\There is an established theory with a lot of evidence for it (spread mechanism for the HIV, correlation between HIV and AIDS and numerous other things you have consistently seen fit to ignore), even though our knowledge is not entirely comprehensive and there are gaps.
The problem here you MORON is that the very points I refer to challenge those SPECIFIC points you list. You make it sound like all of the major issues are a given, and I'm dredging out nitpicky irrelevant mysteries and claiming the whole thing is false. PAY ATTENTION. These people are challenging the very HEART of the "evidence" the mainstream claims is an established theory.
Well then they are all liars and are making up stories that contradict your convenient little 1 2 3. I don't pretend to know for certain what happens in reality instead of what they TELL you is happening, but I think it's unfair to lump them all into a "dishonest" category automatically.No, it isn't. Once the dissident crowd actually hatches a theory, it gets evaluated, and
If #1: it fits the facts better than the old one, then their work is good.
If #2: it fits as well, but has more variables, Occam's Razor cuts it out of the running.
If #3: it doesn't fit as well, it gets thrown out.
So far all they've managed is #3. Their "research" doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and it is therefore rejected, and all they do is bitch and moan about how they're not given equal treatment, just like cretinists. Sorry, but superior performance is given superior merit, deal with it.
I never claimed to HAVE one and like I said before it shouldn't make any fucking difference you fool. Are you trying to tell me I wouldn't have any right to dismantle someone's theory about the Sun being Apollo's chariot wheel even if I wasn't aware of the scientific truth? This lack of knowledge would make it improper for me to critically analyze a theory simply because I DON'T have an alternative? If you can't see that this is a red herring than I think someone else is suffering from IWOL.Justforfun000 wrote:
you are asking to prove a negative.
He's not, he's asking you to produce a viable alternate theory and evidence for it, something you have not managed to do, you idiot.
The problem here is that HUMANS make up the definition of AIDS and since they are choosing to fit the label to match their theory then it becomes rather irrelevant doesnt' it? If two people of the same age get Tuberculosis and die and one of them is positive, guess what? The negative person died of tuberculosis. The second one? AIDS. Are you so stupid that you can't see that since the damn label can be slapped on to suit WHATEVER they consider this week to be included in the disease definition that it's worthless in and of itself?Nice redefinition of AIDS, and one that you have been called on before. AIDS is not the only immuno-deficiency syndrome out there, and the others are not necessarily caused by the HIV virus, but AIDS is.
[/quote]Yes, and so what? There aren't all that many who have had it that long without coming down with AIDS, and it was already pointed out several years ago that it can take many, many years for the HIV to develop into full-blown AIDS. In societies with a living standard as high as we have, we have a steady supply of food and no shortage of the nutrients and stuff that makes the human body work, and it takes a long time for the virus to do enough damage to cause a fullblown AIDS, but it will happen, sooner or later.
Unless they take the drugs that is.
Well this is where time alone will answer questions, because they do not KNOW if 100% of people with HIV will develop Aids. Besides that, there have been numerous people that are recorded as sero-converting back to negative, so this is still speculation.
Which drugs were those? You've been called on this obfucation also, stop repeating yourself.
Correlation can serve as evidence when there are no other factors that would explain a phenomenon.
The lethal ones that make up the basis of any HAART therapy you twit. Don't even try to pretend that the drugs are not highly toxic. No one worth their salt would try to pretend these drugs will not kill you eventually.
I am starting to think you are the one with the reading problem as you keep making supposed references to my earlier posts. Obviously you have me mixed up with someone else as many things you refer to were not in my posts. Pay attention a little better.
People infected with HIV consistently develop AIDS while those who are not infected do not, and there are no other factors inplay that could explain this universal correlation.
Granted. But it does not have enough weight behind it to support a theory by itself.
Summing up your paragraph with your conclusive last line: With HIV, you develop AIDS, without you don't, so there's a definite cause-effect chain there.
This is what the dissidents are saying is a falsehood. They have brought forth a massive amount of evidence directly challenging these postulations, and I have STILL not seen them addressed or refuted. If your statement was an unchallenged fact than I wouldn't even be wasting my TIME discussing this issue because then the dissidents WOULD be picking at irrelevancies. But since the core ASSUMPTIONS are being called out, it's a whole new ballgame.
LEts get this straight. I started off this debate with no clear side, and I STILL don't know which side is right. Maybe both or neither. But at least I'm trying to put both sides under the microscope to see where the truth is.
Justforfun000 wrote:
Ummmmm, no. Not so simple. I'm starting to think you are though. Read above about the way labels are chosen to fit definitions and you'll see why this is not a valid statement .
But with this particular disease, it is RIDICULOUS to do so in my opinion because unlike any other type of disease, there are no CONSISTENT symptoms for everyone and you can die a dozens upon dozens of different things.
And the above statement proves irrefutably that you are a complete and utter moron and fuckwit. AIDS, or Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome is just that, a failure of the immune system due to the bloody HIV virus! The virus overloads your immune system and prevents it from defending your body the way it is supposed to, which makes you vulnerable even to common ailments that are no threat to a healthy person. When your immune system stops working properly, you can die of the common cold, chicken pox, measles or any number of other common or exotic diseases, or from a fucking fungal infection, but the only reason it happens is that the HIV virus fucked up your immune system in the first place, ergo it is ultimately the cause of death! You're a complete idiot and a fucking moron that we have to tell you this for the umpteenth time!
There is also the mind factor to take into effect. All of these people believe they are going to be sick. I firmly believe in the mind's power over the body, and I think ANYONE truly believing this, will make themselves sick eventually.
Missing the forest for the trees again eh? *sigh*. Save me from idiots. You are so hell-bent on trying to both prove me wrong and insult me repeatedly so you can ridicule anything I'm saying that you aren't even being fair with your judgements.
I KNOW what the typical definition of AIDS is and so based on that explanation it's obvious that many diseases can be potentially lethal. I'm not ARGUING against Aids existing you idiot, I'm debating the issues surround HIV. YOU are the one obfuscating the issue. The whole thrust of the dissidents argument is centered on their claims that there is NO evidence truly implicating HIV as being the determining factor in Aids. PERIOD. From THEIR standpoint, the mainstream is using irrelevancies as a basis for their theory and ignoring the gaping holes in the heart of their claims. THIS is what I'm trying to debate on. The issues surrounding this battle. NOT that Aids doesn't exist.
Stop fucking jumping down my throat and understand that I'm far from stupid. Unlike some I don't pretend to know it all. We learn by asking and debating. Don't assume that I'm uneducated regarding anything related to this issue. I've probably forgot more than you'll ever know about the human body and it's disorders. This particular issue is simply one that I find intriguing because of the contention surrounding it.
If you really believe in all this mind over body crap, you won't mind it if I stab you several times with a large-bladed knife, will you? Because you can just convince your wounds to heal with the power of your mind, can't you? Oh, sorry, you can't, too fucking bad, concession accepted. Mental state can affect body somewhat, but cannot in and of itself cure anything. Having a positive attitude can help in recovering, but it won't do alone. Being depressed can lower resistance to disease and hasten bad effects, but it does not cause them in and of itself.
Long term improvement has not been shown, because you're using those words as a synonym for the word 'cure', which as of yet does not exist. That the disease has been held at bay is proof that the drugs work. Enough with the strawmen.
Nice try. First off notice I said I "believe". Also notice I did NOT intimate that the mind has any SUPERNATURAL abilities to heal or harm. Your idiot example would be like saying if I died because of your stab wounds that's proof that humans don't heal and that injuries will kill us regardless. There's a little factor called TIME that's important here?
I'd like to know where you get off making such a definitive statement. "Mental state can affect body somewhat, but cannot in and of itself cure anything." Care to cite your evidence proving this? I'm smart enough to frame my statement as an opinion because that's all that is valid at this time. There is no hard evidence FOR or AGAINST either claim that is conclusive.
Again:"Being depressed can lower resistance to disease and hasten bad effects, but it does not cause them in and of itself. "
Well I'm so glad your knowledge of the basis of disease is so extensive. Please link me to your published peer-reviewed theories so I can understand fully how you have determined that depression is never causative of disease.
You are rapidly losing credibility with your unsupportable statements.
Please define what you mean by dissenter, that would make answering your point easier, now it's just more obfuscation.
Don't put words in my mouth buddy. I did NOT use the words as a synonym for "cure". Clinical studies have shown in MANY cases that long term quality OR quantity of life is at best questionable and in some results definitely worse. Look them up. It's not a secret.
Pot calling the kettle black? The strawman is yours. "the disease is held at bay"? WHAT disease? You can't say Aids because technically it is NOT a disease, it is a SYNDROME. This is not being nitpicky either, it's VERY relevant to your supposed point. These drugs have the potential to be destructive to ANY infectious disease. Therefore improvement could be shown in the short term. This in itself does not indicate any bearing on the person's HIV status. This isn't even truly relevant to this discussion. The whole point is whether or not Aids as we know it has any true evidence linking it CONCLUSIVELY to Hiv. That's it. The treatments and people's health status are irrelevant to this debate. Like I said before. I'm not saying Aids doesn't exist. I'm questioning the modality.
I'm not a scientist, but I understand exactly what he means. He's being bloody sarcastic, is what it is. The points you try to make are attacking a strawman model, or are based on serious and in cases total ignorance of facts, observations and current research, therefore they are completely irrelevant. All you manage is to point out that in certain areas, we have gaps in the knowledge, something that anybody in the mainstream is also perfectly capable of doing and have in fact done.
I'm simply referring generally to the hundreds of scientist, researchers and medical field specialists that do not believe HIV is necessarily related to Aids.
They are not valid against the heart of the theory, you numbskull! They only point out what the mainstream already knows, namely the areas where knowledge is lacking!
Well if this is true then it should be very easy to disprove all of these dissenting viewpoints. So WHY is it not done? Are you suggesting that all of these people are truly that stupid that they cannot be shown that there arguments are worthless? Are you forgetting some of the people and their credentials? They are a hell of a lot more involved in this field than you and I are and if THEY are still convinced, then I think there is reason to examine their findings.
Your simplistic answer is becoming tedious. You keep saying that all of the arguments are irrelevant, and pointing out little gaps of knowledge, etc. But you are not showing WHY these are supposedly irrelevant or falsifiable. Put up or shut up. You keep claiming the the HIV = Aids correlation is airtight and conclusive. PROVE it. This lack of evidence is PRECISELY what the dissidents are arguing. Everyone keeps saying "it's proven", but they won't bring forth any supporting evidence.
[/quote]
Cite?
I would like to see the proof for this. If you have anything supporting this statement irrevocably then please show it to me. If the heart of the theory is sound then it should be EASY to show me this conclusive proof.
[/quote]You are, for the purposes of this debate, no better than a cretinist, just like I pointed out at the start, and you have it down to a t, Invincible Wall of Ignorance included.
Uhh, care to point out where you spoke to me? I don't recall a post from you directed at me before this. Secondly, I think I showed quite clearly that you are not convincing in your "debunking" of my arguments. I think you'll have to dig in with a little more supporting evidence when you make blanket statements if you expect people to take you seriously.
We have gaps in our knowledge of the virus and its effects, but we learn everyday.