Does HIV cause Aids?

[Beast9]

Deconstructing The Myth Of AIDS (Gary Null)

Or is it just a moneymaking scam for farmaceuticals to make money, or worse giving HIVpositives drugs that might kill them even if they were/would have been otherwise healthy?

Can it really be the case that there has never been any proper evidence of linking HIV to Aids?

Scary....makes you wonder about the credibility of the medical establishment in general

As a doctor, I must say your post is ridiculous.

We might as well say the USA "created" the September 11th. There was no terrorist attack.

(2 similar ideas)

 

[Andro Man]

As a doctor, I must say your post is ridiculous.

We might as well say the USA "created" the September 11th. There was no terrorist attack.

(2 similar ideas)

Prove it, any asshole can claim whatever he wants on internet. Also your stating something without giving any counter arguments....Actually you've probably not even watched the video

 

[HazelGod]

They're talking about false positives and a whole lot of factors that can cause it.....tell that to the millions that died as a result of taking AZT, that it's ok if it's (understatement) not 100% accurate

Are you somehow asserting that AZT was directly responsible for millions of deaths?

I have a difficult time believing that even someone as demonstrably stupid as yourself actually thinks such a substance would not only survive the clinical trial process, but continue to be used in therapies decades afterward

you find it easier to just hang out in the parking lot of the courthouse handing out leaflets.

Your aim is not to change the scientific consensus. Your aim is to change public opinion. That is why this entire argument is not only pointless, but very destructive.

Beautifully stated.

 

[Andro Man]

No, there are no real scientists here who work actively in the field of HIV/AIDs which is precisely why you are here spreading your propaganda. If you were a real scientist you would be doing careful research and publishing your findings in a peer reviewed journal. But no, deniers like you have realized that instead of submitting your evidence into the great court of scientific inquiry, you find it easier to just hang out in the parking lot of the courthouse handing out leaflets.

Your aim is not to change the scientific consensus. Your aim is to change public opinion. That is why this entire argument is not only pointless, but very destructive.

My aim is to get clarity because now I'm confused. Firstly I'm told by scientists that HIV causes AIDS, then I'm told by scientists that HIV doesn't cause AIDS and that the medicin is doing the killing.


As I stated I'm not a scientist, but I don't know what to believe. I was hoping to get some constructive feedback but now I'm being blamed for people dying of Aids, or spitting on their graves or whatever(Also those people claiming that the blood is on my hands is somewhat remniscant of the days of the plaque when they blamed it on jews or witches that were doing the killing).....

What I do know is that billions have been pumped into research and there still no closer to curing it. It wouldn't be the first time that medical science is on the wrong track.

 

[Andro Man]

Are you somehow asserting that AZT was directly responsible for millions of deaths?

just coz your claim to fame is echoeing the majority opinion of the group doesn't make you smart, in fact you'd make a good soldier coz you do what your told and think what your told and you'd gladly kill anyone that has 'subversive' ideas.

You don't seem to read a word I write, dyslexic by any chance?

 

[2322]

The Nih is a military organisation. They determine top-down what research gets funded and more importantly what doesn't.....So step in line soldier

Yet who pays for the lobbyists and politicians who fund the NIH, CDC, WHO, and the Pentagon? It's businesses by and large. Big pharma's lobby is enormous.

I will point out that rather than go after the OP, I think it makes more sense to go answer the questions raised by the anti-HIV crowd. Like it or not, having an MD or PhD after your name automatically gives someone authority in a specific area of the arts or sciences. The only thing more impressive is a Nobel Laureate. The cachet of authority these distinctions carry is not slight. We're taught to listen to listen to doctors. When we enter college, it's the folks with the doctoral degrees we have to learn from and impress. As children we're taught that medical doctors should be respected and if they say something about your health, we ought to follow their advice. A Nobel prize is in a different catagory altogether and tells the world you know or have contributed to the benefit of all mankind by imparting your wisdom and research. How do you compete with that for credentialing?

Because of this, I don't think that the credentialed advocates of the anti-HIV theory can be outright dismissed without exactly the same question Andro is asking here. "But they're scientists! One has a Nobel prize!" For someone, even a physician or researcher with advanced degrees, the science behind the objections to anti-HIV theory can be daunting to understand. I have some grasp but it's clearly as a novice and if I were to stand-up in a crowd and voice my objections to an anti-HIV theorist then all the theorist would have to do is whip out his doctorate and tell me and everyone else, I don't know what I'm talking about.

I don't think Andro or any one else here is as good as a murderer. That's a heavy accusation to make when some of the proponents of anti-HIV theory have credentials that impress the inexpert. Rather than throw accusations about, we have to go back to the science that disproves anti-HIV theory, answering it point for point with research and evidence. I wish I knew what that evidence was or had the knowledge to understand it but I don't.

 

[Andro Man]

Yet who pays for the lobbyists and politicians who fund the NIH, CDC, WHO, and the Pentagon? It's businesses by and large. Big pharma's lobby is enormous.

I will point out that rather than go after the OP, I think it makes more sense to go answer the questions raised by the anti-HIV crowd. Like it or not, having an MD or PhD after your name automatically gives someone authority in a specific area of the arts or sciences. The only thing more impressive is a Nobel Laureate. The cachet of authority these distinctions carry is not slight. We're taught to listen to listen to doctors. When we enter college, it's the folks with the doctoral degrees we have to learn from and impress. As children we're taught that medical doctors should be respected and if they say something about your health, we ought to follow their advice. A Nobel prize is in a different catagory altogether and tells the world you know or have contributed to the benefit of all mankind by imparting your wisdom and research. How do you compete with that for credentialing?

Because of this, I don't think that the credentialed advocates of the anti-HIV theory can be outright dismissed without exactly the same question Andro is asking here. "But they're scientists! One has a Nobel prize!" For someone, even a physician or researcher with advanced degrees, the science behind the objections to anti-HIV theory can be daunting to understand. I have some grasp but it's clearly as a novice and if I were to stand-up in a crowd and voice my objections to an anti-HIV theorist then all the theorist would have to do is whip out his doctorate and tell me and everyone else, I don't know what I'm talking about.

I don't think Andro or any one else here is as good as a murderer. That's a heavy accusation to make when some of the proponents of anti-HIV theory have credentials that impress the inexpert. Rather than throw accusations about, we have to go back to the science that disproves anti-HIV theory, answering it point for point with research and evidence. I wish I knew what that evidence was or had the knowledge to understand it but I don't.

Thanks for not blaming Aids on andro man, finally someone who like myself is looking for answers

 

[HazelGod]

Though I'm familiar with the statistical distributions, such abject stupidity in the general population never fails to stun me when I encounter it in the wild.

 

[Andro Man]

ah the namecalling and accusations, all very scientific, are you a teenager by any chance coz you sound like one.


If you really want to show how smart you are and how stupid I am. Watch the video and tell me why the points these phds, professors and nobel laureats are making...(that sound perfectly reasonable to me) are wrong and why they are wrong.

That's how a scientist would do it, what you're doing is more the way of the infant....grow up

 

[not2day]

Andro Man, if you don't believe HIV causes AIDS have unprotected anal sex with a HIV positive man.
You will start to see science in action after a month or two with night sweats and body aches and pains.
After about 5 years without treatment you will be dead as your body slowly wastes away.

 

[JustAsking]

I will point out that rather than go after the OP, I think it makes more sense to go answer the questions raised by the anti-HIV crowd. Like it or not, having an MD or PhD after your name automatically gives someone authority in a specific area of the arts or sciences. The only thing more impressive is a Nobel Laureate. The cachet of authority these distinctions carry is not slight. We're taught to listen to listen to doctors. When we enter college, it's the folks with the doctoral degrees we have to learn from and impress. As children we're taught that medical doctors should be respected and if they say something about your health, we ought to follow their advice. A Nobel prize is in a different catagory altogether and tells the world you know or have contributed to the benefit of all mankind by imparting your wisdom and research. How do you compete with that for credentialing?

Because of this, I don't think that the credentialed advocates of the anti-HIV theory can be outright dismissed without exactly the same question Andro is asking here. "But they're scientists! One has a Nobel prize!" For someone, even a physician or researcher with advanced degrees, the science behind the objections to anti-HIV theory can be daunting to understand. I have some grasp but it's clearly as a novice and if I were to stand-up in a crowd and voice my objections to an anti-HIV theorist then all the theorist would have to do is whip out his doctorate and tell me and everyone else, I don't know what I'm talking about.

I don't think Andro or any one else here is as good as a murderer. That's a heavy accusation to make when some of the proponents of anti-HIV theory have credentials that impress the inexpert. Rather than throw accusations about, we have to go back to the science that disproves anti-HIV theory, answering it point for point with research and evidence. I wish I knew what that evidence was or had the knowledge to understand it but I don't.

jason,
I understand your comments here and see that they are very sincere. My point is that for the last 400 years, there has been an established method for scientific communities to come to a consensus on which theories become the accepted ones. This method involved lots of careful research, some creativity, and publishing your results in immense detail in peer reviewed journals.

The articles that get published are carefully reviewed before publication for accuracy, and for good science. After an article is published, the work is reviewed, criticized, and if found useful, it is duplicated by other workers around the world and finally it is put to use solving a problem. If theories are developed from this work, the theory's ability to solve problems becomes the major criteria in its continued acceptance.

This is the only acceptable method for any idea to establish any credibility in the scientific world. The credentials of the submitter of an article might bias the chance of it getting published, but anything unsubstantiated or wrong in the article will be discovered and challenged by the community.

There is no other mechanism that we know of that can anywhere approach the objectivity of this process, even though the process sometimes has its failings.

When you go to a doctor with problem, his job is to keep up with the current accepted practices in his area of expertise that are published in the peer reviewed journals he subscribes to. So when that doctor renders his opinion on your malady, he is reflecting the opinion of the medical community as a whole. His own crackpot ideas are immaterial when it comes to his job. His medical degree is a certification that he has the training to understand the accepted practices of the medical community and to keep up with them as they evolve. It doesn't entitle him to come up with his own crackpot ideas unless he is a researcher and he is submitting them to the community.

This notion of a professional community whose consensus is built through peer reviewed journals is essential to science. Otherwise it is just a collection of crackpots with their own wacky ideas.

So as for James Watson, his opinion on HIV/AIDS might be interesting and provocative, but unless he submits his ideas to the community and they go on to survive the rigorous review process and ultimately get applied by others in the community, then his idea are useless.

That is why an appeal to authority is not very impressive no matter who is being invoked as the authority. The only way anyone speaks as an authority is in their ability to represent the consensus of the scientific community.

So to answer yours and Andros' question about which scientists to listen to, I submit to you that the only valid opinion is the collective opinion of the professional scientific community surrounding HIV/AIDS and the immune system, as represented by their body of work that appears in their professional journals.

Any other avenue of publication, such as internet sites and popular publications are worthless, because you and I and everyone else outside the professional community are not equipped to evaluate their content.

Andros is not here asking sincere questions like you are. He is hear as a propagandist, attempting to influence public policy. That is why he continually challenges the authenticity and integrity of the scientific community with his conspiracy theories about "Big Pharma", etc. He seeks to undermine the professional process so public opinion can be persuaded by amateur appeals. All of his unsubstantiated snide remarks are the signature of that and that of every other science denier.

People are dying of AIDS in epic proportions around the world. Anyone attempting to influence public opinion on something as important as HIV/AIDS with ideas that are not from the mainstream scientific community is doing something that is very criminal. If they are successful in undermining the real science in these areas, then there is lots of blood on their hands.

 

[snoozan]

just coz your claim to fame is echoeing the majority opinion of the group doesn't make you smart, in fact you'd make a good soldier coz you do what your told and think what your told and you'd gladly kill anyone that has 'subversive' ideas.

You don't seem to read a word I write, dyslexic by any chance?

You keep writing about AZT. How often is AZT used anymore? AZT is a drug with terrible side effects, but it was the only thing that had any promise at the time. Since AZT isn't widely used anymore, what do you have to say about the newer classes of drugs? Are they immunosuppressants too that are killing people?

Bbucko could explain the use of AZT and other AIDS drugs far better than I can, but with my limited knowledge, I don't think the newer drugs have the same problems that AZT does.

 

[Andro Man]

jason,
I understand your comments here and see that they are very sincere. My point is that for the last 400 years, there has been an established method for scientific communities to come to a consensus on which theories become the accepted ones. This method involved lots of careful research, some creativity, and publishing your results in immense detail in peer reviewed journals.

The articles that get published are carefully reviewed before publication for accuracy, and for good science. After an article is published, the work is reviewed, criticized, and if found useful, it is duplicated by other workers around the world and finally it is put to use solving a problem. If theories are developed from this work, the theory's ability to solve problems becomes the major criteria in its continued acceptance.

This is the only acceptable method for any idea to establish any credibility in the scientific world. The credentials of the submitter of an article might bias the chance of it getting published, but anything unsubstantiated or wrong in the article will be discovered and challenged by the community.

There is no other mechanism that we know of that can anywhere approach the objectivity of this process, even though the process sometimes has its failings.

When you go to a doctor with problem, his job is to keep up with the current accepted practices in his area of expertise that are published in the peer reviewed journals he subscribes to. So when that doctor renders his opinion on your malady, he is reflecting the opinion of the medical community as a whole. His own crackpot ideas are immaterial when it comes to his job. His medical degree is a certification that he has the training to understand the accepted practices of the medical community and to keep up with them as they evolve. It doesn't entitle him to come up with his own crackpot ideas unless he is a researcher and he is submitting them to the community.

This notion of a professional community whose consensus is built through peer reviewed journals is essential to science. Otherwise it is just a collection of crackpots with their own wacky ideas.

So as for James Watson, his opinion on HIV/AIDS might be interesting and provocative, but unless he submits his ideas to the community and they go on to survive the rigorous review process and ultimately get applied by others in the community, then his idea are useless.

That is why an appeal to authority is not very impressive no matter who is being invoked as the authority. The only way anyone speaks as an authority is in their ability to represent the consensus of the scientific community.

So to answer yours and Andros' question about which scientists to listen to, I submit to you that the only valid opinion is the collective opinion of the professional scientific community surrounding HIV/AIDS and the immune system, as represented by their body of work that appears in their professional journals.

Any other avenue of publication, such as internet sites and popular publications are worthless, because you and I and everyone else outside the professional community are not equipped to evaluate their content.

Andros is not here asking sincere questions like you are. He is hear as a propagandist, attempting to influence public policy. That is why he continually challenges the authenticity and integrity of the scientific community with his conspiracy theories about "Big Pharma", etc. He seeks to undermine the professional process so public opinion can be persuaded by amateur appeals. All of his unsubstantiated snide remarks are the signature of that and that of every other science denier.

People are dying of AIDS in epic proportions around the world. Anyone attempting to influence public opinion on something as important as HIV/AIDS with ideas that are not from the mainstream scientific community is doing something that is very criminal. If they are successful in undermining the real science in these areas, then there is lots of blood on their hands.

Here we go, the blamegame...
My questions aren't sincere, why is that?

Yeah sure it makes me wonder when the NIH a military organisation is in charge of what gets published and funded and scientists that don't agree with the mainstream get ostracised and funding cut.

In such an authoritarian environment how can scientific dialogue flourish?

I'd be all for scientific dialogue, but that doesn't seem to get a chance...so if they're wrong(for conspiracy reason or financial or whatever reasons)whose the person that has blood on his hands?

He who questions, or he who doesn't question....maybe you could get George Bush to lock up all people who question this...I'm sure the Christians and the Neo Cons would be all for it

 

[Andro Man]

Andro Man, if you don't believe HIV causes AIDS have unprotected anal sex with a HIV positive man.
You will start to see science in action after a month or two with night sweats and body aches and pains.
After about 5 years without treatment you will be dead as your body slowly wastes away.

gay sex isn't exactly my thing. And I don't have a microscope so I don't have the faith dr Wilner has

 

[just8]

Andro Man,

You won't make it very far in this forum with this topic. Didn't you know that people come here to talk about their huge cocks? Didn't you read the fine print about not having to have as much between the ears as you have swinging between the legs in order to post here? lmao.

But don't worry, there are other places where you can ask legitimate questions and expect legitimate replies from our lesser endowed -in the pants, that is- brothers instead of the foolish name-calling you've met with here by guys who have a brain only so that they may better steer those cocks to the intended target.

You are among a growing minority, my friend.

Kudos to you for having the balls to bring this up among people who probably think 9/11 happened because some people "hate our freedom". Fucking idiots.

 

[2322]

jason,
I understand your comments here and see that they are very sincere... etc.

I know this. In my case you're preaching to the choir. What I was hoping to do was to spur some of the more vehement posters to empathize with Andro by understanding where he's coming from. It does an argument no good to make personal attacks of any sort against someone questioning a scientific finding. As all good scientists know, you argue the point, not the person or you lose the person and the debate. Fight science with science. There is no right or wrong, just what is provable and what is not.

What I would do, if I was questioning the subject, would be to make a list of claims from the film and ask people to support or refute them with scientific evidence either supporting or disproving the claims and then judge for myself which were more credible. We got a little of that earlier on but the debate quickly descended into subjective discussion of tangential issues. I can understand that as HIV has made a deep personal impact on the lives of many people here but it doesn't answer the OP who just wants to know which argument to believe.

It is dangerous to use the, "appeal to authority," argument in this case because unless someone here is an actual authority, then proponents of both sides are doing the same thing. The fact is that unless there are MDs or researchers among us, we're all appealing to authority. The superiority of the argument of the HIV-causes-AIDS proponents has to be demonstrated by the superiority of their cited research.

"Dr. X says AIDS is not caused by HIV."
"Does he? Well this journal refutes that claim and the journal's opinion is backed by this study, that study, and blah blah blah. Dr. X's research has been unable to refute these findings." Simple in theory, labor-intensive in practice and, let's face it, few people want to put that much effort into an internet bulletin board.

Certainly science doesn't have to answer every crackpot out there. In this case, given the credentials of Andro's sources, I think science needs to answer because the apparent credibility of the source is high.

 

[2322]

Germaine to this is the problem is the difficulty the uncredentialed have in fighting the credentialed. To do this you have to an excellent librarian. You have to learn what sources have broad scientific support, what journals have credibility, and you have to gather information from as many sources and then cross-reference it all to weigh claims. It's a hella lot of work and I do it to the best of my ability when an issue is important to me.

I run into this on the circumcision issue all the time. I've had to look doctors in the face and tell them, sometimes in front of other people, that their medical opinion is invalid. Not only does that take balls, it takes evidence because the first thing that doctor will do is ask to see your doctorate in medicine. So you've got to know your research inside and out, know what findings have been published and where and by whom. The payoff comes when you can look the doctor in the eye and say that his position was disproved by published research and you cite the findings and the source. You have to fight with the words of other people and it's the most difficult kind of argument to engage in.

It takes enormous effort not to make it into a personal argument. I've been called names, accused of perversions, and all sorts of things by medical professionals who became very agitated that I seemed to know more about a particular subject than they did. Stay cool, stay logical, and stay on point. It's the only way to approach scientific debate.

 

[D_Cunningham Cumshipper]

this was mentioned in the doc if you'd had the openmindedness to watch, but it was stated that most countries used the Western Blot coz it was more effective in spotting HIV which wasn't even that good.
Like the story of this man whose friends had been diagnosed with HIV and then after another test they weren't.....

Or just the general different standards from country to country, the easiest to test positive is Africa(why not plenty people dying there anyway), and Australlia is the hardest . So if you were tested positive in NY with 3 Aidsproteins you would be negative in Australlia where you need 4

Ok. This is the last time I am answering this thread because you don't have the decency to actually consider the science behind it.

The current medical standard is to use ELISA & Western blot for HIV detection. If you look up "specificity" and "sensitivity", you will see that rarely are tests 100% for either. So yes, we do have false "+" and false "-", but that also happens with diabetes. Is your next thread going to question the existence of diabetes?

The reason for the different standards in different countries is because the different locales have a different tolerance level for the false "+" and "-" that I mentioned earlier.

I hope the rest of you understand what I am saying because I wouldn't want you to be tricked by this charlatan. If you have any specific questions, feel free to PM me, but it's not worth my time to respond to someone who won't even engage on the issue.

 

[JustAsking]

...Certainly science doesn't have to answer every crackpot out there. In this case, given the credentials of Andro's sources, I think science needs to answer because the apparent credibility of the source is high.

Jason,
Every month there are hundreds of papers submitted to professional peer reviewed journals where scientists are either corroborating each other's work or challenging it. It is a vigorous and productive debate that is conducted out in the open where everyone must "show their work". It is like a court of law, where all evidence is examined and all work is independently verified by others.

Anyone, especially a Nobel Prize winner in science, who takes his message to the popular press rather than subjecting it to the same rigorous process that others do in the field loses all credibility on the matter. Failing to do that is the hallmark of the crackpot regardless of whether it is a Nobel Prize winner or not.

Don't forget that Dr. Wm Shockley, Nobel Prize winner in 1956 for his work in semiconductors was a raving racist and eugenicist. He felt that the human race was being diluted by inferior races and advocated such things as paying black people to be sterilized so their subpar IQs would not enter the gene pool. Ironically, his work in his own field made the computer you are using possible, yet outside of that field he was a raving crackpot.

 

[2322]

You know that. I know that. The vast numbers of people out there do not know that. They do know a Nobel Prize winner is someone special. That's why challenging his accusations is important.