| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Cornfed wrote: |
| No, it is clear they did not isolate any virus with the view to proving its existence. They were merely assuming that and conducting a routine experiment to see whether "it" "infected" one cell type without the mediation of another. |
Nope. Sorry. Read the parts I cited again. Isolated. Infected. Recovered. Anyone else impressed by cornfed's lame attempt at trying to tell use those words don't mean what they obviously mean? |
Here is the relevant bit from the paper, for everyone's convenience:
| Methods Section wrote: |
Virus isolation and infection of CD4+ and CD8+ cells.
Generation of AD3.v6 and AD3.v22 viruses has been described4, 5, 6. Isolation of PBL and purified CD4+ or CD8+ cells using antibody-coated magnetic beads has been described5. |
It's not clear what they did, as they simply refer us to other, unavailable experiments. Cornfed seems to have a point. What does generation of AD3 version viruses mean?
Here's the link to the paper again.
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v7/n1/full/nm0101_65.html#B5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| I assume he would shoot up with something the 'establishment' claims is the virus, but which he claims is not. |
If the HIV virus does not exist then whatever they inject him with would be something else that might really be harmful. Why would he consent to a mystery injection? |
i'm sure he could get his own 'doctors' to test it for safety. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| I assume he would shoot up with something the 'establishment' claims is the virus, but which he claims is not. |
If the HIV virus does not exist then whatever they inject him with would be something else that might really be harmful. Why would he consent to a mystery injection? |
i'm sure he could get his own 'doctors' to test it for safety. |
Please try to understand. In his eyes the virus does not exist. Your challenge seems to your side like a nice refutation. To him it seems stupid. I'm trying to save everyone some time by focusing the argument on HIV isolation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| I assume he would shoot up with something the 'establishment' claims is the virus, but which he claims is not. |
If the HIV virus does not exist then whatever they inject him with would be something else that might really be harmful. Why would he consent to a mystery injection? |
i'm sure he could get his own 'doctors' to test it for safety. |
Please try to understand. In his eyes the virus does not exist. Your challenge seems to your side like a nice refutation. To him it seems stupid. I'm trying to save everyone some time by focusing the argument on HIV isolation. |
There is no argument about HIV isolation. The vast majority of scientists in the field deem it to be isolated. Cornfed has shown zero evidence to the contrary. Until he shows overwhelming evidence to the contrary(extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) then there is no argument.
This is exactly like Evolutionism vs Creationism. Scientifically there is no argument between these. One side(evolution/HIV exists) has all the evidence, the other side has none. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Cornfed wrote: |
| No, it is clear they did not isolate any virus with the view to proving its existence. They were merely assuming that and conducting a routine experiment to see whether "it" "infected" one cell type without the mediation of another. |
Nope. Sorry. Read the parts I cited again. Isolated. Infected. Recovered. Anyone else impressed by cornfed's lame attempt at trying to tell use those words don't mean what they obviously mean? |
Here is the relevant bit from the paper, for everyone's convenience:
| Methods Section wrote: |
Virus isolation and infection of CD4+ and CD8+ cells.
Generation of AD3.v6 and AD3.v22 viruses has been described4, 5, 6. Isolation of PBL and purified CD4+ or CD8+ cells using antibody-coated magnetic beads has been described5. |
It's not clear what they did, as they simply refer us to other, unavailable experiments. Cornfed seems to have a point. What does generation of AD3 version viruses mean?
Here's the link to the paper again.
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v7/n1/full/nm0101_65.html#B5 |
We're talking about the other paper. The one that was cited over a dozen times regarding virus isolation. But anyway, from the methods section
| Quote: |
Detection of CD4, CD8 and HIV-1. Expression of CD4 and CD8 molecules
in different cell types was measured by FACS (ref. 29) as well as by sensitive
RT-PCR using CD4- and CD8-specific primers as described5,29. Briefly, total
RNA was extracted using Rneasy Mini Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, California).
DNA-free RNA was reverse transcribed using Qiagen Omniscript RT system
and tested for expression of CD4, CD8, or HIV-1 using specific primers. For
testing of viral DNA, infected or control cells were collected and extracted
DNA was amplified by PCR. |
Viral DNA was extracted? Hello. How do you extract viral DNA if the virus has not been identified and isolated? How do peer reviewers in Nature just go "ahhhhh sure sure". Please.
Cornfed you still need to answer the following with peer reviewed evidence, not your lame hand waving, citing your authority as an ESL teacher, or conspiracy web sites you claim are run by virologists but none can be found:
So in summary
1) You need to cite the scientific papers that establish the photos I've posted of HIV were not photographed using a method virologists require to take "true" virus photos.
2) You need to cite scientific papers that establish the sequencing of HIV has in fact sequenced nothing. (Merely saying they've not done this is not scientific evidence, it's just a claim. Do you let your students make fantastic claims and not back them with evidence?)
3) You need to find me some virologists, like you claimed, who are part of the perth group (the founder doesn't even have a phd! she was a hospital tech!). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Koveras, Cornfed
Do you believe any virus has been isolated in the last decade? If yes, can you post a link to a paper that describes the method used to isolate that virus? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChopChaeJoe
Joined: 05 Mar 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm new to this forum. Is there actually a debate going on here whether HIV caus AIDS? I'm just trying to get this straight before I start posting. is this actually being debated?
Is the flat-earth society taking up your time too? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChopChaeJoe wrote: |
I'm new to this forum. Is there actually a debate going on here whether HIV caus AIDS? I'm just trying to get this straight before I start posting. is this actually being debated?
Is the flat-earth society taking up your time too? |
Indeed. Despite hundreds of papers about HIV, despite actual photographs of HIV infecting cells, despite HIV passing Koch's postulates, despite the genetic sequence available on the net, despite a Nobel prize awarded for isolation of HIV (a goal post he laid down and now he's trying to weasel his way out of), Cornfed believes HIV has not been isolated. And he can't cite one single peer reviewed paper in a major medical journal to support his claim. He waves his hand, falls back on conspiracies, and makes up facts (like the perth group is full of virologists).
Yes.
And he hates women. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| There is no argument about HIV isolation. |
That is in fact what we're arguing about. You may leave the thread if you'd like.
| Quote: |
| The vast majority of scientists in the field deem it to be isolated. Cornfed has shown zero evidence to the contrary. |
Have you shown a picture of the isolated virus?
| Quote: |
| Until he shows overwhelming evidence to the contrary(extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) then there is no argument. |
What makes this, objectively, an extraordinary claim? What exactly constitutes extraordinary evidence? The first part is perspectival, the second part an excuse for moving goal posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tp
Last edited by Koveras on Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dp, again |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's not isolated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
Have you shown a picture of the isolated virus?
|
I don't need to. Evidence for its isolation has been clearly shown and cited already in this thread by mm2. Even if it hadn't, the overwhelming scientific consensus would be enough.
| Quote: |
| What makes this, objectively, an extraordinary claim? |
He is claiming that the vast majority of the scientific community are wrong and/or part of a conspiracy to keep the truth under wraps. That is an extraordinary claim.
| Quote: |
| What exactly constitutes extraordinary evidence? |
Direct and clear evidence of a worldwide scientific conspiracy. An alternative reason why people diagnosed with AIDs die and back that reason up with evidence as compelling as the evidence for HIV/AIDS.
For a start, those two would suffice.
| Quote: |
| The first part is perspectival, the second part an excuse for moving goal posts. |
No that is how science works. If you make a claim that completely rocks the way we think, you have to back it up with overwhelming evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
