I thought I'd copy and paste some of my posts from other sites into this thread. While some may be specific, they all have more general implications as well. There may be original "typo" errors or I in some cases I may have corrected them when I posted them here.
This one is in response to a woman with a general disorder, involving fatigue:
QUOTE: I guess I should mention that my approach is based on determining what the underlying biochemical problem is. You can't have a "disease" if your biochemistry is normal, but you can have damaging biochemistry and still be apparently healthy (for a while). I think people like yourself should be tested for all kinds of "markers," not just the ones that are supposedly related to the "disease" your doctor thinks you have. Then it would be possible to consider if something you are doing (or not doing) is causing the biochemical issue. Many of the people I've talked to about their problems take a lot for granted, not realizing how "little things" can cause such big problems (this is true of what happened to me too). UNQUOTE.
These are from "HIV/AIDS" threads:
QUOTE: When they say they have "abundant evidence," this usually means that they cranked out a lot of paperwork that does not directly relate to much of anything. There are joke "studies" around that claim that bread, sugar, or anything else that is common causes this or that (for instance, how many criminals have enjoyed sugar-rich food?), due to
the "strong associations." This is all the "HIV/AIDS" claim is, along with some specious terminology (claiming that the cellular budding they provoke with toxic chemicals in a lab, which they call "HIV," is a "virus," for example).
The first thing you need to do in science when advancing a claim is to state it as a formal hypothesis. So what is the "HIV/AIDS" hypothesis" Nobody seems to know. Instead, they offer "correlations" between a "clinical syndrome" that varies a great deal (and is not even characterized by the same underlying biochemistry) and purely laboratory phenomena that was not even arrived at by using proper
controls. There is no reason for someone who understands the scientific method to take this seriously. One question that does interest me in this context is whether those who argue strongly in favor of the "HIV/AIDS" notion and have some real scientific credentials don't realize this (and are thus incompetent, regardless of their credentials) or are doing it for financial or other personal reasons (for instance, because they feel that their reputations will be ruined if they subject the "HIV/AIDS" claim to the scientific method). They can change social reality - that they have already
demonstrated amply. However, nothing they say or do can change the scientific reality, and their refusal to address the concerns and arguments of "dissidents" suggests that they are frustrated at not being able to change the scientific reality to conform to what they wish it to be. UNQUOTE.
QUOTE: The thing is that you can't stop a "virus" by making people take drugs for many years that disrupt normal biochemistry. They will just die of something else, as is the case now. In fact, if a virus does not kill quickly (weeks at most, though likely much less), then you can just change your biochemistry and be well. The problem is the "germ
theory" propaganda, which has now been refuted by the evidence, which shows that it's the inflammatory response that causes the real damage, not the virus. Some viruses can "reactivate" because you changed your biochemistry, but the "HIV" idea is just plain silly, totally contradicted by what is now know about "infectious diseases." All one
has to do is read about by a "top virus hunter" (except Gallo) and you will see what I mean (these people believe in "HIV/AIDS," but what they say in their books contradicts this notions). UNQUOTE.
QUOTE: I am not interested in playing "Hannity & Combs" with you or anyone else. In science, if you want to make a claim, you put forth a specific, concise hypothesis. What is the "HIV/AIDS" hypothesis? One thing that led me to do my own research into this "disease" was the unwillingness of people like yourself to respond adequately to this request. I taught the history of science for many years, so if you
think you have something to teach me about the scientific method, I'd certainly like to hear about it. As I hope you realize, a hypothesis can be refuted without the articulation of an alternative one. One question I ask the "orthodox" people is that if I wanted to take the "Duesberg challenge," and be "infected with HIV," exactly how would
you go about isolating it, so that it is undeniably present, yet
nothing else is present that could lead to an "AIDS" like disorder? Are you aware of the research demonstrating that microvessicles appear to be immunosuppressive? I'm sure you are aware of the work of "orthodox" scientists that found mostly microvessicles when they actually took the time to look for "HIV." Do you realize that anyone with an ounce of objectivity would question the "HIV/AIDS" notion (whatever it happens to be today, in the mind of a specific "expert")
based upon this point alone?
If you'd like to talk about the science, David, I welcome your
responses, and in fact I have been trying to find an "orthodox" person for a moderated debate on "HIV/AIDS," but all have refused. If your precious "HIV/AIDS" claim is so strong, scientifically, why not explain exactly how the evidence supports and no other idea, and how there is no evidence contradicting it? You do realize that in science, if a hypothesis has any clear evidence against it, it must be
discarded or modified significantly, right? You also realize that science is not about "proof" but about theories (if the hypothesis can make it this far), which are always subject to refutation, correct? Or is "HIV/AIDS" now truly a cult, and you can't even admit this much, which forms the basis of the scientific method? If you can find just one person to participate in my moderated debate, let me know at your
convenience. I will be the moderator, and the way it will work is that one scientific issue at a time will debated, with no tangential remarks allowed (and no personal insults or claims about how scientific truth can hurt the public). I'd like the first debate to be about the evidence for "HIV," what a "retrovirus" is, how it is supposed to cause harm, etc., but I'm flexible, since "orthodox" folks seem to fear debates more than the horrible "HIV" itself. It is very
common in science, and academia more generally, for scholars to "agree to disagree," because evidence can be interpreted differently by reasonable people. However, the fear of explaining your interpretation is a new kind of intellectual cowardice that I have not seen in my other academic investigations.
Up until I came to "HIV/AIDS" research, I never had a problem finding people who supported a particular claim to explain it to me or to participate in a debate about it. If you fear about me as moderator, ask yourself what I could do that would have you shaking in your boots? I really don't care all that much about "HIV/AIDS," but rather about the scientific method. Just to be clear, using this method, all
potentially relevant factors need to be controlled in verification experiments, or refutation experiments can be conducted. For example, in 1948 scientists fed rats a totally fat-free diet and found that the animals were fine, thus refuting directly the notion that any fatty acids in the diet are essential. It is this simple, David, so why not step up and be the "pro" side in a formal, moderated debate (it will be done online, and you can respond when it is convenient for
you to do so)? The only thing that will happen is that truth will be illuminated. If a "dissenter" states something that is so obviously false, won't you be able to refute it easily, thus making "dissidents" look like the deluded folk you think that they are? UNQUOTE. |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
First 
