Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE AIDS/HIV Thread (merged)

Discussions related to the physiological and psychological effects of peak oil on our members and future generations.

HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby dukey » Sat 17 Mar 2007, 22:03:55

[flash width=400 height=326]http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=6696052383812726197&hl=en[/flash]
Last edited by Ferretlover on Thu 19 Feb 2009, 12:59:37, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with THE AIDS/HIV Thread.
User avatar
dukey
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby jupiters_release » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 01:51:17

If you think people look at you crazy for discussing peak oil, wait till you tell them AIDS is not a communicable disease. :-D
jupiters_release
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby lateralus » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 02:06:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jupiters_release', 'I')f you think people look at you crazy for discussing peak oil, wait till you tell them AIDS is not a communicable disease. :-D


<lateralus spits beer out and almost chokes to death laughing>

You have my vote for funniest post of 2007 so far Jupiter. :lol:
lateralus
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue 04 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Hockeyland

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby MacG » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 04:00:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jupiters_release', 'I')f you think people look at you crazy for discussing peak oil, wait till you tell them AIDS is not a communicable disease. :-D


That's a VERY interesting comparison! Toss in CO2 and global warming also, and we start to get a picture of how mass delusions work.

I think I have found a nice indicator to detect mass delusions: When you get those instantaneous reactions of either ridicule or anger/hatred, it's a good chance that you are up against a mass delusion.

A couple of examples:

-Oil is finite, and will run out
-HIV might not be the cause of AIDS
-Carbon dioxide might not cause global warming

Thread carefully though, deluded mobs have a reputation for lynching dissenters.
User avatar
MacG
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat 04 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby smallpoxgirl » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 04:33:38

OK....we've had a go around about every other harebrained conspiracy theory in existence. Some asshat was bound to eventually bring this one up.

So. The video is "not given nor should it be received as medical advice". I will offer you a piece of free medical advice though. If you are buying any of this "AIDS is caused by pollution" malarkey, you need to get yourself down to the Social Security office pronto. Talk to the nice people about getting on SSI disability because you are a certifiable retard.

Ohh...and MacG, being able to piss people off is hardly a mark of superior wisdom.
"We were standing on the edges
Of a thousand burning bridges
Sifting through the ashes every day
What we thought would never end
Now is nothing more than a memory
The way things were before
I lost my way" - OCMS
User avatar
smallpoxgirl
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: Mon 08 Nov 2004, 04:00:00

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby MacG » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 04:57:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', 'O')hh...and MacG, being able to piss people off is hardly a mark of superior wisdom.


You mean that you think that oil is abiotic nowdays?

Honestly, Peter Duesberg make quite a strong case about HIV, and I am eagerly waiting for some serious comments from the medical and virological communities. I have not made up my mind on the issue, but I think his arguments deserve to be met with other arguments, not silence or ridicule.
User avatar
MacG
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat 04 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby EnergyUnlimited » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 05:10:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', 'O')hh...and MacG, being able to piss people off is hardly a mark of superior wisdom.


You mean that you think that oil is abiotic nowdays?

Honestly, Peter Duesberg make quite a strong case about HIV, and I am eagerly waiting for some serious comments from the medical and virological communities. I have not made up my mind on the issue, but I think his arguments deserve to be met with other arguments, not silence or ridicule.

I had red comments of Peter Duesberg, which you had referred to.
He is claiming, that antiretroviral drugs, AZT alike are cause of AIDS, because they are widely distributed to HIV positive population.

IMO, such comments of Mr Duesberg's are plain dumb.
Mr Duesberg is also dumb and you are dumb as well, if you believe him.
1. AIDS was recognised disease before AZT and other antiretroviral drugs made their way to the market.
In fact AIDS was a cause of introducing those on the market.
2. AIDS is wide spread in populations, which had never seen antiretroviral drugs.

More arguments needed?
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby MacG » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 05:55:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'I') had red comments of Peter Duesberg, which you had referred to.


No, you have not. Your statements are proof enough.
User avatar
MacG
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat 04 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby EnergyUnlimited » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 06:41:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'I') had red comments of Peter Duesberg, which you had referred to.


No, you have not. Your statements are proof enough.

Quote from your reference
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')e has instead proposed the hypothesis that the various American/European AIDS diseases are brought on by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and/or AZT itself, which is prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS.

Is there any point to read that crap any further?
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby MacG » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 06:48:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'I')s there any point to read that crap any further?


It's entirely up to you to decide how ignorant you want to be.
User avatar
MacG
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat 04 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby EnergyUnlimited » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 07:14:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'I')s there any point to read that crap any further?


It's entirely up to you to decide how ignorant you want to be.

Better is to be ignorant, than waste time reading something dumb.

Any moron can make up some pie on the sky theory, than call it scientific and believe in it until proven wrong.
Why I (or whoever) should waste time on him?
Why public money should be wasted to disproove soime moronic idea (especially in dwindling resources environment)?
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby MacG » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 07:20:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'B')etter is to be ignorant, than waste time reading something dumb.


I congratulate you to your precognitive powers. Must be very practical.
User avatar
MacG
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat 04 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby smiley » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 08:06:39

Well I'm not schooled in biochemistry so I have no background to challenge or confirm Duesbergs scientific claims.

But I do know the following things.

i) The scientific community consists of the most free-thinking minds in the world. A theory, any theory no matter how controversial and no matter who is proposing it, will be considered and will find an audience if it is based on reality. The scientific community is one where a simple patent office clerk gets to challenge all existing beliefs and authorities and collect a Nobel prize for it. You know who I'm talking about.

Political and other institutions are able to stall that process and they are regularly making attempts to do so. However these attempts are short lived. If a theory does not land within a few years it is normally because it is not true, not because some people don't want it to be true. If anything the life of a scientist has become a lot easier since they only have to worry about a few companies and governments who try to discredit them. In the good old days they had to worry about papal institutions which threatened to break your bones one by one starting by the toes up.

ii) The review process of scientific papers (like Nature and Science) is strictly regulated. It is not possible to reject a paper based on the fact that you don't like someones theories or that you don't like someone. You have to really show that the work is not true or not original. Failing to do so will mean that the paper will be published. The fact that prof Duesberg seems only to be able to publish his theory in the form of unreviewed letters and correspondences, means that compelling arguments have been found by the reviewers to reject his claims.

iii) I get a bit skeptical when a person claims to have solved the origin of Aids, the metastasis of cancer and en-passant made tremendous breakthroughs in the study of influenza. This man either is a genius, a fraud or deluded.

iv) I get even more skeptical when both Aids and Cancer are attributed to a common cause (drugs). It seems that prof Duesberg seems more intent on challenging big-farma than to challenge the current views on these diseases.

So without knowing the first thing about HIV I deem it extremely unlikely that there is more than a shred of truth in his claims.
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby dukey » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 08:30:44

is it any wonder people get ill taking AZT ?
when it was made it was deemed so toxic they thought it was useless and didn't even bother to patent it.

This drug randomly destroys cells in your body. Say if there was 1 HIV virus for every 10,000 cells, you would have to destroy 10,000 cells to destroy 1 hiv virus. Sound like a winner to you ?
User avatar
dukey
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sun 20 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby MacG » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 08:42:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', 'W')ell I'm not schooled in biochemistry so I have no background to challenge or confirm Duesbergs scientific claims.

But I do know the following things.

i) The scientific community consists of the most free-thinking minds in the world. A theory, any theory no matter how controversial and no matter who is proposing it, will be considered and will find an audience if it is based on reality. The scientific community is one where a simple patent office clerk gets to challenge all existing beliefs and authorities and collect a Nobel prize for it. You know who I'm talking about.


I'm sorry to say this, but based on first-hand experience, I know that this is just plain wrong. I have not suffered myself, but I have seen a lot of examples among colleagues.

And the same scientific world which brought Einstein also brought racial biology and eugenics.
User avatar
MacG
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat 04 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby EnergyUnlimited » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 09:07:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'B')etter is to be ignorant, than waste time reading something dumb.


I congratulate you to your precognitive powers. Must be very practical.

OK, we will make a theory stating that you are a camel.
If you refuse to study it carefully and disproove on beyond any doubt grounds, than you are ignorant.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby Newsseeker » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 09:09:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MacG', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', 'W')ell I'm not schooled in biochemistry so I have no background to challenge or confirm Duesbergs scientific claims.

But I do know the following things.

i) The scientific community consists of the most free-thinking minds in the world. A theory, any theory no matter how controversial and no matter who is proposing it, will be considered and will find an audience if it is based on reality. The scientific community is one where a simple patent office clerk gets to challenge all existing beliefs and authorities and collect a Nobel prize for it. You know who I'm talking about.


I'm sorry to say this, but based on first-hand experience, I know that this is just plain wrong. I have not suffered myself, but I have seen a lot of examples among colleagues.

And the same scientific world which brought Einstein also brought racial biology and eugenics.


...and now this information about HIV. I wonder why the first place I hear about this is the discussion board in the Open Discussion section of peakoil.com and not on an ABC afterschool special or someone being interviewed by Barbara Walters? I am sure The View would love to break a story like this, if it is true....

Just some random thoughts.
Newsseeker
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu 12 May 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby MacG » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 09:33:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newsseeker', ' ')
...and now this information about HIV. I wonder why the first place I hear about this is the discussion board in the Open Discussion section of peakoil.com and not on an ABC afterschool special or someone being interviewed by Barbara Walters? I am sure The View would love to break a story like this, if it is true....

Just some random thoughts.


Ah! It's not to late for that. These things seem to follow some kind of generational pattern. In Sweden they started paying compensation to victims of forced sterilization performed in the 1940's and 50's just some years ago. Sweden had a significant program for forced sterilizations based on eugenic thinking, and it was ongoing -albeit in a trickle- well into the 1960's.

I think it would have terrible consequences for people's beliefs if large parts of science or medicine were revealed as complete idiots. Dmitry Orlov made a case that the Chernobyl disaster contributed to the fall of the Soviet Union, since it broke peoples beliefs in the system.

Just imagine what consequences there would be if HIV was shown to be harmless - look at all the people who have invested scientifically and politically in AIDS, and imagine what would happen if they fell.

No, the only safe way to soft-land things like these is to wait until the generation who pushed the thing is dead or retired.
User avatar
MacG
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Sat 04 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby TommyJefferson » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 09:33:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', 'I') will offer you a piece of free medical advice though. If you are buying any of this "AIDS is caused by pollution" malarkey, you need to get yourself down to the Social Security office pronto. Talk to the nice people about getting on SSI disability because you are a certifiable retard.


Ouch!

You are a harsh mistress SPG. :-D
Conform . Consume . Obey .
User avatar
TommyJefferson
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1757
Joined: Thu 19 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Texas and Los Angeles
Top

Re: HIV probably isn't the cause of AIDS

Postby smiley » Sun 18 Mar 2007, 09:41:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m sorry to say this, but based on first-hand experience, I know that this is just plain wrong. I have not suffered myself, but I have seen a lot of examples among colleagues.


I can understand people feel mistreated when their articles get rejected. I know from experience that it feels shitty when you have months of work rejected. I also admit the reviewing proces is not entirely foul proof. But overall the reviewing process is extremely effective and fair. The probability that valid work is rejected by multiple papers is virtually non existent.

For those who are not familiar with scientific publicizing. When you file a paper, it is sent to a number of colleagues (peers) which review the paper and make recommendations to publish it or not and whether to make any changes. As an author you get a transcript of the commentary by the reviewer. These recommendations have to be in the form of scientific arguments.

If a paper is rejected you are allowed to write an appeal in which you explain why the reviewer is wrong in his comments or what changes you suggest to satisfy the reviewer. The reviewer then writes a reply, and finally the editor decides to overrule this reviewer or not.

For a reviewer overruling often means that you are taken of the list of reviewers. Since being a reviewer for a prestigious journal is a considered to be a sign of authority, most reviewers are very cautious to reject papers. Papers with doubtful contents are more often accepted than rejected, simply because the reviewers could not find strong enough arguments to reject the papers.

You give some examples yourself. Eugenics and racial biology. I'm certain that some of the reviewers found the content of these practices barbarous. However you cannot reject a publication based on morals or etics, just on scientific content.

So if a author claims that all his articles are rejected by a number of journals, he would be wise to consider the possibility that there are some major deficiencies in his theories that need reconsideration rather than to blame it on a worldwide conspiracy.


You also have to consider the origin of the system. If I'm correct the current practice of peer review started in the 17th century with the British Royal Philosophical Society. It worked then in the midst of religious and political pressure and clashes, so why should it not work now? Do you believe that a corporation like Merx has more power than king James then?
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Medical Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron