Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
disruptor

Hiv

Recommended Posts

It certainly does seem a bit odd.  Although I'm not sure how true it is: HIV/AIDS

 

"In early 1983, French researchers isolated a previously unknown retrovirus from the lymph nodes of a person with early symptoms of AIDS, although they did not yet have enough data to prove the virus was the cause of AIDS. In the spring of 1984, Gallo and his team of U.S. researchers submitted a comprehensive series of four scientific papers to the journal Science, papers that were fully peer reviewed (and later subject to one the most intensive review processes ever given to scientific articles).2,3,4,5 The four papers described how the virus was routinely found in people with various symptoms associated with AIDS and was absent in those who lacked either symptoms or AIDS-associated risk factors. The papers concluded to the satisfaction of most scientists that HIV was the cause of AIDS and went on to describe new methods for growing the virus in large quantities and for creating a blood test to detect the presence of antibodies to the virus."

 

That was pre the 1987 announcement (which itself was prompted by a journo threatening to blow the story according to that link).

Not sure where that information comes from. The press release was made in 1984. If there was any peer review before the announcement, it wasn't very public.

 

Difficult to assess this kind of thing with AIDS isn't it?  AIDS is pretty much a symptom of a poorly operating immune system is it not? 

Yes.

It's difficult to say whether HIV causes the drop in T cells or if the drop in T cells is allowed by the depressed nervous system.  I think the above link states a pretty good case.  As does the defection back to the mainstream science view by the likes of Sonnabend and Gilbert...

The argument is guilt by association. There is a definite correlation between HIV and AIDS. Most AIDS patients are HIV positive. However, association does not always indicate causation. Almost all AIDS-associated Kaposi's sarcoma cases are male H*m*sexuals. Does that mean that being a h*mosexual causes AIDS? When you see clustering of a disease in a specific population, you have to consider that perhaps there is something unique to that population that is causing the disease. It so happens that H*m*sexuals use nitritie inhalants heavily, which many believe to be the cause of KS.

If you look at the epidemiology, the association of HIV with AIDS is there, but it still doesn't fit a pattern of infectious disease.

Another thing is that back in 1984 a number of predictions were made regarding future observations which proved to not pan out. One is that AIDS would explode into teenagers and heterosexuals. This has not happened. Thus, we need to re-think the entire theory. Failure to predict future observations is a hallmark of a flawed hypothesis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure where that information comes from.  The press release was made in 1984.  If there was any peer review before the announcement, it wasn't very public.

It would've been under the names LAV or HTLV-3 though wouldn't it? HIV wasn't named until 1986/7

 

When you see clustering of a disease in a specific population, you have to consider that perhaps there is something unique to that population that is causing the disease.

When a disease is largely being transimitted s*xually, that's your unique factor.

 

It so happens that h*m*sexuals use nitritie inhalants heavily, which many believe to be the cause of KS.

Presumably you mean sharing bottles and contracting the associated herpes virus that way? The trouble with that hypothesis is that KS is very prevalant in African AIDS sufferers too (as is KSHV amongst the normal population relatively).

 

Another thing is that back in 1984 a number of predictions were made regarding future observations which proved to not pan out.  One is that AIDS would explode into teenagers and heterosexuals.  This has not happened.  Thus, we need to re-think the entire theory.  Failure to predict future observations is a hallmark of a flawed hypothesis.

11226[/snapback]

AIDS *has* (relatively speaking) exploded into the heterosexual demographic: A little out of date

 

A prediction that AIDS would explode in teenagers seems a little silly because of the slow development of the illness. Unless the majority of teenagers became s*xually active (or IV drug users) at age 12, or so, the disease wouldn't be noticeable in their teens. Add to that the fact that teens are normally s*xually active with other teens and you have a fairly closed loop as far as AIDS is concerned (not to mention all of the scaremongering ads that used to be everywhere when I was a teen!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would've been under the names LAV or HTLV-3 though wouldn't it?  HIV wasn't named until 1986/7

It was announced that AIDS was caused by a virus in 1984, if my memory serves me.

 

When a disease is largely being transimitted s*xually, that's your unique factor.

You're missing the point. Kaposi's sarcoma is essentially limited to G*ys in the context of AIDS. If AIDS is infectious, why aren't IV drug users and hemophiliacs getting KS?

 

Presumably you mean sharing bottles and contracting the associated herpes virus that way?  The trouble with that hypothesis is that KS is very prevalant in African AIDS sufferers too (as is KSHV amongst the normal population relatively). 

That is incorrect. Kaposi's sarcoma is very rare in Africa.

 

AIDS *has* (relatively speaking) exploded into the heterosexual demographic: A little out of date

Don't confuse AIDS with HIV transmission. Patients dying of AIDS are still predominantly male, and those female AIDS patients are heavy drug users.

 

A prediction that AIDS would explode in teenagers seems a little silly because of the slow development of the illness.

If it's "silly", why were all of the infectious disease "experts" predicting it in the 1980's?

 

Unless the majority of teenagers became s*xually active (or IV drug users) at age 12, or so, the disease wouldn't be noticeable in their teens.

THe theory that HIV has a long incubation period is a post hoc hypothesis to account for the lack of AIDS in countless thousands of HIV positive individuals.

 

  Add to that the fact that teens are normally s*xually active with other teens and you have a fairly closed loop as far as AIDS is concerned (not to mention all of the scaremongering ads that used to be everywhere when I was a teen!)

If what you're saying is true, teenagers would be immune from all other STD's... think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was announced that AIDS was caused by a virus in 1984, if my memory serves me.

By two different labs...

 

You're missing the point.  Kaposi's sarcoma is essentially limited to G*ys in the context of AIDS.  If AIDS is infectious, why aren't IV drug users and hemophiliacs getting KS?

If I had to suggest another possibility...because it's spread by a herpes-like virus? I know they found one but I don't know if the studies have come back on that yet.

 

That is incorrect.  Kaposi's sarcoma is very rare in Africa.

Actually it's the most commonly reported cancer in Zimbabwe and the surrounding area (even ignoring AIDS cases). It also isn't so gender discriminatory over there: Zimbabwe

 

Don't confuse AIDS with HIV transmission.  Patients dying of AIDS are still predominantly male, and those female AIDS patients are heavy drug users.

I'd be interested to see the latest data.

 

If it's "silly", why were all of the infectious disease "experts" predicting it in the 1980's?

I'd also like to see that data because it isn't what I'd heard.

 

THe theory that HIV has a long incubation period is a post hoc hypothesis to account for the lack of AIDS in countless thousands of HIV positive individuals.

Not a long incubation period, but that the body may fight back for a considerable time and also that it may take time for any symptoms to present.

 

If what you're saying is true, teenagers would be immune from all other STD's... think about it.

11272[/snapback]

I'm not saying they *can't* get AIDS, I'm saying it is rarer and therefore less likely they will be exposed to it. I also stand by the claim that AIDS takes longer to manifest (though 0-19 year olds account for 30% of South African AIDS cases).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had to suggest another possibility...because it's spread by a herpes-like virus?  I know they found one but I don't know if the studies have come back on that yet.

Now you're suggesting another virus that may cause Kaposi's... we're still left with the same problem... an infectious disease discriminating on gender.

 

Actually it's the most commonly reported cancer in Zimbabwe and the surrounding area (even ignoring AIDS cases).  It also isn't so gender discriminatory over there:

Kaposi's in the context of AIDS is rare in Africa. One study showed several cases of HIV-negative Kaposi's sarcoma... evidence that it's not caused by a virus. Another problem is that most AIDS cases in Africa don't even test for HIV because of cost issues. The KS sited in the article showed different manifestations... fulminant systemic Kaposi's... much different than US AIDS cases. I think introducing data from Africa muddies the water because much of the epidemiology is unreliable and also the manifestations of immune deficiency are so different, suggesting different disease processes.

 

Not a long incubation period, but that the body may fight back for a considerable time and also that it may take time for any symptoms to present.

Yes, that would seem possible. However, all I'm suggesting is that delayed manifestations of disease as seen in AIDS is more consistent with a toxic disease.

 

[teenagers] I'm not saying they *can't* get AIDS, I'm saying it is rarer and therefore less likely they will be exposed to it.  I also stand by the claim that AIDS takes longer to manifest (though 0-19 year olds account for 30% of South African AIDS cases).

I think your argument of teenagers being a closed group is invalid. If there is a veneral disease out there, it will find its way into the teenage population. As far as taking years to manifest itself... as I stated before... it was widely predicted in the 1980's that numerous teenagers would be dying of AIDS. This is a failed prediction. All of the arguments you've presented are noted. However, I don't find compelling reasons to blame HIV as the cause of AIDS. Yes, there is a strong correlation between AIDS and HIV positivity. However, there are many cases of HIV-negative "AIDS". HIV positivity is a requirement for the diagnosis of AIDS, so of course there's going to be a strong correlation. Also, AIDS is equally positively correlated with heavy drug use. With this evidence, why are you so convinced that it's caused by a virus, other than the fact that so many say it is? No one can prove it. No one can produce AIDS in laboratory animals. If it is an infectious disease, its epidemiology is unique. It's pattern is, however, perfectly consistent with a toxic etiology, i.e., long history of usage required to develop manifestations, specific manifestations involving specific lifestyle groups, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you're suggesting another virus that may cause Kaposi's... we're still left with the same problem... an infectious disease discriminating on gender.

Not me, the medical establishment. HHV-8 is the proposed culprit it seems: HHV-8

 

...and not just affecting men it would seem.

 

Kaposi's in the context of AIDS is rare in Africa.

Hmm...okay, we'll have problems with this one. Before AIDS came along, Kaposi's sarcoma wasn't that uncommon in Africa (see: Until the early 1980's, Kaposi's sarcoma was a very rare disease that was found mainly in older men, patients who had organ transplants, or African men. With the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) epidemic in the early 1980's, doctors began to notice more cases of Kaposi's sarcoma in Africa and in G*y men with AIDS. Kaposi's sarcoma usually spreads more quickly in these patients. from here:

 

Link

 

One study showed several cases of HIV-negative Kaposi's sarcoma... evidence that it's not caused by a virus.

But we know that Kaposi's sarcoma can be contracted seperately. This just means that HIV isn't the culprit.

 

However, I do note what you say about the problems of discussing Africa here. It's probably beyond the scope of the forum format.

 

... as I stated before... it was widely predicted in the 1980's that numerous teenagers would be dying of AIDS.  This is a failed prediction.

And I would still like to see the studies that predicted this. It seems nonsensical by the very nature of the disease.

 

Also, AIDS is equally positively correlated with heavy drug use.

With IV use certainly. If I could see a study that showed some correlation across other methods of drug use it be more compelling.

 

If it is an infectious disease...

11283[/snapback]

I can't see how there can be any doubt that it *is* an infectious disease. So many people have been infected with it by others (we have a current case in the news of a man deliberately infecting his wife).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I would still like to see the studies that predicted this.  It seems nonsensical by the very nature of the disease. 

I don't know of any "studies". I know from memory that in the early to mid 80's it was widely predicted that AIDS would be taking a huge toll on teenagers. THis is not the least bit nonsensical if you suppose AIDS to be infectious. This is what was predicted.

 

With IV use certainly.  If I could see a study that showed some correlation across other methods of drug use it be more compelling. 

Here's one study that demonstrates that nitrite inhalants cause immune deficiency and cancer in laboratory mice:

 

http://www.rethinkaids.com/quotes/drug-nitrite.html

 

Given the fact that it has been shown that the drugs h*m*sexuals are using cause immune deficiency and cancer in mice, and HIV does not cause immune deficiency or cancer in laboratory animals, why are you so certain that HIV is the culprit?

 

Here's a quote referencing the prevalent use of drugs among AIDS patients:

 

The CDC and independent investigators report that nearly all male h*m*sexuals with AIDS and at risk for AIDS are long-term users of oral drugs such as nitrite inhalants, ethylchloride inhalants, amphetamines, cocaine, and others to facilitate S@xual contacts, particularly anal intercourse #(Lifson et al., 1990; Duesberg, 1992; Ascher et al., 1993; Duesberg, 1993d; Schechter et al., 1993a; Schechter et al., 1993c)#. The drug use of male h*m*sexuals with AIDS or at risk for AIDS reported by the CDC #(Jaffe et al., 1983; Darrow et al., 1987; Lifson et al., 1990)# and others #(Ascher et al., 1993; Duesberg, 1993d; Schechter et al., 1993c; Ellison, Downey and Duesberg, 1995)# as of 1983 is listed in Table 2. Ostrow reported that nitrite inhalant use in a cohort of over 5000 male h*m*sexuals from Chicago, Baltimore, Los Angeles and Pittsburgh showed a "consistent and strong cross-sectional association with ... anal s@x" #(Ostrow, 1994)#. In addition, many HIV-positive h*m*sexuals are prescribed AZT as an antiviral drug #(Duesberg, 1992; Duesberg, 1993d; Ellison, Downey and Duesberg, 1995)#.

 

If you want the full article, I'll refer you to this...

 

http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch13.html

 

I can't see how there can be any doubt that it *is* an infectious disease.  So many people have been infected with it by others (we have a current case in the news of a man deliberately infecting his wife).

You have no doubt that AIDS is infectious, despite the fact that not a single case has ever been proven to have been tranmitted by a needlestick injury? YOu''re not bothered by the fact that AIDS cannot be produced in laboratory animals by injection of HIV? You're not bothered by the fact that the CDC has reported that 87% of US AIDS cases are male?

 

The one anecdotal case you refer to of the man deliberately infecting his wife.. do you have any specific followup? Did she contract AIDS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, drugs cause AIDS. Let's run with this for a while.

 

Drugs cause AIDS? What drugs? All drugs? What separates the drugs that cause AIDS from the ones that don't and, indeed, other molecules? Does Aspirin cause AIDS? What about caffeine? Water? The suite of 'drugs' that the body naturally generates? It's not like molecules know that the state has made them illegal to consume and adjust themselves to cause diseases accordingly.

 

If the medical establishment wanted to choose a scapegoat virus to pin AIDS on (for whatever reason), why on earth would they pick HIV? Surely there was some other virus they could have used, one that could have been 'isolated from semen'.

 

Maybe it was just convenient for their story that HIV happened to possess all the molecular machinery needed to infect and kill human white blood cells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know of any "studies".  I know from memory that in the early to mid 80's it was widely predicted that AIDS would be taking a huge toll on teenagers.  THis is not the least bit nonsensical if you suppose AIDS to be infectious.  This is what was predicted.

Given the long period generally required to exhibit symptoms children would need to be s*xually active and promiscuous from the age of about 9!

 

Here's one study that demonstrates that nitrite inhalants cause immune deficiency and cancer in laboratory mice:

 

http://www.rethinkaids.com/quotes/drug-nitrite.html

 

Given the fact that it has been shown that the drugs H*m*sexuals are using cause immune deficiency and cancer in mice,  and HIV does not cause immune deficiency or cancer in laboratory animals, why are you so certain that HIV is the culprit?

Well there's no denying your link there but how many other studies can we produce that show the same thing in mice? Alcohol for just one. And why would you expect Human Immuno-deficiency Virus to affect mice?

 

Here's a quote referencing the prevalent use of drugs among AIDS patients:

 

...

 

If you want the full article, I'll refer you to this...

 

http://www.duesberg.com/papers/ch13.html

All well and good (if a little confusing) but why no apparent correlation with nitrate users who aren't h*mosexual?

 

 

You have no doubt that AIDS is infectious, despite the fact that not a single case has ever been proven to have been tranmitted by a needlestick injury? YOu''re not bothered by the fact that AIDS cannot be produced in laboratory animals by injection of HIV?  You're not bothered by the fact that the CDC has reported that 87% of US AIDS cases are male?

Stoker R. Sharps Safety in the Laboratory. Advance/Laboratory 2005; 14(11):77.

ABSTRACT: Barbara was a lab tech who worked the graveyard shift. Her job included drawing blood and testing blood and urine samples in the hospital laboratory. On one occasion she was called tao the emergency room in the morning to draw blood on an HIV-positive drug abuser. As Barbara was attempting to draw the addict's blood, the individual became violent, jerking her arm around after the needle was already in her vein. The needle pulled out and stabbed deep into Barbara's left thumb.

Unfortunately, this story is true. Barbara soon seroconverted to HIV and later gave birth to a beautiful daughter who was HIV positive as well. This type of needlestick injury could have been prevented with the right safety equipment. Working in a labratory can be dangerous, with some hospitals reporting that one-third of nursing and laboratory staff suffer needlestick and other sharps injuries each year.

 

Just the first case I came across. I'll look up our own DOH figures when I get the chance. I'm not bothered by the fact that a mutation of SIV which transferred specifically to humans can't be introduced to mice, no. I'm not surprised that a s*xually transmitted disease which flourishes in promiscuous societies has largely remained in the male demographic (though other reasons are perfectly plausible). I wouldn't say I was *certain* that HIV causes AIDS (ie if better contrary evidence presents then I will abandon that position) but it seems to be backed by the majority of evidence.

 

 

The one anecdotal case you refer to of the man deliberately infecting his wife.. do you have any specific followup?  Did she contract AIDS?

11287[/snapback]

Anecdotal evidence

 

Too early to tell I'd guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All well and good (if a little confusing) but why no apparent correlation with nitrate users who aren't h*mosexual?

My understanding is that h*m*sexuals are by far the heaviest users of nitrite inhalants. Do you have any information that these drugs are being used by the non-h*mosexual community?

 

Stoker R. Sharps Safety in the Laboratory. Advance/Laboratory 2005; 14(11):77.

ABSTRACT:      Barbara was a lab tech who worked the graveyard shift.  Her job included drawing blood and testing blood and urine samples in the hospital laboratory. On one occasion she was called tao the emergency room in the morning to draw blood on an HIV-positive drug abuser.  As Barbara was attempting to draw the addict's blood, the individual became violent, jerking her arm around after the needle was already in her vein.  The needle pulled out and stabbed deep into Barbara's left thumb. 

  Unfortunately, this story is true.  Barbara soon seroconverted to HIV and later gave birth to a beautiful daughter who was HIV positive as well.  This type of needlestick injury could have been prevented with the right safety equipment. Working in a labratory can be dangerous, with some hospitals reporting that one-third of nursing and laboratory staff suffer needlestick and other sharps injuries each year.

 

Just the first case I came across.  I'll look up our own DOH figures when I get the chance. 

There are a lot of cases of seroconversion to HIV through needlestick injuries, as in the case you referenced. Barbara did not get AIDS... she contracted HIV.

 

 

I'm not bothered by the fact that a mutation of SIV which transferred specifically to humans can't be introduced to mice, no.

HIV is not transferred specifically to humans... it can be transferred to chimps... it just can't cause disease in animals. You should be bothered by that. It doesn't prove that HIV can't causes disease in humans, but it should cause one to reconsider.

 

I'm not surprised that a s*xually transmitted disease which flourishes in promiscuous societies has largely remained in the male demographic (though other reasons are perfectly plausible).

No other venereal disease has a male predominance. What is it about HIV that causes it to preferentially causes disease in males.

 

I wouldn't say I was *certain* that HIV causes AIDS (ie if better contrary evidence presents then I will abandon that position) but it seems to be backed by the majority of evidence.

I think you're relying more on the fact that the HIV/AIDS theory is mainstream. If you look at the evidence, there is a lot of explaining to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's true that the use of nitrite inhalants (as well as other drugs) is associated with AIDS, but it seems kind of hasty to conclude that such drugs cause the disease. Another explanation - one which can explain the fact that AIDS is associated with the use of many different kinds of drugs - might be that the use of inhalants, as well as other drugs, leads to a relaxation of inhibitions, making the user much more likely to engage in risky S@xual activities. Alternatively, it wouldn't be unfair to assume that people who use street drugs will tend to be associated with socially marginalized groups (homeless people, drug addicts, and the promiscuous subsection of the h*mosexual population that you would probably refer to as the "G*y community"), and that members of these groups are more likely to engage in the sorts of activities that transmit the HIV virus.

 

The fact that North American AIDS cases are much more common in men than women can be explained by the fact that HIV was brought into the continent by a G*y man. By definition, G*y men tend to have s@x with other G*y men, and back in the 80s this s@x tended to be promiscuous and unprotected. By the time the disease started to leak significantly into the heterosexual and female population (women as a whole are less likely to engage in unprotected s@x with multiple partners than men are, and it's hard for the disease to be transmitted among h*mosexual females because the sort of s@x h*mosexual females have doesn't involve much fluid transfer) the alarm had been raised, and we had things like prevention campaigns ("don't have s@x with everyone you meet" / "if you're going to have s@x with everyone you meet, at least wear a C*ndom") and anti-HIV drugs, both of which slowed the spread of the virus significantly in countries that could afford them.

 

The only way you can get away with this drugs-cause-AIDS idea is by dismissing all the millions of AIDS victims who have never used street drugs (esp. in Africa) as not being 'real' cases of AIDS. This is classic no-true-Scotsman reasoning. It's true that AIDS has not been directly killing Africans, but doesn't it seem rather suspicious that so many African people have been getting normally trivial diseases for the past 20 years or so? It's especially odd that this sudden outbreak has largely spared the grandparents of Africa. Most infections have an easier time killing the elderly than the young.

 

Except, of course, infections that are spread by the sort of S@xual contact that African grandmothers no longer engage in...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that H*m*sexuals are by far the heaviest users of nitrite inhalants.  Do you have any information that these drugs are being used by the non-h*mosexual community?

I knew straight people who used to take it when I was at school (it was used a lot on the "rave" scene we had in the UK in the late 80's early 90's). It has 2 uses. The first is for the euphoric feeling it gives and the second is for its muscle-relaxing properties (anybody who doesn't know what I'm alluding to, use your imagination...). So, no, it's not exclusively a G*y drug.

 

There are a lot of cases of seroconversion to HIV through needlestick injuries, as in the case you referenced.  Barbara did not get AIDS... she contracted HIV.

Well obviously. AIDS is the result - you can't "catch" it. So we don't know what state Barbara's immune system is in do we? Okay - that being the case, we're going to have a hard time showing you an instance of full-blown AIDS being the direct result of a needlestick aren't we?

 

HIV is not transferred specifically to humans... it can be transferred to chimps... it just can't cause disease in animals.

Transferred how? What exactly are we talking about here?

 

You should be bothered by that.  It doesn't prove that HIV can't causes disease in humans, but it should cause one to reconsider.

Not really. Even if what you say above is true, the fact that we share so much DNA with chimps makes it quite likely that we would some diseases.

 

No other venereal disease has a male predominance.  What is it about HIV that causes it to preferentially causes disease in males.

I've answered that. Adam's answered it more eloquently than me.

 

I think you're relying more on the fact that the HIV/AIDS theory is mainstream.  If you look at the evidence, there is a lot of explaining to do.

11297[/snapback]

Yes and no. 'If by relying on it being the mainstream theory' you mean generally 'relying on the mass of scientific papers, studies and the opinion of the S@xual health clinic in the hospital I work at', then yes I suppose I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well obviously.  AIDS is the result - you can't "catch" it.  So we don't know what state Barbara's immune system is in do we?  Okay - that being the case, we're going to have a hard time showing you an instance of full-blown AIDS being the direct result of a needlestick aren't we?

No, AIDS is not the obvious result. That's what we're debating. I'm not denying that HIV can be transmitted from one person to another. The fact that AIDS has never resulted from a needlestick injury is very significant. You can't produce AIDS in laboratory animals by transferring HIV, nor can you in humans by needlestick injuries. I don't care how many scientific papers you have... none of them prove that HIV causes AIDS. If you know of one, please let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, AIDS is not the obvious result.  That's what we're debating.

Sorry, I meant 'obviously you can't catch AIDS but in my scenario it comes as a result of AIDS'. The obvious bit referred to the first part of the sentence.

 

I'm not denying that HIV can be transmitted from one person to another.  The fact that AIDS has never resulted from a needlestick injury is very significant.

I don't accept that "statistic". Not without some research.

 

You can't produce AIDS in laboratory animals by transferring HIV

No-one disputes that. The virus can't bind to the necessary proteins because they don't exist in mice. Thus the virus "dies".

 

I don't care how many scientific papers you have... none of them prove that HIV causes AIDS.  If you know of one, please let me know.

11301[/snapback]

Prove? Or provide evidence for? The former is an unscientific request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Springer: I don't care how many scientific papers you have... none of them prove that HIV causes AIDS.  If you know of one, please let me know.

 

Greyhound:  Prove?  Or provide evidence for?  The former is an unscientific request.

11307[/snapback]

You've got it backwards. The scientific method seeks proof. Any false hypothesis has evidence in its favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've got it backwards.  The scientific method seeks proof.  Any false hypothesis has evidence in its favor.

11314[/snapback]

Good grief no! We're going to have a hard time debating science if you think that. Here's a rather succint description of science' method: Science

 

...of particular import: "When an old theory cannot explain new observations it will be (eventually) replaced by a new theory. This does not mean that the old ones are ``wrong'' or ``untrue'', it only means that the old theory had a limited applicability and could not explain all current data. The only certain thing about currently accepted theories is that they explain all available data, which, if course, does not imply that they will explains all future experiments!"

 

...showing both how we handle old theories and why we NEVER call it proof (proof is for mathematicians).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good grief no!  We're going to have a hard time debating science if you think that.  Here's a rather succint description of science' method: Science

 

...of particular import: "When an old theory cannot explain new observations it will be (eventually) replaced by a new theory. This does not mean that the old ones are ``wrong'' or ``untrue'', it only means that the old theory had a limited applicability and could not explain all current data. The only certain thing about currently accepted theories is that they explain all available data, which, if course, does not imply that they will explains all future experiments!"

 

...showing both how we handle old theories and why we NEVER call it proof (proof is for mathematicians).

11330[/snapback]

Must be the reason evolution no longer deals with the odds of how a certain thing can happen. Odds is math, math requires proof because mathematicians demand it. Now I understand why evolutionist avoid odds like the plague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be the reason evolution no longer deals with the odds of how a certain thing can happen. Odds is math, math requires proof because mathematicians demand it. Now I understand why evolutionist avoid odds like the plague.

11331[/snapback]

No longer deals with? What sort of odds are you alluding to?

 

Maths doesn't require proof, it produces proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No longer deals with?  What sort of odds are you alluding to?

 

Maths doesn't require proof, it produces proof.

11332[/snapback]

The ones evolutionists always ignore. But I can play dumb on this as well. I guess if you can't figure it out, you most not be a seasoned creation debater. For it comes up if your in it long enough.

 

I give you one: What are the odds that the eye formed from a freckle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ones evolutionists always ignore. But I can play dumb on this as well. I guess if you can't figure it out, you most not be a seasoned creation debater. For it comes up if your in it long enough.

It was a civil and honest question. I was wondering if you were pointing to Hoyle's likelihood of a cell forming (in which case he was an astronomer) or were you referring to examples such as the one you just gave?

 

I give you one: What are the odds that the eye formed from a freckle?

11333[/snapback]

1:1 given the way your question is phrased. If you asked 'given a patch of light sensitive skin, what are the odds of an eye forming?' I'd have to ask how *anyone* would go about answering that sensibly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a civil and honest question.  I was wondering if you were pointing to Hoyle's likelihood of a cell forming (in which case he was an astronomer) or were you referring to examples such as the one you just gave?

1:1 given the way your question is phrased.  If you asked 'given a patch of light sensitive skin, what are the odds of an eye forming?' I'd have to ask how *anyone* would go about answering that sensibly?

11335[/snapback]

1 to 1 eh? Care to show the math for that? The math that says all the evidence equals 1 to 1. Just like you have claimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 to 1 eh? Care to show the math for that? The math that says all the evidence equals 1 to 1. Just like you have claimed.

11336[/snapback]

Certainly...though it's not maths.

 

Eyes exist, therefore the probability of eyes coming to exist = 1

 

If you're asking for the probabilities of the necessary changes occuring to a single patch of light sensitive skin, I'd have to say that would be some pretty complex maths. Ceratinly not something evolutionists would spend time on as the answer would be nonsensiscal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Springer - are you saying that HIV will not lead to AIDS? My cousin contracted HIV and lived with it for over 10 years. Eventually it turned into full blown aids and then he died. He didn't use drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Springer - are you saying that HIV will not lead to AIDS?  My cousin contracted HIV and lived with it for over 10 years.  Eventually it turned into full blown aids and then he died.  He didn't use drugs.

11984[/snapback]

A couple of questions:

Was your cousin a h*mosexual?

Did he use AZT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read the whole thread and I'll just say that I'm confused about this issue. I have some questions for stringer, though.

 

Can AIDs be produced in heterosexual anal s@x?

 

The OP argued that HIV was 'non existant', yet you are constantly talking about HIV in your posts, why is that?

 

Is that specific h*mosexual and AZT the only drugs that seems to cause AIDs, or do other illicit drugs as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms