What is a scientific reason to believe in AIDS?

spuriousmonkey said:
I don't know who you are talking about, but i have a PhD in biology, I am actively involved in research, and have reviewed several papers for peer-reviewed journals (the most recent one 1 month ago), who deemed me fit to judge my scientific peers. I would like to think I am qualified to distinguish between science and a travesty.

Let's not pretend anyone supporting the AIDS conspiracy is acting in the interest of science. The lack of scientific discussion regarding this topic has already shown this. The lack of any real interest in what HIV/AIDS researchers are actually saying and the disproportionate interest in the authority of conspiracy.

How easy would it be for me to point out faults in HIV research if there were.

I may point out for instance my sticky topic regarding regeneration. Although I am not a regeneration specialist I did pick up a rather big error in the peer-reviewed article of which I gave a reference. In the paper they make a conclusion that cannot be made based on the data. I don't mention it there but I am willing to share it with you if you are truly interested.

If I can pick a hole in a paper I am not an expert on, how difficult is it for 10,000+ researchers in the field of Virology to pick apart the HIV/AIDS research papers? How difficult could it be for the conspiracy proponents if they were serious? Researchers in the field of virology have to compete for grants. You think they would let all the funds slip away into HIV research if they could destroy it? No.

All logic and science is against you.

Supporting the notion that HIV is not the cause of AIDS is irresponsible. It is nothing more than sensationalism. And when pressed for an argument, the conspiracy sensationalists resort to attacking the messenger.
Click to expand...

You go on and on, but still cannot tell the listening audience how mice were cloned without an immune system can you. Of course not, the answer cannot be explained without revealing the precise science.
This is being exposed, and those involved in creating the science of 'Open Source Biology' will have their day in court.
Members. Focus on the P-53 Gene(the gateway to the immune system), the Lymphcyte-Phagocyte mechanism, and also the Dendritic Cells and Calcium Channels.

They will steer you down a labrinth of excuses and origins, but they cannot hide what they've done.
*Curiously, my theory on 'Immuno-Logical' space will utlilize this 'tool' called H.I.V., and it will actually help to to find a solution with regard to global warming.
I've other websites that I am on, and am receiving help in my efforts to utilize various science disciplines in an academic collaboration.

*Understand, their are billions of invested dollars at stake, reputations, and of course Human Rights violations too. The genocide and scapegoating for this research has gone on long enough, and will come to end, along with those who perpetrated this.
 
Some of this should really go under "alternative theories" instead of under the "Cesspool" or "pseudoscience" headings. Myself, I think that HIV disease is an alternative theory that has required the overturning of a lot of basic theory that came before, without any proper justification for it.
 
You go on and on, but still cannot tell the listening audience how mice were cloned without an immune system can you.
Click to expand...

Already answered in your thread that got cesspooled, yes?
Gene knockout mice.
Do you really need to know the exact method of knocking out genes to understand that knocking them out can effect the physiology of the mouse? Such as having a weakened immune system?
 
This thread is really interesting to me, not so much for the ideas (which i cant say i really care for) but rather the reaction to the ideas.
This entire thread is a great example of how science is all to offen treated as sacred doctorine in practice, rather than a collection of principles/theories subject to upheavel and revision.
You dare to point out holes in established theory and you will be labeled 'anti science' - a comment that someone lashed out with earlier and which i predicted someone would earlier in the thread.

It all really just asserts the fact that the average human mind isnt anywhere near capable of true scientific nihilism.
 
heliocentric said:
This thread is really interesting to me, not so much for the ideas (which i cant say i really care for) but rather the reaction to the ideas.
This entire thread is a great example of how science is all to offen treated as sacred doctorine in practice, rather than a collection of principles/theories subject to upheavel and revision.
You dare to point out holes in established theory and you will be labeled 'anti science' - a comment that someone lashed out with earlier and which i predicted someone would earlier in the thread.

It all really just asserts the fact that the average human mind isnt anywhere near capable of true scientific nihilism.
Click to expand...

agreed, for my view check out

http://www.myspace.com/theoryofr

I am not permitted much of a view here, anything that reveals moderator flaws is deleted. check out all that red font in biology forums Aids thread!

May I quote you on my blog?
 
It is very difficult discussing a point with a mod.

here is a little something

http://www.physorg.com/news86585674.html
>> South Korean scentists said Friday they are closer to understanding how a protein found in both primates and humans blocks the progression of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the apes.

>> Its research paper was featured in the latest edition of a biology journal, Molecular Cell, university officials said.

"We have determined the structure of a key domain of a protein, paving the way for scientists to identify the cause of various diseases created by HIV and other viruses," Woo Jae-Sung, co-author of the paper, told AFP.

There are drugs which slow the progress of AIDS but no cures. HIV/AIDS patients use expensive anti-retroviral drugs to reduce the side-effects.

"Our discovery paved the path for more research into identifying the structure and functions of TRIM5," Woo said.

TRIM5 is a protein found in the cells of both humans and most types of monkey. It is known to fend off various retrovirus infections in monkeys, and scientists are investigating whether the human form of the protein can be modified so it has the same effect. >>>

There is the specturm.
 
The Avert article is an obvious propaganda piece with a poor bibliography. The front page does not give references and it does not say who it is written by.
 
MetaKron said:
Your "demand" is not accepted and I think that you should withdraw from the moderation of this segment of sciforums. You are not acting as moderator. You are acting as a political officer. Instead of providing a level playing field for ideas, you have decided to impose special conditions on the dissident side that the so-called orthodox side is not required to work under. The side that you support, and yes, you have taken sides, is free to slander, to use propaganda, and pretty much get away with murder while you're busting me for every nitpicking thing.
Click to expand...

You're funny.

You know why he required sources from your side but not from ours?

It's because our side has OVERWHELMING scientific consensus on its side. Therefore, it is scientific fact.

You, on the other hand, have provided NOTHING to challenge that consensus, other than your lonely, harebrained statement.

This is equivalent to saying the sky is red. Sources would not be required of the "blue sky" side, because it is scientific fact. However, since you are challenging scientific fact by asserting that the sky is red, you must give some sort of evidence before you can be taken seriously.

So what? You think that the world's top virologists have become brain-dead, and only you can see it? You think that the entire scientific community is being duped into believing AIDS is caused by HIV, while the common barber or taxi driver can see through the propaganda?

Puh-LEEAAAZE.

:rolleyes:
 
That is pretty much the case, actually.

Besides, I have a freakishly high intelligence quotient, plus the fact that graduating from college does not mean that one is intelligent.
 
MetaKron said:
That is pretty much the case, actually.
Click to expand...

Haha! I knew you'd say that. Am I psychic or what? :D

MetaKron said:
Besides, I have a freakishly high intelligence quotient,
Click to expand...

I just lost more faith in the concept of an IQ.

MetaKron said:
plus the fact that graduating from college does not mean that one is intelligent.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it doesn't. But it does usually mean that you know a thing or two about virology if you study any closely related field at all while in college.

It's funny how laymen think they're so much smarter than the people who actually study this stuff. "Bah, damn them smart peoples! Whada they know?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top