AIDS denial is immoral
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
All of the peer-reviewed journals are in on the conspiracy you say? That would be at least more than 50 journals. And all researchers? Only a few thousands. In all countries of the world?
Oh my...I'm switching to AIDS research. I would like to be paid to keep my mouth shut on the 'truth'.
they have pictures of the virus.
they can infect animals with that virus.
said animals contract AIDS.
i wouldn't know. but i do know this, the evidence you presented seems to prove HIV is a cause of AIDS.
don't know what to say. who is gallo?
Hey.
Does anyone remember Ayds? The chocolate weight loss candy that was being advertised all over the place in the early 80's?
I distinctly remember confusing the two when AIDS first started making headlines.
And then found it pretty damned funny when I figured out that they were different things.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/3998/
(It's not a hoax, by the way. Just that many people think it's a hoax, which is why it's at the museum of hoaxes. True story. Although, I thought it was spelled aids, not ayds.)
Gallo is the American who stole the French research on AIDS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gallo
He wrote: Detection, isolation, and continuous production of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS.
Which sorta started the whole ball rolling in the States. Although it seems likely he stole his research from Montagnier at the Pasteur Institute.
Does anyone remember Ayds? The chocolate weight loss candy that was being advertised all over the place in the early 80's?
I distinctly remember confusing the two when AIDS first started making headlines.
And then found it pretty damned funny when I figured out that they were different things.
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/3998/
(It's not a hoax, by the way. Just that many people think it's a hoax, which is why it's at the museum of hoaxes. True story. Although, I thought it was spelled aids, not ayds.)
Gallo is the American who stole the French research on AIDS.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gallo
He wrote: Detection, isolation, and continuous production of cytopathic retroviruses (HTLV-III) from patients with AIDS and pre-AIDS.
Which sorta started the whole ball rolling in the States. Although it seems likely he stole his research from Montagnier at the Pasteur Institute.
In that other thread I posted the link to the news that Gallo did in fact admit stealing his research from Montagnier and lying about it to Congress.
Yes, I remember about Ayds candy. It may be a coincidence but that certainly increased name recognition for AIDS.
Yes, I remember about Ayds candy. It may be a coincidence but that certainly increased name recognition for AIDS.
And nobody denied this.
May be a coincidence?
Of course it was a coincidence.
Come on, now.
Anyway.
Here's some interesting reading. A series of articles written in 2002 for the Aids Day issue of Science. Three of these articles were written by Gallo and Montagnier.
Discovering the cause of AIDS.
A history of HIV discovery.
The early years of HIV/AIDS.
Enhanced: Prospects for the future.
There are other papers available at the site, but none before 2001.
To sumarize - you are asking for evidence, but all I have read from you are hunches.
Sorry, I'm not able to paste links at the moment, I don't have enough posts.
Which?
The ones I linked to?
They're all from the November 22nd, 2002 issue of Science.
Two to go. At least nobody can call you a postwhore or a spammer. That's for sure.
I respected the premise of this thread, hence the definition approprate to it.
So?
I noticed no evidence to show that the theory in question had been tested, nor would a theory after the event predict it.
It was thus, clearly enough, a theory in the other sense, that of an hypothesis.
Except that I did not compare theory and fact in science.
I compared theory and fact with regard to fact and the elimination of speculation, in the context of Ethics, Morality, & Justice.
What is theory and what is fact depends upon the point of view.
I think it immoral to deny a person his own point of view.
Does this mean to suppose that a so called appearance may be deemed to be a fact because a theory fits, with never an obligation to verify the fact per se on its own merit?
The comment would otherwise appear to be entirely impertinent.
I was talking about the premise of this thread.
That is just a tired old straw man red herring, a pet one size fits every circumstance argument which unfortunately fails to illuminate the present issue.
To penetrate the market you'll need some new repertoire and a different attitude.
Because the customer is always right.
Or perhaps because a correct comprehension would tend to rely on such a respect.
To judge an understanding the need in the first instance is to understand it.
I refer to morality, the theme of the thread:
Was it not the moot principle, that fact eliminates speculation while theory should not?
Well, that's a shame as we're all talking about... you know... science.
But, you go ahead and blather on about whatever you feel like. Nobody takes you seriously anyhow.
It was originally about morality, but quickly got routed to science as the other thread was in the cesspool and Metakron felt slighted by being forced to post down there.
It's called a 'hijacking'.
And your posts all seem to be about science, too.
That is, right up until you started getting called on your ignorance of science.
And, now you're repeating yourself.
Disappointed that nobody responded to your last mention of jurisprudence?
Anyway.
Just to remind you of where this whole offered school lesson on the philosophy of science began...
You were talking about ethics rather than science in that post, were you?
Really?
I mean, sure you're calling scientists unethical, but you're not in a position to do so if you have a poor understanding of scientific method and the philosophy of science.
Hence the offer of educating you.
Last edited:
Deliberate misdirection is unethical.
There was supposed to be no controversy.
If one source tells that KS is caused by HIV while another hopefully reliable version has it that KS is caused by the Herpes virus, I think it reasonable to surmise that there is a controversy.
If on the one hand we are told that there is no cure, no recovery while on the other hand we find that seroreversion is fact, I think it reasonable to surmise that there is a controversy.
There was supposed to be no controversy.
If one source tells that KS is caused by HIV while another hopefully reliable version has it that KS is caused by the Herpes virus, I think it reasonable to surmise that there is a controversy.
If on the one hand we are told that there is no cure, no recovery while on the other hand we find that seroreversion is fact, I think it reasonable to surmise that there is a controversy.
Agreed, but you're not in a position to make accusations of deliberate misdirection as you seem to be quite confused about theory and fact as regards the philosophy of science. And if you're confused about these basic issues, then you are likely confused about a good deal more.
Remember that your accusation of misdirection came from the use of 'may' in a scientific quote. You seemed to rankle at the use of 'may' and extremely dislike the absence of absolute knowledge.
Thus my offer to educate you on your misunderstanding.
Why not?
See?
You simply don't understand science.
What you're looking for is called mandate from heaven.
I suggest you look elsewhere for your source with no 'controversy'.
However, you might note that the controversy of the early days of hiv and aids have largely been worked out in the interim. Sure, issues remain and always will.
This is how science works, you might come to learn someday.
It's already been pointed out to you multiple times that these odd examples of abnormal behavior are being studied intensely so as to understand why and how they occur and also how this knowledge can be generalized for use as a cure to the common public.
But, you refuse to listen.
So why bother?
There we go again, with more deliberate misdirection.
The odd examples were by no means pointed out to me.
I pointed them out, and on further examination they turn out to be not so odd at all. Reports of seroreversion are widespread, many more than I have found the time to examine.
One wranckles because, if not alive to the danger one might otherwise be fooled into thinking that particular assertions were valid as fact, substantially, when upon demand there turns out to be no actual evidence to support them as such.
I despise the sheer hypocrisy of that, never mind the misdirection.
The odd examples were by no means pointed out to me.
I pointed them out, and on further examination they turn out to be not so odd at all. Reports of seroreversion are widespread, many more than I have found the time to examine.
One wranckles because, if not alive to the danger one might otherwise be fooled into thinking that particular assertions were valid as fact, substantially, when upon demand there turns out to be no actual evidence to support them as such.
I despise the sheer hypocrisy of that, never mind the misdirection.
That doesn't mean that HIV does not cause AIDS.
And what it actually means is that scientists are interested in seroreversion because they hope they can find an approach to help cure AIDS by looking how some people can cope with it.
Hence people publish on it.
Only an old cynic like you would actually take this as a sign.
Actually if you believe in the reports on seroreversion, you admit that HIV causes AIDS.
See. No controversy whatsoever. You just don't understand science as people have pointed out many times. A smart person would take that hint. Do something about it. Someone out for revenge just keeps slugging it out in desperation.