MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : The truly dangerous "epidemic:" cognitive dissonance.
Choose another message board
View All Messages
  Prev Message  Next Message       
Reply
 Message 4 of 5 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  in response to Message 3Sent: 7/16/2008 7:33 PM
One group of people that it seems one needs to be very wary of are the "public health experts." With all the promises unfulfilled and failures of the "HIV/AIDS experts" and "researchers," one would think that our "public health experts" would be concerned, and perhaps questions exactly why there is no "cure" yet. Instead, such people seem more interested in attacking those who would dare to question the scientific claims supposedly supporting the "HIV/AIDS" notion, which, of course, is exactly what is supposed to occur in science. There is a vicious, circular logic that appears to have gripped such "experts," and they seem totally unaware that they possess it. They tell us that nobody should question the "HIV/AIDS" notion because it might drive hords of people to do something that will somehow lead to their untimely deaths, yet if the "HIV/AIDS" notion is in fact wrong and worse, misleading, millions of people are being driven to their untimely deaths by doing things like taking toxic "medicines" and not changing their lifestyles.

Thus, the only possible explanation for their position is that if a small number of scientists make a claim, everyone should act as if it is some sort of religious dogma. We should all be like "good Catholics" and not question what our infallible Pope tells us. Of course, this is ludicrous, because scientists are making claims all the time, and these claims are often contradictory. What makes the claims presented by the Gallo and Montaigner teams so much more credible than any other scientist's claims? The answer is supposed to be found in the evidence they present, and not in their interpretations of the evidence, yet with "HIV/AIDS," the exact opposite is the case. We are not supposed to look at the evidence, unless, perhaps, we are going to agree with the "HIV/AIDS experts" regardless of what the evidence is. Again, this may be fine for some religions, perhaps one can regard it as something of an apotheosis in that context, but it is the nadir for science.