 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / February 2005What is the argument?
When one reads this groups one can be forgiven for thinking that this community is out od step with reality. Take Wikipedia for example, the article there says nothing about what these denialists go on and on about. If there was a case then why are their views not represented there and in such online knowledgebases? Credit must go the editors of Wikipedia for seemingly getting it almost right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV Wikipedia, a source of cutting edge expert opinion? Hardly. It simply reprints the conventional view on any topic. I very poor argument. >Wikipedia, a source of cutting edge expert opinion? A hell of a lot more than you!! With your demonstrated ability to distort findings and actually alter text in your posts to suit your point! >>Wikipedia, a source of cutting edge expert opinion? > > A hell of a lot more than you!! With your demonstrated ability to > distort findings and actually alter text in your posts to suit your > point! It does not present a balanced view of the debate around HIV/AIDS. It should. It starts as follows: "The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a frequently mutating retrovirus that attacks the human immune system and which has been shown to cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." They have kicked any dissenting view to the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_reappraisal > Wikipedia, a source of cutting edge expert opinion? > > Hardly. It simply reprints the conventional view on any topic. > > I very poor argument. Was that an argument? LOL. > Wikipedia, a source of cutting edge expert opinion? > > Hardly. It simply reprints the conventional view on any topic. > > I very poor argument. I don't see your opinion included there, Paul. Why is that? Surely you should insist on your view being included in the main article. You can just insert it yourself, as anyone can edit. my favourite Encyclopedia story is Creightons: Who can dispute the opinion that Dr. Charles Creighton was the greatest of these doctors? His History of Epidemics in Britain, in two volumes, 1891 and 1894, was justly called "the greatest medical work ever written by one man". Having previously written for the Encycloptedia Britannica, he was asked to contribute the article on vaccination for the Ninth Edition. Its appearance, in 1888, was such a profound shock to the advocates of, and vested interests concerned in, vaccination that Creighton's article was replaced as soon as possible by what was little more than an advertisement for glycerinated calf lymph written by one of its promoters. Creighton, perhaps the greatest medical mind of the last century, was virtually turned out of his profession."--Lionel Dole http://www.whale.to/a/creighton4.html You can guess who owns all the main ones. > When one reads this groups one can be forgiven for thinking that this > community is out od step with reality. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.