 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / July 2007Latest scientist to "see the light" on "HIV/AIDS."
"After having considered the last major mainstream publications on HIV and AIDS in 2006, I have concluded that the orthodoxy mistook the part for the whole..." Read the rest of this excellent article at: http://aras.ab.ca/articles/scientific/Umber-apoptosis.html >"After having considered the last major mainstream publications on HIV >and AIDS in 2006, I have concluded that the orthodoxy mistook the part [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >http://aras.ab.ca/articles/scientific/Umber-apoptosis.html And "Finally, I wonder if HIV is not simply a natural signal of cellular death, but so weak that it passes unnoticed in a healthy person." I've read elsewhere that what we refer to as 'HIV' isn't the cause of AIDS; it is a symptom -- or more accurately an indicator -- of an immune system problem. I must admit I wouldn't be surprised to learn 'poppers,' and some prescription medication, played a part in my HIV+ diagnosis.  Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 It speaks volumes that if a scientist speaks against the orthodox view, their utterances are blazoned across the web by the dissidents as though they are a sign of a growing and overwhelming rejection of the orthodox position. Yup - just one bloke. It happens so rarely, that when it does you'd think the denialists had won the lottery or something, the way they make such a fuss. What goes unsaid is that for each "scientist" the denialists can find, thousands of others accept the evidence for HIV/AIDS. These are scientists who actually work in appropriate fields of study (and not just the handful of ex-physicists, chemists, social scientists or psychologists that denialists try and pretend are relevant to the biomedical fields of medicine or microbiology). >It speaks volumes that if a scientist speaks against the orthodox >view, their utterances are blazoned across the web by the dissidents >as though they are a sign of a growing and overwhelming rejection of >the orthodox position. Yup - just one bloke. It happens so rarely, >that when it does you'd think the denialists had won the lottery or >something, the way they make such a fuss. It works both ways. Take <http://www.aidstruth.org>, for example. Its home page contains a quote from Winstone Zulu, who's views about HIV and AIDS have changed several times. Today he believe HIV exists and causes AIDS. It also speaks volumes that you begin talking about "dissidents," but then go on to describe them using the made up word "denlalists." >What goes unsaid is that for each "scientist" the denialists can find, >thousands of others accept the evidence for HIV/AIDS. These are >scientists who actually work in appropriate fields of study (and not >just the handful of ex-physicists, chemists, social scientists or >psychologists that denialists try and pretend are relevant to the >biomedical fields of medicine or microbiology). These 'scientists' you speak of have a vested interest in keeping the HIV=AIDS myth alive. You only have to look at what happens to the ones who "see the light" and publicly reject the theory to see why: they are labeled as cranks and "denilaists." The "scientists" you speak of have invested their reputations and financial security in the HIV=AIDS myth. And, of course, very few "scientists" work at the grubby end of the HIV=AIDS theory. Most work some way down the chain and don't question what they're told. Signature<http://www.hiv-poz.co.uk/> Moible: +447939991519 David: I am not interested in playing "Hannity & Combs" with you or anyone else. In science, if you want to make a claim, you put forth a specific, concise hypothesis. What is the "HIV/AIDS" hypothesis? One thing that led me to do my own research into this "disease" was the unwillingness of people like yourself to respond adequately to this request. I taught the history of science for many years, so if you think you have something to teach me about the scientific method, I'd certainly like to hear about it. As I hope you realize, a hypothesis can be refuted without the articulation of an alternative one. One question I ask the "orthodox" people is that if I wanted to take the "Duesberg challenge," and be "infected with HIV," exactly how would you go about isolating it, so that it is undeniably present, yet nothing else is present that could lead to an "AIDS" like disorder? Are you aware of the research demonstrating that microvessicles appear to be immunosuppressive? I'm sure you are aware of the work of "orthodox" scientists that found mostly microvessicles when they actually took the time to look for "HIV." Do you realize that anyone with an ounce of objectivity would question the "HIV/AIDS" notion (whatever it happens to be today, in the mind of a specific "expert") based upon this point alone? If you'd like to talk about the science, David, I welcome your responses, and in fact I have been trying to find an "orthodox" person for a moderated debate on "HIV/AIDS," but all have refused. If your precious "HIV/AIDS" claim is so strong, scientifically, why not explain exactly how the evidence supports and no other idea, and how there is no evidence contradicting it? You do realize that in science, if a hypothesis has any clear evidence against it, it must be discarded or modified significantly, right? You also realize that science is not about "proof" but about theories (if the hypothesis can make it this far), which are always subject to refutation, correct? Or is "HIV/AIDS" now truly a cult, and you can't even admit this much, which forms the basis of the scientific method? If you can find just one person to participate in my moderated debate, let me know at your convenience. I will be the moderator, and the way it will work is that one scientific issue at a time will debated, with no tangential remarks allowed (and no personal insults or claims about how scientific truth can hurt the public). I'd like the first debate to be about the evidence for "HIV," what a "retrovirus" is, how it is supposed to cause harm, etc., but I'm flexible, since "orthodox" folks seem to fear debates more than the horrible "HIV" itself. It is very common in science, and academia more generally, for scholars to "agree to disagree," because evidence can be interpreted differently by reasonable people. However, the fear of explaining your interpretation is a new kind of intellectual cowardice that I have not seen in my other academic investigations. Up until I came to "HIV/AIDS" research, I never had a problem finding people who supported a particular claim to explain it to me or to participate in a debate about it. If you fear about me as moderator, ask yourself what I could do that would have you shaking in your boots? I really don't care all that much about "HIV/AIDS," but rather about the scientific method. Just to be clear, using this method, all potentially relevant factors need to be controlled in verification experiments, or refutation experiments can be conducted. For example, in 1948 scientists fed rats a totally fat-free diet and found that the animals were fine, thus refuting directly the notion that any fatty acids in the diet are essential. It is this simple, David, so why not step up and be the "pro" side in a formal, moderated debate (it will be done online, and you can respond when it is convenient for you to do so)? The only thing that will happen is that truth will be illuminated. If a "dissenter" states something that is so obviously false, won't you be able to refute it easily, thus making "dissidents" look like the deluded folk you think that they are? monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > "After having considered the last major mainstream publications on HIV > and AIDS in 2006, I have concluded that the orthodoxy mistook the part [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://aras.ab.ca/articles/scientific/Umber-apoptosis.html Jean Umber appears to be a fervent defender of homeopathie and an all purpose crank. The flights of fancy in the "excellent article" could only impress the scientifically illiterate or the severely deluded. Like other flavours of Denialism such as Creationism there is a clear inverse relationship between the number of "scientists" and their actual experienece in the field that they purport to critique. Chris Noble > monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > > "After having considered the last major mainstream publications on HIV [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Jean Umber appears to be a fervent defender of homeopathie and an all > purpose crank. Thanks Chris, Effectively, I claim the fact of being an original: - Nine children of the same woman, - None of them misses the class, thanks to the homeopathy - Catholic very favorable to the entry of Turkey to Europe. - I take the train as often as possible. Admit that I am really except the standards Jean |
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.