Traditional Values Coalition tries to stop AIDS research

[TVAA]

That’s preposterous.

First, the only reason we know AIDS isn’t very communicable is that we performed studies to determine its communicability.

Secondly, if we don’t bother to perform studies when we think we already know the answers we’ll get, we’ll never be able to update our models of reality because they’ll never be challenged.

Don’t you know anything about the way science works?

[Merijeek]

*Originally posted by SnoopyFan *
**Uh, how’s about we try to find a cure.

Oh please. They will never find a cure (hard to cure something that keeps mutating), and if they did, we definitely will never hear about it. Where is the money in eradicating a disease?
**

I can’t be the only person who has read Journal of the Plague Years.

-Joe, literate

[Merijeek]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
**That’s preposterous.

First, the only reason we know AIDS isn’t very communicable is that we performed studies to determine its communicability.

Secondly, if we don’t bother to perform studies when we think we already know the answers we’ll get, we’ll never be able to update our models of reality because they’ll never be challenged.

Don’t you know anything about the way science works? **

Hey, if it’s good enough for the Bible, it’s good enough for science!

-Joe, you damned commie liberal hippie

[Brutus]

*Originally posted by gobear *
**And just a note: there is no vaccine for HIV and due to factors that you won’t understand (having to do with its changing protein coat and so on), there is very little likelihood of there ever being an HIV vaccine. **

So what’s going on here:

404 Page Not Found

[Uzi]

*Originally posted by TVAA *
**That’s preposterous.

First, the only reason we know AIDS isn’t very communicable is that we performed studies to determine its communicability. **

Really, ya think?

**

Secondly, if we don’t bother to perform studies when we think we already know the answers we’ll get, we’ll never be able to update our models of reality because they’ll never be challenged. **

It must be nice to live in a world with unlimited funding, ain’t it? What’s it like not having to make decisions on what research gets funded and what doesn’t?

**

Don’t you know anything about the way science works? **

Apparently I know science isn’t free, but then the sky in my world is blue, not pink like in yours. :rolleyes:

Oh, and Merijeek, I’m an atheist so fuck off with your Bible shit.

[Miller]

Wow. That was pretty impressive the way Uzi dodged every point TVAA made. It was like something out of the Matrix!

Listen, Neo, everyone knows that there isn’t an unlimited budget for science reasearch. The point is, this study is important and it does tell us something about HIV that we didn’t know before. Luckily, those in charge of deciding what does and what does not get funding are people who are knowledgable in the field (i.e. scientists) and not ignorant, loudmouthed yahoos who have just wandered in from the street. (i.e. you.)

[Blonde]

According to this study from 6 months ago, we’re not making any progress:

AIDS/HIV resurgence reported nationwide

Of course, we can cite opposing research all night, but it won’t solve the problem - we need to educate everyone about the danger. That would include handing out condoms (so sorry, Catholics) and getting the word out that you face certain death if you don’t take the necessary precautions.

[Uzi]

*Originally posted by Miller *
**Wow. That was pretty impressive the way Uzi dodged every point TVAA made. It was like something out of the Matrix!
**

Listen, moron, TVAA didn’t have a point because he in no way addressed what I wrote. Which, I will restate for your little mind in an attempt to make you understand. If you hang around with someone who has a disease you have a better chance of getting it the longer you spend with them. What don’t you get from that statement? Or do you contend that you have a lesser chance of getting sick the more time you spend with them? Now maybe you’re trying to figure out that short repeated exposure to a disease might confer some sort of immunity, but that isn’t what Cervaise argued. Geez, I’ve even said I’m for most research, but the way Cervaise laid out his argument it seemed pretty clear as to what the outcome of such a study would be. I also asked if I was mistaken in my assumption, because maybe I might be, not being a credophile where everything is black and white I’m quite willing to admit I’m wrong about something proven otherwise. No one has said anything that leads me to believe that I am at this point.
TVAA didn’t say anything about this. He went off on some tangent about proving aids is communicable. Nothing Cervaise wrote would prove aids is communicable. It is assumed that it is before such a study is done, isn’t it?
So, I then said it would make more sense to spend money where it would make the most impact. What the hell is problem with that?

[TVAA]

Actually, it’s not necessarily the case that longer exposure positively correlates with the risk of contracting an illness. That’s true of some diseases, but not others.

Which, again, is something that can only be discovered about a disease through research.

You’re completely missing the point. If we’re going to deal effectively with the AIDS crisis, we can’t afford the risk that our basic assumptions about AIDS are wrong. The only way to make sure that we don’t assume something that isn’t true is to verify the properties of AIDS scientifically, and that takes studies.

Scientists (ideally) do not accept something must because it seems obvious, it’s commonly believed, or it seems to make sense.

Again, you don’t have a clue about how science is performed, or what sorts of experiments are worthwhile.

[Alan_Owes_Bess]

Originally posted by Cervaise
You are a dumb sack of ignorant shit and you do not know what you are talking about.

Ibid
United States:

code:

---

                --------------------
                                    --------------------

Ibid
Uganda

code:

---

         ---------------------------
                   ---------------
                                 ---------------

Ibid
In Thailand

code:

---

-    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -    -

After reading this, I ask myself: why isn’t this man writing for JAMA or the Lancet?

I would just love to see your take on the Bangui Definition of AIDS. You know the one I mean. That’s the one where the medical scientists infer the presence of AIDS from the state of health of a population that lives (usually) in typical third world circumstances, malnutrition, starvation, mixed in with the usual wide range of debilitating diseases, with the end result that they generally have weakly functioning immune systems.

From this, it is confidently concluded that they have all been infected with HIV.

Excuse my cynicism about the ability of the medical profession to conduct scientific research of any worth.

By the way. It is not, and never has been a crisis, except in the fevered minds of gullible reporters.

I would be more worried about contracting Hepatitis C than testing positive for HIV, which was supposed to have killed all of us by now, according the scare campaigns of the late 1980’s (which are destined to continue for eternity, it seems).

Apart from a wide range of genetic diseases, has any transmissible disease been so incredibly selective as to sex and age group as AIDS? Cheerful, happy males aged between 18-35? This alone makes the whole deal just a little bit doubtful, except to those who think that medical schools anywhere on this planet teach the scientific method.

[Desmostylus]

Added Foe in AIDS War: Skeptics

*Newsday - March 29, 2000 *The leader of the most influential African nation has opened debate in recent months on whether or not HIV causes AIDS, has issued a blistering attack against the international pharmaceutical industry and has ordered formation of a commission that will review all of the primary assumptions about the global AIDS epidemic-including whether it even exists.
<snip>
His comments have raised red flags in Washington and at the United Nations AIDS Program in Geneva. Officials are concerned that American fringe elements that dispute the very existence of AIDS have gained Mbeki’s ear.
<snip>
Wainberg directly denounced Dr. Peter Duesberg, a professor in the molecular biology department of the University of California at Berkeley, and his followers who insist that HIV is a harmless virus and AIDS a nonexistent disease. Saying that these skeptics are “contributing to the spread of HIV” by promoting mass denial about the disease, Wainberg suggested that their actions warrant criminal prosecution.
<snip>
Neither the allegations nor the scientific community’s rebuttals are new; Duesberg first raised his theory in 1987. But Mbeki’s public support for the skeptics’ point of view is the first such action taken by a head of state.
<snip>
One contingent of AIDS skeptics, which calls itself The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, has claimed to have 600 members, including California biochemist David Rasnick and historian Charles Geshekter. It was to these men that Mbeki turned for advice in January, after a series of AIDS-related public episodes.
<snip>
Geshekter also disputes the use of the system called the Banqui Definition to make HIV diagnoses. Formulated by the World Health Organization more than a decade ago, Banqui, commonly used in Africa, offers doctors a list of symptoms-some combination of which must be present to diagnose AIDS. Geshekter argues that the symptoms-including rapid weight loss, diarrhea and specific types of skin cancers-are more likely to be reflections of economic underdevelopment.

“I see a real [infrastructural] deterioration in Africa over the last 20 years,” Geshekter argued. “We need to look…very closely at deteriorating public health facilities, rising malnutrition rates…”

His hypothesis can’t account for the HIV rate in successful countries like Botswana, estimated at a third of its reproductive-age adults. Until three years ago, when it was slammed by what its own government labels an AIDS epidemic, Botswana was considered a World Bank “economic miracle,” with phenomenal financial growth. Nor can economics explain why the upper classes of most African societies have the highest AIDS death tolls.

Duesberg insists that AIDS in the African context is “nothing more than a new name for old diseases,” which may be taking a greater toll today because of the sorts of economic factors Geshekter underscores.

The U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases counters on its Internet site that three studies-from Uganda, Rwanda and Zaire-show soaring epidemic AIDS death rates in Africa.

I see that you are getting a bit better, Alan Owes Bess, usin’ big words and such. Musta bin them sheep brains I urged you buy last week. Hasn’t stopped you posting complete crap yet, though.

[Alan_Owes_Bess]

Originally posted by Demostylus
I see that you are getting a bit better, Alan Owes Bess, usin’ big words and such. Musta bin them sheep brains I urged you buy last week. Hasn’t stopped you posting complete crap yet, though.

I remember your advice well. I went to the very shop you recommended and got me some sheep brains last weekend.
I hammered them to tenderise, soaked them in oil, pan fried them, and ended up with something with roughly your intelligence.

I called it my Demosthenes Sachlamara.

It was so delicious that yesterday I decided to do a similar exercise for Coldfire.

A similar dish, adding vinegar and lemon.

I only needed a quarter pound of goat brains for that and I proudly called this masterpiece my: Coldfire Guardiano Mendacium

Yum.

I must have you over one day.

[Desmostylus]

Thanks for the invite, but I’ll decline. As I’m sure your psychiatrist has already told you, you people from the Shire are a bit fuckin’ strange.

[Alan_Owes_Bess]

The Shire is the centre of the Universe.
(As, I think, you already suspect .:))

[gobear]

For Brutish, an update:

Nov. 12, 2003 | SAN FRANCISCO (AP) – An experimental AIDS vaccine tested in Thailand on some 2,500 drug users failed to protect them from becoming infected with HIV, the vaccine’s developer said Wednesday.

The poor results were widely expected since VaxGen Inc. had said earlier that its vaccine did not work in a larger North American study.

Most AIDS researchers agree that vaccines will be the only effective way to control a virus that has killed 28 million people and infected 42 million more worldwide.

Two dozen other vaccines are being tested on 12,000 human volunteers, but none has advanced as far as VaxGen’s, and any successful candidate is years away.

As I said, there is no vaccine for HIV and there is very little likelihood of there ever being an HIV vaccine.

[irishgirl]

In the world of medical research, AIDS and HIV are “sexy”. They get lots of funding. Probably more than they should.

1 in 3 people in the world is infected with Tuberculosis…but we don’t fund TB research because it has a vaccine, a treatment and the only people who still get it are poor and far away, or already dying from AIDS or other immune diseases.

Having said that, I still don’t see why anyone would want to block research into a disease which is killing millions of people (most of whom are African).

There are no “bad” diseases. Organisms are transmitted by droplet spread, though faecal- oral transmission or through infected body fluid. How, in the grand scheme of things, is picking up HIV from sexual contact, worse than picking up salmonella because you didn’t wash your hands after going to the bathroom?

[Superdude]

*Originally posted by Brutus *
Study the hell out of that if you wish, but you are just wasting money that would be better spent on A) Education, B) Condoms, and C) Vaccines.

I’m hereby appointing you the position of “guy who makes sure that a condom gets used every time someone decides to fuck.” I suggest you get started.