There is plenty of interesting material on this topic, though not many people realize that there is any debate on a scientific level, and dismiss those who want to examine the evidence as "loonies" of one variety or another. Few realize that the most exaustive examination of the evidence has been done by the "Perth Group," which has posited an oxidative stress hypothesis, though since the definition of "HIV/AIDS" varies from one nation or region to another, one can never be sure if two people are talking about the exact same scientific phenomenon.
As a historian, I was trained to attempt to get a general sense of what the crux of an issue is, then examine the "pro" and "con" evidence being argued. Moreover, I was taught to make sure that language itself was not a major part of the disagreement. Below, I will try to "sum up" the "HIV/AIDS" debate in a very general way. If you'd like to see more "debate," there are many places of the internet, such as the newsgroup [email protected], where you will find all kinds of diverse viewpoints.
One thing that all the scientists agree upon is that "markers" are being used to make claims about who is "infected with HIV" and who is most likely to develop "AIDS" or die within a certain time frame. One marker, for example, is the "CD4 count," which measures specific cells of the "immune system." The "dissident," Peter Duesberg, argues that the markers are correct, in that they determine whether a person has been exposed to "HIV," but he does not think "HIV" is dangerous. Nor does he think the markers have any significant predictive value. The Perth Group argues that there is no reason why markers should substitute for the actual virus.
Think about it this way: if there is a virus and it is doing severe harm to a person, why has it never been possible to take a sample of the tissue/blood, where the damage is happening, and actually see it? The technology exists, yet the "establishment" has decided that the markers are enough to tell people that if they do not take very toxic drugs to combat "HIV" then the "HIV" will kill them. At this point, the establishment mostly ignores this, claiming that "HIV" is mysterious, tricky, wiley, or some other such word, though again, the there is no technological contraint on scientists. If there is a contraint, it appears to be based in ideology, not science.
The Perth Group agrees with the establishment that the makers may have some predictive value, but not because a virus is involved. Rather, they argue that the markers can be generated in "non-infected" cells or tissues, so their claims transcend science and lie in the realm of basic logic. That is, one would first have to demonstrate that the markers are unique to a specific virus, and then that the markers occur in all those who are "HIV infected" and that nobody who is "HIV negative." This is not the case with any of the markers, let alone all of them.
I have written up this post to demonstrate how one can attempt to get a general sense of an issue. Often, however, a person will become fixated on one very specific phenomenon, and lose sight of the overall situation. I invite those who wish to talk about this issue ON THIS LEVEL to write up new posts for this thread. However, more specific examinations of this topic should be posted on a new thread, or on a different newsgroup.
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
