 |
|
Reply
| |
Although there is already an "HIV/AIDS" debate thread on this forum, I thought I'd create a new thread that uses the example of "HIV/AIDS" (whatever it happens to be on any given day) to address some basic scientific concepts. Anyone can make a scientific claim, but of course the issue of "credentials" will often arise, though the natural reality is what it is, regardless of anything. If a claim is supported by some evidence, it can be put forth as a hypothesis, which then requires testing, and not just by the person (s) who is making the claim. If extensive testing/experimenting has been conducted, and if all the evidence supports the hypothesis (and nothing contradicts it), then the hypothesis is a theory. Claims never become "facts." Facts are an interesting concept, however. Let's say you conduct an experiment, but in a flawed way, and your findings are bogus. Those findings are still technically "facts," in that they are "on the record," even though they are false, due to bad experimental design or some other problem. Thus, claiming that something is a "fact" is not necessarily very important, and may actually be misleading.
A theory can always be refuted, and all it takes is one piece of evidence that directly contradicts the theory. Of course, if the evidence is derived from a flawed experiment, the refutation does not stand. The whole point of scientific methodology is to establish causation. We often hear about the "theory of evolution," for example, and the point is to establish a cause for the diversity of species that exist on the planet. The problem with this "theory" is that it's not possible to "pin down" the concept of "species" - it is based upon definitions humans impose, not on natural reality. Some humans want to claim that members of a species cannot generate viable offspring with members of a supposedly different species, and they have composed a list of different species. However, how many experiments have been done to demonstrate that this is indeed the case? If such experiments were conducted, and it was found that member of one species can generate viable offspring with members of a different species, these people would simply change their list of species.
Thus, they are never on "solid ground," and the whole point of explaining "evolution" becomes muddled. Instead, it makes more sense to talk of "cell colony diversification," and just omit the notion of species, at least for the time being. The natural biological reality is constantly changing, but the concept of "species" makes it sound like there is a permanent element involved. If there is such a permanent element, one will find it at the cellular or molecular level (proteins in particular, which do the "heavy lifting" for living things). In any case, I view the "theory of evolution" as an attempt to explain what humans perceive (that is, "species") rather than to conform to the scientific method, and it's certainly not a scientific theory, because it is based upon a tautological foundation.
Another problem in science today involves the influence of "models" and "epidemiological" studies, both of which are basically ways to circumvent the scientific method. Briefly, and in practical terms, in order to conform to the scientific method, you need to state a clear and specific hypothesis (meaning you've already done a lot of research and you know that what you are stating is more than a claim or "hunch") and then there needs to be demonstration of its accuracy, with controls for all potentially causative factors. For example, if you want to claim that dietary oxidized cholesterol is dangerous, you can feed two groups of animals the same diet, with one getting oxidized cholesterol and one getting non-oxidized cholesterol. Of course, it's likely that the oxidized cholesterol is dangerous when fed in certain amounts, so you would have to control for that factor. And the animals would have to be eating a diet that is known to be optimal, based upon previous experiments. However, in "nutritional science" today, it's common for a questionnaire to be given to people, and then these get converted into statistics, which can then be written up as an epidemiological study. The problem is that potentially causative factors are almost always ignored. For instance, the amount of butter someone eats might be taken into account, but not whether the person used the butter in high heat cooking or ate it without cooking it at all. Since there is strong evidence that cooking is problematic, ignoring this potentially causative factor invalidates the "facts" the study might generate.
With models, there is just no way to know if a causative factor is being overlooked, although with models it's more likely that a factor is being overemphasized or devalued. In the field of nutrition, I advocate feeding lab animals specific diets, rather than attempting to make claims about the effects of saturated fatty acids, for instance. The reason is that we can say for sure what happens when animals are fed different diets, but it's very difficult to say that a group of animals fed more saturated fatty acids than another group lived longer or shorter lives (or whatever the claim is) because of that one factor. There are different kinds of saturated fatty acids, for example, so that would have to be controlled. Then there are the other factors which are usually not controlled in these experiments, such as oxidized cholesterol and antioxidant consumption. As I've told people, doing these kinds of experiments, I could make it look like dietary saturated fatty acids are very healthy or very unhealthy - just tell me what outcome you'd like, and I can do it for you. For example, if I wanted to make saturated fatty acids look healthy, I'd use fresh coconut oil and I would not cook it (and the other group of animals would be fed low-quality, refined oils rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids). If you want saturated fatty acids to look unhealthy, I'd feed the animals lots of cooked lard (which is only about 40% saturated fatty acids, but the other group of animals would be fed a high-quality olive oil, rich in antioxidants and containing no cholesterol, oxidized or otherwise).
Now I'll turn to "HIV/AIDS." What is the "HIV/AIDS" hypothesis, exactly? Nobody I ask will tell me. We do know for sure that in the early to mid 1980s, the "HIV/AIDS experts" were telling the public that if you got "infected with HIV" you would almost certainly die within about a year, and this claim seemed consistent with various reports. These days, however, there are "studies" from the "top" scientific journals in the world such as the following:
QUOTE: ...The new Lancet study found cART yielded a 13.8-year life-expectancy increase - from 36.1 years in study participants who began therapy during the 1996-1999 period to 49.9 years in participants who began therapy during the 2003-2005 period... UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080725142400.htm
Now for a hypothetical, which is a technique that allows for what one might call intellectual experimentation. Let's say I can get an "HIV expert" to infect me with the "virus." Now, according to the study I cited in my original post to this thread, I should live several decades (up to around 50 years) if I take the "medicines." But then comes this report, also recent:
QUOTE: "...HIV develops resistance very rapidly, and once that happens, drugs don't work as well as they theoretically should, or they stop working altogether," explained Dr. Matthias Götte, an associate professor in McGill's Department of Microbiology and Immunology. "Physicians routinely have the patient's virus tested for resistance in advance of treatment to help make the appropriate clinical decisions..." UNQUOTE.
Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080731173131.htm
Because nobody will tell me what the "HIV/AIDS" hypothesis is (a claim at best, actually), the best I can do is to base my notion of what this might be by reading "orthodox" literature. And from doing such reading, the only reasonable interpretation is that "HIV" mutates rapidly when one takes the "medicines," which leads to eventual "resistance," and then the virus can destroy certain kinds of T cells, your immune system is compromised badly, and you die of "opportunistic infections" in a year, 18 months, or thereabouts.
Leaving aside points made by scientists like Peter Duesberg, who pointed out that even if you believe there is such a virus (as he does), it simply cannot be responsible for massive T cell destruction, anyone with basic common sense (which is required to create the scientific method in the first place) can see a glaring contradiction here. If one can live about 50 years with the "medicines" while "HIV infected,"' then this claim of a rapid development of resistance is ludicrous. And vice versa, of course. In any case, the objective reader can only wonder how any hypothesis could ever reconcile these statements. And this is really just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. For example, these same kinds of "experts" also claim that one can now live around 7 to 9 years after "infection" without taking the "medicines," but then that would mean that the early investigators were totally wrong, because "HIV" killed within 18 months in the "early days" of "HIV/AIDS." The contradictions are too numerous to mention in this general essay, but a key point is that this is why a clear, concise hypothesis is required in order to do science, that is, to try and determine the causation of natural phenomena. If we allow "scientists" to put forth nonsense like whatever they say "HIV/AIDS" is today, then where will it end? And how different is it than the typical religion, which asks people to "have faith" and to refrain from demands of a demonstration to show that a claim is accurate? |
|
 First
Previous
2-13 of 13
Next
Last
|
Reply
|  0 recommendations | Message 2 of 13 in Discussion |
|
| This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager. |
|
Reply
| |
| I'll add here that the "theory of evolution" is too focused on whether viable offspring can be produced, but this was a human decision, and in order to validate it a huge number of experiments would be required. As I explain to people, the evidence suggests strongly that other factors are involved, and that under some circumstances viable offspring could be produced while under other circumstances this would not occur. It is now known that certain conditions can lead to only female offspring being produced and that sometimes one organism can produce offspring without a mate (if I remember correctly, this recently occurred with a female shark at an aquarium). The point is that we just don't know, and you can't claim that you have a "scientific theory" when so much is unknown about the basic concepts underlying it. There is simply no good reason to have such basic concepts in the first place, because they derive from human perception, and may be contradicted by biological reality, rendering the entire endeavor bogus. Instead, cell colony adaptation is something that can be studied in a scientific way, and one could incorporate useful concepts that are currently part of the "theory of evolution" into it. The species notion, while understandable, is "more trouble than it's worth" when one studies the diversity of life forms in a rigorous manner. |
|
Reply
| |
One obvious example of the problem with the "theory of evolution:" could "modern humans" produce vial offspring with Neanderthal man? The answer could be yes, under certain circumstances, but no under other circumstances. There is no way to know. But we now know that some "species" can do all kinds of unexpected things, based upon environmental conditions (just today there was this report: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080805192720.htm).
I am not suggesting that we should not study how "cell colonies" like us adapt to the environment. I am stating that there is no reason to "hamstring" ourselves with a concept ("species") that may not be viable (in terms of creating a scientific theory based upon it). I can understand why people of Charles Darwin's time did not question the concept of the species, but there is no reason for people today, in light of evidence that has been generated since Darwin's time, to accept this concept without demanding that it be tested rigorously and in accord with the scientific method. It is not acceptable to have "experts" tell us that certain organisms are members of a specific "species" only to find out, perhaps decades later, that in fact new classifications need to be made. The species concept, does, however, supply a good example of the inability of most scientists to think in a way that is flexible enough to meet various challenges they face. The consequences of this are things like claims about "HIV" being "wily," "mysterious," "cunning," etc., which of course is outright ludicrous. Instead, what may be at least somewhat mysterious is how our "great minds" are unable to consider the possibility that they simply may be wrong, and that they should do what the scientific method demands, which is to reassess a hypothesis or theory if it does not reflect the natural reality. |
|
Reply
| | 0 recommendations | Message 5 of 13 in Discussion |
|
| This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager. |
|
Reply
| |
I was thinking of creating a new thread for the following short essay, but I think it might be best to post it here:
Will the real Flat-earth, no-Moon-landing, UFO, JFK, 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts please stand up?
I took a look at some of the videos on youtube.com that were made by "HIV/AIDS dissidents," and one thing I saw (not surprisingly) were "negative" comments that did not address the science, but instead called the person who posted the video a "conspiracy nut" of one kind or another. As a scholar, my first thought is to simplify the discussion; otherwise, focus can be lost. The first and most obvious thing that is required is to establish assessment criteria. Then, we might be able to answer the key question, which is, what do these and other kinds of "nutty" people have in common?
Clearly, we must dismiss things like "name calling" or attempts to bring up unrelated topics or facts (for example, trying to undermine a scientist's credibility because he sometimes likes to go surfing in his spare time). Next, we need to agree on what we are seeking. In the case of "HIV/AIDS," we should be dealing with a purely scientific issue. In science, the best a claim can ever be is a "theory," and a theory can always be tested, just as Einstein's relativity still is. If it "fails" the test, then either the test was flawed or the theory is, and if the theory is, it has been refuted. There is no reason to criticize anyone who wants to know what the "HIV/AIDS" claim is, or who doesn't understand something about it and asks those who support it for clarification or explanation.
So we can now turn our attention back to the key question. Various "nuts" make claims, and will often say that they "believe" in something, such as ghosts, because of certain experiences they have had or because of something they consider to be "evidence." They have the legal right to say these things, but this has nothing to do with the scientific method. Even if there is "evidence" that appears to support a claim there is no reason to stop there. A theory requires that all evidence supports it, and no evidence contradicts it. Are there peculiarities about the circumstances surrounding JFK's assassination? Of course, and I'd start with how such shoddy security did not even result in anyone being reprimanded - that alone was a disgrace. Is it evidence of a conspiracy? At this point, one would have to establish that the shoddy security that day was highly unusual. Now let's say we have determined (that is, we have strong evidence) that it was very unusual; what we now have is something worth investigating further, but we still don't have solid evidence of a conspiracy. We can say that there was either incompetence that should have been met with appropriate consequences or something else, such as a conspiracy. In either case, we can demand a response, but we cannot assume that if we don't get a reasonable, apt response that we can conclude that there was a conspiracy.
Though the JFK assassination is not subject to the scientific method, it does provide insight into how curiosity can turn into "nutty" behavior, which is what seems to have happened with "HIV/AIDS." I won't address the science (or lack thereof) of "HIV/AIDS" here, because I address this in great detail in other places on this site, but what does need to be stressed here is that it is the responsibility of the "HIV/AIDS" claimants to put forth a specific hypothesis, including what they feel is the strongest evidence for it. They also need to address the evidence (and undeniable facts) that appears to directly contradict it. By not doing so, they are actually the people who most closely resemble "conspiracy nuts," not the "dissidents." They tell us that they "believe" and that we must "believe," just as a cult leader might claim, because they "have evidence." When one examines their "evidence," one sees that it's not much better (and may be worse) that the "JFK conspiracy nut's" claim that the shoddy security on that day was "evidence of a conspiracy." Think about what some of their claims are, for example, a virus killed people in 18 months or less in the early to mid 1980s, but now this same virus kills in about 7 to 9 years (this is for people who don't take the "medicine"). Is this any better than some of the things you've heard people who believe in ghosts claim? I'd say it's worse, because it is basically asking us to toss our common sense out the proverbial window, and we aren't even given a reason why we are being asked to do this. Instead, if we ask why, they try to demonize us, calling us "Holocaust deniers" and the like, when the Holocaust has absolutely nothing to do with this, and is not even a scientific topic (and nobody, to my knowledge, is denying the reality of immune system disorders - the question is the cause of those disorders).
While the "HIV/AIDS" claimants share certain attributes of the "conspiracy nuts," it's important to note that they are much more dangerous. They tell people to take highly toxic "medicines" for years or decades, because they think certain "markers" mean the person is "infected" with a "deadly virus" that used to take a year to kill, but now takes nearly a decade to do so. If you criticize them or even ask them to explain themselves, they say that you are dangerous, because people who are "infected with HIV" may not take their "medicine," yet if they are wrong, they are responsible for killing people - that is undeniable. They are responsible because they refuse to test their claim, as is required of the scientific method. As of today, there are many "HIV negative" people who are willing to "be infected with HIV" in order to demonstrate that the "HIV/AIDS" claim is false. However, because the "HIV/AIDS" claimants refuse to put forth a specific hypothesis, even if "HIV negative" people were "infected" as part of a voluntary experiment, and took no "medicine," there is no way to know what would constitute refutation of the "HIV/AIDS" claim, and the claimants could always generate some sort of lame excuse for their failure, as they have been doing ever since making the "HIV/AIDS" claim (for example, there have been various promises of an "HIV vaccine," and the world was supposed to have one by the mid 1980s).
"HIV/AIDS" claimant, don't stand up - you are not worthy of being categorized with the various "nuts." Your "nuttiness" seems to have more to do with profits, career advancement, a lack of intellectual curiosity, or perhaps even various and severe personality disorders. |
|
Reply
| |
Over the last few days, a situation similar to the shoddy security JFK had the day he was assassinated was revealed:
QUOTE: ...Army scientist Bruce Ivins had a history of paranoia, obsession and delusional thinking. And newly unsealed court documents show he didn't keep them to himself.
Therapists knew.
Doctors knew.
Co-workers suspected. One complained he was a "manic basket case." Another recalled him openly weeping at his desk inside one of the military's top biological warfare facilities... UNQUOTE.
Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5icCsDXbi3Yojuvo5W4j01VxWio0wD92DMRAO0
I guess many people are excited by talk of "conspiracies," but history demonstrates that it's just the "basics" (greed, fear, incompetence brought about by hiring cronies, mental problems) involved in what appear to be incredible events or developments, such as the ludicrous and ever-changing "HIV/AIDS." |
|
Reply
| |
They don't allow for ways to scientifically invalidate HIV disease claims. Too many people don't understand science well enough to understand that if you make a claim that cannot be made false by reason, example, or experiment, it is an invalid claim.
What they don't understand is something like this: A person makes a claim that a given body has gravity. Further, he claims that this gravity is equal to the gravity at the Earth's surface, no matter what any test says. If your gravitometer says it's two tenths of a gravity, he still says it's a full G. If you drop a hammer and it takes a minute and a half to hit the floor, he comes up with some reasoning that says that it's still a full G. To him his "because I say so" or "because I think so" is more powerful than the scientific method. |
|
Reply
| |
I wrote up a post on another newsgroup about a person's claims regarding eating fish or taking fish oil supplements, which I'll post below because the methodological issues are relevant on this thread:
QUOTE: I am writing this post for others, not Matti Narkia, because his mind
seems to be as "closed" as one could possibly imagine. Let's start at
the beginning:
1. Science is divided into three assertions: claims, hypotheses, and
theories. Anyone can make a claim, but a hypothesis should have at
least some strong supporting evidence.
2. There is no "proof" - that is for math and logic (or in a U.S.
court - "proof beyond a reasonable doubt).
3. There is, however, demonstration via experimentation as well as
evidence that appears to support an assertion.
4. Recently, the scientific establishment, generally-speaking of
course, has become laden with "models" and statistical "correlations,"
"links," "associations," etc. - this is not science, in that it is not
subject to the scientific method.
5. What is the scientific method? A claim is tested experimentally.
All potentially causative factors are controlled in the experiment
(s), in an attempt to establish causation.
6. If all evidence supports a hypothesis but none contradicts it, it
is then a "theory." It can never be "fact" or "proven," because it's
always possible that an experiment was flawed or that a causative
factor was not examined, for whatever reason.
7. Generally-speaking, it is much easier to invalidate or refute a
hypothesis (or claim) because there only needs to be one piece of
contradictory evidence, if it is "direct" or "on point" evidence.
Let's say someone claims that a certain dietary substance is
"essential." If we then feed a group of animals a diet missing this
substance, and the animals are fine, then that claim has been directly
refuted. It would be consistent with the underlying methodology of
the scientific method for another researcher to repeat the experiment,
to make sure it was not flawed, but there is no central agency with
the responsibility to make sure this is done.
Now, let's turn to Matti's presentation. Is he even making a claim?
I don't see one here, except, perhaps, implicitly. He appears to be
arguing that if everyone supplements their diets with a lot more fish
and/or fish oil, they will be much healthier and/or live to an older
age. He presents us with what he feels is "evidence," but none of it
can be subjected to the scientific method because so many factors are
not controlled in these "studies." Moreover, there is no reason for
this lack of adherence to the scientific method. The kinds of studies
that would be required to validate such claims have been conducted
many decades ago. The reason such direct, on-point experiments are no
longer conducted involves expense, time requirements, funding source
dictates, and a reliance on assumptions that were never demonstrated
to be accurate in the first place (such as the "essential fatty acid"
claim), and possibly some other factors.
This is why I am willing to pay for such experiments to be done, but
only if I am wrong. I should not have to use my own money to
demonstrate that I am correct when billions of dollars are being spent
on nonsense "studies." Now let us compare my claims with Matti's. I
am making a specific, succinct one, which is to assert that a diet
that almost all "nutritional experts" of today would consider very
unhealthy would be healthier and allow animals like humans and dogs to
live longer, healthier lives than if they follow advice such as
Matti's, which is to supplement one's diet (or to replace some items)
with fish and/or fish oil. I am not claiming that a baby rat needs or
does not need particular dietary fatty acids, and so those studies he
cites are irrelevant.
I am claiming that once a human or dog (or several other kinds of
mammals) reaches full maturity, that my diet would be much healthier
than a "typical American diet" which is modified in ways that Matti
recommends. This claim is very easy to test, and would cost several
thousand dollars. One way to do this is to obtain 50 dogs of the same
breed and gender that have reached adulthood and feed them the two
distinct diets. 25 of them would be in each group. Their health
would be monitored and the ages of death recorded. This would be a
direct, on point study. Matti, however, doers not seem to comprehend
the difference between the "studies" he cites and direct evidence.
Fortunately, I've taught the history of science for years and I know
how to deal with people like Matti, who appears to be some sort of
fish industry shill (notice that he has yet, to my knowledge, stated
that he is not affiliated, in any way, with fish or fish oil
companies). UNQUOTE. |
|
Reply
| |
An article I just read on what I'll call a supposed AIDS-mary . Thoughts? -Drew |
|
Reply
| |
That woman's story is evidence that "HIV/AIDS" cannot be accurate, but since they never supply a formal hypothesis, there is actually nothing that can be refuted!
Another interesting this is that they say she is controlling the virus. How do they know? It is just an assumption, which they believe in because in their minds "HIV/AIDS" has been "proven," even though there is still no hypothesis for it! Keep in mind that they did not take samples of her blood and look for the virus, because if they did, they would find nothing different than others, whether those others are "infected with HIV" or not. Those undergoing certain kinds of stress will likely have more cellular fragments, and other signs of this stress, but they'll never find the abundant "HIV" that would have to be present in those said to have "high viral loads" in any human being. The evidence suggest that the person would not be able to live if there were such high amounts of a retrovirus, because this is a sign of a huge amount of stress. It would be interesting to experiment on common lab animals to determine exactly how much real "retroviral" activity a mammal could survive. |
|
Reply
| | From:  gos2u | Sent: 8/13/2008 10:43 PM |
HSWC wrote: "the Holocaust has absolutely nothing to do with [HIV/AIDS]" It's probably nitpicking, but I'd beg to differ. We've already condoned experimentation on unwilling non-white children, as at Auschwitz; there have been calls for the tattooing and/or quarantining of all HIV-positives; hundreds of HIV-positive black men are currently sitting in prison for the "crime" of having consensual sex with white women, and we've poisoned hundreds of thousands of homosexuals. In what way is this not a holocaust? Hell, Hitler should have thought of this. If only he could have convinced all the Jews, homosexuals, immigrants, and non-whites in Germany that they all had some virus that was targeting them selectively, and which could only be stopped by ingesting poisons, not only would he have succeeded in exterminating the lot of them, but we'd probably remember him as a humanitarian rather than a monster. Of course, I understand your original point, and for what it's worth, I agree with it for the most part. However, I would counter by saying that an accusation (even one that's true) almost always reveals more about the accuser than about the accused. In this light, you should consider that the orthodoxy's choice to bring the Holocaust into this is not coincidental, for they are in fact perpetrators of a modern-day holocaust, and are, as we speak, in denial of this fact. This makes them the ultimate holocaust deniers, for they deny the existence of an ongoing holocaust in which they are participants. --- Gos "Nobody here but us heretics..." |
|
Reply
| |
Gos:
I agree that one can make an argument about how "HIV experts" are acting like Nazis, but my point was that comparing "dissidents" to "Holocaust deniers" is absurd. In fact, to be precise (as is necessary in science and logical argument construction) one should specify examples, rather than "lump" all critics together under the "dissident" rubric.
There's another interesting point that is worth making on this thread, and it involves refutation experiments. This is a crucial part of science, but one that is simply not allowed in "HIV/AIDS" land. Instead, these people tell us that "it's all been settled," or something along those lines, which is an anti-scientific statement. Here's an interesting question to ask such people: "why have scientists who wanted to test Einstein's relativity gotten funding to do so, yet those who want to question 'HIV/AIDS' are lucky not to get funding revoked, for whatever they happen to be currently working on?" There's simply no good answer that is consistent with science. This situation makes it appear that Einstein's relativity is a rather weak hypothesis but that "HIV/AIDS" is "rock solid," though nothing could be further from the truth, of course, if one actually examines the evidence. |
|
|
First
Previous
2-13 of 13
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to General