But, you may cry, that has hundreds of references! Any consensus comes from a review of a wide swath of literature.
This article is a very good point-by-point refutation of the HIV denialists’ claims. It has 18 references (of course one of those is the NIAID statement, and all of those papers refer to other literature…). 14 of these are primary references which have established the HIV/AIDS link and the diagnostic tests used.
There is nothing in the unverifiable words you just uttered that has anything to do with science. You claim to be a scientiist and you make claims as if reading from a book or an operations manual.
So Edwino, when was it first proved that HIV existed?
Are there any electron micrographs of HIV?
If you see a photograph of some dots on a piece of paper how do you know which one is a virus, and which one is a little bugger dropped from your nose? You had some space to add some propaganda, and you used it.
You throw ‘science’ around as if you were informing us of a superior level of knowledge that you enjoy. You take a conceot ike consensus something my dead mother can understand and you equate this with sciencel. Get everybody on the same page.Something you knew something about. Can you proof hyspothses in general? Are you able to give a step by step trace of the procedure Montaignier used in his 1981 studies?.
There is only one conspracy theory and it has always been brought to the fore by someone on the other side of the screen.
It seem you practiced to handle a conspiracy theory so you insist on briniging it up, in order to put it down with force and ridicule.
Edwino, you are a fraud, a fake , a person sayiing he is one thing and turns out to be another. Not very obvious at all is your indication that you understood my task of getting a copy of a published sceintific journal that Fauci or any authorized agent of the US Governmant , deems sufficient as an unambiguous safe model for driving AIDS.policy.
Yes Edwino you are a snake.
You say you will debate the following, go ahead. Is any of the fact true that you mention? You are a fool to think I wouwld entyer in that kind of diialogue. You want to waste myu time.
Edwino, if we debate and any observers one way or the other were persuaded to change theory minds, so what,?
Edwino, here is a confession of how I think about you and your associate Astro: Why I am not confident of the quality of your personal moral, ethical iintegrity potential, because you haven’t the slightest intent ever to assiist me or provide the slightest recognition of help to anyone studying AIDS lAll I have been asking for is a citation, a reference to some scieinific journals.
Taining in the biogical sciences and you refuse to feed a man starved for information.
I am not seeking lectures from anyone. You do not respond to direct unambiguous questions. You merely want to drag out some stupidities and to distract. both of us from descovering the truth.
Don't worry, Astro will get back at me with his vicious 'pseudo-liberal attack', how I loath tthe thought of that. I claim a thing or two about honesty, and Edwino, you don't have any. Hell , Astro is more honest ,and he is the walking definition of snake, existentially angst free. Both your grades are ready and reflect your status with regard to elemental manifestations of minimum acceptable levels in scientific morality, ethics and integriity. Let see, yes, you've both come up with a grade of ' Mickey Rooney', which translates as, " a little short'".
Mhernan you have been given information. Please use it, and either accept it, or provide a scientific refute.
Until he does, I don’t see any point in addressing the OP.
Keep going. I am beginning to think you are trying to damage me in some way.
If you have a beef with me I suggest you bring it and we can get it on. If you want to paly your little chicken shit games its best you know the rules. I don’t know them.
Wow, I get to be a “pseudo-liberal”. I’m all tinglely, do I get a toaster or something?
Look I’ll make you a deal, I’ll be more than happy to be whatever the hell you want if you will stop this brutal beating of the English language. Reading your clumsy, disjoint, mangled metaphors, near incomprehensible syntax, and wheezing, labored attempts to make amazingly dated little funnys is making my eyes bleed.
Check this out first.: Everybody on this thread as far as I can tell all believe that HIV causes AIDS. All of these souls are going to gfreat lengths to argue with me in order to conmvince me of the error in my ways.
Leave you opinions at home!
Here is the word:
II ask for the US Government to provide infomation of publsihed scientific literature that proves the exstence of HIV , and that HIV is the exclusive cause of the disease AIDS. This is equvalent to proving HIV causes AIDS. I want to verify the US Govenment can do what it says it can do ,and to verify that some one person can be identified as responsible for the actions of the unit from which he interfaces with the publc.
I believed that HIV caused AIDS a long long time ago, because some one told me so. After an intense period of one year or so of researching the matter, I made the mental recognition that there was not credible scientific data proving the existence of HIV and ithe putative relaionship to ti AIDS of any identifiable organis=cagent indcluding HIV.
I don’t want to be proved anything. And strangely enough there is a resifdual mental process of believing that HIV causes AIDS that doesn]t go completely away. Like finding god and renmembering what it was before you were not free.
The US Givernment is who must satisfy my demands, you know the man.
Mhernan the people here on the Straight Dope are not the US Government (I hope) so we cannot provide you with the information that they would give you. We can and have provided you with informational links to studies that we believe would be given to you by the US Government if they so wished. This evidence you seem to be ignoring.
You have lately asked for proof of the existance of HIV something that even the people who question the HIV-AIDS link do not doubt. You ask for proof that HIV is the exclusive cause of the disease AIDS, but noone here or anywhere is claiming that HIV is the only possible cause of imune defficiency, only that HIV is the major cause of immune defficency and the vector by which the AIDSyndrome is being spread in US, Africa, and the rest of the world.
I read several of the linked articles from Duesberg, and though they were not hugely inspiring works of critical science, they did raise several interesting questions.
One of the Articles on AIDS in Africa stated that in Africa research is showing 1 AIDS case per 300 HIV +ve infections, whilst in US the ratio is 1 AIDS case per 20 HIV +ve infections.
I would be interested in what the consensus about this apparent difference in the viral activity is between the two locations.
What are the specific factors you see Mhernan that lead you to believe AIDS is not caused by HIV?
Sorry for following straight on from my last post, but I just finished reading through several of Duesberg’s papers.
If Duesberg is correct, and that AIDS is due to a buildup of environmemntal factors, then it would be impossible for someone to die of AIDS if they are not subjected to those factors (specifically according to Duesberg, those factors are Recreational drugs, and AZT )
So people who have come into a single contact with an HIV sufferers blood, but have no exposure to the environemntal factors cited, cannot possibly get AIDS.
How many nurses / doctors who aren’t drug users have contracted aids through a single error with a needle? If that number is higher than would be expected if they simply had imuno deficiency causing genetic makeup, then would that not prove Duesberg wrong?