U.S Ambassador killed by angry Libyan mob Options

[Hlass]

Put simply, something smells.

Your feet?

What are denialist conspiracy theories and why should people be instantly distrustful of them? And what do they have to do with denialism?

Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose well-established science eventually need to assert deception on the part of their opponents to explain things like why every reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn’t because their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it’s that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the same false set of information.Cont in link

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/04/30/conspiracy/

[chrisg]

:)

Interesting first link Hlass, tried clicking on it ?

All I get is the word "filler" a few thousand times :)

So we are down to name calling?

Usually a last refuge for denialists...

Cheers

[twinair]

Chris, remove the ) from the end of the link...I had the same thing.

[chrisg]

:)

I can't really be bothered Twinny, if someone wants to post a link they could at least check it is readable.

Denialism is always a two-edged sword, as a general rule I find conspiracies interesting but rarely valid in any way shape or form when looked at with an open mind.

As a couple of examples I seem to recall spending a lot of time on here debunking several, most particularly 9/11 but also the moon landings, I don't really have a problem with climate change, global warming is a different story but you only have to look out the window to see some recent dramatic changes in climate of late.

I'm not even denying that HIV is a root cause of AIDs, and have been at pains to say so, what I AM saying is that the orthodox belief may have been prematurely adopted and needs further examination.

Modern medicine is overall pretty good, but there are exceptions:

I have a brother who suffered ulcers for years, was even put on tranquilisers to reduce stress, was fed charcoal to neutralise acid etc. Turns out that like lots of people his were being caused by a virus, doesn't get them anymore. That is not true in every case of ulcers but the virus often causing them was ignored as a reason for a long time.

I lost an aunt before I was born to TB, she was treated by the medicine of they day, which was pretty ineffective, now it is understood and if caught readily treated, her son has had it twice, he's still here.

I'm sure there are other examples, all I'm saying is that there is enough evidence to suggest that AIDS may have other causes than HIV or that HIV may be a blind alley, or even a symptom.

Seems to produce a lot of ire though but challenging the orthodox view or closed minds usually does.

Cheers

[Hlass]

:)

Interesting first link Hlass, tried clicking on it ?

All I get is the word "filler" a few thousand times :)

So we are down to name calling?

Usually a last refuge for denialists...
Cheers

Sick burn dude. Or it would be if you were using the term correctly...

In science, denialism has been defined as the rejection of basic concepts that are undisputed and well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a topic in favor of ideas that are both radical and controversial. It has been proposed that the various forms of denialism have the common feature of the rejection of overwhelming evidence and the generation of a controversy through attempts to deny that a consensus exists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

[chrisg]

:)

Wiki is not exactly the last word on many things but that is a good definition.

I am certain that I am extremely unlikely to change your mind, even enough to take an open minded look, but time will tell, including showing me to be wrong.

Cheers

[Hlass]

Seems to produce a lot of ire though but challenging the orthodox view or closed minds usually does.

Cheers

H.Pylori isn't a virus...

Believing something stupid just to be special is fine. When believing something stupid, and disseminating it, causes thousands of deaths that is not fine. Well deserving of ire.

:)

Wiki is not exactly the last word on many things but that is a good definition.

I am certain that I am extremely unlikely to change your mind, even enough to take an open minded look, but time will tell, including showing me to be wrong.

Cheers

No need to wait. You are wrong now.

This post has been edited by Hlass: Nov 2 2012, 02:15 PM

[chrisg]

:)

No, a bacterium, I don't suffer, if stress caused it I would :)

I wouldn't call querying an orthodox view stupid, it's at the core of good science. I also don't think querying HIV is causing deaths, mis-treating it might...

No, not trying to be 'special" at all, or pointing to any wild theories, what little opposing views to the HIV belief exist are from some well qualified people, unless you think a Nobel Prize winner, a highly credentialled oncologist, several professors and some concerned researchers are wrong to ask questions.

Cheers

Edit: Wrong Hlass? It seems to me in this very spaced out conversation that you have provided little to nothing to support your opinion, just busy challenging mine, which is not even a belief, it's a questioning, or are we all supposed to be sheep and believe everything that we are told?

Or have you been holding out? You an AIDS researcher?


This post has been edited by chrisg: Nov 2 2012, 02:35 PM

[Hlass]

Wow! Those people must be right! After all there are several of them... They can ask questions all they want. But making up answers is not on.

You want to have your cake and eat it as well. You want to be special for going against the sheeple*. But you want to be the rational one to.
Unfortunately you can't have both. AIDS denial is dumb but it is important because it is also deadly dangerous. Otherwise Desberg and Mulis and such could be left to carry on their smug circle jerking unbothered.

At the core AIDS denial is deeply selfish. For the satisfaction of believing themselves dreadfully clever deniers without HIV condemn the credulous sufferer, who swallows their guff, to death.

* I typed this before i read your "sheep" comment. Spooky hey?

As to your edit. You are asking questions that mostly have answers, I have tried to answer them but you did not want to engage. And are then denying answers exist and wanting to be praised for keeping an "open mind". You pretend it is a simple activity of questioning but then throw in claims of "criminal" activity, 'gagging of dissent" and profiteering and your feeling that "something smells". Pure conspiracy stuff.

I don't have an "opinion". Personal belief is no way to run health care. I respond to the reality of the disease.

This post has been edited by Hlass: Nov 2 2012, 03:27 PM

[chrisg]

Well,

Not sure where I didn't respond, but this conversation has spanned quite a time.

That sounds to me more like what I sometimes call "tyranny of text," as in you are quite incorrect in my stance - I don't know either, but the questions being asked do deserve answers and they have been asked by people with credence.

Duesberg in the ground-setting I suppose work "Inventing the AIDS Virus" gave many examples of where orthodoxy has proven to be incorrect, and it is difficult to deny that he has been treated very poorly since he published his opinions.

That's the real point, in the AIDS debate there are several, perhaps many, sensible well credentialed people who have not just been argued with, they have been ignored, had funding cut, been refused publication, in short gagged.

A classic example was Reagan's AIDS summit, yes quite a while ago now, Duesberg accepted, Gallo begged off. I don't know about you but I'd not refuse an invitation by a sitting president to put a case.

It is very, very different to conspiracy nuts thinking 9/11 was caused by *insert latest crackpot theory* or that Apollo 11 went to Hollywood but it is lumped in with those as an effective means to ridicule serious questions.

I don't think there is much point in batting it back and forth any longer, I'll just continue to read what news does make it to the serious literature and keep my opinion open because I do believe there is doubt, or at the very least lack of evidence.

However in that regard I very much doubt that those who question the HIV cause of AIDS actually know what is the root cause, Mulis has said that several times. Duesberg is more convinced that recreational drugs play a role but I don't think that can account for the observed history of AIDS completely. There may not be just one vector, that makes for a dangerous situation if all of the focus is on one cause only, but that is what is being forced to happen.

Cheers

[Hlass]

You are trying to sound reasonable and thoughtful. But you side with cranks discredited 20 years ago. You say your conspiracy theory is better than the other conspiracy theories and then talk about a conspiracy to silence and how the mainstream wriggles out of the light of truth.

At best it seems in poor taste to doubt the entirety of the medical and life science community and, more importantly, people suffering from a well understood, deadly but now very treatable disease.

At worst you look crazy and may create the idea in the minds of the naive that there is a real debate to be had about HIV/AIDS. There isn't. There is the evidence on one side and you with the cranks on the other.


This post has been edited by Hlass: Nov 5 2012, 08:46 AM

[TinBane]

Rather than continuing this ad hominem, it's probably worth just linking to something like this:

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/HIVAIDS/Un...causesAIDS.aspx

In particular:

"MYTH: There is no AIDS in Africa. AIDS is nothing more than a new name for old diseases.

FACT: The diseases that have come to be associated with AIDS in Africa - such as wasting syndrome, diarrheal diseases and TB - have long been severe burdens there. However, high rates of mortality from these diseases, formerly confined to the elderly and malnourished, are now common among HIV-infected young and middle-aged people, including well-educated members of the middle class (UNAIDS, 2000).

For example, in a study in Cote d'Ivoire, HIV-seropositive individuals with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) were 17 times more likely to die within six months than HIV-seronegative individuals with pulmonary TB (Ackah et al. Lancet 1995; 345:607). In Malawi, mortality over three years among children who had received recommended childhood immunizations and who survived the first year of life was 9.5 times higher among HIV-seropositive children than among HIV-seronegative children. The leading causes of death were wasting and respiratory conditions (Taha et al. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999;18:689). Elsewhere in Africa, findings are similar."

"MYTH: HIV is not the cause of AIDS because many individuals with HIV have not developed AIDS.

FACT: HIV disease has a prolonged and variable course. The median period of time between infection with HIV and the onset of clinically apparent disease is approximately 10 years in industrialized countries, according to prospective studies of homosexual men in which dates of seroconversion are known. Similar estimates of asymptomatic periods have been made for HIV-infected blood-transfusion recipients, injection-drug users and adult hemophiliacs (Alcabes et al. Epidemiol Rev 1993;15:303).

As with many diseases, a number of factors can influence the course of HIV disease. Factors such as age or genetic differences between individuals, the level of virulence of the individual strain of virus, as well as exogenous influences such as co-infection with other microbes may determine the rate and severity of HIV disease expression. Similarly, some people infected with hepatitis B, for example, show no symptoms or only jaundice and clear their infection, while others suffer disease ranging from chronic liver inflammation to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Co-factors probably also determine why some smokers develop lung cancer while others do not (Evans. Yale J Biol Med 1982;55:193; Levy. Microbiol Rev 1993;57:183; Fauci. Nature 1996;384:529)."

"MYTH: Some people have many symptoms associated with AIDS but do not have HIV infection.

FACT: Most AIDS symptoms result from the development of opportunistic infections and cancers associated with severe immunosuppression secondary to HIV.

However, immunosuppression has many other potential causes. Individuals who take glucocorticoids and/or immunosuppressive drugs to prevent transplant rejection or for autoimmune diseases can have increased susceptibility to unusual infections, as do individuals with certain genetic conditions, severe malnutrition and certain kinds of cancers. There is no evidence suggesting that the numbers of such cases have risen, while abundant epidemiologic evidence shows a staggering rise in cases of immunosuppression among individuals who share one characteristic: HIV infection (NIAID, 1995; UNAIDS, 2000)."

[Hlass]

I did link to that on the previous page. But it is useful to have reproduced here as a reminder that AIDS denial does not operate from a position of evidence.

[chrisg]

It's a good article, from one side of the debate.

This:

http://www.omsj.org/blogs/denyingaids

Is equally interesting from the opposition.

The difference is that because conventional science has closed ranks it is difficult to impossible for the alternative evidence, under-funded research and yes, opinions, to be published or endorsed by the likes of NIH.

Which leads to the real questions:

Why is there debate?

Why is there so much vehemence about alternative opinions including denying the very voice of those opinions?

Why have people with questions over the orthodoxy continued, thanklessly and assaulted including putting their careers and reputations at risk, to ask those questions?

I don't know, but the essence of good science is to continue to question, not to howl down.

Which is in essence all I've wanted to say, what is the rationale for the persistence of questioning?

Seems to me money is a factor as some aspects of my link make plain.

Cheers

[Hlass]

"Why is there debate?"

There isn't. This would indicate that both parties are equal and bring something to the table to discuss.

AIDS denial has nothing to offer and no real argument to make. The movement has blood on its hands from the gullible poor sufferers, and their families, who followed its path and then died from their disease. Even worse the South Africans who never had a choice because their President was fooled by AIDS denial into failing to give them access to life saving treatment. Hundreds of thousands of them are dead. That's where "questioning" things that already have clear answers got us.

Smug assertions that the scientific/medical community are all greedy and duping us all is just insulting. Spitting on the dead for selfish intellectual satisfaction is unforgiveable.

And this may seem familiar....

AIDS denialism actively propagates myths, misconceptions, and misinformation to distort and refute reality. Denialism is the outright rejection of science and medicine. It involves actively contradicting and disregarding medical advice. It is steady state. Denialism is not open to criticism, and evades modification. Denialism is only open to additional evidence supporting its tenets and such evidence most often comes from the misuse of science and from pseudoscience. AIDS denialists, often for the sake of personal preservation or recognition, hold fast to old ideas in the face of new evidence.

One feature of denialism is the tendency to think of the denialist position as beleaguered, and under attack and in a minority that has to stave off the assaults of the vast wrong-thinking majority. As a consequence, those involved in denialism often, in the other justifications for their position, declare their strong allegiance to the principle of free speech. Interestingly, then, denialists often set themselves up as plucky underdogs, battling for their right to speak the truth against a tide of misinformation and, as often as not, conspiracies aimed at keeping them silent.

Seth Kalichman,
"Denying AIDS: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, and Human Tragedy"


http://whatstheharm.net/hivaidsdenial.html
http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/dead_denialists

[chrisg]

No, not true Hlass, often it is the lone voice that proves correct in science, and other fields.

Medicine has a less than perfect record in that regard, but I'm not going to list them out, keep your views and don't ask questions :)

Cheers

[Hlass]

Sure but you have to use "science" to be "correct" in science. Barry Marshall (big headed loud mouth that he is) didn't just whine about conspiracies and demand someone else prove him wrong, he did "science".

Give us one example of the "lone voice" proving itself right without any evidence at all.

You don't seem to have anything but insinuations of conspiracy.

Therein lies a rub. An absolute link would be to take a healthy HIV negative individual, infect with HIV, apply no treatment, have the individual live a normal life and see what they die of - rather inhumane and too prone to serendipity but it would potentially prove or disprove the theory.

You said this would be the proof that HIV causes AIDS.

Well it happens everyday. People get HIV, aren't treated and die of AIDS. So you have your proof. Now what?

[TinBane]

It's a good article, from one side of the debate.

This:

http://www.omsj.org/blogs/denyingaids

Is equally interesting from the opposition.

The difference is that because conventional science has closed ranks it is difficult to impossible for the alternative evidence, under-funded research and yes, opinions, to be published or endorsed by the likes of NIH.

Which leads to the real questions:

Why is there debate?

Why is there so much vehemence about alternative opinions including denying the very voice of those opinions?

Why have people with questions over the orthodoxy continued, thanklessly and assaulted including putting their careers and reputations at risk, to ask those questions?

I don't know, but the essence of good science is to continue to question, not to howl down.

Which is in essence all I've wanted to say, what is the rationale for the persistence of questioning?

Seems to me money is a factor as some aspects of my link make plain.

Cheers

From your link:

http://www.omsj.org/corruption/biologist-h...ts-for-genocide

HIV doesn't exist, and it's the same old diseases?

What bullshit.

http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&...ial&f=false

"Plasma viral load was the single best predictor of progression to AIDS and death"
Followed in order by cd4+ count, serum neopterin, serum beta-2 levels, and thrush or fever.
Neopterin is a marker to generic immune stimulation
Beta-2 microglobin is related to basically auditing cell functions in the immune system

What does that indicate?
If you accept the assertion that we need CD4+ cells to keep disease and cancer at bay, and you accept that AIDS is a syndrome characterised by immunosuppression, specifically by lack of CD4+ cells (happy to provide links for that, BTW).
Then isn't it a little hard to swallow (being in the "questioning AIDS/HIV link" camp) that viral load (the amount of HIV in the patient's system) is a better (read that again, BETTER) predictor of how close they are to death/hospitalisation, than the lack of CD4+ cells alone?
That clearly shows that there is a massively strong correlation bordering on tentative causative link (based on this one study alone) between HIV and CD4+ depletion and eventual "AIDS" like death (assuming we are still questioning the validity of AIDS.

When a viral load correlates better with the end result than the primary causative symptom, the generic immune response, other factors that elevate with immune response, along with the most common causes of death in immune depletion cases alone (ie the chief opportunists of the human body) then you are bloody well onto something.
Why does it correlate better than many of the key killers in an immunosuppression context? Because of the large increase among HIV infected individuals of the likelihood of cancer types that are caused/mediated primarily by viruses. When I say primarily, I mean in the vast VAST majority of cases, to the extent that medically these cancers are known as virus linked cancers.

I understand your reservations about how the link arose.
There were definitely some issues with the initial research, which is regrettable. Odds are it was motivated purely out of trying to get a result quickly to stem a potential epidemic.
But, these days, it's clear as day.

Asserting that it's "the same old killers", is akin to asserting that being shot is the same as falling off a cliff. After all, it's the sudden collision of your body with something hard that killed you, right?
Medically, it's just as fallible an assertion.

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/vim.2008.0025
Correlation of a new CD4 cofactor with HIV viral load.

http://www.omsj.org/corruption/test-target-poor

A new test that doesn't work? Flooding the systems with non-specific results?

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/201/...ment_1/S7.short

Here's why it's important.

http://retroconference.org/2010/PDFs/892.pdf (2010)

Here's an example of usage of an older system.

The analysis on that site is shocking. Even if the test were inaccurate, there is definitely a point at which it is better to have a cheaper, less than 100% accurate test.
We already use such tests with pregnancy, post remission cancer detection, and a host of other medical areas. It makes up part of the triage system.

The reason these tests are getting done, is because governments don't want to fork out for expensive PCR based lab administered, SLOW tests, which cost a lot of money, when they can buy cheap screening tests.

Like any disease, the key with HIV/AIDS is early detection.

An all the tests we carry out on a large-scale basis have the risk of false positives:

http://jcm.asm.org/content/48/5/1570.short - examines some of the factors that affect current tests
http://cvi.asm.org/content/17/10/1642.short - general evaluation of the accuracy
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2...-1760-1?LI=true - examination of fourth gen screening in a first world environment

Also, in the article:

"The fact that dozens – if not HUNDREDS – of co-factors unrelated to HIV produce common proteins like P24"
Fucking citation required! They baldly assert that this test is a money raising activity that will cause millions of people to be misdiagnosed.
It's an empty assertion, with no backing.

And this gets to the heart of the matter.
The scientific community is "closing ranks" (obviously the hundreds of studies published each year pushing the barriers of comparison between methods of treatment and methods of detection are a ruse!) by (if anything) producing too much data?
In contrast, the skeptic community is helping "open our eyes" by telling people not to trust tests, not to take treatments, and all on the basis of apparently zero data (and mainly just taking side swipes about who appeared at what meeting). It's like arguing with toddlers, they might think that they are winning, and they may even convince their peers, but whether it's reality is another question altogether.

We've had this discussion in the past Chris.
But the more I've looked critically at the science, the more convincing it is.
To me, it falls into the same camp as evolution - It's a science that is testing itself over and over vs assertion and innuendo.

Therein lies a rub. An absolute link would be to take a healthy HIV negative individual, infect with HIV, apply no treatment, have the individual live a normal life and see what they die of - rather inhumane and too prone to serendipity but it would potentially prove or disprove the theory.

You said this would be the proof that HIV causes AIDS.

Well it happens everyday. People get HIV, aren't treated and die of AIDS. So you have your proof. Now what?

I wanted to expand on this.

This makes up part of Koch's postulates.
And it's been fulfilled. Not exactly like this, but there are numerous cases of healthy individuals inadvertently being exposed to HIV (and HIV alone) and progressing to AIDS and death.

For instance, at least four cases of scientists exposed to HIV while working on purified and extracted HIV DNA.

This post has been edited by TinBane: Nov 7 2012, 10:01 AM