 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / November 2006How to ask your favorite expert about their expertise... Are you an infectious disease specialist?
How to ask your favorite expert about their expertise. a. Are you an infectious disease specialist?... b. or an HIV specialist?... You may know about HIV...but not as any established AIDS expert. c. Do you treat people with HIV?... d. With what HIV specialists have you relationships?... e. in your state?... f. in your city?... g. How are you involved with the AIDS Education and Training Center AETC in your state?... h. How are you involved with clinicians teaching other clinicians?... i. With what other AIDS organizations have you relationships?... j. With what trusted web sites have you relationships?... for example, k. how about your involvement with http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite An expert is someone who goes to all the AIDS conferences, knows all the current research and treats people with HIV. L. What is your expertise?... m. What peer reviewed papers have you published recently?... n. What other questions would you ask?... about the expertise of your favorite expert. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Saklad" <dsaklad@nestle.csail.mit.edu> Newsgroups: misc.health.aids,soc.motss,soc.bi,alt.polyamory,alt.politics.homosexuality Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:44 PM Subject: How to ask your favorite expert about their expertise... Are you an infectious disease specialist? > How to ask your favorite expert about their expertise. You don't ask anything at all. You tell him he's nuts if he still believes that HIV causes Aids and you say he'd better watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4396856850556632563&q=HIV+Fact+or+Fiction That would be a good example of a bad example ! What is your expertise?... > That would be a good example of a bad example ! > > What is your expertise?... What do you care who or what I am? Find out for yourself! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4396856850556632563&q=HIV+Fact+or+Fiction Are you an infectious disease specialist?... > Are you an infectious disease specialist?... HIV is not an infectious agent, it's a scam. Watch this. You'll be very surprised first, then you'll know. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4396856850556632563&q=HIV+Fact+or+Fiction >> Are you an infectious disease specialist?... > >HIV is not an infectious agent, it's a scam. Watch crap? Why? Why not just get infected? Then you'll discover that HIV is not just a scam. Or perhaps you are already? George M. Carter > >> Are you an infectious disease specialist?... > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > George M. Carter Hey Carter ! Bummer this video, ain't it? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4396856850556632563&q=HIV+Fact+or+Fiction Each time you guys write a message, all I have to do is send the link as an answer. >> >> Are you an infectious disease specialist?... >> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Each time you guys write a message, all I have to do is send the link as > an answer. It's pseudoscience, nothing more.  Signature____________ _____________ __________________ __ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ / _____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ / ____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ / /____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/ Skeptic, atheist...and somehow an optimist. Go figure. I want to change the world. snip >Hey Carter ! Bummer this video, ain't it? Don't know...haven't bothered to watch it and don't trust your links. I'm beginning to think you're not an MD. You can't be as stupid as you've portrayed yourself on this ng to be and really be an MD, can you? >> >> Are you an infectious disease specialist?... >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4396856850556632563&q=HIV+Fact+or+Fiction No evidence for any dissident claims was presented in the first 10 minutes. Around the 10-minute mark they start talking about T-cells, with little or no mention that there are several kinds of T-cells, and claiming that the job of T-cells is to produce antibodies with no mention of cell-mediated immunity. After 10 minutes, no evidence had been presented and the scientific exposition just starting was wrong already. It is not worth another hour and 50 minutes of my life to find out how n=much worse it gets. Video is a wasteful medium. Anything a video can say in 2 hours can be written in words and numbers on a few sheets of paper and read in less than half an hour. Video is a bad medium for anything technical or scientific, or anything else requiring careful thought. A person reading a printed page can go back a paragraph or a page to re-read for missed details, and read more slowly in order to understand a difficult point. Video can be rewound and re-watched, but rewinding is not as easy and natural as moving your eyes up the page or flipping back to the previous page. And after you rewind, you can't watch video slowly -- narration becomes unintellgible when slowed down too much. Video, by its nature, can't teach about complex ideas: it must simplify, and it must rush the viewer past weak arguments. Is it any wonder that creationists love video, 9/11 conspiracy theorists are starting to use it heavily, and AIDS dissidents are now discovering it? SignatureDavid Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | > >> >> Are you an infectious disease specialist?... > >> > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > -- > David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | Wow! That's about the silliest HIV=Aids believer's paper I've ever read. How come you Aids apologists always look so dumb? Ha, ha, ha, he talks about explaining anything technical or scientific but he needs to watch a video slowly to understand. But as he watches the video in slow-motion, he then doesn't understand what it says. No wonder you buy into the crappy official 9/11 version. Here, now you can try to figure out what really happened on 911: http://www.reopen911.org/ No, forget it, you won't be able to figure out at all. >> >> >> Are you an infectious disease specialist?... >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > No, forget it, you won't be able to figure out at all. Controlled demolition happens bottom up, not top down. You dumbass conspiracy theorists. Also: explosions are caused by things other than bombs. Signature____________ _____________ __________________ __ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ / _____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ / ____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ / /____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/ Skeptic, atheist...and somehow an optimist. Go figure. I want to change the world. >> Video, by its nature, can't teach about complex ideas: it must >> simplify, and it must rush the viewer past weak arguments. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >you buy into the >crappy official 9/11 version. You should probably get hold of "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman. He goes into considerable detail about how the nature of a medium affects the types of messages the medium can carry. >Here, now you can try to figure out what really happened on 911: > >http://www.reopen911.org/ > >No, forget it, you won't be able to figure out at all. i viewed part of a 9/11 video, once. One of the weak arguments it rushed past claimed that one of the towers fell in 8 seconds (based on measuring a seismograph trace), and a billiard ball dropped from the top of the tower would have taken 9 seconds to hit pavement, "therefore" the collapse of the tower must have been a controlled demolition. Some people who passed their high school physics courses are probably rolling their eyes right now. There is no way the "Conspiracy" could make a building collapse faster than free fall, no matter what super-duper space-age explosives they used. But if the video makers rush past this and the viewer failed high school physics or has fallen into a TV trance, he might not notice this physical impossibility. It's interesting that you are both an AIDS dissident and a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Do you have any other colourful "alternative" beliefs? I saw a previous AIDS dissident poster, Hayek, also posting in sci.physics.relativity opposing the theory of relativity, and another who spent time here, Wolfgang, spent time in sci.physics.relativity arguing against relativity and in talk.origins arguing against evolution. I could give more examples of people who adhere to extreme "alternative" theories in more than one field of science. None of these people are geniuses who have somehow seen through fallacies that have fooled conformist scientists for decades. That's what they want to believe, and that's what they want the rest of us to believe, but it is plainly shown not to be so when they fall for stupid arguments like the "faster than free fall" argument from the 9/11 video I described above. Something else is going on here. I once asked in this group: How does it feel to be right when everybody else is wrong? Nobody took the bait -- nobody answered it. If they had, I would have followed up with a second question: How does it feel to be wrong when everybody else is right? I believe most dissidents will get the right answer to the first question but not the second one. SignatureDavid Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | David Canzi , > I once asked in this group: How does it feel to be right when > everybody else is wrong? Nobody took the bait -- nobody answered > it. If they had, I would have followed up with a second question: > How does it feel to be wrong when everybody else is right? > I believe most dissidents will get the right answer to the first > question but not the second one. How can there be a right or wrong answer to the question "How do you feel about _______?" >David Canzi , >> I once asked in this group: How does it feel to be right when [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >How can there be a right or wrong answer to the question "How do you >feel about _______?" There is no one right answer to the first question, but once you've given an answer to the first question, there are wrong answers to the second one. SignatureDavid Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | > >> Video, by its nature, can't teach about complex ideas: it must > >> simplify, and it must rush the viewer past weak arguments. [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > -- > David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | So then David, how does it feel to be wrong when everybody else is wrong? You know why eternal truths come and go, David? It's because there's always a dissident hangin' around somewhere. Otherwise eternal truth, which is always a lie, would stay forever. >> I once asked in this group: How does it feel to be right when >> everybody else is wrong? Nobody took the bait -- nobody answered [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >So then David, how does it feel to be wrong when everybody else is wrong? I can't answer your question without giving away the answer to my second question. You have to figure it out yourself. (1) How does it feel to be right when everybody else is wrong? (2) How does it feel to be wrong when everybody else is right? >You know why eternal truths come and go, David? It's because there's >always a dissident >hangin' around somewhere. New fools, new follies. SignatureDavid Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | > >> Video, by its nature, can't teach about complex ideas: it must > >> simplify, and it must rush the viewer past weak arguments. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Do you have any other colourful > "alternative" beliefs? http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/07/in_which_i_quit_my_job_and_ral.php http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/10/friday_kooky_komment.php > I saw a previous AIDS dissident poster, > Hayek, also posting in sci.physics.relativity opposing the theory [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I believe most dissidents will get the right answer to the first > question but not the second one. Interdisciplinary denialism. Once you've swallowed the idea that the vast majority of scientists are wrong about something and you have special access to the truth then "rethinking" everything else is no problem. Chris Noble >> >Here, now you can try to figure out what really happened on 911: >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/07/in_which_i_quit_my_job_and_ral.php >http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/10/friday_kooky_komment.php JS's comments quoted in the second page linked above would win a "Chez Watt" award 11 months out of any 12 in talk.origins. >> I saw a previous AIDS dissident poster, >> Hayek, also posting in sci.physics.relativity opposing the theory [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >wrong about something and you have special access to the truth then >"rethinking" everything else is no problem. (I'm sorry I've neglected this a long time. Got swamped. So many fascinating high volume newsgroups, plus I am expected to spend at least some of my time here working.) Your mention of "special access to truth" is related to what I was fishing for with those two questions. My first question was, how does it feel to be right when everybody else is wrong? Being right when everybody else is wrong results in a feeling of being special, set apart from the common herd, superior to them. There may be a component of frustration with all the bigoted and blinkered conformists who resist seeing the luminous clarity of one's point of view, but there is also an intoxicating feeling of being ahead of the pack, part of the Vanguard Of The New Paradigm... in a word, *elite*. As for the second question: how does it feel to be wrong when everybody else is right? The answer is, it feels exactly the same. The person who is wrong when everybody else is right *believes* that he is right and everybody else is wrong, and so the ego reward, that pleasant warm feeling of superiority, is the same. Being wrong when everybody else is right is exactly as enjoyable as being right when everybody else is wrong, and it's easier. SignatureDavid Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | > >> >Here, now you can try to figure out what really happened on 911: > >> > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > intoxicating feeling of being ahead of the pack, part of the > Vanguard Of The New Paradigm... in a word, *elite*. I've actually experienced this feeling - briefly. In my own research unrelated to HIV or AIDS I thought I had made a revolutionary discovery. I thought previous researchers had missed something and that I had found the "true" solution. It was a really good feeling. I was imagining the paper in a prestigous journal, the recognition. Then I found the mistake in my reasoning. Idiot! Well at least I found it before I submitted a paper. I can see how tempting it is not to see the errors in your own idea and to hold on to that wonderful feeling for as long as possible. If you're lucky you'll find some else that you can convince and then you can praise each other for your brilliance and laugh at the stupid "orthodoxy" > As for the second question: how does it feel to be wrong when > everybody else is right? The answer is, it feels exactly the same. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > -- > David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. | Exactly Chris Noble snip >No evidence for any dissident claims was presented in the first >10 minutes. Around the 10-minute mark they start talking about >T-cells, with little or no mention that there are several kinds >of T-cells, and claiming that the job of T-cells is to produce >antibodies with no mention of cell-mediated immunity. Ah...that's not even correct? T cells do NOT produce antibodies. Did they actually say that? >After 10 >minutes, no evidence had been presented and the scientific >exposition just starting was wrong already. It is not worth >another hour and 50 minutes of my life to find out how n=much >worse it gets. Undoubtedly. Wow. The denialists used to have at least a modicum of brains--but then I guess they think they can play the Bush game. Say whatever the hell you want, evidence, truth or reality be damned and some sucker will believe you! Sorta like Duesberg saying the presence of antibodies is the absence of disease. Would that it were so! But how breathtakingly stupid. George M. Carter >> Are you an infectious disease specialist?... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4396856850556632563&q=HIV+Fact+or+Fiction "The AIDS dissident arguments are considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientists and public health workers, who argue that dissidents selectively ignore evidence in favour of HIV's role in AIDS and endanger public health by dissuading people from utilizing proven treatments." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism We're not suckers. :) Signature____________ _____________ __________________ __ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ / _____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ / ____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ / /____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/ Skeptic, atheist...and somehow an optimist. Go figure. I want to change the world. > "don warner saklad" <don.saklad@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de > news: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4396856850556632563&q=HIV+Fact+or+Fiction "The AIDS dissident arguments are considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientists and public health workers, who argue that dissidents selectively ignore evidence in favour of HIV's role in AIDS and endanger public health by dissuading people from utilizing proven treatments." Signature____________ _____________ __________________ __ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ / _____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ / ____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ / /____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/ Skeptic, atheist...and somehow an optimist. Go figure. I want to change the world. |
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.