Quote:
Coldbourne wrote
Ten, you need to take a humor hiatus.
In the odd event that my post was taken as anything but light hearted rhetoric, I posted the the corresponding picture. Thus, yes tongue in cheek.
|
Lessee... you said,
The answer to that one could already be well established. The problem with our search for the cure for AIDS is that it is based of the assumption, yes ASSUMPTION, that HIV causes AIDS. You would think that this has been well established, yet it is yet another example of science gone wrong for the sake of money. Damn politics.
C'mon, with an intro like that, you think I could easily determine if your pig/ape or sentient virus comments were lighthearted? Let me recalibrate my rhetoric meter, so I can be sure to catch the next time you throw humor and wit into your post.
Quote:
However, since you started kicking this can around again, here we go:
Quote:
Funny, the "AIDS Myth" proponents sound like Intelligent Design people.
|
I believe you may be in danger of converting to a conspiracy theorist. One of the founders of this particular study was Noble Laureate Keri Mullis, as you no doubt read. I can scarcely imagine him being nominated as a Creationist Poster Child, or any poster child for that matter. His exploits in this matter are chronicled in his book " Dancing Naked in the Mindfield", as well as on the web somewhere I am sure. Despite his eccentric nature, he is an extremely capable scientist and harkens back to the days of true science bereft of politics (in my opinion, anyway).
|
In case you didn't notice, I don't select the works of one individual when forming my opinion. The information I read on your link is at least seven years old, and it is from one person. I took an interest in this subject before you chimed in on this thread. How do you feel about the opinions of groups like the South African AIDS awareness coalition, which is blaming the "AIDS Myth" stance, and specifically Matthias Raft for lying about this "conspiracy" by the big pharma companies? I'll read more on Mullis before I form an opinion of his work or credibility. I'm just surprised that it is so outdated, especially in such a rapidly advancing field as this.
Quote:
There is without a doubt evidence that HIV may be the cause of AIDS, as it is unlikely that a hypothesis would be put forth without any basis of possibility. However the point being made is that this particular theory has remained exactly that, a theory, despite the millions of dollars and years of research put into the search for a cure. This is a huge amount of resources to be devoted to an un-proven theory. Is it likely that HIV causes AIDS? Of course, but it is not definitive, and there remains a possibility that the theory is wrong. In the case of AIDS, the situation is quite grave enough to merit certainty, don't you think? In my opinion it is just another case of shabby science and total belief in a hypothesis without certainty, which condemns thousands to death. If I have to put my faith in a possibility, I will turn to a religion. Science should be certain, it was on the foundation of proof of evidence that led to the paradigm shift of the Copernican Revolution, not faith in the "most likely".
|
Time for me to study up some more then. I was under the impression that the rapid and non-lethal mutations of the HIV were the primary cause of the exhaustion and failure of our immune system.
Quote:
There seems to be a standard answer given in regards to any question regarding science: "if you had more understanding".
This is not an answer to any question, and statement of my lack of understanding is an assumption of my ignorance and your superiority in this matter.
If I want to be ridiculed, I will talk to a Muslim.
|
You are so talented with the petty jibe. Please continue. :)
Quote:
The invariable retort of "you do not understand" is an assumption that you do understand, and in such case you best be able to fax me a copy of your PhD's in molecular and cellular biology. Otherwise, you have had access to the same information that I have, and are therefore subject to the same limitations in understanding that I am apparently shackled with. Just a friendly observation.
|
Would you like me to hold your hand as we walk through the many posts I've made on this forum where I have discussed this very topic in detail? Or would you like me to repeat everything for you? Or maybe I can take a couple of hours and create a link page for you. Do you need guidance, or maybe some help separating the signal from the noise? Obviously, since your post was tongue-in-cheek (except the AIDS part which set the tone for the rest of the post), discussing it is a moot point. I'm still trying to determine where my statement,
Again, an in-depth understanding of evolution would help you understand why viruses multiply rapidly, and how populations of viruses can evolve and adapt as fast as they do.
turned into an attack on your acquired knowledge. Someone says "viruses should be studied for intelligence", I respond with, "maybe you need to learn more about evolution.", and so I am lumped in with everyone else who must be at the same intellectual level since we don't have PhDs.
No. Not pigs. We are not allowed to study that which is good to eat. Plus, it freaks out all the Jewish biologists, who prefer to use lawyers in anatomy class instead of unclean pigs, since they are more plentiful and you don't get emotionally attached to them.
Tenspace