fossten on October 2, 2008 at 4:57 PM

I ask because I’m interested in conspiracy theories, denialism, and all forms of irrational belief-formation. Plus I’m just kind of a smart-aleck. It’s honestly nothing personal. It doesn’t come out well over the internet, but I’m just having fun with the argument.

Technically scientists never believed the Earth was flat, because that belief died out thousands of years (literally thousands, the ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round) before what we understand to be science even existed. But was that an unreasonable belief? The Earth actually is approximately flat – walk outside and see for yourself. It’s not that the first philosophers of the natural world were irredeemably wrong. They had a model that fit the available data, and worked well enough to solve the problems of the time. The model has been improved and refined. Pull out any road atlas, and you’ll see that we even still use the flat-earth model when it’s appropriate.

What does any of this have to do with HIV? Nothing really, I don’t know why you brought it up. But if we’re going to guess the trajectory of knowledge about HIV based on the history of human understanding of nature, then the lesson is that our future knowledge will retain and refine, rather than overturn, our current assumptions.

Of course not. But what makes you ask that question? Is there a correlation between people who are persuaded that Duesberg’s research is sound, and people who believe the moon landings were faked? If so, I’d like to see your source.
fossten on October 2, 2008 at 4:57 PM

Both are willing to overlook the evidence opposing their nutty theories while offering none in return to support theirs. Both obsess about easily explained and inconsequential details that they label as discrepancies. Both contend that the “truth” is willfully being hidden and lied about as part of a conspiracy.

Two different hats cut from the same roll of tinfoil.

Comparing disbeleif in this notion to Al Gore’s global warming nonsense is a bit off, in my opinion.

There is a difference: Anthropogenic Global Warming does not have a clear consensus behind it, and peer-reviewed studies have not been properly done to support it.

Currently, concensus and peer-reviewed work does not support Duesberg’s lone claim.

Until he can produce a good peer-reviewed study, and get some consensus behind him, it ain’t science yet.

The only difference between Duesberg’s and Al Gore’s claims is that Gore ( unfortunately ) has a crowd behind him. No real science has been done to support Gore’s claim … and I don’t see any peer-reviewed research supporting Duesberg, either.

1) Infect a sexy looking monkey in Africa

2) Lie low for 100 years

3) Mutate, baby, mutate!

4) ?????

5) PROFIT!!

Just out of curiosity, do you think the moon landings were faked?

RightOFLeft on October 2, 2008 at 4:09 PM

Of course not. But what makes you ask that question? Is there a correlation between people who are persuaded that Duesberg’s research is sound, and people who believe the moon landings were faked? If so, I’d like to see your source.

As far as making an argument, I don’t care to, if only for the sake of not spamming this thread. But Cwac Cwac has already linked a Discovery magazine article in this thread, and it’s quite informative. Just read that for starters. I’m satisfied that he’s on to something.

Remember, there was a time when scientists believed that the earth was flat, and that eugenics was sound science. Are you so closed minded that you will not examine evidence that goes against your predispositions? Why attack me personally, someone you do not know, just because I take a position that you do not fully understand?

Uh oh. Hate to break it to you, but your wife is in on the conspiracy. If you hear any helocopters approaching, don’t bother turning to see if they’re painted black. Just run.

Hollowpoint on October 2, 2008 at 4:16 PM

I knew she was hiding something! I’m just glad it turned out not to involve the poolboy…

I just called my wife, she’s a research coordinator for HIV studies for the University of Florida at a clinic that also treats HIV patients. She says that they won’t even prescribe antiretroviral drugs until their CD4 count reaches 250 or below, or they develop an opportunistic infection. (Below 200 is AIDS). A normal person’s CD4 count is 1200 or higher. So obviously it wasn’t ARVs that caused these patients CD4 counts to drop so low. This for adults BTW, not children.

Bill Scrunty on October 2, 2008 at 3:58 PM

Uh oh. Hate to break it to you, but your wife is in on the conspiracy. If you hear any helocopters approaching, don’t bother turning to see if they’re painted black. Just run.

I’m eager to see any argument that’s actually on topic.

So make one. Dr. Cwac.Cwac has been doing the heavy-lifting on our side, so if you want to debate this on the scientific merits he’s your man, and he’s given everything you’ve asked for: proof that HIV causes AIDS and rebuttals to your token scientist’s objections.

You can’t expect to defend a fringe position (badly) without catching some heat for it.

Area 52?

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 2, 2008 at 3:57 PM

The media, government and everyone else involved in the coverup just want you to believe it’s Area 51.

Can you prove there are no aliens at Area 52? Didn’t think so.

See Hollowpoint’s post at the top of this one. You forgot to mock his post as well. Or did you?

fossten on October 2, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Just out of curiosity, do you think the moon landings were faked?

Area 52?

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on October 2, 2008 at 3:57 PM

51 has No Vacancy.

*eats*

Even mentioning the name Peter Duesberg inflames strong feelings, both pro and con. After gaining fame in 1970 as the virologist who first identified a cancer-causing gene, in the 1980s he became the leading scientific torchbearer for the so-called AIDS dissidents who dispute that HIV causes the immunodeficiency disorder. To the dissidents, Duesberg is Galileo, oppressed for proclaiming scientific truth against biomedical dogma. A far larger number of AIDS activists, physicians and researchers, however, think Duesberg has become a crank who refuses to accept abundant proof that he is wrong. To them, he is at best a nuisance and at worst a source of dangerous disinformation on public health.

Readers may therefore be shocked to see Duesberg as an author in this month’s issue. He is not here because we have misgivings about the HIV-AIDS link. Rather Duesberg has also developed a novel theory about the origins of cancer, one that supposes a derangement of the chromosomes, rather than of individual genes, is the spark that ignites malignant changes in cells. That concept is still on the fringe of cancer research, but laboratories are investigating it seriously. Thus, as wrong as Duesberg surely is about HIV, there is at least a chance that he is significantly right about cancer. We consider the case worthy of bringing to your attention, with the article beginning on page 52.

You know what they say about broken clocks….

I’m eager to hear fossten’s theories on the faked moon landing, how the government blew up the levies during Katrina, and the aliens held at Area 52. Is there a newsletter to which I may subscribe?

Hollowpoint on October 2, 2008 at 3:55 PM

I’m eager to see any argument that’s actually on topic.

Reducto ad Gore-ium. Nice. That’s a new one.

RightOFLeft on October 2, 2008 at 3:55 PM

See Hollowpoint’s post at the top of this one. You forgot to mock his post as well. Or did you?

Hollowpoint on October 2, 2008 at 3:55 PM

Area 52?

fossten on October 2, 2008 at 3:38 PM

Yeah, pretty much. I have to go to edjumacate some microbiology students now.

This actually strengthens my point. If blood tests are so unreliable, then you cannot use them as proof of cause.

fossten on October 2, 2008 at 3:46 PM

You misunderstand me. Almost no test is 100% reliable, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t 98% reliable. As you do multiple tests, if the test is well-designed, the probability of a false negative or a false positive goes to zero.

Proof by assertion…

I guess you’re just like Al Gore: The debate is over, right? Despite the fact that scientists are challenging this assumption, we’re going to ride roughshod over them, eh?

Reducto ad Gore-ium. Nice. That’s a new one.

There is a chance of a false positive for almost every detection test imaginable. In detection theory, the main challenge is to design a test that is sensitive enough to avoid false negatives, but not so sensitive as to produce a false negative. The balanced solution will always leave a chance for false positives and false negatives.

RightOFLeft on October 2, 2008 at 3:41 PM

This actually strengthens my point. If blood tests are so unreliable, then you cannot use them as proof of cause.

I know more than you do. I know HIV causes AIDS.

RightOFLeft on October 2, 2008 at 3:41 PM

Proof by assertion…

I guess you’re just like Al Gore: The debate is over, right? Despite the fact that scientists are challenging this assumption, we’re going to ride roughshod over them, eh?

Here, this is from Cwac’s article that he linked:

Duesberg says his critics have failed to provide satisfactory answers to perplexing contradictions about AIDS. For example, he asks, why does Kaposi’s sarcoma, a cancer of the blood vessels, occur almost exclusively in gay males and not in heterosexual drug users? Why is AIDS rarely transmitted by heterosexual contact in Europe but is said to spread rapidly among heterosexuals in Africa? If AIDS is caused by a virus, why has it been impossible for researchers to develop a vaccine after 20 years and millions of dollars spent? Finally, could it be, as Duesberg suggests, that antiretroviral (ARV) drugs used to attack HIV actually do more harm than good, contrary to the common assumption that they have dramatically reduced AIDS deaths?

Sounds just like the Global Warmingists if you ask me. If I’m a troofer, then you’re a lemming.

Whether it’s from infectious disease or parking your butt in a Lazy Boy with a bag of chips, something will get you.

Lazy Boy with bag of chips for me! Thanks!

Red herring much? Straw man much? You can’t argue the point, but then again, you know nothing about the subject, so you resort to name calling and guilt by association.

FAIL.

fossten on October 2, 2008 at 3:34 PM

I know more than you do. I know HIV causes AIDS.

Ask yourselves why you’ve always heard that if you get a positive result on an HIV test, you need to do another one to rule out a “false positive.”

There is a chance of a false positive for almost every detection test imaginable. In detection theory, the main challenge is to design a test that is sensitive enough to avoid false negatives, but not so sensitive as to produce a false negative. The balanced solution will always leave a chance for false positives and false negatives.