Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome...

[XPViking]

Don't worry folks. Eating kimchi will help prevent SARS. Stock up now.

http://www.yonhapnews.net/Engnews/20030 ... 121E2.html

XPViking

[Darth Wong]

And based on the same bullshit, I see.

Bullshit, as in the AIDS=HIV theory you accept? I find it ironic that for a website with several sections dedicated to debunking bad science, bad science still seeps in!

The logical problems with your argument were pointed out and ignored last time. Your argument is based on obvious fallacies of composition, and you can invent strawman distortions and label the HIV/AIDS connection "bad science" if you want, but your alternative is complete bullshit.

Since some of the suspected SARS cases are probably just the flu, this is hardly a shocking newsflash.

Yeah, but many people don't know better. It might seem obvious to you, but not to others.

Or to you, since you don't seem to understand how a precisely analogous rebuttal applies to your AIDS argument.

Beware of bad logic, which you have demonstrated before with your rants against the AIDS "conspiracy".

Oh, and your acceptance of the circular logic used by the CDC/WHO AIDS definition does wonders for your intelligence.

It is hardly circular logic, moron. There are many types of auto-immune disorder; proving that HIV is present in SOME of them means that there is one particular TYPE of auto-immune disorder which is related to HIV. To define this type of auto-immune disorder is HIV/AIDS is not circular, and it is hardly disproven by pointing out that other types of auto-immune disorder also exist.

As for "intelligence", your failure to recognize or even ATTEMPT to address this argument after numerous repetitions is a clear indication of low intelligence, since intelligence is the rate at which you pick up patterns and concepts.

[The_Nice_Guy]

The logical problems with your argument were pointed out and ignored last time. Your argument is based on obvious fallacies of composition, and you can invent strawman distortions and label the HIV/AIDS connection "bad science" if you want, but your alternative is complete bullshit.

Your simply saying so doesn't prove it. Come on then, show me the damn proof!

You're the one coming out with fallacies straight out from your mouth. Let's see now, abusive ad hominem, circumstantial ad hominem. Or do you deny these?

And based on the same bullshit, I see.

Come on. You can try the debate I set up specially for this topic.

Or to you, since you don't seem to understand how a precisely analogous rebuttal applies to your AIDS argument.

HAH! It's exactly because of the misconceptions about SARS being spread around that you're completely correct!

And because these misconceptions exist in both diseases, the public is left in hysterics!

It is hardly circular logic, moron. There are many types of auto-immune disorder; proving that HIV is present in SOME of them means that there is one particular TYPE of auto-immune disorder which is related to HIV. To define this type of auto-immune disorder is HIV/AIDS is not circular, and it is hardly disproven by pointing out that other types of auto-immune disorder also exist.

HIV is present in some of them? Do you realize exactly you're saying? That they are AIDS if and only if HIV is present? And pray tell me then, what is HIV? The virus that causes this disease?

Do you realize you've shown the circularity of this definition?

Oh, and about the autoimmune disorders possible? Let's talk specifics, the type where only the CD4 T-cell is abnormally low. That's the specific situation which can allow those 30 diseases we classify as secondary infections to take advantage and infect the body, leading to death. AIDS is that, and nothing else. You're muddying the waters by bringing in other auto-immune diseases. Unless you have your own definition for AIDS?

I've said it before, AIDS is the point where the CD4 T-cell count of a human is at a certain low level. What exactlky is it that brings it to this point? HIV? Possible, if we can isolate it. Drugs? Also possible.

And your willful ignorance of the CDC's own definition(do you deny that it's circular) is disturbing.

As for "intelligence", your failure to recognize or even ATTEMPT to address this argument after numerous repetitions is a clear indication of low intelligence, since intelligence is the rate at which you pick up patterns and concepts.

No, your intelligence is sadly lacking on this issue. Does causality mean anything to you? Accepted scientific premises which HIV has not fulfilled? Definitions which you have willfully ignored?

Only because it's perfectly good science. Except, of course, HIV sometimes leads to AIDS, not AIDS=HIV.

Yes! Exactly! The Duchess gets the prize!

However, does the presence of AIDS(as in the disease itself) necessarily mean that it's caused by HIV? This bit of abductive reasoning is very, very tricky. We can only accept that it's caused by HIV when there is no other equally or more valid alternative. However, I dispute this point, not least for the simple fact that HIV has not been isolated yet.

The Wobbly Guy