What is a scientific reason to believe in AIDS?

Can you stick with the topic at hand for the moment?

The symptoms of immune suppression are common to a variety of conditions that existed before AZT or even Prednisone were invented.

Immune suppression existed before the invention of X-ray machiness, before the invention of immune-suppressing drugs, and before scurvy was found to be a vitamin deficiency.

Sorry, but the label that is "agreed upon" has led science down false paths. Refusing to fight this is refusing to think clearly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If they can't even create a proper definition of the syndrome, I don't see how they have any hope of proving anything about it. Working up a proper definition is the easy part. They can't handle the easy part, something is wrong somewhere.

A proper definition of "AIDS" would begin with "A set of symptoms characterized by any deficiency of the immune system", which is really saying the same thing as the title says. Then the definition would go into subcategories. Those subcategories would be arranged according to how the immune deficiency was acquired. There would be AIDS caused by radiation, radiation-induced AIDS or radiation-induced immune deficiency, as one category. Radiation is one of the easiest to prove both by correlation and by causation. X-rays are even used to deliberately destroy the immune system. Chemical suppression is also commonly used, for example to prevent rejection of organ transplants.

The internal logic of the current definition of AIDS is bad and in my book it is indefensible. There is no good reason to use such a definition. If it isn't the real definition, that issue needs to be not just addressed, but straightened out once and for all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

>> It's patent idiocy to argue that HIV does not cause AIDS.

Sorry James R but microbiologists et al, MUST argue such matters.

AIDS and HIV do not fulfill all of Koch's postulates.

So basically there really is reason for debate.

For laymen there is no debate.... but germ theory is full of holes, and you must be in the know to know where the deficiencies reside.

So let the debate continue, and if you are a layperson, just sit and read, and don't show your ignorance, please.

 

Mod Hat (tiassa ™)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Hello, this is your friendly Biology & Genetics moderator,

I've warned about this in a previous thread. This is not acceptable as an argument. Giving a link will not suffice. I will not demand from anyone here to follow some broad link with the task to refute some argument somewhere on some webpage. People have jobs and things to do.

If you want to be irresponsible and deny the causality of HIV and AIDS you will have to mount a proper argument. You make a specific case. You quote specific research/references. Deconstruct them. And show us where they go wrong.

And that is what I will demand from you if you continue on this line in the future. No more free rides on propaganda from now on.

This shouldn't be a problem for you if the case is obvious.

 

In any case, the best thing to do as an extremist skeptic as yourself, Metakron, is to go try it on yourself.

Please note the difference from HPV or herpes - HIV is life-threatening. So it's very comfortable for you to sit here and talk about it, because you are too scared to try it for yourself. Admit it - you also know it's real.

Stop trolling.

 

Key words are bold. Koch's postulate is bacteria specific, and HIV is a virus.

 

Go back to the "AIDS is HIV by definition" part. This is one of the reasons that the definition has to be a proper scientific one. As long as we have this definition, the definition itself will create the positive correlation. A definition that says that it's AIDS if we have HIV and we have signs of immune deficiency is even worse, and the worst is when we use the symptoms to decide that the person actually has HIV at all. The "positive correlation" is inevitable, not because HIV causes anything, but because we have contrived to define AIDS that way.

 

Your "demand" is not accepted and I think that you should withdraw from the moderation of this segment of sciforums. You are not acting as moderator. You are acting as a political officer. Instead of providing a level playing field for ideas, you have decided to impose special conditions on the dissident side that the so-called orthodox side is not required to work under. The side that you support, and yes, you have taken sides, is free to slander, to use propaganda, and pretty much get away with murder while you're busting me for every nitpicking thing.

 

What exactly makes you say that I am "trolling"?

 

Never thought I would find myself agreeing on anything with URI when he was disputing with James R

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

- I promisse not to do it again in 2006,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but I think URI is right about this Kock's test for viral infections never have been met by the HIV agent. I do not search much, but as I recall Koch's test requires that the suspected virus be isolated from the blood of one victum and used to produce the disease in another (#2). Not sure, but think it also requires that blood from #2 then be processed to produce the disease in #3. About five years ago, this had been attempted (in some sort of monkey, I think) but failed the test. I am not amoung those few still claiming HIV is missnamed as it is not a virus, but until it can pass the classic test for a virus, certainly it is a debatable point. Perhaps it is some sort of piron*, not a virus.
----------------------------------------
*One the body makes "imperfect" copies of, but which can still destroy the immune system. Then in #2 these imperfect copies are made even less like the original piron, so when given to potential victum #3, there is no induction of the disease, as now the twice imperfectly copied piron is not disease producing?

later by edit: just read post 47. Perhaps the viral test is not Koch's. I am both way out of my field of knowledge and out of date, but do recall reading 5 or 10 years ago that HIV had failed the standard test for a viral agent. Perhaps it has subsequently passed that test. Also as I noted in my first post of this thread, the fact that the more successful treatments of AIDs are anti-viral agents is strong evidence that HIV is a virus, but if it has still not met the standard test for a viral agent, then I still defend URI's point that it is reasonable to discuss the issue. i.e. Why has it failed, etc. Could it be someting like in my above footnote?

 

Koch's test can't be used for autoimmune diseases and viruses without adapting them.

Autoimmun Rev. 2004 Jul;3(5):355-61.
Viruses and autoimmune diseases--adapting Koch's postulates.
Denman AM, Rager-Zisman B.

J Wildl Dis. 1988 Apr;24(2):193-200.
Koch is dead.
Hanson RP.

actually there is a shitload of articles on Koch and the problems with it.

 

"Adapting" the rules can change them to something else that isn't even a set of rules, let alone a set of rules that reflects reality. Spuriousmonkey, your quote doesn't say enough about what kind of adaptation we are expected to accept, so there is literally no rule change to evaluate.

In biology it is difficult to develop rules that are scientifically rigorous. If we can't do this, it is still not right to dispense with scientific rigor as has been done with the HIV hypothesis. We don't even have a scientific definition of AIDS that anyone takes responsibility for, and it's easy to get different answers from different agencies to the same question. That's just as bad as when you send the same blood sample to several different testing laboratories and get wildly differing results.

So we have different agencies trying to get the ball through different goalposts and saying that they are aiming at the same goalposts.

 

Let me summarize the Koch's test argument so far.

The conspiracy proponents say koch's test cannot be applied to HIV.

The scientific establishment says Koch's test cannot be applied to HIV.

---

The conspiracy proponents say Koch's test cannot be applied because AIDS is not a disease. They cry conspiracy.

The scientific establishment says Koch's test cannot applied as it is without adapting it because viruses and autoimmune diseases are different from the agents Koch's test was originally developed for. They review the why's how's and try to come with a solution.

Now. Which argument has more weight?

 

You're really getting stuck on the semantic defense I've spoken of, but you seem to be misapplying it.

Hiv has been shown to cause the symptoms that are now called AIDS.
Period.
The scientific consensus on this is strong and overwhelming.
You can deny it all you want, but you have nothing but gut-level reactions here.

The semantic issue isn't that scientists are claiming that hiv causes aids because aids is caused by hiv. That would be a circular argument and would certainly not stand up to peer review.

The semantic issue is simply that hiv induced AIDS is not the only type of immune deficiency syndrome out there. But, it is the one referred to by the appellation AIDS.

 

>> says Koch's test cannot applied as it is without adapting it because viruses

Koch's postulates can be applied to any "living" infective agent, viral, bacterial, parasite etc.
However the state of the host is most important
For an infection to take hold the host must be medically compromised, or alternatively the infective agent is given in very large numbers.

Both test compromises are unsatisfactory, and this is the problem with germ theory. Epidemics usually only kill a small percentage of infected people.

It would appear that the state of the host is the most critical point.
IMO, all people today are medically compromised, for example various normally non pathogenic organisms can take hold in many people

Medically we have a problem, because we really have no idea what is a 'normal' healthy host. Oh we see autopsies and various infections but the world's environment is toxic and the hosts are toxic and correlation with infection is not always tight.

It would appear that people suffering the AID syndrome are all compromised in some terminal manner by ether starvation, toxic accumulation, drug abuse, high intestinal parasite load or such.

So applying Koch's postulates to people who are not healthy becomes a problem for interpretation. HIV and the development AIDS is in such a category.

But having said that, if Koch's postulates do not apply, then it is the host that has failed the test of LIFE, well then, so be it.

Solution:- Clean up your act, and you may live forever. Bugs are really your friend.

 

Mod Hat (tiassa ™)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Meta_kron:

I let you repost a thread I cesspooled. I warned you twice about what I would like to see in a thread on a conspiracy theory.

And you ignored me. Twice.

I only have three rules in the forum. Two of them were broken.



---------------

rule: Whatever I say as a moderator is to be taken as a strict guideline.

----------------

rule: The question came up already if I will be biased. And the answer is yes. I am only a human being. I will be biased towards science but will try to be fair. Unfortunately this means that certain topics will require more effort from the poster.



This thread is therefore cesspooled. You may continue your thread here free from my influence as a moderator.

 

MetaKron, hiv and aids exist.... common... what do u have to say now.

 

Spuriousmonkey, you are not fit to be a moderator. Even before you were a moderator you trolled threads like this. You make up special and wrong rules to get rid of a subject that you have an obvious agenda against. You do not belong here acting like that.

 

I have a suggestion. spurious is a puppet of the illuminati conspiracy to hide the true nature of the world from all of us, including but not limited to:

- AIDS
- The reasons for public water fluoridation
- 9-11
- Relativity
- The true relationship between Donald Trump and Rosie
- So-called moon landings

Metakron, you cannot fight such power. Just accept it and move on.