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 "HIV/AIDS" debate.
Choose another message board		 View All Messages
  Prev Message  Next Message       
Reply
 Message 177 of 184 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  in response to Message 176Sent: 10/2/2008 7:15 PM
This was submitted by a member for a different thread, but I thought it would be best posted here:

QUOTE: An article I just read says that scientists have supposedly figured out (by some pretty goofy methods, if you ask me) that AIDS has been around for longer than we expected, likely between 1884 and 1924. it says "The results appear in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature" Anyone have access to that?
My question is what are they using? It says that they used old HIV samples and figure out how they fast and how they mutate and used that to backdate. I havent done any research on AIDS but have I not read on this forum that they dont have an actual HIV virus that they've found but rather just markers? If thats the case, what are they using here?

http://news.aol.com/health/article/study-says-hiv-is-about-100-years-old/197058

-Drew UNQUOTE.


Replies to This Message The number of members that recommended this message.    
     re: The "HIV/AIDS" debate.     10/3/2008 7:29 PM