What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2013, 09:22 PM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(15-11-2013 09:20 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 07:18 PM)I and I Wrote:  I never pretended to know or comment on what causes aids. I love how everyone is dogging on me for questioning commonly held beliefs yet won't answer yes or no on wether they believe HIV causes aids.

So you want to force us to definitive answers while you evade them? Why?

Because he is a troll. He is either too stupid to understand the evidence or he is too committed to the narrative he has in his head to accept reality.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
15-11-2013, 09:36 PM
What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(15-11-2013 09:22 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 09:20 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  So you want to force us to definitive answers while you evade them? Why?

Because he is a troll. He is either too stupid to understand the evidence or he is too committed to the narrative he has in his head to accept reality.

So I am a troll for not answering questions yet nobody answers mine like......what is the name of the person that isolated the HIV virus?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 09:43 PM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2013 09:55 PM by Chippy.)
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(15-11-2013 09:14 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 06:05 AM)Chippy Wrote:  HIV-I and HIV-II exist. There are electron micrographs of both. It is known that their genome is ~9.3 kb and how it is organised.

Do you know how a sample is prepared for an electron microscope? Do you know the stages of this process? I have shown early in the thread that these stages have many flaws in them themselves. And no there is no electron micrograph of an infectious virus (HIV).

Here is the complete genome of HIV-I.

Here is the complete genome of HIV-II.

Genomic sequencing would not be possible if HIV-I and HIV-II were not isolated.

HIV-I and HIV-II are routinely isolated by laboratoary technicians and virologists using kits such as this. Many papers in virology detail isolation procedures from various media including plasma and cerebrospinal fluid.

Although I think you are misguided in believing HIV/AIDS denialism you have presented the forum a good example of the problem I indirectly addressed in my skirmish with Fulton regarding "orthomolecular psychiatry".

The HIV/AIDS denialists had/have some heavy hitters in their camp including √Čtienne de Harven, Lynn Margulis, Kary Mullis. But on sober reflection this is no different than well-credentialed YECs. In cases such as this we appeal to the scientific consensus. Appealing to the scientific consensus is not an instance of argumentum ad populum because we are not arguing that X is true merely because most people believe X is true. Rather we are implicitly arguing that of the alternatives, X is most likely to be true because the majority of subject-matter experts having considered the evidence believe that X is best supported by the evidence. The subject-matter experts did not arrive at their position by a coin toss, by emoting or some other arbitrary process. As subject-matter experts we can assume that they arrived at their position via a consideration of the evidence. By appealing to the scientific consensus we are in effect appealing to the majority position in relation to the evidence. Thus the scientific consensus is more likely to be true in relation to the alternatives. This isn't foolproof but no form of human inquiry meets that high standard. By appealing to a broad consensus we are making some allowance for human fallibility and bias in that the same error and same bias is unlikely to be repeated so many times. There is no such risk reduction with a small group, with the dissenters. The dissenters too are human so the probablity of their error and their bias needs to be considered also.

The scientific consensus is that HIV-I and HIV-II exist and they cause AIDS. Yes we can find impressively credentialled people that disagree. So what? We can find impressively credentialled people that believe that the universe is ~4K years old. So what?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Chippy's post
15-11-2013, 10:01 PM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(15-11-2013 09:22 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 09:20 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  So you want to force us to definitive answers while you evade them? Why?

Because he is a troll. He is either too stupid to understand the evidence or he is too committed to the narrative he has in his head to accept reality.

why don't you guys ban him already? nobody wants him here and he has broken rule 5 over and over again...

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
15-11-2013, 10:15 PM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(15-11-2013 09:36 PM)I and I Wrote:  what is the name of the person that isolated the HIV virus?

Gallo and Montagnier both isolated HIV.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2013, 11:16 PM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
Chippy, two excellent posts particularly the first.

Odd how the opinions of outliers particularly in the scientific community can get so much traction if they yell loud enough, or somehow get political people to further their claims. There are a number of ways this is destructive there is no point in delineating them here. In this specific tread I think you have presented excellent arguments even if I and I will not accept them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 12:07 AM
What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(15-11-2013 10:01 PM)nach_in Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 09:22 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Because he is a troll. He is either too stupid to understand the evidence or he is too committed to the narrative he has in his head to accept reality.

why don't you guys ban him already? nobody wants him here and he has broken rule 5 over and over again...

And what would rule 5 be? If I start a thread and people start talking shit to me, who is breaking the rules?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 12:25 AM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(16-11-2013 12:07 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(15-11-2013 10:01 PM)nach_in Wrote:  why don't you guys ban him already? nobody wants him here and he has broken rule 5 over and over again...

And what would rule 5 be? If I start a thread and people start talking shit to me, who is breaking the rules?

People tried over and over again to be civil and talk with you, but you never answer a question, you deflect every single time your ideas are challenged and you never, not even once, showed any intention of having an honest discussion about very sensitive topics.

Your threads are not meant to talk, are meant to stir people's feelings about important matters so you can poke at us and have a good laugh. You're a troll and an insensitive bastard who uses real people problems and suffering to annoy and provoke.

Rule 5 says:
Quote:5) Maliciously Disrupting the Forum is Prohibited
Anyone who comes here with the sole intent of causing chaos and conflict is not welcome. Being intentionally overly disruptive is also not acceptable. In the event that it is felt by the forum Administration that a person is causing excessive issues then they will be officially warned. Failure to heed the warning may lead to temporary bans leading up to a permanent ban if the offending behaviour is not ceased. This is considered a last resort and only for the most serious situations. Anyone who is felt to be trying to manipulate this rule to get another member banned by causing controversy about them risks falling foul of this rule themself.

The only reason you haven't been banned yet is because you're skilful enough to walk a fine line in every thread, and our mods are careful enough to tolerate provocative people. But after a year and a half here I've seen enough of your posts and tried to discuss with you enough times to know that you are actually maliciously trying to cause conflict.
You are not welcome here by anyone, the few people who tolerate you here are the ones whit a sense of humor weird enough to find you amusing. But even them get tired after a while.

You will insist that you want some honest debate, or that you have some sort of actual curiosity on the topics that you arise, but that's bullshit, and it will be bullshit as you type it, and it will be bullshit as anyone here reads it.

You are BS&BS, and you should be banned so we don't have to suffer you anymore.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
16-11-2013, 12:35 AM
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(15-11-2013 11:16 PM)JAH Wrote:  Odd how the opinions of outliers particularly in the scientific community can get so much traction if they yell loud enough, or somehow get political people to further their claims.

It is because these outliers--as you called them--don't use the peer-reviewed literature, professional conferences and symposia to disseminate their opinions. Instead they use popular media: TV and radio, books, YT videos, blogs, personal websites etc. Their unscrutinised opinions reach more people and this spawns a secondary line of popular media disseminations and so on. This is common to all fringe positions, e.g. anti-vaccination, anti-psychiatry, YEC geology, etc.

A common pattern is to publish a book with fantastic claims and their credentials prominently displayed on the cover and then seek "soft" interviews, e.g. Oprah, Dr Oz, morning television, lifestyle shows etc.

[Image: 51y6R3mN-yL._SY344_PJlook-inside-v2,TopR...3,200_.jpg]
It must be true because a medical doctor says so. Who am I to argue with an MD?




The "soft" interview which is really just a promotional puff piece.

You can see from my argument with Fulton that most people will just blindly accept whatever an "expert" tells them. Much of what Whitaker claims in this interview is without evidence and some of it is contradicted by existing evidence but the interviewer poses no challenge to his claims. This is how fringe pseudoscientific opinions begin to gain currency and influence.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
16-11-2013, 12:47 AM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2013 12:51 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: What is the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV?
(13-11-2013 04:17 AM)I and I Wrote:  1. How was HIV virus found or proven to be present when it was first claimed to have been found by Robert Gallo? What methods did he use?

Why are you asking this forum, and not finding this out for yourself?

...Also, English is not your first language, is it?

Quote:2. What makes you come to the conclusion that the HIV virus exists?

What makes you come to the conclusion that you, yourself, exist?


I and I <............>Taq
Hobo <................> Laughat

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: