|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
uberscheisse
Joined: 02 Dec 2003
Location: japan is better than korea.
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 3:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
there's this documentary i watched... AIDS Fact Or Fiction
here's the torrent link:
http://torrentspy.com/torrent/1540530/HIV_AIDS_Fact_Or_Fiction_DivX_avi
this UC Berkeley professor, peter duesberg, seems to have a little bit more understanding as to how viruses replicate/infect etc. and in the film he had some pretty compelling arguments why he believes HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
i don't know if i'm totally swayed, since i still try to stay as far away from HIV as possible. as well, the film is already 11 years old. but watch it and make your own judgements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesberg_hypothesis
he may be wrong - but in the film he talked about some interesting circumstantial links between public acknowledgment of HIV/AIDS, drug companies' economic health, politicians repeating buzzwords and the unilateral acceptance of "HIV is the sole cause of AIDS"
it tickled my BS detector a bit, and the fact that duesberg has had a lot of his funding cut by the medical establishment makes me think he's a dissenting voice in an argument that is a little too important to just shut educated people up.
he's smarter than anyone in the food fighters or anyone in this thread, for damned sure.
just consider who is trying to shout him down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Alyallen
Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Location: The 4th Greatest Place on Earth = Jeonju!!!
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| uberscheisse wrote: |
there's this documentary i watched... AIDS Fact Or Fiction
here's the torrent link:
http://torrentspy.com/torrent/1540530/HIV_AIDS_Fact_Or_Fiction_DivX_avi
this UC Berkeley professor, peter duesberg, seems to have a little bit more understanding as to how viruses replicate/infect etc. and in the film he had some pretty compelling arguments why he believes HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
i don't know if i'm totally swayed, since i still try to stay as far away from HIV as possible. as well, the film is already 11 years old. but watch it and make your own judgements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesberg_hypothesis
he may be wrong - but in the film he talked about some interesting circumstantial links between public acknowledgment of HIV/AIDS, drug companies' economic health, politicians repeating buzzwords and the unilateral acceptance of "HIV is the sole cause of AIDS"
it tickled my BS detector a bit, and the fact that duesberg has had a lot of his funding cut by the medical establishment makes me think he's a dissenting voice in an argument that is a little too important to just shut educated people up.
he's smarter than anyone in the food fighters or anyone in this thread, for damned sure.
just consider who is trying to shout him down. |
How many new facts could have come to life about HIV/AIDS in 11 years? Something a little more up to date might be more compelling... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uberscheisse
Joined: 02 Dec 2003
Location: japan is better than korea.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alyallen wrote: |
| uberscheisse wrote: |
there's this documentary i watched... AIDS Fact Or Fiction
here's the torrent link:
http://torrentspy.com/torrent/1540530/HIV_AIDS_Fact_Or_Fiction_DivX_avi
this UC Berkeley professor, peter duesberg, seems to have a little bit more understanding as to how viruses replicate/infect etc. and in the film he had some pretty compelling arguments why he believes HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
i don't know if i'm totally swayed, since i still try to stay as far away from HIV as possible. as well, the film is already 11 years old. but watch it and make your own judgements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesberg_hypothesis
he may be wrong - but in the film he talked about some interesting circumstantial links between public acknowledgment of HIV/AIDS, drug companies' economic health, politicians repeating buzzwords and the unilateral acceptance of "HIV is the sole cause of AIDS"
it tickled my BS detector a bit, and the fact that duesberg has had a lot of his funding cut by the medical establishment makes me think he's a dissenting voice in an argument that is a little too important to just shut educated people up.
he's smarter than anyone in the food fighters or anyone in this thread, for damned sure.
just consider who is trying to shout him down. |
How many new facts could have come to life about HIV/AIDS in 11 years? Something a little more up to date might be more compelling... |
which is why i said it was 11 years old...
but duesberg's description of the way the virus lives and dies in the film is educational, and a good primer.
by no means did i say it was the only opinion, i'm just curious why he's been shouted down. is it because he's wrong, or are drug companies making too much money on drug cocktails to allow a dissenting voice?
the only opinion i heard before that movie was "HIV CAUSES AIDS." and what's really worth seeing in that film is the way that opinion was rushed through as a buzz-phrase and how anyone who didn't toe that line and agree was suppressed.
duesberg could be wrong. so could the rest of the medical community. didn't people use to treat syphillis with mercury or something? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rapacious Mr. Batstove
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: Central Areola
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Who cares?
People get sick from HIV. People get sick from AIDs.
Both are transmitted through contaminated body fluids.
Wear a condom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| duesberg could be wrong. so could the rest of the medical community |
Which is more likely? Its very easy to shout conspiracy but there is normally a reason for a scientific consensus.
Here is a good rebuttal I got from a link on his wiki page
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Factsheets/evidhiv.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack4289
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rapacious Mr. Batstove wrote: |
Who cares?
People get sick from HIV. People get sick from AIDs.
Both are transmitted through contaminated body fluids.
Wear a condom. |
This is a good point. Why does it matter whether HIV causes AIDS? How would this change how we approach the problem? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Quote: |
| duesberg could be wrong. so could the rest of the medical community |
Which is more likely? Its very easy to shout conspiracy but there is normally a reason for a scientific consensus.
Here is a good rebuttal I got from a link on his wiki page
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Factsheets/evidhiv.htm |
11 years ago there might have been room for some legit skepticism but that's pretty much long dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_reappraisal
Lots of initial skeptics have been pretty much swayed by the mountain of evidence.
I dunno, when you see HIV infecting white blood cells and can map out the mechanisms by which it does it, I'm not really sure how you can maintain a belief that HIV does not cause AIDS. No white blood cells, bad immune system, AIDS.
| uberscheisse wrote: |
| just consider who is trying to shout him down. |
Well, the journal Science, for one. From you wiki link:
| Quote: |
In the December 9, 1994 issue of Science (Vol. 266, No. 5191),[2] Duesberg's methods and claims were evaluated. The authors concluded that:
* it is abundantly evident that HIV causes disease and death in hemophiliacs, a group generally lacking Duesberg's proposed risk factors.[18][3]
* HIV fulfills Koch's postulates, which are one set of criteria for demonstrating a causal relationship between a microbe and a disease.[19][20]
* the AIDS epidemic in Thailand cited by Duesberg as confirmation of his hypothesis is in fact evidence of the role of HIV in AIDS.[21]
* According to researchers who conducted large-scale studies of AZT, the drug does not cause AIDS. Furthermore, researchers acknowledged that recreational drugs do cause immune abnormalities, though not the type of immunodeficiency seen in AIDS.[22] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
desultude
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: Dangling my toes in the Persian Gulf
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| canuckistan wrote: |
They're splitting hairs in a very bullsh*tty way.
A body/immune system weakened by HIV remaining untreated is left open to developing fully-blown AIDS and very particular kinds of opportunistic diseases: Kaposi's sarcoma etc. |
Yes. This is exactly what happened to a very good friend of mine. He was told that he was HIV positive, but his levels were low, so he was told that he needn't worry about starting the anti-retrovirus regime. As a consequence he was not treated until after he was extremely weak and had Karposis. He was certainly responsible for his own state of denial, but so is the doctor and so are those who deny the relationship and spread that word. HIV patients are facing a life threatening disease, and will grasp as anything that will help deny the reality.
I am extremely sceptical about the western drug companies, and about a lot that has happened regarding HIV/AIDS. But, as someone who spent months as a housemate and caregiver for someone who didn't take care of himself when he could have, I do believe in the medicines that are available and being used now.
By the way, once my friend got serious treatment and was put on the drug regimen, he regained his weight, got all of his strength back, and the Karposis is going away. So I am a closeup eye witness to what can happen with treatment. If I believed in such things I would call it a miracle. One week he was completely bedridden and we feared for his life, 2 weeks on the regime and he was back to work.
His immune system is still compromised, and he gets seriously ill with little things, but he is now working back at his business and is doing well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The problem with most HIV denial is it's based on gaps. Anything complex will always have gaps in understanding. Astronomy is always getting its apple cart upset as it discovers new things. Just when astronomers think they got a near perfect understanding of the way stars form, woosh, something new that doesn't fit.
I saw one guy claiming "If HIV causes AIDS, then why do so many patients die of liver failure these days?" Ummm. I think his train of thought is liver disease hasn't been considered one of the classic AIDS related deaths (like cancer or pneumonia) so therefore ummm therefore I dunno.
It's a bit like the 9/11 denial people. Simply raising a lot of questions that some people don't have short and easy answers to seems to them evidence of a vast conspiracy.
Anyway, any theory will have gaps. "How does it explain this and this?" "Well, it doesn't currently. It's possible x and y but who knows at this point? It accounts for 80% of the observations and it's the best fit." What is indicative of being on the right track is the gaps narrow. If the gaps don't ever narrow, especially after 25 years of research, then skepticism of HIV would certainly be warranted. Compare it to 100+ years of psychic research which just keeps turning over the same top soil. "Oh, we're going to run another random number trial to see if anyone can change the randomness."
Last edited by mindmetoo on Wed Aug 29, 2007 4:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| djsmnc wrote: |
| It's just a theory. Theories can be tested. Nothing wrong with postulating theories. Unless you hate science. |
NO! It's not "just a theory." It's a Scientific theory. In Science, the word "theory" does not mean what the lay public thinks it means. In Science, one starts with evidence, develops a hypothesis, tests that hypothesis, and then establishes a Scientific theory. It's a far cry from, "It's just a 'theory' (guess)" as used in popular parlance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CentralCali wrote: |
| djsmnc wrote: |
| It's just a theory. Theories can be tested. Nothing wrong with postulating theories. Unless you hate science. |
NO! It's not "just a theory." It's a Scientific theory. In Science, the word "theory" does not mean what the lay public thinks it means. In Science, one starts with evidence, develops a hypothesis, tests that hypothesis, and then establishes a Scientific theory. It's a far cry from, "It's just a 'theory' (guess)" as used in popular parlance. |
Then it's a frickin hypothesis. Not even as hardcore as a theory. The Foo Fighters were never hardcore either.
Nirvana was hard core. Nirvana was a theory. Nirvana was AIDS.
The Foo Fighters are just HIV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| djsmnc wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| djsmnc wrote: |
| It's just a theory. Theories can be tested. Nothing wrong with postulating theories. Unless you hate science. |
NO! It's not "just a theory." It's a Scientific theory. In Science, the word "theory" does not mean what the lay public thinks it means. In Science, one starts with evidence, develops a hypothesis, tests that hypothesis, and then establishes a Scientific theory. It's a far cry from, "It's just a 'theory' (guess)" as used in popular parlance. |
Then it's a frickin hypothesis. Not even as hardcore as a theory. The Foo Fighters were never hardcore either.
Nirvana was hard core. Nirvana was a theory. Nirvana was AIDS.
The Foo Fighters are just HIV. |
Should it not be the other way round seeing as Nirvan came first. It also gives a whole new meaning to "monkey see, monkey do". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| djsmnc wrote: |
| CentralCali wrote: |
| djsmnc wrote: |
| It's just a theory. Theories can be tested. Nothing wrong with postulating theories. Unless you hate science. |
NO! It's not "just a theory." It's a Scientific theory. In Science, the word "theory" does not mean what the lay public thinks it means. In Science, one starts with evidence, develops a hypothesis, tests that hypothesis, and then establishes a Scientific theory. It's a far cry from, "It's just a 'theory' (guess)" as used in popular parlance. |
Then it's a frickin hypothesis. Not even as hardcore as a theory. The Foo Fighters were never hardcore either.
Nirvana was hard core. Nirvana was a theory. Nirvana was AIDS.
The Foo Fighters are just HIV. |
Should it not be the other way round seeing as Nirvan came first. It also gives a whole new meaning to "monkey see, monkey do". |
I dunno, because this thread is about how HIV isn't a precursor to AIDS. Therefore they are independent of each other according to that hypotheorysis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
