AIDS: conspiracy or reality?

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
IdleRich said:
I think you're right here. One problem as well is the attempted even-handedness of much reporting (a commendable idea but not always appropriate). If there is an issue with one crackpot versus the rest of the world and someone is doing a feature on that issue you can bet that that crackpot's idea will get as much space as the orthodoxy.
*coughs* MMR
 

owen

Well-known member
when seeing this thread title, was worried that dissensus suddenly turned into a meeting of stoners who took the fortean times seriously. am glad to see from the responses that it hasn't.
 
Fortean Times has a lot more to recommend it than the spontaneous dangerous hippie irrationalism of the original poster.

The sheer disgustingness of posting this:

First, and foremost, educate yourself. If you are taking AIDS medications, find someone who can help you safely get off of them. If you are HIV-negative, stay that way. Refuse to test. Refuse to donate blood. (Same thing as getting tested.) Encourage everyone you know to do likewise, until the invalid HIV testing is declared illegal!

for example - 'refuse to test' - what a fantastic idea! don't give blood - you'll only be saving the lives of others fergodsake!

Thoroughly nasty stuff.
 
D

droid

Guest
To be fair, there have been valid questions asked about the testing procedure, and some credible testimony as to its problems.

Doesnt mean that HIV/AIDS is a myth though...
 
but posting something that simply states 'don't get tested' and 'don't give blood' is the worst way of introducing a 'debate' about testing procedures.
 

bassnation

the abyss
infinite thought said:
but posting something that simply states 'don't get tested' and 'don't give blood' is the worst way of introducing a 'debate' about testing procedures.

its highly irresponsible. if someone doesn't get tested on the basis of a tin foil hat theory and then goes on to infect others... thats a fair amount of culpubility (for the original author, not accusing confucious of that, obviously)

i think alternative medicine and these kind of claims should be regulated much more than it is at present.
 
Last edited:

Lichen

Well-known member
Ideas take hold

I appreciate that Confucious is acting on behalf of the devil (though I sense he adjsuted his position to do so) , but as a parent faced with profound confusion and anxiety over the MMR jab, I recognise that ideas gain momentum, infiltrate the mainstream.


Like John Eden and Droid I believe that by and large the medical and scientific community act pro bono, and that even in this small corner of the 'net you should be armed with proper facts and some scientific weight before posting potentially lethal propoganda.
 
D

droid

Guest
infinite thought said:
but posting something that simply states 'don't get tested' and 'don't give blood' is the worst way of introducing a 'debate' about testing procedures.

Agreed - but, to put it in perspective - its not as if anyones going to actually follow thirdhand sensationalist medical advice from an internet forum... is it? :confused:
 
droid said:
Agreed - but, to put it in perspective - its not as if anyones going to actually follow thirdhand sensationalist medical advice from an internet forum... is it? :confused:

presumably not! but wouldn't have thought anyone would have posted it either...
 

Slothrop

Tight but Polite
bassnation said:
its highly irresponsible. if someone doesn't get tested on the basis of a tin foil hat theory and then goes on to infect others... thats a fair amount of culpubility (for the original author, not accusing confucious of that, obviously)

i think alternative medicine and these kind of claims should be regulated much more than it is at present.
I wonder if there's the possibility for someone (erm, doctors, the NHS, even pharm companies) to start sueing people for libel over misreported health scares? I'm not normally a big fan of sueing people or of pharmaceutical companies but in this case they could helpfully come together and set a precedent that quoting one dubious, potentially biased, unaccredited and often demonstrably wrong source while ignoring a mass of comparatively disinterested peer reviewed material in order to hype a nonexistant health scare is a Bad Thing.

Also cf the Bad Science column, which is one of the things currently keeping the Grauniad on the side of Good.
 

luka

Well-known member
i don't approve of this sanctimonious slur on stoners

'was worried that dissensus suddenly turned into a meeting of stoners who took the fortean times seriously.'

but thats another issue!
 
well I think the slur on Fortean Times (more skeptical than loopy) is also a slur!

Owen doesn't mean it about stoners, he'd be a hypocrite if he did ;)
 

mms

sometimes
the fortean times is pretty well adjusted rigorous and sceptical on the whole - i think you are getting it mixed up with astronomy today or something wolly of that ilk..
 

bassnation

the abyss
pedants corner

mms said:
the fortean times is pretty well adjusted rigorous and sceptical on the whole - i think you are getting it mixed up with astronomy today or something wolly of that ilk..

don't you mean astrology today? :)

astronomy today is a well-respected journal covering observable space phenomena.

funnily enough (and totally irrelevant to this debate), astrology and astronomy were once close bedfellows.
 
Last edited:

h-crimm

Well-known member
i think you have to imagine yourself as an american to understand how you could think the existence of AIDS is debateable. (hmmm that wasnt meant to sound rude... i cant really think of a better way, so that will have to stand). i'm not going to discuss the thesis, 'cause i dont think it presents any logical argument or evidence to argue against.


what i will say is that the american doctor-patient relationship is extremely different from that relationship in the UK. For NHS doctors, the vast majority of british doctors, there is (ideally) no commercial incentive for any diagnosis. even if there is influence from big pharma to prefer certain treatments, through conferences, support and marketing to health authorities.
In america you visit your doctor expecting to have to fight for the correct treatment. to have to assert yourself or be fed junk and taked for a ride. or to be abused and ripped off. healthcare providers in america are just as likely a source of disinformation as the biotech, tobacco or automobile industries

i can believe that the tobacco cartels withheld information on the dangers of ciggarettes. but i cant believe that a public domain research consensus could be hidden and corrupted in the same way.



i dont think that means i'm blinded by my faith in a religion called science.
but it does mean faith in double blind, constantly reviewed, competitive, evidence based, open research.
 

minikomi

pu1.pu2.wav.noi
Did you know there is no science to support the HIV hypothesis and much that disproves it?


I want to see the evidence which disproves this first before i comment. Pubmed, NCBI and Web of science seem to say otherwise, and these are databases of hundreds (thousands?) of journals which rely presenting results which are credible, supported and peer reviewed. Their business is to be credible and, since their readership is so usually focussed on a single scientific field, they have to ensure that they are.

I will say one thing though. One of the best indicators that a method of treating the drug is actually working is that, due to the high turnover of the virus and the (built in) innacuracies in the replication of their genetic code, mutations which are resistant to the drug will soon be produced and, due to their resistance, will proliferate. Without the selective pressure of the drug acting against the virus detrimentally, virus particles with these mutations would have no reason to increase in number. Survival of the .. not fittest as the original version is usually more virulent.. but survival of the most well adapted to the selective pressures. Well, surprise surprise, there are a lot of drug specific mutations out there. . . .

http://www.iasusa.org/pub/topics/2005/issue4/125.pdf

can i suggest a counter book?

 

zhao

there are no accidents
2stepfan said:
I think Confucious should clarify his position on this.

My position on this is simply to follow the oldest and best rules of life that I know:

1. trust no one.

and

2. question everything.

the sentiments thus far expressed at the suggestion that the existence of AIDS is debatable, from surprise to disbelief to ridicule to anger, I have personally felt. Yet parts of what the conspiracy supporters say makes sense, and as incredible as it would be, I don't know if it is ABSOLUTELY impossible to carry out a hoax on such a global scale.

that's all.
 
Top