 |
Reply
| | From:  gos2u (Original Message) | Sent: 11/10/2007 11:49 PM |
What follows is a debate between a laboratory worker with a Master's in biology, and "Gos", an HIV-positive dissident with no formal education, whose sole purpose for researching AIDS was to try to unravel the mystery of a disease that nearly took his life almost exactly 7 years prior to this posting. The original debate became disjointed at several points, and so the moderator has performed edits, striving at all times to keep the meat of the debate intact, while discarding the grisle. Those wishing to read the debate in its entirety can find it at http://www.nerosopeningact.com/AIDSDebate/index.htm. All supporting documentation is linked to its original sources. |
|
 First
Previous
2-7 of 7
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
What I would prefer is to have a formal debate on this thread between you and Biolad, which I would moderate. You would each get a certain number of words to summarize your positions - no citations needed at this point. Later, I will ask for specific experimental findings (not the interpretation of "experts") on at least some points raised. Since "Biolad" is supporting a claim, he would have to articulate this claim with scientific precision, and so he would be allowed an extra few sentences, if necessary. Would you email him an ask him if he is willing to participate? It could take place over the course of weeks or months, if he does not have time to respond quickly and fully.
As to the correspondence between you and him, I've seen that sort of "back and forth" before. One thing I would not be interested in is a discussion of "Koch's Postulates," because it is a violation of the scientific method. For example, if something is present in "disease," but not in "health," it may be an effect and not a cause. Causation is the key to science. In any case, if "Biolad" refuses, another idea is to have you take his side of the case, since you are so familiar with it now, and I will then examine it and provide my opinion. This is the kind of thing we would do in grad. school that was very helpful. Since you posted the site that contains the correspondence, I don't see any point in copying and pasting it here. |
|
Reply
| | | From: gos2u | Sent: 11/12/2007 1:22 PM |
Hans, Good news! The debate is back on, BioLad has finally conceded to having misunderstood and mischaracterized the concept of "accuracy" as it relates to HIV testing, and we have regained our former civil tone in the discussion. Given that the debate has progressed this far, I feel it would be disruptive to change venues mid-stream. However, you are certainly free to provide summary and analysis of it here -- Indeed, that would probably be a good idea, considering that the debate is likely to become rather voluminous, and no one will want to wade through all the bullcrap to get to the good stuff. --- Gos |
|
Reply
| |
I think that my fear is that if there is a huge amount of information, hardly anyone would be interested in reading it all. I used to teach my students that the scientific method is simple and straightforward, and any time you see as much argumentation as "Biolad" produced, you know there is a problem. This does not mean the person is necessarily wrong, but rather that he/she does not understand the scientific method. Another possibility is that the person is working with scant evidence, and arguing that his/her position is the one that is strongest under such circumstances, but that is not the case with "HIV/AIDS," because the advocates of this claim have the resources to do whatever experiments they wish, but critics do not - this is a key point to make to such people. Moreover, the "HIV/AIDS" advocates want everyone to believe that their claim is a "closed book," yet basic and obvious experiments have never been done, which is clearly an anti-scientific position to argue. Why has Einstein's relativity tested over and over again and yet nobody is supposed to ask for obvious and basic experiments to be conducted that would silence many if not most "dissidents" if the "HIV/AIDS" advocates were correct?
There is something very wrong with people who on the one hand claim that the "dissidents" are potentially dangerous to "public health," and yet won't do the simple, inexpensive experiments that would not only silence many "dissidents," but also provide "HIV/AIDS" advocates with experimental data that they could share with the "general public." The "average person" would then be able to say to themselves, "HIV particles were found in abundance only in HIV positive people and no such particles were found in everyone else. Since the samples were treated in the exact same way and many HIV negative people were sampled, including RA and systemic lupus patients, there is no reason for me to question the HIV/AIDS claim." Thus, the "orthodoxy" is their own worst enemy if they truly believe the "HIV/AIDS" claim and fear the influence of the "dissidents" on "public health." Once one gets into the minutiae of things like the African "AIDS" epidemiology, however, it starts to sound like JFK assassination material, in that it's too complicated for most people and it may sound like "grasping at straws," when the reality is that it's the "HIV/AIDS" advocates who constantly try to "stretch the truth" and ignore the scientific method. |
|
Reply
| |
Gos:
One point I make to such people as "Biolad" is that the "HIV/AIDS" claim can indeed look convincing if one does not ask some basic questions. Perhaps the most obvious one is, what is the hypothesis, since this is where science begins. I have yet to get any "HIV/AIDS" advocate to furnish a basic hypothesis, which is amazing by itself. Some say things like, "well, we know HIV is causing AIDS but we just don't know how." My response is that the technology available to them is more than capable of detecting any possible causal mechanism, and that they have created a monster out of non-specific markers of ill health.
Obviously, one can get "side-tracked" there, so I usually move on to another basic point, which concerns claims about "infectivity." They are indeed claiming that certain bodily fluids can transmit "HIV," which means that it must be present in the fluids they claim transmit it. They also claim that some people have very high "viral loads." Thus, all one needs to do is to compare the fluids from these people with the fluids of those who have all kinds of other diseases, but who are claimed to be "HIV negative." If this were done, many "dissidents" would be silenced if the "high viral load" people had particles that matched the textbook descriptions of "infectious HIV" particles, but the "HIV negative" people did not. But perhaps more importantly, it would be easy to explain to "average" people.
Instead, people like "Biolad" support those who don't seem to have any understanding of the scientific method, and no matter how often it's pointed out that their "markers" are non-specific, their logic circular, etc., they don't ever think that it might be reasonable to test their hypothesis (if only they had one), just as Einstein's relativity has been tested over and over again. In this case, it would be easy to do an experiment that could refute their claim definitively, and that is likely why they have never showed any interest in doing such studies. If I were you, I would have asked "Biolad" if he was in favor of repeating the "Jackson study" that was discussed, only to allow Duesberg to oversee it. |
|
Reply
| | | From: gos2u | Sent: 11/13/2007 2:26 PM |
Hans wrote: "the "HIV/AIDS" claim can indeed look convincing if one does not ask some basic questions." I have actually begun to address the issue of asking basic questions with him, though I have not yet posted those exchanges to the website yet. After he conceded that he'd been misusing the word "accuracy" in the context of HIV testing, I followed up by pointing out how this concept is used to fool laymen and uncritical professionals alike, who fail to ask basic questions. --- Gos |
|
|
First
Previous
2-7 of 7
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to General