes. You're way smarter than they are!


Bella, I have nothing against skepticism...

Ummmm, yes you do. :lol:

~BB~

[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. :geek:


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. :lol:

~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. :lol:

~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. :lol:

~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.

[BellaBellucci]

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

I've already said that I'm not dispensing medical advice and that my arguments are just an intellectual exercise. :lol:

~BB~

[feneman]

I can't believe this to be my first message on the site (I'm mostly a "lurker" on many sites just cuz i like to read ppls opinions but I have little to contribute to the discussion ... btw, I'm feneman, nice to meet you all.)

I have to side with Damian on this one,

leaving the "treatment medicine" vs "prevention medicine" aside (I do believe preventive medicine should be the #1 priority, specially with increasing medical costs.)

The argument that HIV does not cause AIDS is a very dangerous one.
As a healthcare professional I have no qualms with personal beliefs that influence just that one person who believes it (because even if they might be wrong they are entitled to "refusal of treatment"), but when it starts to affect other people who do not share those views, then it stops being a matter of personal beliefs and it becomes a matter of public health (oops, i guess i will touch preventive medicine after all :P.)

If a person really doesn't believe HIV causes AIDS ... why would he be inclined to wear a rubber ? Why would he tell his sex partner ? hell, he might even decide to give blood, why not ?

Again, everyone is entitled to their opinions, some people believe prayer will cure cancer, others believe global warming to be a hoax, some ppl even want "creationism" to be taught as hard science and off course, some ppl believe AIDS is actually a fake phenomenon/disease created in order to make even more money.
And as it is their believes, I will let them make their own choices accordingly ... as long as it doesn't affect other ppl.
(I believe my future kids should have the right to learn about real science and know the difference between science and pseudoscience, I believe living in a clean world should be a priority and a legacy handed down to future generations,
And I believe it is my responsibility to offer the best advice and the most information about diseases and treatments to ppl, although it i THEIR choice ultimately

As a side note,
I will not lie, pharmaceuticals is big business, but if I recall correctly HIV medication is not the industries biggest cash cow, I do believe cancer medication and widespread common meds (tylenol, pantoloc, lipitor, asaphen,etc...) are actually the biggest money makers (I could very well be wrong in this though.)

[daman232323]

You do recall correctly feneman about HIV meds not being a cash cow. HIV and AIDS disproportionally effects people in countries like Africa where sexual education and large pharmaceutical industries aren't very prevalent. More people in countries where pharmaceuticals can be sold for a lot of money (i.e. USA/Canada/Europe) are affected by things like cancers and thus that is where the bulk of the research dollars go.

I'm you as well feneman about the dangers of these thoughts because of their effects on others. Studies have estimated that during the pro-AIDS denial era of South Africa over 340,000 additional people and 35,000 babies were infected with disease.

Bella it is clear that you understand very little about science if you say malnutrition may cause AIDS. Certainly malnutrition can compromise your immune system, but malnutrition to that extreme will kill you long before your immune system is compromised enough to kill you. Again, I'm fine with skepticism and keeping an open mind but not at the cost of lives and trying to control a pandemic. Your view point is not only contrarian, but irresponsible. I am well aware of pharmaceutical companies as I deal with on a daily basis as a healthcare professional. In the future I'd love to partake in more of your intellectual exercises, just not when it could lead to the harm of others. Primum non nocere.

[BellaBellucci]

Your view point is not only contrarian, but irresponsible. I am well aware of pharmaceutical companies as I deal with on a daily basis as a healthcare professional. In the future I'd love to partake in more of your intellectual exercises, just not when it could lead to the harm of others. Primum non nocere.

Irresponsible? Who am I? Dr. Oz? I'm a former political analyst and activist, not a scientist. Anybody who would take medical advice from me deserves whatever they get. I've been quite clear about my intentions since my first post in this thread. :lol:

~BB~

[feneman]

Primum non nocere.

LOL, holy crap, I see someone has taken their Hippocratic oath... :P

glad to see I am not the only one awake at these hours.

BTW, Bella, I hope you understand I am not saying anything against you, I am just saying that as a mental exercise it's cool and all but to do such exercise one must hold all the pieces.
I would never discuss American politics beyond superficial chit-chat without being fully aware of each player's positions on certain issues (and their argument, etc...), because it would just be misinformed guesswork on my behalf to do so (you mentioned you were a political analyst :P), just as I would not play chess without all the pieces.

Also, you are a "little" wrong about (notice how I said a little :P) what you said:
"Irresponsible? Who am I? Dr. Oz? I'm a former political analyst and activist, not a scientist. Anybody who would take medical advice from me deserves whatever they get."

it's true that you are not a scientist, it does not mean you cannot read about it or make sure what has been brought forth to you is accurate.
My family loves to talk politics, and although none of us are in that field, we do make an effort to read and educate ourselves on the issues that interests us (healthcare, education, foreign policy.)

Also, unfortunately/fortunately when you (ppl in general) talk, others will listen, no matter if you don't know much about what you talk about or even if you put disclaimers stating you have little knowledge (exhibit "A": glenn beck :D.)
Ppl will always listen / ask advice to others they know (and aren't necessarily in that field) , when you've had a headache, has a Physician actually told you to take a tylenol or was it more of a family member / friend / TV ad ? and yet you followed these other ppls advice. Haven't you ever had a nephew (younger family member) ask you how this or that works etc ?

You cannot claim that just because you are not a scientist that you can dig out an obscure "contrarian" theory without at least researching what the general consensus on it is, while telling ppl that that particular theory should be entertained and considered. You simply cannot for you are only putting forth a theory as a "radical new concept" for ppl to think about without doing yourself the legwork of what is the actual standing of this theory and why / how it has been refuted / debunked.
It's like saying "birthers" have a valid point without actually looking or wanting to look at obama's birth certificate.
And yes ppl will listen, and maybe they shouldn't but nobody should suffer from an easily preventable disease.

N.B.
No matter how high up the chain you are, no-one is exempt from mistakes:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

(Dr. Watson [yes, i know :P] is highly regarded as one of the fathers of modern biology ... to the level of Dr Cricks, Dr. Pasteur, etc..., yet he still managed to make quite a bonehead comment)

[BellaBellucci]

Ppl will always listen / ask advice to others they know

I know you mean well, and I know this will come off rudely, but I hope you'll forgive me: that's other peoples' problem, not mine. Just because people believe everything they read, it doesn't make the authors responsible if they are admitting to speculation, particularly when there are those out there who would intentionally lie without remorse. Breaking the pattern of people taking 'knowledge' for granted is precisely what my argument is all about.

By your logic, we should never air any programs that require a disclaimer. No Beavis and Butt-Head, no Jackass, no Real Sex, no Glenn Beck, no War of the Worlds. We shouldn't have the freedom to make atheist statements, art, or music, because to do so might lead others to eternal damnation, whatever that hell that means. :lol:


You cannot claim that just because you are not a scientist that you can dig out an obscure "contrarian" theory without at least researching what the general consensus on it is.

I think I, like everybody else who grew up in the 80's, knows what the general consensus is. I hardly think that's in dispute. I'm not asking anybody to outright disbelieve it, and I specifically told people to continue to protect themselves in the orthodox manner (condoms); I'm simply asking them to question that orthodoxy because it might be found to be wrong. Or it might not. Again, what if the allegations are true? Then what?! We'll be sorry that we didn't follow another line of research since the beginning. That's all I'm saying; I'm not telling people to have risky sex and share needles!


And yes ppl will listen, and maybe they shouldn't but nobody should suffer from an easily preventable disease.

People listen to me? Here?! When the hell did this happen? :lol:


N.B.
No matter how high up the chain you are, no-one is exempt from mistakes:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-pioneers-theory-africans-are-less-intelligent-than-westerners-394898.html

(Dr. Watson [yes, i know :P] is highly regarded as one of the fathers of modern biology ... to the level of Dr Cricks, Dr. Pasteur, etc..., yet he still managed to make quite a bonehead comment)

Sometimes smart people do dumb things. That doesn't make them dumb. And I'll bet he had tenure. Stupid theory or not, people earn that for a reason, right?

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree because I never budge from a position of desiring further exploration until I'm convinced of something beyond a reasonable doubt. On HIV/AIDS, I'm not, but I'll still take all current necessary precautions because you can never be too careful.

~BB~

[feneman]

I know you mean well, and I know this will come off rudely, but I hope you'll forgive me: that's other peoples' problem, not mine. Just because people believe everything they read, it doesn't make the authors responsible if they are admitting to speculation, particularly when there are those out there who would intentionally lie without remorse. Breaking the pattern of people taking 'knowledge' for granted is precisely what my argument is all about.

Hum... how rude !! :P just kidding :D
I get where you come from, and no-one should EVER take everything at face value, when I wanna get some news I'll check out reuters, deutchwelle, TV5, clarin, le monde diplomatique and even the english version of al-jazeera to at least try to get a semblance of an idea of what is going on;
but not everyone is "gifted" by natural curiosity or a will to see things from different points of views.
My main argument is that, all of this is fine and well to say that "it's their own fault" when it effects them, and them alone; but we unfortunately live in a community and things affect others.
Nowadays, it is unfortunate to say, but education is more of a privilege than a right, and not everyone has the necessary tools to know any better or to further dig for the truth.
I was fortunate enough to have educated parents, to go to university for free, and to have some knowledge in a particular field; and I feel it is part of my duty to try to educate others who weren't as lucky.

I don't know if it is a good analogy but:
Some experts say that gays/Tgirls/lesbians etc... should not be aloud to adopt kids because it would screw up the kids mental maturation (I think they are basing themselves on Freud's theories mostly.)
I say BS, you say BS, but a lot of ppl will say: "well, the ppl talking about this have a lot of capital letters after their names, they must know what they are talking about". In the end, this will hurt a lot more ppl than those who actually believe it.
Did you know that homosexuality was considered a mental disease until 1974
(if I am not mistaken it was reviewed in the DSM-II) ? Now these were renowned psychiatrist who one would normally trust in knowing what they are talking about and yet... Fortunately, those that believe such things were ridiculed into oblivion.




By your logic, we should never air any programs that require a disclaimer. No Beavis and Butt-Head, no Jackass, no Real Sex, no Glenn Beck, no War of the Worlds. We shouldn't have the freedom to make atheist statements, art, or music, because to do so might lead others to eternal damnation, whatever that hell that means. :lol:


wait what ?!?!?!? real sex has a disclaimer ?? :P
holly hyperbole batman !!! LOL
I don't see how music, art or atheist statements would need disclaimers.
Atheists base their views on science, art (music being... was an art-form :P) is an opinion / social-political commentary and is never presented as fact. Beavis and butt-head / jackass are presented as entertainment.
I have qualms when things are presented as FACT when it has no backing whatsoever and these facts will HURT many people ... see it as a part of "preventive medicine".




I think I, like everybody else who grew up in the 80's, knows what the general consensus is. I hardly think that's in dispute. I'm not asking anybody to outright disbelieve it, and I specifically told people to continue to protect themselves in the orthodox manner (condoms); I'm simply asking them to question that orthodoxy because it might be found to be wrong. Or it might not. Again, what if the allegations are true? Then what?! We'll be sorry that we didn't follow another line of research since the beginning. That's all I'm saying; I'm not telling people to have risky sex and share needles!


Two things.... first, the orthodox manner would be abstinence, the liberal manner would be condoms :P (oh come on !!! THAT was funny :P)

anyways, I have no problems with you presenting the video and asking ppl to question everything, I have qualms with the fact that you presented JUST that video (which is dated btw) you haven't presented other views or have presented any comment/article/ etc... proving/disproving such claims backing it up with hard science. You are presenting it as a plausible and serious alternative; which (again) I would have no troubles with if ppl weren't dying and the evidence wasn't so overwhelming.

And trust me, other venues have been explored:
A very simple way of explaining how research works, is that it is ALL about the glory and recognition. Not only do you want to publish a lot, but you want to publish a lot in journals like "science" "nature" "lancet" "new england journal of medicine" because you will be revered as a god (and will get TONS of research money) if you do so. Now, imagine if you are THAT guy that proves that HIV was actually never a threat ? Yeah ... you've got that Nobel prize GUARANTEED and you will be that LIVING GOD scientist pray to at night when their experiments don't work :P




People listen to me? Here?! When the hell did this happen? :lol:


I think it happened in that short laps between the nutella bread and the cheese fondue ... I know, nutella makes ppl do crazy things :P




Sometimes smart people do dumb things. That doesn't make them dumb. And I'll bet he had tenure. Stupid theory or not, people earn that for a reason, right?


You'd be surprised... depending on where you are tenure is more or less difficult to obtain, the hard part is to get the initial "foot in" (junior researcher position), to get tenure you really only need two things, publications and research money. Once you get tenure, yeah... you can drop the charade, you're almost untouchable :P.
Oh, and trust me, research money and publications are SOMETIMES reasonably easy to get (used to be, at least, now it's getting tougher):

-BJU Int. 2002 Oct;90(6):586-7. Can shoe size predict penile length?

-BMJ. 2008 Dec 17;337:a2825. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a2825.
Head and neck injury risks in heavy metal: head bangers stuck between rock and a hard bass.

-BMJ. 2006 Dec 23;333(7582):1291-3.
Phenotypic differences between male physicians, surgeons, and film stars: comparative study.

- BMJ. 2000 Dec 23-30;321(7276):1554-6.
Streptokinase versus alteplase and other treatments for acute and delayed thrombolysis of blood stains in clothing.

- BMJ. 1999 Dec 18-25;319(7225):1600-2.
Shaken, not stirred: bioanalytical study of the antioxidant activities of martinis.
(I loved the conclusion in this one: "007's profound state of health may be due, at least in part, to compliant bartenders."

- BMJ. 2003 Dec 20;327(7429):1459-61.
Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
(also with an amazing conclusion: "As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute.")


(and they aren't even the wacky ones nor even the case studies ... those are REALLY hilarious)



I think we're going to have to agree to disagree because I never budge from a position of desiring further exploration until I'm convinced of something beyond a reasonable doubt. On HIV/AIDS, I'm not, but I'll still take all current necessary precautions because you can never be too careful.

~BB~

Of course, I agree to disagree, but I am having fun nonetheless:P
And you may never budge but I do hope you don't take that video too seriously and take precautions accordingly.
Besides, you may not budge, but I know I'm right as being of Italian descent I know that speaking the loudest makes me right, and NO-ONE USES CAP LOCKS LIKE I DO :P LOL

[addicted]

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.

all false info dont listen to this idiot.

[addicted]

Nothing religious about my views of HIV/AIDS. Purely scientific, your video has as much credibility as the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Am I personally offended by these, of course not. But I'm sure the many who have had family members die from HIV and or AIDS would be very offended. I happen to be a member of the scientific and medical communities and its sickening to have some moron post something about which he/she clearly understands nothing. Bella, I have nothing against skepticism, but you post about science and reason when addicted's post and linked video have neither of. So the only thing I'm skeptical of is the OP.

All facts your mainstream medicine beliefs are all lies and you have been brainwashed like the rest of the idiot american sheep.

[addicted]

Nothing religious about my views of HIV/AIDS. Purely scientific, your video has as much credibility as the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Am I personally offended by these, of course not. But I'm sure the many who have had family members die from HIV and or AIDS would be very offended. I happen to be a member of the scientific and medical communities and its sickening to have some moron post something about which he/she clearly understands nothing. Bella, I have nothing against skepticism, but you post about science and reason when addicted's post and linked video have neither of. So the only thing I'm skeptical of is the OP.

9/11 has nothing to do with this, Its meaningless to compare science to an incident or occurance. Hiv does not cause aids is 100 percent fact sorry you have been brainwashed like a sheep. goodbye enjoy your life sheep

[daman232323]

Haha ok addicted, considering the only evidence you have is a 1994 video I'll assume you've also spoken to a glowing raccoon. I guess I will have to go on living my sheepish life helping the other sheep who are willing to accept actual research and science.

[addicted]

Haha ok addicted, considering the only evidence you have is a 1994 video I'll assume you've also spoken to a glowing raccoon. I guess I will have to go on living my sheepish life helping the other sheep who are willing to accept actual research and science.

fuck you thats all I have to say, Some people take the ghandi approach and turn the other cheek.. me I would slap a mother fucker on the otherside of the cheek. Doctors are looked upon as hero's when they are really the biggest murders in world history.

[feneman]

Daman, some ppl you cannot argue with, one can only hope and pray to the gods of statistics that he will never get HIV (mostly because if he doesn`t believe it is linked with AIDS than odds are he will have unprotected sex even if knows he is infected.)

One can also only hope he is merely trying to provoke ppl and he doesn`t actually believe all he saying ... one can only hope.
Of course it is a lot more courageous to say these things to provoke behind a CPU than to actually tell someone who has AIDS that his disease is actually just make-believe.

Although i have to say the following sentence is actually quoteworthy, the contradiction is spectacular and it is either the most moronic / provocative for the sake of shock value / and-or hypocritical comment i've read in a long time:


All facts your mainstream medicine beliefs are all lies and you have been brainwashed like the rest of the idiot american sheep.

Let us analyze this sentence, shall we ?
First part:
It states that all documented, tested and re-tested facts obtained through scientific method are actually fabrications. So one must assume that this not only applies to medical discoveries of the last 50 years (where pharma was more present) but also discoveries made before this were also lies;
-and so Pasteur did not discover a way to sterilize milk, Currie did not discover radioactivity, Watson and Cricks did not show that DNA contain two strands, etc... We can also expand this and claim that antibiotics do not fight bacterias, NSAIDS do not decrease inflammation and that sennokot/colace do not "make you go poopoo" :P.
Now having claimed that these discoveries of medicine are actually lies, we can also claim that Kerry Mullis' discoveries are also lies since they are part of the modern day medicine.

Now, for the second part:
Since we have established that all medical facts including Kerry Mullis' participation to modern medicine are lies, we will go on to the next part of the sentence.
This part claims that the entire medical / scientific community (which has discovered, tested and re-tested these facts) is brainwashed for blindly believing facts that have been put through peer review and have lasted the test of time and technology (with better technology you retest old facts to see how they hold-up.) Some of these facts have been brought forth by Kerry Mullis; and so the scientific community is brainwashed for giving a nobel prize to Kerry Mullis (and therefor accepting his facts) yet the OP is not brainwashed for believing other statements the same man has said ... interesting contradiction there.

Now, for the last part:
This sentence concludes with the affirmative that all those who believe modern medicine are "sheep" and it is implied that all those that believe the OP's alternative are the actual thinkers.
Digging a little deeper, the OP is telling us not only question (which is always a healthy thing to do) but to outright discard modern medical fact (which have have undergone rigorous testing through the scientific method many times over), in order to believe an alternative brought forth without any proof that either the previous facts are wrong or that the alternative has had a modicum of testing. In short, ppl who believe the medical community over him being sheep. (and yet for some odd reason I have this feeling if he ever gets cancer he'll opt for the quimio ... just a hunch though.

So analysing the whole sentence:
OP believes an alternate theory brought forth by a Nobel prize winner (that has no testing whatsoever), wanting us to take his word for it (offering no data supporting his claims), while stating that all facts the scientific / medical community (whom the previously mentioned Nobel prize winner is part of) have brought forth are lies (although they have been thoroughly tested, contrary to his claims.)
All of this, for the OP to claim to question the mainstream facts in order to not be sheep, while asking to believe his claims blindly (and not question these claims, because if you do so you are also sheep.)


Wow, talk about contradictions .. and all of that from just one sentence... damn !! I could do an entire theses on just 2 or 3 posts :P

[Prospero]

Myths. Oh dear. And the Illuminati were behind 9/11 and time travellers killed Abe Lincoln, John Lennon and Martin Luther king.

[addicted]

Daman, some ppl you cannot argue with, one can only hope and pray to the gods of statistics that he will never get HIV (mostly because if he doesn`t believe it is linked with AIDS than odds are he will have unprotected sex even if knows he is infected.)

One can also only hope he is merely trying to provoke ppl and he doesn`t actually believe all he saying ... one can only hope.
Of course it is a lot more courageous to say these things to provoke behind a CPU than to actually tell someone who has AIDS that his disease is actually just make-believe.

Although i have to say the following sentence is actually quoteworthy, the contradiction is spectacular and it is either the most moronic / provocative for the sake of shock value / and-or hypocritical comment i've read in a long time:



Let us analyze this sentence, shall we ?
First part:
It states that all documented, tested and re-tested facts obtained through scientific method are actually fabrications. So one must assume that this not only applies to medical discoveries of the last 50 years (where pharma was more present) but also discoveries made before this were also lies;
-and so Pasteur did not discover a way to sterilize milk, Currie did not discover radioactivity, Watson and Cricks did not show that DNA contain two strands, etc... We can also expand this and claim that antibiotics do not fight bacterias, NSAIDS do not decrease inflammation and that sennokot/colace do not "make you go poopoo" :P.
Now having claimed that these discoveries of medicine are actually lies, we can also claim that Kerry Mullis' discoveries are also lies since they are part of the modern day medicine.

Now, for the second part:
Since we have established that all medical facts including Kerry Mullis' participation to modern medicine are lies, we will go on to the next part of the sentence.
This part claims that the entire medical / scientific community (which has discovered, tested and re-tested these facts) is brainwashed for blindly believing facts that have been put through peer review and have lasted the test of time and technology (with better technology you retest old facts to see how they hold-up.) Some of these facts have been brought forth by Kerry Mullis; and so the scientific community is brainwashed for giving a nobel prize to Kerry Mullis (and therefor accepting his facts) yet the OP is not brainwashed for believing other statements the same man has said ... interesting contradiction there.

Now, for the last part:
This sentence concludes with the affirmative that all those who believe modern medicine are "sheep" and it is implied that all those that believe the OP's alternative are the actual thinkers.
Digging a little deeper, the OP is telling us not only question (which is always a healthy thing to do) but to outright discard modern medical fact (which have have undergone rigorous testing through the scientific method many times over), in order to believe an alternative brought forth without any proof that either the previous facts are wrong or that the alternative has had a modicum of testing. In short, ppl who believe the medical community over him being sheep. (and yet for some odd reason I have this feeling if he ever gets cancer he'll opt for the quimio ... just a hunch though.

So analysing the whole sentence:
OP believes an alternate theory brought forth by a Nobel prize winner (that has no testing whatsoever), wanting us to take his word for it (offering no data supporting his claims), while stating that all facts the scientific / medical community (whom the previously mentioned Nobel prize winner is part of) have brought forth are lies (although they have been thoroughly tested, contrary to his claims.)
All of this, for the OP to claim to question the mainstream facts in order to not be sheep, while asking to believe his claims blindly (and not question these claims, because if you do so you are also sheep.)


Wow, talk about contradictions .. and all of that from just one sentence... damn !! I could do an entire theses on just 2 or 3 posts :P

AIDS_Fraud_01of34 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7lw8G4PMKQ&feature=plcp&context=C33e07ccUDOEgsToPDskJ-iDRMfiXAdJ8x9pj4cCvJ)

[addicted]

The Gary Null Show - 5/8/09 Gary Debates HIV Co-Discoverers - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjUL7RSxXYs&feature=related)