AIDS denial is immoral

[Sauna]

How does he know that the seroreversion is "abnormal" behavior?

This bothers me fundamentally, the presence of antibodies deemed to be a sign of ill health, per se.

Should it not rather make sense to suppose that the ability of the immune system to react is a sign of good health?

Were HIV half way as pernicious as some of the members who like to post here, the first thing it should wish to incapacitate is the reaction to itself.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

This bothers me fundamentally, the presence of antibodies deemed to be a sign of ill health, per se.

Should it not rather make sense to suppose that the ability of the immune system to react is a sign of good health?

Were HIV half way as pernicious as some of the members who like to post here, the first thing it should wish to incapacitate is the reaction to itself.

Viruses don't wish moron.

 

[Sauna]

Actually if you believe in the reports on seroreversion, you admit that HIV causes AIDS.

Not in view of the fact that seroreversion occurs before the development of AIDS.

 

[Athelwulf]

You can't. There is no "ground floor" left for buying stocks. You have to open a new market.

How horribly convenient for you.

I can buy shares from Microsoft, or Ford, or Burger King, or Coffee People. Why not businesses in the AIDS "industry"?

And what businesses are in the AIDS industry? Who is their CEO? Did they kill JFK?! You're not answering my questions!

Your claims of consensus, and your calling my stance "harmful" and "immoral", these things demonstrate that you don't understand science and have no idea of the correct way to refute my claims.

The irony here made me laugh.

I respected the premise of this thread, hence the definition approprate to it.

No you didn't. You and MetaKron hijacked it.

I noticed no evidence to show that the theory in question had been tested, nor would a theory after the event predict it.

Then either you didn't ask for it, or you just conveniently ignored it.

It was thus, clearly enough, a theory in the other sense, that of an hypothesis.

That sense does not exist in the field of science. Duh!

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.

Your posts were about science. Therefore, that is the applicable discipline.

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.

Clear your thought processes before you try to put words in my mouth again. I'm not denying you your point of view. I'm just telling you your opinion is bullshit. If you don't like people calling your crackpot ideas bullshit, don't think such crackpot bullshit opinions.

And before you say anything about how I can't refute you: You have access to the Internet, which has a wealth of information relevant to this subject, which is that AIDS results from HIV. I offer you, along with my reply to you, the wealth of information that is the Internet. Other users have given you all the proof any sane person could need, and if I did the same, I'd most likely be giving you the exact same proof they gave, which I fully approve and endorse, and about which I can say confidently that it backs my statements. So look on the Internet. There you can find all the proof you could possibly need. That is, if the proof you need isn't so demanding that no one could ever convince you ever, ever, ever. Which I highly suspect to be the case.

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?

No. What kind of fucking idiot would think that? Scientists are not in the business of taking what seems to be true, or what they would like to be true, and passing it off as absolute truth. That defies the very nature of the scientific method. It defies it down to its core.

The comment would otherwise appear to be entirely impertinent.

I was talking about the premise of this thread.

No you weren't, hijacker.

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.

You'd like to think so.

To penetrate the market you'll need some new repertoire and a different attitude.

Blah blah blah.

Because the customer is always right.

Yeah, the annoying, computer-illiterate guy is right that that colorful chunk of plastic doesn't go in that long, black slot. He is always undeniably right about that. And the computer repairman, who took computer technologies classes and who knows as much about computers as one might want to know, is full of shit.

To judge an understanding the need in the first instance is to understand it.

Too bad you don't take your own advice. If you did, you would understand more about science.

And then you say, "Waaah! Ad hominem! Waaah!"

I refer to morality, the theme of the thread:

Was it not the moot principle, that fact eliminates speculation while theory should not?

If you mean "hypothesis", then stop saying "theory".

Theory and fact are not comparable in the context you are using them. That context is science, not ethics. We are talking about science, not ethics. We are talking about whether or not AIDS results from HIV, not about whether to disagree with that is immoral or not. You'd like to think we're still talking about that, but we're not. Accept that.

 

[MetaKron]

Viruses don't wish moron.

You're the moron

 

[MetaKron]

This bothers me fundamentally, the presence of antibodies deemed to be a sign of ill health, per se.

Should it not rather make sense to suppose that the ability of the immune system to react is a sign of good health?

Were HIV half way as pernicious as some of the members who like to post here, the first thing it should wish to incapacitate is the reaction to itself.

That's one of the first things that Duesberg said.

 

[invert_nexus]

Not in view of the fact that seroreversion occurs before the development of AIDS.

As has been stated too many times to repeat with any hope of being listened to, the only point that Metakron really has is when it comes to the question of how many people that are infected with hiv move on to full blown aids.

The number is a majority, according to all data.
Yet, there is a small number that do not.
It is when dealing with this small number that certain ethical considerations raise their head. I.e. how can a doctor prescribe a treatment for a condition that may or may not occur. The treatment being not quite as dangerous as the ailment, but definitely more hazardous than not.
But, doctors and scientists aren't fortune tellers. They can't know, yet, which cases of hiv will or will not move on to aids. However, the data indicates that the vast majority will. Without treatment.

So, the ethical dilemma.
That nobody denies.

This is why, I should think, that people aren't forced to undergo hiv treatment. They can refuse, if they wish. They take their own risks. Maybe they'll be one of the lucky few. Perhaps they might even be the one to contain the cure within himself after study by scientists.

But, meanwhile, scientists researching this condition have to deal with pragmatic concerns rather than meditating on the nature of the delphic oracle.

This bothers me fundamentally, the presence of antibodies deemed to be a sign of ill health, per se.

Well, it should make you feel better to know that you've once again made a mistake in your understanding of science.
The presence of antibodies doesn't indicate ill health. It merely indicates exposure to the virus. This then leads to the aforementioned ethical dilemma on delphic oracles and such.
So, no need to be bothered at all.
Feel better now?

 

[MetaKron]

As has been stated too many times to repeat with any hope of being listened to, the only point that Metakron really has is when it comes to the question of how many people that are infected with hiv move on to full blown aids.

The medications are quite capable of causing full blown AIDS and a host of other illnesses like dementia, bone necrosis, and cancer.

The issues get slippery when "AIDS-related" can be almost anything and the things like "AIDS-related dementia" magically appear and disappear without anyone having to show scientific proof that they exist.

 

[invert_nexus]

The medications are quite capable of causing full blown AIDS and a host of other illnesses like dementia, bone necrosis, and cancer.

I wouldn't go so far as to say all this without access to the scientific data which corroborates your feelings, but I will agree that many of the drugs have harmful side-effects.
And, if the delphic oracle were able to predict which cases of hiv will and will not progress to aids, then the choice to take or not take these drugs would be obvious.
Yes?
Yes.

Now, there are some instances where it can be predicted whether aids will occur as a result of infection. I've given textbook examples of at least one such case earlier in this thread in a specific mutation in the gene which transcribes the CCR5 protein. This is a mutation which can be tested for.

Are there others?
Surely.
But, we can't consult the oracle and must find them one at a time.
The hard way.

 

[MetaKron]

You have access to the scientific data. Use it.

 

[invert_nexus]

You have access to the scientific data. Use it.

I don't have access to the data which would lead to the conclusions you are giving.

 

[Sauna]

No you didn't.[ask for evidence]
Then either you didn't ask for it, or you just conveniently ignored it.

Question:

Is there some evidence of that?
If not, what a shame to present fiction in the name of fact.

Reply:

That's how scientists talk.

don't blow a valve old man.

Your posts were about science. Therefore, that is the applicable discipline.

I'd say they were about politics and propaganda.

So look on the Internet. There you can find all the proof you could possibly need. That is, if the proof you need isn't so demanding that no one could ever convince you ever, ever, ever. Which I highly suspect to be the case.

I did and do.

I find that the AIDS is not necessarily caused by HIV; identical symptoms arise but with no trace of HIV.

I find that HIV does not necessarily cause AIDS, subjects infected by HIV do recover but with no sign of the AIDS.

The part that HIV may or may not play in the process is then another matter.

No. What kind of fucking idiot would think that? Scientists are not in the business of taking what seems to be true, or what they would like to be true, and passing it off as absolute truth. That defies the very nature of the scientific method. It defies it down to its core.

This kind of idiot, perhaps:

She has HIV infection, but a specific defect in her immune system prevents the generation of antibodies. Needles to say the general population does not suffer from this defect.

It seemed to me to tend toward the description, of taking what seems to be true, or what they would like to be true, and passing it off as absolute truth.

If you mean "hypothesis", then stop saying "theory".

I chose "theory" to infer the application of the general theory of HIV/AIDS to the instance in question, which "hypothesis" would not have done.

Theory and fact are not comparable in the context you are using them.

Yes they are, the point being that a supposed fact, intended to fit as a smaller part of a larger theory is not concluded as such by the inductive force of the larger theory, but rather by the merit of fact itself.

There is therefore a moot difference, a moral difference between a speculation ended by such a proven fact, as opposed to speculation ended by the mere attachment to a beloved theory.

You are otherwise in the game of beginning with a conclusion in order to cherry pick for evidence, which as seen from here is what the AIDS saga looked like from the very start of it.

 

[MetaKron]

I don't have access to the data which would lead to the conclusions you are giving.

So you won't look through the telescope.

 

[invert_nexus]

If not, what a shame to present fiction in the name of fact.

This, again, indicates that you don't understand the philosophy of science.
Thus, my offer to educate you.

Thus follows:

That's how scientists talk.

A brief statement on the nature of scientific discussion which you don't seem to understand. He didn't go into detail most likely because he realizes that it would be wasted on you.

I'd say they were about politics and propaganda.

I'd say they were about making judgements on scientific methods and protocols while not being in possession of an understanding of what you are attempting to judge.
You used the word 'may' as a criteria for stating that a scientific statement was misdirecting and unethical. However, as Spurious noted, that's how scientists talk, and for good reason, thus your criteria for making accusations of unethical misdirection is faulty.

Thus, the offer to educate you.

I find that the AIDS is not necessarily caused by HIV; identical symptoms arise but with no trace of HIV.

I find that HIV does not necessarily cause AIDS, subjects infected by HIV do recover but with no sign of the AIDS.

And, as has been stated a number of times for your deaf ears, these instances are the exception and not the rule.
They are not denied by the scientists researching the matter. On the contrary, they are studied in depth as likely avenues of research to understand the mechanism of hiv and its connections to aids.
The cure will likely come from such avenues of study.

So, as has been said so many FUCKING times.
This is not evidence of a conspiracy.
It's just another piece of the puzzle being investigated through scientific means.

It seemed to me to tend toward the description, of taking what seems to be true, or what they would like to be true, and passing it off as absolute truth.

No.
It's about finding out that certain mutations have certain effects.
It is this sort of thing which shows us how the virus works.

Sigh.
You're fucking tiresome.
I guess 'may' is the new way of passing off absolute truths, eh?

I chose "theory" to infer the application of the general theory of HIV/AIDS to the instance in question, which "hypothesis" would not have done.

You opposed theory with fact in a way which clearly shows your ignorance of science.

Thus the offer to educate you.

Yes they are, the point being that a supposed fact, intended to fit as a smaller part of a larger theory is not concluded as such by the inductive force of the larger theory, but rather by the merit of fact itself.

You seriously have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about.

The days of logical positivism are long in the past, Sauna.

Thus the offer to educate you.

 

[invert_nexus]

So you won't look through the telescope.

I guess not.
I've provided you with links to textbooks with which you can build your understanding of microbiology and immunology, yet you refuse.
And you accuse me of not looking through the telescope?

Metakron, by your own admission, the evidence to the contrary does not exist.
You say it's because of a conspiracy to deprive Duesberg of funding for his research, but regardless of the cause, the data you are suggesting I look at doesn't exist.
The data which does exist doesn't lead to your conclusion.

 

[MetaKron]

Part of the problem, Invert, is that every time I actually try to tell the story, there is a son of a bitch who finds some way to screw with it. I learn that he gets all sorts of free passes on his execrable behavior because he's on the side of "right." It's worse than unnerving. Then he gets to call me names and use the stupidest methods there are to just dismiss my story and he gets other people to go along with stupid garbage like "it's just another conspiracy theory site."

Then other sons of bitches help him do it.

Some of the things that you say, also, I can't believe that you are that incredibly stupid without doing it on purpose.

All you're doing is playing a game with me.

 

[MetaKron]

And don't even start talking like I've "lost it." Your gang started the abusive behavior. You chose the way that you would persuade the audience that I am wrong. The methods that you chose prove to me that you are abusive idiots who are either in someone's pay, which would at least be sane, or you have something so badly wrong with you mentally that I can't even describe it.

 

[invert_nexus]

Metakron,

As has been said in this thread and many others.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
The argument pro-hiv/aids is not extraordinary. It's the plain old ordinary accepted theory.
Your side of the argument is making the outrageous claims and the science backing it up is lacking.
Simple as that.

And don't even start talking like I've "lost it."

Nah. You were getting out there for a while, but you seem to have got a grip on yourself a bit better now. You still have some crazy conspiratorial thoughts, but at least you're not voicing them as much as you were back when I did accuse you of losing it.

The methods that you chose prove to me that you are abusive idiots who are either in someone's pay, which would at least be sane, or you have something so badly wrong with you mentally that I can't even describe it.

The methods that we use demonstrate that we are not experts on Aids science. None of us claim to be. None of us are even claiming to be enthusiastic hobbyists in the field.
However, the scientific research has led us to this place. But, we are not able to completely and adequately address every single one of your concerns with properly sourced material.
It is out there and we are able to display fragments to you.
And to find source intended for layman consumption.
But, we don't have a cross-referenced aids/hiv library to answer you with.

But, we do have more than you.

Now. If we were paid to quell your conspiracy chatter, we'd be far better informed and equipped with sourced material to answer your every concern.

It's a pity that no immunologists are resident at sci, I'd like to see a more sourced rebuttal to your arguments as well.
That's life though.

I maintain that our arguments have answered your points, even if in a muddled sort of way.
The only point you have, as I've said, is the issue of aids progression from hiv infection/exposure and dangerous drugs.
Most of the rest of your points are ludicrous, at best.

Duesberg should be ashamed of himself for taking advantage of people like you.

 

[MetaKron]

So basically, you get your truth handed down to you on high, you are incapable of seeing whether it is true or not, and you get off in my ass because I have a difference of opinion? I think that says it pretty well.

 

[Sauna]

And, as has been stated a number of times for your deaf ears, these instances are the exception and not the rule.
They are not denied by the scientists researching the matter. On the contrary, they are studied in depth as likely avenues of research to understand the mechanism of hiv and its connections to aids.
The cure will likely come from such avenues of study.
So, as has been said so many FUCKING times.....

Nonsense.

How ever many FUCKING times you say, the saying is not the proof.

We simply do not know what is the exception and what is the rule because HIV is not so widely tested for, and when a test does take place there is no knowing if the subject was already infected but recovered. To know that you'd have to test a large enough portion of the population randomly and regularly enough to notice the infection and the recovery and as yet we are a million miles away from that.

Health workers supposed to be at risk are not even routinely tested. There could be thousands of people out there who were infected with HIV but recovered naturally. Andrew Stimpson felt tired and feverish for a while so on his own initiative he was tested for AIDS because he had a gay partner. How many others feel tired and feverish but do not have gay partners and were not tested for HIV?

If they happen to beat off the virus they are likely not going to be studied in depth because they are not even going to be known about. Unfortunately, good health does not so often make the headlines.