Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Apr 28, 2015.
That works in reverse too, right? For parapsychology?
Where's the denial? The argument is that HIV-AIDS dissidents' arguments ought to be taken seriously. You're confusing denial with healthy scepticism. I'm still waiting for a straight answer to my question about the provenance of the image posted here claiming to be a picture from 1985 of HIV-1. If you can point me to the paper, I'm perfectly prepared to accept it if it actually depicts HIV-1 and shows the virus was isolated and purified from infected tissue.
Precisely so! Parapsychologists point to evidence that mainstream science would rather forget about - evidence that something is radically wrong with the way science views consciousness.
I think the reason issues like the AIDS debate are important here, is that they illustrate very clearly how science has become closed and authoritarian on a whole range of issues. I think science needs a structure that values people with divergent views and debates with such people seriosly. Once you have a a system that excludes mavericks, you risk making the most enormous blunders, and you send the message to upcoming scientists that disagreeing with the 'official' line will wreck your career. Remember the MIT lectures from a professor who takes cold fusion seriously. He started each lecture with a warning - taking cold fusion seriously will seriously damage your career!
Looks like your account is still active. Could an admin please delete politcaljunkie's account, asap??
Oh, I didn't realize I was supposed to wait. Sorry, bishop. Won't happen again.
You wouldn't have to wait if you took the time to read the thread.
Hey Car and Bishop, let's try not to clutter an interesting discussion with infighting. How about removing the last few posts, and then I'll remove this post.
If anyone is convinced about HIV being the cause of AIDS, please show me a paper where:
1. Sample tissue that contained the HIV virus was taken from a patient with AIDS.
2. Where HIV virus from that sample was isolated and purified, and electronmicrographs taken to prove it.
3. Where the virus from that sample was also used to infect a susceptible uninfected host tissue sample: i.e. where "before" EM pictures showed no HIV was present, and "after" EM pictures showed HIV proliferation.
Even that wouldn't be definitive: it doesn't prove that HIV causes the actual symptoms of AIDS, many of which are known to be caused by pre-existing pathogens; but nonetheless, it would go some way towards assuaging my doubts.
Can anyone do that? If you can, please provide the reference.
That isn't a scientific paper - it is an editorial, if you like! ML is asking for an original research paper.
Michael, please debunk the image here. Not with an opinion, or an article, or a link to the Perth Group's page. But with a scientific paper.
Actually, you have me on ignore so you won't see this post. So anyone else please take a crack at debunking this exact image with a scientific paper.
What an odd thing to say. That piece is (extraordinarily well) backed up by references to scientific papers throughout.
The "editorial" lays out how converging lines of evidence strongly suggest that HIV leads to AIDS. These are the points that need to be addressed by those who see a different causal factor.
No, converging lines of evidence don't matter. Someone needs to prove with a scientific paper that what what Dr. Eleni Papadopulos said in that interview from 1997 about the isolation and purification is wrong. That's the only thing.
I can't access the full paper and probably wouldn't understand it if I did but when I google isolation and purification of HIV I get this paper:
Purification of HIV-1 virions by subtilisin digestion or CD45 immunoaffinity depletion for biochemical studies.
Is this what people are looking for? Abstract:
Clearly the evidence doesn't count unless it's in a journal with a fancy title.
It is not healthy skepticism. It is dangerous nonsense. You liken Bauer and Deusberg to pioneers. They are not. The latter worked with Mbeki, this is well known, as is Mbeki's mistrust of western science, which to some extend is understandable given the events of the previous decades. The South African government consequently prevented people getting treatment, and As a 100s of thousands died. Before you start citing that (retracted) paper by Deusberg, I will reiterate that South African statistics can be incredibly unreliable. Coupled with the fact that Deusberg was an advisor to the president, and the president enabled his views, that (retracted) paper has an enormous conflict of interest problem. In essence, Deusberg was bigging up his mate Mbeki. If you also want a demonstration that HIV leads to AIDS and is deadly, this article demonstrating that deniers die of it is pretty revealing.
Separate names with a comma.