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  
 
A simplified way of thinking about this is: we are being told that even if the symptoms are exactly like "AIDS," people cannot have it if they are "HIV negative," and yet there is nothing exact about "AIDS." It is based on observations, and it has changed over the years, now including things like cervical cancer, even though few attempts are being made to understand how this can be the case at the molecular and cellular levels. There is also nothing exact about "HIV," as only markers are involved in the tests, and these markers are not unique to "retroviruses," let alone a specific one. At this point, after more than a quarter of a century of research, one can only regard "HIV/AIDS" claims as a kind of "fool's gold" that does not even have the appearance of real gold.

How could this "AIDS" situation be resolved in the most sensible way? By "going back to basics," that is, first, attempt to delineate clinical syndromes based upon observations and markers that are shared, doing so without any preconceptions. Once this is accomplished, researchers could investigate what the patients who are afflicted by these syndromes have in common, such as a great deal of antibiotic usage. It would also be important to follow such people around without their knowledge, because they may be doing illegal things, such as taking certain drugs, that they don't want to mention to their doctors. If this is kind of investigation is not legal, there is a loss of controls and it will be impossible to advance beyond the CS, though if enough people are afflicted, it's likely that at least some will be honest and the problem will be more comprehensible.

If the stressor that is the root cause can be determined, then it is not just a scientific issue any longer, that is, the government may decide that it will not devote resources to those who knowingly harm themselves. If this is not done, various "therapies" and "treatments" can be tried, but I'm not especially interested in this sort of endeavor because there is so much conflict of interest involved and because things become so complicated so quickly that attempting to use the scientific method is impossible.