Mod commit i warned you about turning this thread into a moderator critique. This is the last warning. It's none of your business why a thread was send to the cesspool. And if you think it is your business there are two threads in the Open Government subforum where you can discuss the matter and you have your own blog Obviously you did demonstrate bias, since you didn't post any link showing HIV is the sole cause of AIDS. Show that this in any way disproves that HIV causes AIDS. The jury is not out in the scientific community. It is rather in agreement. Please show that there is a controversy. A website does not constitute a scientific controversy. You are merely showing a figment of your imagination. Search the literature and you will find out the debate pretty much ended in 1995 in the scientific community with some spasms till 1998. If you had bothered to actually look at the scientific debate you would see it started off soon after the first HIV/AIDS papers and died after 1995. That's because the consensus is nowadays that HIV is the direct cause of AIDS because the debate turned out to be unfruitful for the doubters. But feel free to show there is a controversy in the scientific community. May I remind you that you basically in the position of a creationist who claims the entire scientific community is wrong because there are 2 or 3 scientists who believe in the AIDS conspiracy. I have a simple question for you though. Would you let yourself be injected with HIV? After all, it is innocent according to you.
actually I did add a link which discusses the issues debated here and refutes them all, this is the link: http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm it says this: "Introduction "AIDS is caused by infection with a virus called human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). This virus is passed from one person to another through blood-to-blood and sexual contact."1 That's the standard explanation of what causes AIDS. But what evidence do scientists have to support this theory? And why do some websites say that the world has got it terribly wrong – that HIV does not cause AIDS at all? As an independent AIDS organisation founded in 1986, AVERT has taken a keen interest in the ongoing debate about what causes the condition. As well as investigating the consensus position, we have followed and carefully considered the arguments of the dissident minority who claim that HIV is harmless or even that it might not exist. This topic is vitally relevant to how our organisation works to prevent people developing AIDS and to help those who are suffering. It is AVERT's considered opinion that the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is abundant and conclusive. This page outlines some of that evidence, while also mentioning how some dissidents have interpreted things differently. In particular, we'll look for proofs of the following:" proves you don't read the links doesn't it meanwhile stop with the bloody warnings, ban me if you want, I'll continue to reply to your posts as I see fit. If you don't think the comment is in the right place, then move it...like the other mods do. Meanwhile do show me the post where I say HIV is innocent, I have said no such thing. Clearly HIV is not innocent it leads to AIDS all the links demonstrate is that HIV is possibley NOT the sole cause of Aids. There is a BIG difference in that and what you said! You sure you have a PhD, like to post evidence of that? you don't post like someone with a PhD. I have no opinion on this matter, just questions, which you object to. Closed minds have no place in a debate. Stop trying to shut everyone up who disagree's with your view.
I think it proves you don't read anything yourself. AVERT is an AIDS charity organization and not a scientific organization. AVERT is an international HIV and AIDS charity based in the UK, with the aim of AVERTing HIV and AIDS worldwide. Nothing on their site says anyting that HIV is not responsible for AIDS. Feel free to point out on their site where it says HIV is not responsible for AIDS. In fact let me quote you some stuff on their website: http://www.avert.org/aids.htm It seems to me they are taking a rather normal position in the view on HIV causing AIDS. Maybe you should read your own links and sources.
Presently the definition of Aids is this: http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002279/ "Definition AIDS currently defined as an illness characterised by the development of one or more AIDS-indicating conditions. The Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA accepts all patients with a CD4 count of less than 200 x 106/L as having AIDS irrespective of the presence of an indicator disease, but this has not yet gained acceptance worldwide." This suggests that worldwide this test for HIV is NOT accepted as reliable. Dispute this? still waiting where did I say it was a scientific organization? I said I posted a link which refutes the arguments regarding HIV NOT being sole cause of Aids. I DID I did this to demonstrate no bias you have yet to demonstrate bias, and comprehension it seems
If I ask for proof of the scientific controversy one might expect it to come from a scientific organization. Moreover you quoted from a website that is fully in line with the view that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS. Logic is your friend.
this is not an answer it does not answer why this not accepted worldwide? if it does do highlight the words Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
moving my replies now to remove evidence of the flaws in your argument Spurious? You made a claim HERE, I am entitled to respond HERE I quoted from a website that supports your view knowingly, I did this as I have no bias, which I have repeated over and over. I already said why I posted the controversy supporting links and that they had nothing to do with an opinion of mine! Support for Metakrons argument was requested, I provided it. Nothing more than that. I demonstrated a controversy exists, I did NOT state at any time I supported it. I support free speech and have questions. Clearly you don't. This Post has been copied and saved on my pc. Feel free to delete. I'll make sure it's seen. modedit- your reply is not deleted, merely moved to the appropriate thead. http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=61472
still deleteing valid replies to your invalid posts? Mod comment Please keep pointless posts out of this thread. Yes, they will be deleted. Unfortunately you choose to post my mod PMs publicly on this forum and hence you will receive no warnings. That is your own doing and responsibility. If you act like a child you will be treated as such.
AIDS test reliabilty. Here you can find an evaluation of some recent tests on the market: http://www.who.int/diagnostics_laboratory/publications/en/op_characteristics_HIV_rep11.pdf If you are willing to scroll down to table 2 you will notice that these tests are extremely reliable. Even the simple tests compared in later tables do quite well. In conclusion HIV tests are rather reliable.
for the exact same reason there are website that says the driver of the limo shot JFK, the moon landing never happened, the holocaust is a hoax, etc, and so on.
I never said this Leo, why are you 'editing' my posts , these words are not mine, this question was not raised by me. It is contained within a link which I said a million times, I have no opinion on and do not support either way. Pay attention
Like having sex with the chimp that had the HIV virus...the virus catched on and got passed on to humans.
But is that just hearsay or usual enough to your way of life to speak with authority? Mod comment - No flaming please.
How did HIV enter the human population? The 'Hunter' Theory The most commonly accepted theory is that of the 'hunter'. In this scenario, SIVcpz was transferred to humans as a result of chimps being killed and eaten or their blood getting into cuts or wounds on the hunter. Normally the hunter's body would have fought off SIV, but on a few occasions it adapted itself within its new human host and become HIV-1. The fact that there were several different early strains of HIV, each with a slightly different genetic make-up (the most common of which was HIV-1 group M), would support this theory: every time it passed from a chimpanzee to a man, it would have developed in a slightly different way within his body, and thus produced a slightly different strain. An article published in The Lancet in 20043, also shows how retroviral transfer from primates to hunters is still occurring even today. In a sample of 1099 individuals in Cameroon , they discovered to ten (1%) were infected with SFV (Simian Foamy Virus), an illness which, like SIV, was previously thought only to infect primates. All these infections were believed to have been acquired through the butchering and consumption of monkey and ape meat. Discoveries such as this have lead to calls for an outright ban on bushmeat hunting to prevent simian viruses being passed to humans. From Avert. A organization recommended by ToR. http://www.avert.org/origins.htm