Why is that unreasonable? What is called "HIV" NEVER went through peer review; that is to say, it was never subject to the rigorous process by which a virus is determined to be a virus. More than a few very responsible, not necessarily radically oriented scientist have pointed this out. Others have taken it on faith that HIV has indeed been isolated but have quite reasonably pointed out that NO virus could POSSIBLY do all the things that are claimed for HIV.
>
> You can reasonably advocate the null hypothesis, which is that there
> remain questions about the cause of AIDS.
That's soft peddling it. Why shouldn't we question the premise of a "disease" whose etymology and bio-chemical behavior continue to confound committed researchers? Why the heck is it such a bad thing to go back and check the premise, especially when so many very sharp, very responsible, not necessarily radically oriented scientific minds think it is a good idea?
However, advocating the null
> hypothesis is not the same as advocating the opposite - even if there
> isn't sufficient proof to answer all questions about HIV causing AIDS, it
> does not follow that HIV is not the cause of AIDS.
Fine. But you seem to have concluded that HIV does cause AIDS despite the lack of evidence that such is indeed the case.
>
> That there are dissenters does not mean that their view is necessarily
> correct,
True enough.
nor is it enough to have dissenters to even establish doubt.
True. But they have raised some damn good questions. It is folly to pretend otherwise.
Some
> people will always believe the opposite.
That's a bit of a determinist cop out, brother. Kinda reminds me of Schlesinger's "historical cyles."
There are people who believe that
> Elvis is still alive and that the earth is flat and that the US government
> (which can't successfully conceal a blowjob) is concealing the existence
> of aliens. This doesn't make any of their assertions credible.
This is unnecessary. To imply that AIDS dissenters are just as silly as those who believe that Elvis is alive is intellectually arrogant and irresponsible. Let me know when you come up with some evidence that I believe Elvis is still alive, that aliens are among us, and that the second coming of Jesus is just around the corner.
>
> Even the most eminent dissenters can be wrong.
Yes. But nobody, certainly not me, is arguing that the fact of big-wig scientist dissenting from the AIDS establishment makes them correct. I've only argued that they are certainly worth listening to and that canot be classed with goofball new agers or wacky crystal healers.
The proof is in the pudding; do approaches to attack
> HIV show positive or negative results?
Positive results. But you gotta read the material to know that, bruddah.
>
> That anti-HIV drugs are toxic shouldn't be surprising.
No one said it was. It seems to me that AIDS researchers have given almost no attention to the various well researched and effective vitamin or enzyme therpies that could very well provide great relief for AIDS patients (and in at least several cases have for people who told their doctors to fuck off and were enterprising and courageous enough to do their own research). As I pointed out earlier, their is a medical industry predisposition to ignore the simple questions AND the potentially simple answers for the complex, heroic (and profitable) "find the right drug" solution. That is idiotic but that is medecine today.
Many medical
> approaches are toxic.
ALL pharmaceutical approaches are toxic to one degree or another.
We used to use arsenic to treat syphillis. It was
> preferable when compared to a slow and painful death.
Who says? Treating syphillis with arsenic was barbaric, the doctor's sympathy for his patient notwithstanding. These days, we treat syphillis with anti-biotics, another very problematic "remedy." There is good evidence that large amounts of vitamin c can neutralize syphillis.
Chemotherapy is
> incredibly toxic, but I don't see any anti-chemotherapy demonstrations.
There are plenty of people opposed to chemtherapy. Just because they are not on the streets does not mean they do not exist.
> > Everyone, but everyone, on LBO-Talk has made this observation at least
> once. When a trend (that is, a non-random indicator) on the stock market
> is noted and used, it then becomes useless. When someone makes a
> projection and then fights to change it, why are you surprised that the
> deviation is spectacular?
Again: Why are clean living, middle class Africans dying of "AIDS" while clean living, middle class Americans and Europeans are not?
> Anyhow. I'm rather unimpressed by the return of the AIDS thread to
> LBO-talk. You and Chris have gone over almost everything at least twice
> and been debunked at least three times.
No we have not gone over everything, far from it. And no, we've not been debunked, we've been denouned, a tendency not unkown to the left.
Chris
> ,--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> > Marco Anglesio | To do good is noble. To tell <
> > mpa at the-wire.com | others to be good is nobler <
> > http://www.the-wire.com/~mpa | still, and no trouble. <
> > | --Mark Twain <
> `--------------------------------------------------------------------------'
>
>