|
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 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:19 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Cornfed? I'll take your silence as capitulation? Wish you could at least man up to your goal post has been met.
My claim: papers show HIV has been isolated.
Your claim: If this is true, someone surely would have won a Nobel for it.
My claim: A Nobel has been awarded for the isolation of HIV.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081006-nobel-medicine.html
| Quote: |
While many scientists were crucial to early AIDS research, the Nobel specifically recognizes the initial isolation of the virus, said committee member G�ran Hansson of the Karolinska Institute. |
I submit your goal post has been met.
Do you still stand by your claim that the Nobel was not awarded for Montagnier's isolation of HIV?
I'm afraid your goal post has been met. Man up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 7:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cornfed some further reading from the Nobel site itself. Again, your goal post reached. Still trying to wiggle out of it?
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2008/press.html
| Quote: |
Discovery of HIV
Following medical reports of a novel immunodeficiency syndrome in 1981, the search for a causative agent was on. Fran�oise Barr�-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier isolated and cultured lymph node cells from patients that had swollen lymph nodes characteristic of the early stage of acquired immune deficiency. They detected activity of the retroviral enzyme reverse transcriptase, a direct sign of retrovirus replication. They also found retroviral particles budding from the infected cells. Isolated virus infected and killed lymphocytes from both diseased and healthy donors, and reacted with antibodies from infected patients. In contrast to previously characterized human oncogenic retroviruses, the novel retrovirus they had discovered, now known as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), did not induce uncontrolled cell growth. Instead, the virus required cell activation for replication and mediated cell fusion of T lymphocytes. This partly explained how HIV impairs the immune system since the T cells are essential for immune defence. By 1984, Barr�-Sinoussi and Montagnier had obtained several isolates of the novel human retrovirus, which they identified as a lentivirus, from sexually infected individuals, haemophiliacs, mother to infant transmissions and transfused patients. The significance of their achievements should be viewed in the context of a global ubiquitous epidemic affecting close to 1% of the population. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cornfed
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Cornfed some further reading from the Nobel site itself. Again, your goal post reached. Still trying to wiggle out of it?
|
This is stuff from 24 years ago. I've already pointed out upthread what it generally means to isolate a virus and the fact that Gallo and Montagnier never did. Just because it uses the word "isolated" in the paper doesn't mean that actually happened.
The difference between our approaches seems to be that I actually have some biochemical knowledge and read papers to see what they have come up with whereas you have no knowledge and merely take the word of official-type sources. You're never going to see through outright scams if you maintain that outlook. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cornfed wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Cornfed some further reading from the Nobel site itself. Again, your goal post reached. Still trying to wiggle out of it?
|
This is stuff from 24 years ago. I've already pointed out upthread what it generally means to isolate a virus and the fact that Gallo and Montagnier never did. Just because it uses the word "isolated" in the paper doesn't mean that actually happened.
The difference between our approaches seems to be that I actually have some biochemical knowledge and read papers to see what they have come up with whereas you have no knowledge and merely take the word of official-type sources. You're never going to see through outright scams if you maintain that outlook. |
Are you suggesting they award a nobel prize for isolating a virus and yet the paper did not in fact document isolation of a virus?
I seem to recall up thread you never answered my question: what is your goal post for proper virus isolation and is it the same used by medical science? Could you document such? I posted such on Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:42 pm and you never answered. Check page 4 of the thread. Looks like you ran.
And yes I oddly rely on the vast consensus of virologists instead of your authority and surface knowledge. Since you're the one with the expertise, maybe you could answer my questions. Should be a snap for you to go thru the two land mark papers and show me why they fail the goal post of virology for isolation. Also, could you explain how they sequence HIV's DNA if they've not isolated it? Also, could you explain how come there are actual photos of the HIV virus from the CDC? I hope your knowledge can cast light on this, as this is all solid evidence to me that HIV has been isolated and science has a very good grasp about its mechanism for infection.
| Quote: |
| Just because it uses the word "isolated" in the paper doesn't mean that actually happened. |
My claim: papers show HIV has been isolated.
Your claim: If this is true, someone surely would have won a Nobel for it.
My claim: A Nobel has been awarded for the isolation of HIV.
Your goal post. Met. Not sure why you continue to try and wiggle out of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 16, 2008 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| *bump* Cornfed, going to answer my question with scientific evidence? Can you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Peter Duesberg, who discovered the cancer gene and leads a group of academics that do not agree with the dominant hiv/aids theories is being investigated by UC Berkely for academic misconduct:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=411408&c=1
| Quote: |
| A scholar who questioned the link between HIV and Aids is being investigated by his university following allegations of "unacceptable conduct". The University of California, Berkeley is investigating whether Peter Duesberg, professor of molecular and cell biology, violated university policies when he submitted an article denying the link between HIV and Aids to the journal Medical Hypotheses. The article, "HIV-Aids hypothesis out of touch with South African Aids - A new perspective", argues there is "as yet no proof that HIV causes Aids". In a letter to Professor Duesberg, seen by Times Higher Education, Berkeley says it has received allegations that submitting the paper amounted to "unacceptable conduct". |
The response of the hiv/aids academic-industry complex to dissent makes me think PD might be on to something.
For those of you unfamiliar with this subject, here is an excellent overview of the dissent:
http://www.suppressedscience.net/aids-debate.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And the response goes beyond the University simply taking action against him, too:
| Quote: |
Its publication last July led to a furore, and prompted the publisher of the unorthodox journal, Elsevier, to issue an ultimatum to its editor, Bruce Charlton. It demanded that a peer-review system be introduced to replace the journal�s current model, under which Professor Charlton decides which papers to publish on the strength of how interesting or radical they are.
Professor Charlton has refused to implement the changes and faces the sack as a result. |
This is quite a response to a single paper proposing an alternative hypothesis to AIDs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Medical Hypotheses is an interesting product. It exists to challenge dogma. No wonder it is a target.
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623059/authorinstructions
| Quote: |
The purpose of Medical Hypotheses is to publish interesting theoretical papers. The journal will consider radical, speculative and non-mainstream scientific ideas provided they are coherently expressed.
Medical Hypotheses is not, however, a journal for publishing workaday reviews of the literature, nor is it a journal for primary data (except when preliminary data is used to lend support to the main hypothesis presented). Many of the articles submitted do not clearly identify the hypothesis and simply read like reviews.
These notes are designed to help authors formulate an article for Medical Hypotheses in such a way that the article is clearly distinguishable from a review. These are guidelines only and the Editor is happy to accept other formats provided that the principal requirements are met. |
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623059/authorinstructions
I will now take the dissent re: hiv/AIDS much more seriously due to UC Berkeley's actions. They're trying to send a message that the subject is out of bounds. I want to know why it is out of bounds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/03/0080961
| Quote: |
The foregoing is merely a sketch of the central mystery presented by the HIV theory of AIDS. There are many more, which Duesberg has laid out very carefully in his scientific papers and in a trade book published ten years ago, but they all boil down to the central point that when it comes to AIDS, basic scientific standards seem no longer to apply.
AIDS is a �syndrome� defined by twenty-five diseases, all of which exist independently of HIV. No one has ever demonstrated the cell-killing mechanism by which HIV is supposed to cause all these different diseases, and no one has ever demonstrated how a sexually transmitted virus can manage to restrict itself overwhelmingly to gay men and other AIDS risk groups instead of spreading randomly through the population, as do all other infectious diseases. The �overwhelming� character of the evidence for HIV's causation has always been epidemiological; which is to say, a correlation, a coincidence. Whenever we have AIDS, researchers say, we also have HIV. But this correlation is a result of the official definition of AIDS, which states that a disease counts as AIDS only if it corresponds with HIV antibodies. (�AIDS without HIV� has been given a singularly unmemorable name: idiopathic CD4 lymphocytopenia.)
...
Given that the evidence for HIV is coincidental, a number of research avenues suggest themselves, yet orthodox AIDS researchers have failed to demonstrate, using large-scale controlled studies, that the incidence of AIDS-defining diseases is higher among individuals infected with HIV than among the general uninfected population. Consequently, it could very well be the case that HIV is a harmless passenger virus that infects a small percentage of the population and is spread primarily from mother to child, though at a relatively low rate. (This hypothesis would tend to explain the fact that the estimated number of HIV-positive Americans has remained constant at about 1 million since 1985.) Nor have large-scale controlled studies been carried out to directly test the AIDS-drug hypothesis, which holds that many cases of AIDS are the consequence of heavy drug use, both recreational (poppers, cocaine, methamphetamines, etc.) and medical (AZT, etc.).
Nor have controlled studies been carried out to prove that hemophiliacs infected with HIV die sooner than those who are not infected. Such studies might be expensive and tedious, but expense has never been a serious objection to AIDS researchers, who have spent many billions of dollars in the last twenty years on HIV research and practically nothing on alternative causes or even co-factors. (Even Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV, has stated repeatedly that the virus cannot cause AIDS without contributing causes.)
...
Attempts to rigorously test the ruling medical hypothesis of the age are met not with reasoned debate but with the rhetoric of moral blackmail: Peter Duesberg has the blood of African AIDS babies on his hands. Duesberg is evil, a scientific psychopath. He should be imprisoned. Those who wish to engage the AIDS research establishment in the sort of causality debate that is carried on in most other branches of scientific endeavor are tarred as AIDS �denialists,� as if skepticism about the pathogenicity of a retrovirus were the moral equivalent of denying that the Nazis slaughtered 6 million Jews. Moral zeal rather than scientific skepticism defines the field. It has been decided in advance that HIV causes AIDS; consequently all research and all funding must proceed from that assumption. Similarly, it was known in advance that AZT was a �magic bullet� against HIV; the word was out that it was a �life-saving drug� before anyone could possibly verify this, and so scientific controls were compromised. Journalists (myself included) who reported at the time that the drug apparently was killing patients were labeled �AZT refuseniks� and even �murderers.�
Harvey Bialy, the founding scientific editor of Nature Biotechnology, a sister journal to Nature, recently spent four years writing a scientific biography of Duesberg entitled Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS.
...
�I wanted to make sure that his contributions were not swept aside or ignored.� I asked him about the AIDS controversy. �AIDS is a political thing, and Peter's stuck in it. There's nothing to discuss anymore on that.� Bialy made a critical point: Science is amoral and should be. There is no right and wrong, only correct and incorrect. �Duesberg,� Bialy said, �is a classical molecular biologist. All he is interested in is rigorously testing dueling hypotheses. The twin pillars, AIDS and oncogenes, both are crumbling because of the questions Peter Duesberg put into motion.�
Duesberg thinks that up to 75 percent of AIDS cases in the West can be attributed to drug toxicity. If toxic AIDS therapies were discontinued, he says, thousands of lives could be saved virtually overnight. And when it comes to Africa, he agrees with those who argue that AIDS in Africa is best understood as an umbrella term for a number of old diseases, formerly known by other names, that currently do not command high rates of international aid. The money spent on antiretroviral drugs would be better spent on sanitation and improving access to safe drinking water (the absence of which kills 1.4 million children a year).
Nobel laureate Kary Mullis, who discovered the revolutionary DNA technique called the polymerase chain reaction, has long been a supporter of Duesberg, but he has grown weary of the AIDS wars and the political attacks on contrarian scientists. �Look, there's no sociological mystery here,� he told me. �It's just people's income and position being threatened by the things Peter Duesberg is saying. That's why they're so nasty. In the AIDS field, there is a widespread neurosis among scientists, but the frenzy with which people approach the HIV debate has slacked off, because there's just so much slowly accumulating evidence against them. It's really hard for them to deal with it. They made a really big mistake and they're not ever going to fix it. They're still poisoning people.� |
This article was written by Celia Farber. Wikipedia tells me that she is an evil AIDS denialist and is discredited.
You'd think maybe scientists would simply argue the point. The names, labels, pejoratives, witch hunts and McCarthyism has the fingerprints of corporate-academic-government sponsored extreme ideological protectionism.
Here is a rebuttal to the above article (notice how they jump right to character assassination and labels):
http://www.aegis.org/files/tac/2006/errorsinfarberarticle.pdf
And a rebuttal to the rebuttal:
http://www.rethinkingaids.com/GalloRebuttal/overview.html
I don't know if AEGIS is just lazy, but the rethinkingaids people present a much more convincing case imo. I don't know anything about retroviruses so my opinion isn't useful. I am disgusted with the scientific establishment in the West. Petty, greedy little tyrants. Hide the decline, y'all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| I am disgusted with the scientific establishment in the West. Petty, greedy little tyrants. Hide the decline, y'all. |
I feel pretty much the same way. I'm a big believer in the scientific method, but what we're seeing here on the side of "establishment science" (if I can use that term) isn't the scientific method. It's character assassination and aggressive attempts to gag people.
The fact that one can have all the symptoms of AIDS without having HIV alone makes me interested in hearing alternative hypotheses. I'm not saying I'm convinced this fellow is right, but at the same time, I'm not convinced he's wrong; there's nothing particularly outlandish about his theories, especially since the symptoms of AIDS can evidently be found at times in people without HIV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 8:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/03/0080961
| Quote: |
| Those who wish to engage the AIDS research establishment in the sort of causality debate that is carried on in most other branches of scientific endeavor are tarred as AIDS �denialists,� as if skepticism about the pathogenicity of a retrovirus were the moral equivalent of denying that the Nazis slaughtered 6 million Jews. Moral zeal rather than scientific skepticism defines the field.[/b] |
|
This is analogous to the use of "conspiracy theorist."
So what about everything mm2 said? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sat May 01, 2010 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mindmetoo would defend a mainstream opinion for the sole reason that it is mainstream. He would not ever, in any way/shape/form move outside of a position held by the NYT. See his defense of the Federal Reserve System and insistence that all who dissent from that consensus are conspiracy types. He'd just find a Wikipedia article and use the links.
His beef on this thread was if the virus had been isolated. That's not the issue raised in the two articles I've posted in the past 3 or 4 days.
That AIDS is in part a political story is nakedly clear. The only question is to what extent is it a political story. |
|
| 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
