The great HIV/AIDS thread

Gallo lied about his test results and he got away with doing crazy things. The idea that anyone has HIV disease is not only based on his test, the test has absolutely no chance of being reliable and wasn't even approved for use to diagnose HIV disease in humans. On that has been built the fantasy that HIV disease exists and causes AIDS. That's what all.
 
From your own favourite virus site:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/panel/chapter4.htm

Prof Montagnier argued that no test is perfect and, moreover, that the current generation of ELISA tests is much more sensitive and more specific than in 1984.

Dr Magkoba pointed out that the ELISA test has a predictive rate of over 99% in South Africa. Both the predictive rate and the false positive rate of ELISA tests in South Africa compare very well with similar results obtained in the United Kingdom. Screening tests used in South Africa are as good as those used anywhere else in the world. The tests are highly specific, sensitive and reliable.
 
HIV attacking immune cells...ca

HIV podcast:
http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/v445/n7129/nature-2007-02-15.mp3

Is an actual proof many of you asked for...HIV attacking human cell.
070212-10.jpg


HIV attacks two cells at a time.

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070212/full/070212-10.html

"The findings indicate that any effective microbicide must prevent HIV infection from entering both T cells and Langerhans cells"
 
MetaKron said:
Gallo lied about his test results and he got away with doing crazy things. The idea that anyone has HIV disease is not only based on his test, the test has absolutely no chance of being reliable and wasn't even approved for use to diagnose HIV disease in humans. On that has been built the fantasy that HIV disease exists and causes AIDS. That's what all.
Click to expand...
Even if Gallo (who stole his research from the French team) lied, it doesn't change anything. So we throw his data out. We would still have the data of the French team, and still have the data of everyone who's done their own research since. This other data is what we're currently basing our work on.

What if people found a new virus or bacteria while looking for something else. Is that not valid? The results weren't the intended ones, so the data is no good to anyone?
 
Idle Mind said:
Even if Gallo (who stole his research from the French team) lied, it doesn't change anything. So we throw his data out. We would still have the data of the French team, and still have the data of everyone who's done their own research since. This other data is what we're currently basing our work on.

What if people found a new virus or bacteria while looking for something else. Is that not valid? The results weren't the intended ones, so the data is no good to anyone?
Click to expand...

This is just plain unacceptable. It is a double standard.
 
How so? What's the difference if we find something tangible while investigating falsified data compared to finding something completely by accident? The point is, even though Gallo was full of shit, he led us to finding something that is now backed up by correct and proper data. Even if his data is completely thrown out, that doesn't falsify the data we have now.

End of discussion.
 
Idle Mind said:
How so? What's the difference if we find something tangible while investigating falsified data compared to finding something completely by accident? The point is, even though Gallo was full of shit, he led us to finding something that is now backed up by correct and proper data. Even if his data is completely thrown out, that doesn't falsify the data we have now.

End of discussion.
Click to expand...

How does it even occur to you to say things like that?
 
Interesting article draq. I will, however, be moving this to the biology forum.:)

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

Metakron said:
You have no idea what constitutes proof, do you, Dragon?
Click to expand...

I know that you have some kind of HIV(dar), as though you have some kind of radar taking you straight to any article that deals with this topic, but how about you just allow people to discuss this instead of screaming 'lies' from your little soapbox and side-tracking the thread to suit your needs.
 
Yeah, Bells, like you and SpuriousMonkey would ever allow that.

It was a reasonable question. I have almost never seen a supporter of the HIV present me with a proof that actually constituted much of a real attempt at a proof, and this leads me to believe that there is a pathological lack of critical thinking or knowledge of anything even vaguely resembling scientific method.
 
MetaKron said:
Yeah, Bells, like you and SpuriousMonkey would ever allow that.

It was a reasonable question. I have almost never seen a supporter of the HIV present me with a proof that actually constituted much of a real attempt at a proof, and this leads me to believe that there is a pathological lack of critical thinking or knowledge of anything even vaguely resembling scientific method.
Click to expand...

what more can you ask for?
 
Standards of evidence, reference to peer reviewed articles, articles that actually contain the evidence that Gallo claims to exist, to name a few things.
 
Can Scientific Inquiry Be Judged Unethical?

spuriousmonkey said:
Post by metakron moved to cesspool due to failure to comply to the moderators instructions. So far he had three threads to come up with the argument to back up his claims and hasn't grasped the chance in any of them. Trolling will not be tolerated on this particular subject. AIDS denial is of such an irresponsible nature that I will not allow for its propaganda to spew freely. I'm quite happy if there would be a debate on the mechanisms of HIV and the link to AIDS.

You may well compare AIDS denial to holocause denial. I'm sure that for both cases there are internet sites that claim that neither is real. That is not going to get you of the hook of actually backing up this claims if you want to post them here.

The exploration of science is completely outside of the consideration of ethics. If this were not true, then the invention of the atomic bomb would have been unethical. The explorations of science are not considered bound by ethics, unless its use involves unethical conduct such as sacrifice of embryos for stem cell research.

The use of scientific knowledge, however can be judged as ethical or not.

Another analogy: The invention of the rifle is not in itself unethical, however, the use of that rifle to murder another human is considered unethical. The use of the rifle to kill another human in warfare as a soldier is considered ethical, etc.

Likewise, when it comes to the medical science of HIV/AIDS, there are no unethical areas of exploration. There are only possibly unethical or unethical uses for the results of that science.

There are those such as the moderator of this thread who claim it is unethical to pose scientific questions about the hypothesis, “the retrovirus HIV causes the syndrome called AIDS, a constellation of numerous diseases associated with immune deficiency”.

This type of censorship if wrong and favors special interest groups who benefit from this form of censorship. Who benefits from this type of censorship?

The argument has been made that million of people would stop taking their anti-HIV drugs and therefore die if we allow questions concerning the HIV/Aids hypotheis.

Is this a true statement?

What if the anti-HIV drugs are highly toxic and they themselves result in death for millions of people who are trusting people like our good moderator who takes it upon himself to censor discussion?

The concept of censorship is a military and government concept which is imposed voluntarily during wartime. This is also the origin of censorship involving the HIV AIDS hypothesis which was announced in 1984 at a government press conference at the NIH.

Could it be possible that the government is wrong about this? We cannot ask that question because that question is censored.

I do not believe the moderator of this forum has an obligation to the government to perform a censorship role.

If the HIV AIDS hypothesis is incorrect, and HIV is a benign passenger virus which is not the primary causative agent in AIDS, and does not cause death, then this amounts to the greatest medical blunder in the history of medicine, and then censorship is merely an attempt to continue the blunder. If the HIV/AIDS hypothesis is incorrect, then there have been hundreds of thousands of iatrogenic deaths from anti-HIV medications, amounting to a second Holocaust in the 20th century. This is the true source of the unethical nature of this discussion.

Hover, on the other hand, if the HIVAids hypothesis is correct, then there is no need to censor discussion, and it becomes the same as any other area of medical science where free discussion is openly encouraged.

And so I would ask this moderator to justify his censorship of this discussion, since the discussion of scientific questions can never be considered ethical or unethical. It is the use of the products of science which can be judged as ethical or unethical. A discussion about a rifle cannot be considered ethical or unethical. The use of that rifle however can be.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top