Why should anyone be surprised by this news? Governments always get bigger and more intrusive until they are overthrown. It's the nature of the beast.
When have we seen governments decide, "Hey, we don't need [fill in some social program] anymore, the citizenry can take care of [fill in something people want] all by themselves without our help."?
The taste of power only leaves the unquenchable thirst for more. And government power is the ultimate power, for it is the only power which wields the legal right to use deadly force to acheive its goals.
I hope the modderators don't mod this as a troll, as anything not 110% pro-Linux is in their hate-zone.
I am so tired of people posting this. While it may have been true in the past, it is certainly not true now. Lots of things that are pro-Linux/pro-GNU get modded down and lots of things that are not pro-Linux/pro-GNU get modded up. Your post serves as a fine example.
1. Performance. Going from the PPC with all of its registers to Intel's platform will cost some performance - especially if some sort of PPC emulator is used to make all of the old apps run.
What if the number of switchers (Windows to new OSX on Intel) is greater than those who worry about running their old apps?
2. Drivers. Right now, Apple can ensure that every video card that's qualified to run on a Mac will run, and run without a problem. I've stuck all sorts of hardware into my Mac so far, and it all works flawlessly. Apple will lose that ability.
Because of the huge difference in size between the Apple and Wintel markets, there is a huge amount of hardware that is available for wintel that isn't for Apple. Right now it's easy for Apple because the amount of hardware that they have to worry about supporting is small, yes?
A Compusa employee I once knew mentionted that he hated it when people came into his store and bought a Mac - because he never saw them again, while the Windows guys were in every few months because they "had" to upgrade.
You say this is due to the fact that the wintel hardware is of lower quality. I think it is due to the fact that there is much more hardware availale for Wintel. The users "have" to upgrade because they "have" to have that new video card that just came out (and will probably not be supported under Mac, so the mac user doesn't "have" to upgrade).
I honestly don't believe that it's going to happen.
I agree... unless Microsoft makes the foolish choice and releases it's new Palladium-powered spy system. In that case, Apple should release its x86 build of OSX (which I believe they already have). I would sooner run that (with its fewer apps and games) than Palladium. The only thing that keeps me from switching now is the hardware problem -- I'm forced into a very limited selection of hardware if I choose Mac. The claims of "higher quality" hardware are not enough to get me (and probably many others) to switch.
I guess that would depend on your version of "professional."
I think you and I would probably agree as to what we would call professional behavior. I certainly don't agree that questioning management is unprofessional. As an employer, I intend to hire people who have strengths I lack, and thus I would expect them to question me on certain decisions I may make, insofar that they, because of their expertise that I lack (and hired them for) may see things that I don't.
If your employers are unprofessional, then your workplace is unprofessional -- but I suppose you already knew that.:)
Granted, I own a retail shop with only a few employees, but I have worked as a programmer and have seen both the best and the worst of management. It has helped me know how to treat (and how not to treat) my employees:
What to do:
Make it very clear to each individual employee what she/he needs to do to be promoted. Do this openly, consistently, and frequently.
Your employees' families are much more important than your job your you are to them. If you respect and show concern for and interest in their families, then they will like working for you. If you do the opposite, you will get the opposite result.
Always be ready to take a few for the team. My business for a while was making money, but not that much. After I took my draw, I realized that I was paying my part-time hourly employee more than I was paying myself. Your employees are more likely to make sacrifices for your company if you make sacrifices for your company.
Be positive even in the face of disaster.
Praise your employees for specific behaviors. Focus on their strengths.
If your employee has a problem, be a grown-up about it and help them problem solve. Do not criticize. If they can't fix the problem even with your help, then you should probably be looking to replace them. Your talented and hard-working employees won't tolerate your coddling a poor performer.
Be honest and honorable with your customers. Your employees will know it if you are not, and they will think, "If he will do that to his customer, then what will he do to me?"
What NOT to do:
Do not lie.
Do not accuse, berate, criticize, condemn, complain, or condescend to an employee, coworker, customer, hell, anyone. Those are childish, unprofessional choices, and you will never have good morale if you are unprofessional.
Do not express worry, even if you are (of course, worrying is violating the "be positive" rule ).
Do not tolerate employees who behave unprofessionally. Problem-solve or fire them.
Just a few thoughts. I'm still a newbie. If you're an employee, and you want to increase your company morale, forget it. I suggest finding a new employer.
Let's take a look at the definition of the operative word in your argument, greed:
"excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness"
Well, that just begs the questions: What is "excessive"? What is "reprehensible?" Guess what? They are both completely subjective concepts. Ask 1,000 people what exactly is "greed" and you'll get 1,000 different answers.
And IBM is guiltless? The possiblity that they've tainted the Linux codebase isn't relevant too?
This is interesting, and you need to elaborate. How can IBM taint the Linux codebase? I mean, Linus is still in charge of what's in and what's out, so what's to stop him from, in the future, declaring all IBM-sponsored code to not be "Linux" and relegating the IBM GPL-ed code to a kernel called "IBM-Linux"?
Or were you talking about Linux (the OS), not Linux (the kernel)?
I've decided that no "legalization" or "decriminialization" effort will ever work.
Why not? Because the people don't want it, or because the Imperial Federal Government won't allow it?
Our society does not tolerate the use of dangerous drugs.
False! Alcohol use and abuse is tolerated. Furthermore, marijuana is not a dangerous drug.
Federal enforcement of drug control regulations is a success.
False! The government can't keep drugs out of prisons. What makes you think they do a good job keeping it out of the hands of non-inamtes?
Alcohol is a dangerous drug, and the people have consistently shown an inability to use it without causing death and destruction.
True for some people. I'll point out here that "the people" have consistently shown a stellar ability to use marijuana with no ill side effects.
If you have a medical reason for using alcohol, then you should be able to get a prescription for it. Otherwise, possession and sale should be treated exactly like the other dangerous drugs.
The purpose of this is to persecute people who use alcohol and tobacco, for there is no evidence that anything outside of education is any more than marginally effective at getting people to not use some drugs.
I qualified my post right at the start to make it abundantly clear that I was talking about how I see things. Feel free to ignore that though and start ranting about generalisations.
Wow, what haughty words you write! You must have felt very big as you typed them into your computer. I can almost hear you saying, "Ha ha! I sure showed that American asshole!" If you want me to warm up to your point of view, then you're going to have to take a more respectful attitude with me. Certainly I could respond in kind, but where would that get us? I'd much rather open meaningful dialog with you than to waste time in a verbal pissing match.
And I don't see why you thought it was lost on me that you were talking about your own perspective. One of the points I was trying to make is that your perspective, like mine, is limited and biased.
No you didn't get it right, but you did live up to the American stereotype with your post, well done!
You need to exclude sarcasm like this from your next post. Sarcasm may make you feel better, but it hurts your argument and puts your opponent on the defensive. You're never going to convince a defensive opponent to accept your point of view.
Now, to respond to the content of your sarcastic message:
1. You claim that I'm just "living up to the American stereotype." Yet, in your first post, you wrote, "From my POV (I am in the UK) all american news media is right wing." Now, is this also a "stereotype," or is it just a different perspective? It seems to me that you think that the opinions of UKers (like you) are "points of view" while the opinions of USAians are "stereotypes."
2. Since you've already admitted that ALL (yes, ALL) news in the USA looks "right-wing," wouldn't it follow that UK news sources that you endorse would be very leftist?
3. I notice you didn't specifically disagree with any of the assumptions I've made about your favorite news channel. Are all of them totally wrong, or is there some truth to at least some of them?
4. After talking with my Scottish brother-in-law, it's become clear to me that "blame and bash America" is a common pasttime for many UKers. (Aside: My brother-in-law's words were, "I'm usually the *first* one to stand up for America." My first thought when he said this was, "Why would he need to?" The answer is becuase his peers make a pasttime of blaming and bashing America. I think the fact that he married my American sister has changed his perspective on Americans.) I notice that your.sig is, "That was all fine except (as usual) the Americans decided to do their own thing, ignore everyone, make a com, bomb iraq." Your.sig is an example of this "blame and bash America" that I've seen in UKers. So I think there is at least a grain of truth in my "America is the source of all the world's problems" assumption about your favorite news program. (Another aside: a French perspective on the UKers is that they are arrogant and uncooperative with the rest of Europe. Is there any truth to this perspective?)
Did you happen to check out any of the sites that I posted in my last message? I posted them becuase I thought they would help expand your perspective on American politics. Perhaps you will be able to expand my perspective on UK politics.
From my POV (I am in the UK) all american news media is right wing.
From my point of view, all UKers fall somewhere between socialist and communist. Then again, sweeping generalizations like mine and yours are not very helpful.
Fox news is so right wing it is like a parody.
Oh, it can get much worse than the Fox news channel. Take, for example, WorldNet Daily or Newsmax.com, which make a point of headlining stories about Christian persecution and how Darwinism is being refuted. Hell, it can even get worse than that. Perhaps check out the Hal Turner Show.
For that reason I am always amazed to see some people claim CNN is "liberal".
CNN is pretty fair, though I've never heard them criticize a government program. Dan Rather is a much better example of Leftist bias in American media.
Can you US guys get Euronews (satellite news tv channel)? I wonder what you make of it in comparison to your home grown news channels.
Let me guess: "America is the source of all the world's problems. The Government is the solution to all the world's problems. Individality must be suppressed. The Government is the source of morality. Capitalism is evil. There is nothing wrong with communism; the problems have only been in its implementations." Did I get it right?
I don't think any handhelds will ever be for me. Sure, I've tinkered with them, and even found them convenient, but they suffer from two big problems:
1. The display is too small.
2. The input devices are too inconvenient/cumbersome.
Unfortunately, fixing either problem in a handheld would defeat the killer app of the handheld: portability. This is why I'm waiting for the device that uses a display that's directly connected to my optic nerve and uses neural-impulse-driven input. Am I right in thinking that this is the logical evolution of personal computing? And we think security is a big deal today. Heh, just wait until I can hack into your optic nerve!
Open mindedness is one thing. You are something else. Please stop helping me.
As usual, the response is mockery and invective, not dialog.
With regard to your sig, I happen to know some people who do HIV research. The hard kind, not the bullshit public health kind. They are not liable to be swayed by offers of money or other blandishments from the Eeeevile drug companies. And they are far from stupid.
And I happen to know some people who know that HIV is an orchestrated lie. See, I can make unsubstantiantiated claims, too!
The arguments cited by your web site are unscientific crap, and are getting a bunch of innocent people killed in Africa.
Yet you fail to indicate which arguments are "crap," you just dismiss them all with a sweep of your hand.
Evidence? There's a measurable, linear relationship between HIV virus load and the onset of full blown AIDS.
Are you discussing so-called "viral load"? There is quite a bit of criticism on this subject:
AIDS appears in the presence of HIV, does not appear in its absence.
You are merely quoting the definition of AIDS. How do you explain an HIV+ child born to two HIV- parents? How do you explain HIV+ children whose HIV mysteriously "goes away" as they get older?
You can even infect experimental animals and they get it. Transgenic mice, for example.
Yet you provide no evidence to back up your claim. Have other primates ever gotten HIV/AIDS?
That is known as Koch's Postulates of Pathogenicity. Look it up, it is the method used to identify and isolate pathogens so drugs can be made to fight them.
Has HIV been isolated? If so, who isolated it?
If your pet web site has anything substantive enough to pay attention to, you'll be able to prove at least one of the postulates
And interesting strategy: Find some criteria unrelated to the criticism and then declare that as reason enough to dismiss all the criticism as irrelevant. Furthermore, the web site is merely a collection of articles that have been written by many different scientists and journalists for many years. Your calling it my "pet" web site is an attempt to paint me as single-source.
If not, time to re-adjust your open mind.
I think, instead, that you should open yours. You've stated in no such uncertain terms that dissenting views of HIV/AIDS are beneath your contempt. Isn't this the very definition of closed-mindedness?
Remember, if you can't measure it, it ain't science.
I agree! I do not think that "HIV==AIDS" is science. I think it is money.
They aren't rapidly silenced; they were repeatedly rebutted over the years.
I agree; I spoke out of turn. Though "dismissed," I think, is more accurate than "rebutted." I visited the link you posted and it contains statements like these: "These drugs do tend to depress all lymphocyte functions, but long-term users who are not HIV-positive show no signs of long-term declines in CD4 lymphocytes in all the comparative studies which have been performed (Schechter)." Well, which studies, and what, specifically do they say? If you read the Phase II AZT trials, then there is some startling revelations about what those "studies" showed.
Furthermore, Peter Duesberg and others have extensively argued their case in high-impact scientific magazines (Nature, Science, PNAS...).
Again, you are correct. This does not save them from being demonized. There is a quote which I will have to dig deep to find where a AIDS official basically stated, "If we can just through a few of these HIV deniers in jail then we could stop this movement really quickly."
Yes, there are other conditions that cause the immune system to weaken. "What is unusual and new about AIDS, and requires that we classify it as a new syndrome, is the development of immune deficiency as the result of the loss of CD4 lymphocytes in people who would not normally be expected to develop immune deficiency"
So does this mean that we've tested millions of Africans for the loss of CD4 lyphocytes and thus determined that it is AIDS and certainly not the other conditions which are causing their immune systems to weaken? What about the US sufferers of AIDS? The HIV test only tests for "HIV antibodies" and does not measure the level of CD4 lymphocytes.
What are the pandemic patterns you refer to? Some background on your side would be useful too.
I'm arguing that for a disease to be epidemic (which I understand as a worldwide epidemic) then it needs to follow certain criteria. The pattern of AIDS differs widely from Africa to USA to the UK. Does it meet the criteria of pandemic? AIDS was called an "epidemic" in the early 80s in the USA and effectively started the AIDS panic. The number of AIDS cases in the USA hardly makes AIDS an "epidemic," but massive funding ensued nonetheless.
HIV has been found in all the risk groups in which AIDS has appeared
Again, you are correct. If I may backpedal, the number of AIDS cases outside of "high risk groups" is negligable.
and no other factor has been shown to be associated with the distinctive depletion of CD4 lymphocytes in the same way
Again, who's doing the testing for "CD4 lymphocytes"? And who are the subjects?
According to this argument, it is a coincidence that HIV appeared at the same time in these different risk groups, and a coincidence that the presence or absence of HIV can be matched so closely with the development of AIDS in the different risk groups.
What HIV? I'm not convinced it exists.
However, those who accept the association between HIV and AIDS point out that HIV has failed to spread widely amongst heterosexuals in the developed world due to a lack of pathways for the virus.
Why, because heterosexuals don't have multiple sex partners and don't share needles? That's a weak argument.
It doesn't care of course, but cultural differences will naturally cause differences in the epidemics.
Like which cultural differences? People all over the world have sex.
Recently developed sensitive testing methods, including the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and improved culture techniques, have enabled researchers to find HIV in patients with AIDS with few exceptions.
I don't know what a PCR test is, so I can't verify the validity of your claim. I notice that you admit to some exceptions. If these exceptions lead to a false positive, does that mean that the patient will be led to take highly toxic AIDS treatments?
(Bartlett, 1999; Hammer et al. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31:2557; Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16).
1. Do you have a URL for this study?
2. Do you know that there is a one thousand pound reward to anyone who can isolate the virus?
Current HIV antibody tests have sensitivity and specificity in excess of 98% and are therefore extremely reliable
98% reliability applies to both those who are HIV- and HIV+. What happens to false positives? They are told they have a fatal disease and must take toxic AIDS therapies until they die from them. There is lots of criticism about the HIV test. Have you read it?
Progress in testing methodology has also enabled detection of viral genetic material, antigens and the virus itself in body fluids and cells.
Is this referring to "viral load"?
As with medications for any serious diseases, antiretroviral drugs can have toxic side effects. However, there is no evidence that antiretroviral drugs cause the severe immunosuppression that typifies AIDS, and abundant evidence that antiretroviral therapy, when used according to established guidelines, can improve the length and quality of life of HIV-infected individuals
I'm glad that you admit to the "toxic side effects" of "antiretroviral drugs" (I believe we were talking about AZT). What are these "toxic side effects," in particular? Isn't one of them "wasting"? Wasn't wasting an alleged side effect of AIDS?
In the 1980s, clinical trials enrolling patients with AIDS found that AZT given as single-drug therapy conferred a modest (and short-lived) survival advantage compared to placebo.
John Lauritsen used FOIA to read the FDA research about the AZT trials. You can find them here and here. I really dislike saying, "Just go read this paper," but I really want to hear your take on his findings.
Not true according to what I read, it occurs mostly in men.
Be more specific. What are the rates of KS among gay men who use poppers as compared to other men?
Because HIV is spread primarily through sex or by the exchange of HIV-contaminated needles during injection-drug use, it is not surprising that a majority of U.S. AIDS cases have occurred in men
What is surprising is that AIDS cases have remained confined to those high-risk groups despite the apocolyptic warnings of the HIV==AIDS industry that "everyone is at risk."
The CDC estimates that 30 percent of new HIV infections in the United States in 1998 were in women.
Estimates.
In Africa, HIV was first recognized in sexually active heterosexuals, and AIDS cases in Africa have occurred at least as frequently in women as in men.
Why would the patterns in Africa be so different from those in the US?
The diseases associated with AIDS, such as PCP and Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), are not caused by HIV but rather result from the immunosuppression caused by HIV disease. As the immune system of an HIV-infected individual weakens, he or she becomes susceptible to the particular viral, fungal and bacterial infections common in the community.
You didn't answer my question. The question was this: "What additions and subtractions have been made to the list in recent years, and why?"
I didn't try to demonize you and I didn't treat you badly;
I disagree.
you just like to play the victim.
And this is a demonstration of your high level of respect for me, by essentially calling me a whiner?
I found the "written by a bunch of crackpots and loons" bit particularly funny because you are the only one using those words.
Your attempts to indimidate me will fail. The reason I use those words is because that is how I am treated by most everyone when I want to discuss my point of view. No one wants to talk about my points, they would rather mock and insult me. I get the same response when I discuss my skeptical views of Christianity with Christians: mockery and invective.
You also seem to believe you know what I think, as you state several times when that is obviously false.
This after you accuse me of playing the victim. How would you know that I was deliberately playing the victim unless you knew what I was thinking? If I've said something that is out of line, please point it out to me and I will retract it.
In the epitome of righteous indignation, you say "And I get a "people like you" comment". That was actually a compliment to your skeptic attitude.
I believe you are genuinely pleased by the fact that I am skeptical. I also believe your comment was condescending.
It would be nice if you would just take the time to read what it says rather than assuming you're being attacked.
I'm not assuming aything, Mister "you like to play the victim." I don't think you believe I have anything of value to add to this discussion. You find me "funny" (an attempt to humiliate) and here you accuse me of being hasty and presumptuous.
I'm looking forward to hear from you again, if you can drop the poor victim attitude and stick to the arguments.
I'll drop anything that is out of line. Will you also drop your condescending and belittling attitude? It won't win any points with me.
I will add here that your treatment of me, while still disrespectful, is better than that of most people I've debated on this issue. You've pointed out several times in which I've stated things that are inaccurate. Even if our opinions are unchanged after our discussion, I don't think that I will walk away empty-handed.
First: Touchy, Touchy. You're seeing a lot in my post that isn't there,
Like what, specifically?
and you missed my polite tips of the hat. Now that's telling
Let me translate what you've written: "You don't realize that I'm being a lot more gracious to you than you deserve." Did I read you right?
Advice: try being polite. It'll keep you from being written off as a crackpot who subscribes to a far-out conspiracy theory.
I apologize, I am talking about something about which I am passionate, and I don't always keep my cool. I will say here that the way I've treated you is much more polite than the way I've been treated for having the audacity to doubt the Sacred Writings.
I didn't answer the one question I cared to address directly because I thought it was ill-formed.
In other words, you don't even care to address the other questions. Case closed, end of discussion. Isn't this the very definition of closed-mindedness?
Again, I'll grant that there well may be political and monetary agendas behind the AIDS research funding. However, it's a rather extraordinary (and unbelievable) to claim that the number of AIDS sufferers, however, is a "handful" -- even if you don't believe that AIDS is actually caused by HIV.
Why is it extraordinary or unbelievable? We first have to come to an agreement as to what "AIDS" is before the discussion can have any meaning.
And yes, anyone who let that stand would be letting you "get away" with a rather disingenuous statement, unless you've got some rather extraordinary evidence to support that.
It is the "HIV==AIDS" supporters who need the evidence, not I. Do you know that there are cases of children being born HIV+ when both of their parents are HIV-? The "HIV==AIDS" hypothesis has a hard time explaining this phenomenon. I do not. Do you know there are HIV+ children whose HIV just magically "goes away" as they get older? The "HIV==AIDS" hypothesis has a hard time explaining this phenomenon. I do not.
So essentially, I responded to your question with a question: what makes you think that there are only a "handful" of aids sufferers?
I was speaking in terms of proportions. What is the number of AIDS cases in the USA? Compare that to cases of heart disease and cancer and maybe you'll understand why I used the term "handful," particularly in light of the massive funding that AIDS research receives.
I also granted you that the amount of funding AIDS get is disproportionate to the sufferers.
How "disproportionate" is it? Compare it to funding for cancer, Alzheimers, aging, and heart disease.
My point in saying that "diseases that attack the immune system are scary" was to say that the concept of a virulent pathogen that can directly attack and destroy the immune system is pretty startling, as much or more so than other pathogens that merely overwhelm the system, or chronic lifestyle related diseases.
This is a subjective statement. A disease that destroys your heart is just as lethal as a disease that destroys your immune system (albeit indirectly).
Is it more important than cancer research? Understanding filoviruses like Marburgh and Ebola? Heart disease, which kills many times more than the above? Automobile safety research? I don't know.
You write, "I don't know," but your words indicate that you think it's more important. It's at least more "scary" than those other diseases. I propose that diseases should receive funding based on their affect on human lives, on their costs to our health care system, and on how contagious they are. I'm not trying to oversimplify as much as I'm trying to show that AIDS gets more money that it deserves by almost any account, and that at least looks suspicious.
You're more likely to want to fund AIDS, autism, cancer, heart disease, polio, whatever if someone close to you has been touched by it.
I agree -- not that it has anything to do with whether or not HIV causes AIDS, or what the definition of "AIDS" is.
I'd think most people would be open to the idea progressive immune system dysfunction could have roots other than HIV, if you can provide convincing evidence for an alternative theory.
The evidence is there. Malnutrition and persistant, heavy drug abuse are both known to weaken the immune system. The side effects of AZT mirror those of AIDS. The problem is not that there are other explanations for AIDS, but instead that the public has had no exposure to any other explanations (the government has been unrelenting with its "HIV==AIDS" propaganda) and that any scientist who deigns doubt the theory is punished for it.
characterizing the number of sufferers as a "handful" sure looks like hyperbole at best
I retract the "handful" statement. Can we discuss some of the other issues? The fact that I said it has made you want to criticize me instead of discussing HIV and AIDS, and that doesn't get my position anywhere.
Just a quick question. You're alleging that HIV != AIDS. Now, doesn't the burden of proof rest firmly upon your shoulders?
No. The burden rests on those who originally stated that "HIV==AIDS." I'm not required to disprove it. Otherwise, they could claim that AIDS is caused by sunspots and then say, "The burden of proof falls on YOU because you are claiming that "sunspots!=AIDS." I refuse to blindly accept their assertions even in light of their billions of dollars.
I don't have much time to discuss it and I'm not a virologist, but I can suggest some reading
I think what you mean to write is, "I don't care to discuss it; I've already made up my mind."
The Barcelona report [unaids.org], the result of a conference last year. The link "The Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic" is particularly informative in showing it isn't just a "handful of sufferers". I suggest browsing around theUNAIDS [unaids.org] home page too.
There are two problems with your suggestions:
1. You have yet to admit that the *only* theory which receives any funding and credibility is the "HIV==AIDS" theory. Any differing or dissenting opinions are rapidly silenced. Doesn't this sound suspicious to you?
2. We first have to agree on what the definition of "AIDS" is. I agree that there are conditions that cause the immune system to weaken. Is it possible that some of those conditions have nothing to do with HIV (for example, malnutrition and heavy drug usage)?
About the HIV/AIDS link, if you have some time and an open mind, I suggest this site's [aegis.com] links, this one [nih.gov] being particularly useful.
I went to the nih.gov site and I saw problems in the first paragraph:
"The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) was first recognized in 1981 and has since become a major worldwide pandemic."
How can AIDS be a "major worldwide pandemic" if it doesn't follow pandemic patterns? Despite the NIH's claim that "everyone is at risk," AIDS cases in the USA alone have not spread beyond the original target groups (gay men and IV drug users). To point out the different AIDS pattern in Africa raises more questions than it answers: why should a virus care what continent a person is on? Will you try to argue that people in Africa are having sex more frequently than people in the USA? My grandmother actually argued this point with, "They [Africans] would fuck anything!"
Abundant evidence indicates that AIDS is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) , which was discovered in 1983.
What does "discovered" mean here? Does it mean "isolated," as is the usual means of discovering a pathogen? If so, then this web page is incorrect. What evidence do you have that the virus has been successfully isolated?
I followed one of the links on the web page entitled "The Durban Declaration: HIV Causes AIDS" and found many of the same, old religious language about HIV. It stated that 5,000 important people had signed a declaration that HIV causes AIDS (logical flaws: appeal to authority combined with appeal to numbers). It also stated that "People with AIDS are all infected with HIV" without mentioning the fact that the HIV test does not test for HIV (only antibodies which scientists claim "must react" in the presence of a virus WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ISOLATED), and that the execution of this test is widely flawed.
So, I'm not impressed with your submissions. Your actions are much like those of someone defending their religious faith: "I don't have time to argue with you. Just go read these tracts that support my point of view."
I don't know what you mean by epidemic patterns (I'm not an expert) but I don't think that question is important, if it's just a matter of calling it epidemics or not
Of course it's important. Research funding increases when the perceived threat is greater. My point is that AIDS is an industry, not a disease.
AZT is covered thoroughly in the links I gave you
But that doesn't answer my question. What is the history? What are the side effects of AZT? I believe I'm having this discussion with you, not with the links you sent me.
I read somewhere that, although not clinically proven, statistics say amyl nitrate increases the chances of HIV infected people developping Kaposi's syndrome
KS only occurs in gay men (who use poppers). Why should a virus care what the host's sexuality is?
but I don't know what is your point; diseases that are associated with AIDS are opportunistic diseases that take advantage of the damage to the immune system, I don't see a problem with that list changing.
Of course you don't see my point. You think I'm a crackpot and a loon. You think I'm beneath you. You think I can't form an argument.
The problem with the list changing is that the list is an integral portion of the definition of the disease. If the list changes, the definition of AIDS changes. What additions and subtractions have been made to the list in recent years, and why?
Of course, if you don't want to believe, it's pointless.
"Of course, if your heart is hardened to the Lord then all of this is pointless." Your language is religious language.
You can come up with a huge conspiracy theory involving thousands of scientists all over the world, and think whatever you want.
Not all scientists believe in the "HIV==AIDS" theory, but those that don't are ostracized, humiliated, and have their funding cut. It makes sense that there would be a large concensus of scientists who support the "HIV==AIDS" theory. People like getting paid and dislike being shunned.
Those who are affected by the disease deserve treatment though, and everyone deserves information, because denial theories could prompt people to stop being careful about prevention and to be hopeless about treatment
Not only are you assuming the point in dispute, but you are spreading FUD and attempting to demonize me.
That said, science lives off people like you
And I get a "people like you" comment from you as well! Will there be no end to your crass and rude treatment of me?
Contrary to what you may think, or not, scientists are encouraged to question and go against the establishment, that's very important and science isn't static
In theory this is true. In practice it is false. Those who dare question the "HIV==AIDS" hypothesis are treated as badly as you are treating me. Think of how bad it must be if a SCIENTIST dares question the holy truth! Tell me, what has happened to those scientists who dare question? Have you read their stories?
New evidence could come up, and there might be a report tomorrow, saying that HIV doesn't cause AIDS,
This evidence has been around since the inception of the Holy Theory. Have you read any of it, or is all written by a bunch of crackpots and loons?
but based on current evidence, most people strongly believe HIV causes AIDS.
If what I say is true (that the AIDS industry coupled with government rewards ahdherents and punishes dissidents) then what you claim is flawed.
BTW "you are biased against me, therefore I am right" is a ludicrous logical fallacy, no matter whether the first clause is true or not.
This is a strawman argument. You have chosen to stoop to invective several times in this discussion. If you had a strong position, then you would be able to convince me through showing me your evidence and providing me with a clear argument. Since you have to resort to personal attacks, it immediately makes your position look weak.
And since we're on the subject of logical fallacies, you've added the strawman to your already growing list of ad hominems. When will you start treating me with respect in this discussion? Just because we happen to disagree is no excuse for you to behave in an uncivil manner.
I think one might be able to get away with the statement that the funding for the disease is disproportionate the number of people suffering, and that there are political or business agendas behind pushing AIDS to the forefront of funded research.
Your choice of language is telling: I'm "getting away" with something, just as some people "get away" with murder.
Characterizing the number suffering as a "handful" or trivializing their suffering seems wrong, though.
How does the though of giving toxic "medication" to a person who has an imaginary disease make you feel?
Not to mention that diseases that attack the immune system are scary.
This is a subjective statement. Cancer is also "scary," and affects a far greater number of people than does AID$.
I notice you made no attempts to answer my other questions. Why is that?
And obviously UFO nuts are right because I call them nuts too.
First invective, now sarcasm. Furthermore, you fail to realize that it is you, not I, who is in the same camp as the UFO nuts. The burden of proof falls on he who alleges. The UFO nuts allege that there are UFOs. Show me the evidence, and I will believe it. You allege that HIV causes AIDS. Show me the evidence, and I will believe it. The fact that AIDS research is the singlemost well-funded disease research in history despite the fact that AIDS does NOT follow epidimic patterns and affects far less people than some other diseases (which get less money as a function of sufferers) raises suspicion in me. Why doesn't it do so in you? Are you one of the folks on the "HIV==AIDS" payroll?
You are kidding, right? You don't really believe that site.
I believe a lot of what is on that site. Would you like to discuss it with me? Most people seem content to mock and slander me and avoid answering my questions.
resident Mbeki's credibility suffered a huge blow after his statement that AIDS wasn't caused by HIV.
Of course it did. Anyone who doubts the gospel, holy truth of "HIV==AIDS" suffers for it. Just like religious dissenters of the past were persecuted by the church for doubting the sacred, holy doctrine.
Why is AIDS called an "epidemic" when it doesn't follow epidemic patterns?
Who isolated HIV?
What is the history of AZT? What are its side effects?
What is the correlation between amyl nitrate "poppers" and Kaposi's Sarcoma?
How many times has the list of "associated AIDS diseases" changed since the inceptions of the "HIV==AIDS" hypothesis?
All of these are valid questions. And every time I ask them, I get attacked for it. It seems that the "HIV==AIDS" camp is afraid of the answers, and rightly so.
AID$ is an industry, not a disease. Why else would there be such ma$$ive funding with a handful of sufferers?
I would hardly call the "evidence" sufficient or argued validly.
Yet you fail to indicate which evidence is insufficient and which arguments are invalid. Furthermore, you fail to realize that it is the "HIV==AIDS" camp which has failed to come up with the evidence, not the other way around. It's called, "The burden of proof falls on he who alleges." Show me that HIV has been isolated. Show me how HIV+ children can be born to two HIV- parents. How me how children who have HIV can "mysteriously" become HIV-. Explain to me why the "associated diseases" are different for gay men as than they are for others.
Every time I argue that "HIV!=AIDS" I get a bowlful of slander. You here argue that I must have abandoned my reason. The fact that you have to dip down into invective (and *everyone* who has argued with me on this topic chooses to do so) shows the immediate weakness of your position.
you can't convince me that Enron et. al. were just a couple of bad apples.
I can be convinced that the sky is green and grass is blue if you give me sufficient evidence and a valid argument. What you are admitting to here is closed-mindedness.
Answer me this: how many corporations are there in the United States? Be sure to account for Schedule C, Schedule S, and LLC-type corporations.
Slashdot Mirror
They're greedy capitlists.
The notion of "greed" is subjective.
So is "to exploit," for that matter.
It's why I don't accept Leftist dogma: it's based in those two subjective concepts.
Why should anyone be surprised by this news? Governments always get bigger and more intrusive until they are overthrown. It's the nature of the beast.
When have we seen governments decide, "Hey, we don't need [fill in some social program] anymore, the citizenry can take care of [fill in something people want] all by themselves without our help."?
The taste of power only leaves the unquenchable thirst for more. And government power is the ultimate power, for it is the only power which wields the legal right to use deadly force to acheive its goals.
I hope the modderators don't mod this as a troll, as anything not 110% pro-Linux is in their hate-zone.
I am so tired of people posting this. While it may have been true in the past, it is certainly not true now. Lots of things that are pro-Linux/pro-GNU get modded down and lots of things that are not pro-Linux/pro-GNU get modded up. Your post serves as a fine example.
1. Performance. Going from the PPC with all of its registers to Intel's platform will cost some performance - especially if some sort of PPC emulator is used to make all of the old apps run.
What if the number of switchers (Windows to new OSX on Intel) is greater than those who worry about running their old apps?
2. Drivers. Right now, Apple can ensure that every video card that's qualified to run on a Mac will run, and run without a problem. I've stuck all sorts of hardware into my Mac so far, and it all works flawlessly. Apple will lose that ability.
Because of the huge difference in size between the Apple and Wintel markets, there is a huge amount of hardware that is available for wintel that isn't for Apple. Right now it's easy for Apple because the amount of hardware that they have to worry about supporting is small, yes?
A Compusa employee I once knew mentionted that he hated it when people came into his store and bought a Mac - because he never saw them again, while the Windows guys were in every few months because they "had" to upgrade.
You say this is due to the fact that the wintel hardware is of lower quality. I think it is due to the fact that there is much more hardware availale for Wintel. The users "have" to upgrade because they "have" to have that new video card that just came out (and will probably not be supported under Mac, so the mac user doesn't "have" to upgrade).
I honestly don't believe that it's going to happen.
I agree... unless Microsoft makes the foolish choice and releases it's new Palladium-powered spy system. In that case, Apple should release its x86 build of OSX (which I believe they already have). I would sooner run that (with its fewer apps and games) than Palladium. The only thing that keeps me from switching now is the hardware problem -- I'm forced into a very limited selection of hardware if I choose Mac. The claims of "higher quality" hardware are not enough to get me (and probably many others) to switch.
I guess that would depend on your version of "professional."
:)
I think you and I would probably agree as to what we would call professional behavior. I certainly don't agree that questioning management is unprofessional. As an employer, I intend to hire people who have strengths I lack, and thus I would expect them to question me on certain decisions I may make, insofar that they, because of their expertise that I lack (and hired them for) may see things that I don't.
If your employers are unprofessional, then your workplace is unprofessional -- but I suppose you already knew that.
Well, you've certanly proved yourself a credible commentator.
Are there any cofactors involved with AIDS, or is HIV sufficient?
We'll see whose credibility lasts for the long haul.
What to do:
What NOT to do:
Just a few thoughts. I'm still a newbie. If you're an employee, and you want to increase your company morale, forget it. I suggest finding a new employer.
it's about corporate greed
Let's take a look at the definition of the operative word in your argument, greed:
"excessive or reprehensible acquisitiveness"
Well, that just begs the questions: What is "excessive"? What is "reprehensible?" Guess what? They are both completely subjective concepts. Ask 1,000 people what exactly is "greed" and you'll get 1,000 different answers.
And IBM is guiltless? The possiblity that they've tainted the Linux codebase isn't relevant too?
This is interesting, and you need to elaborate. How can IBM taint the Linux codebase? I mean, Linus is still in charge of what's in and what's out, so what's to stop him from, in the future, declaring all IBM-sponsored code to not be "Linux" and relegating the IBM GPL-ed code to a kernel called "IBM-Linux"?
Or were you talking about Linux (the OS), not Linux (the kernel)?
I've decided that no "legalization" or "decriminialization" effort will ever work.
Why not? Because the people don't want it, or because the Imperial Federal Government won't allow it?
Our society does not tolerate the use of dangerous drugs.
False! Alcohol use and abuse is tolerated. Furthermore, marijuana is not a dangerous drug.
Federal enforcement of drug control regulations is a success.
False! The government can't keep drugs out of prisons. What makes you think they do a good job keeping it out of the hands of non-inamtes?
Alcohol is a dangerous drug, and the people have consistently shown an inability to use it without causing death and destruction.
True for some people. I'll point out here that "the people" have consistently shown a stellar ability to use marijuana with no ill side effects.
If you have a medical reason for using alcohol, then you should be able to get a prescription for it. Otherwise, possession and sale should be treated exactly like the other dangerous drugs.
The purpose of this is to persecute people who use alcohol and tobacco, for there is no evidence that anything outside of education is any more than marginally effective at getting people to not use some drugs.
I qualified my post right at the start to make it abundantly clear that I was talking about how I see things. Feel free to ignore that though and start ranting about generalisations.
.sig is, "That was all fine except (as usual) the Americans decided to do their own thing, ignore everyone, make a com, bomb iraq." Your .sig is an example of this "blame and bash America" that I've seen in UKers. So I think there is at least a grain of truth in my "America is the source of all the world's problems" assumption about your favorite news program. (Another aside: a French perspective on the UKers is that they are arrogant and uncooperative with the rest of Europe. Is there any truth to this perspective?)
Wow, what haughty words you write! You must have felt very big as you typed them into your computer. I can almost hear you saying, "Ha ha! I sure showed that American asshole!" If you want me to warm up to your point of view, then you're going to have to take a more respectful attitude with me. Certainly I could respond in kind, but where would that get us? I'd much rather open meaningful dialog with you than to waste time in a verbal pissing match.
And I don't see why you thought it was lost on me that you were talking about your own perspective. One of the points I was trying to make is that your perspective, like mine, is limited and biased.
No you didn't get it right, but you did live up to the American stereotype with your post, well done!
You need to exclude sarcasm like this from your next post. Sarcasm may make you feel better, but it hurts your argument and puts your opponent on the defensive. You're never going to convince a defensive opponent to accept your point of view.
Now, to respond to the content of your sarcastic message:
1. You claim that I'm just "living up to the American stereotype." Yet, in your first post, you wrote, "From my POV (I am in the UK) all american news media is right wing." Now, is this also a "stereotype," or is it just a different perspective? It seems to me that you think that the opinions of UKers (like you) are "points of view" while the opinions of USAians are "stereotypes."
2. Since you've already admitted that ALL (yes, ALL) news in the USA looks "right-wing," wouldn't it follow that UK news sources that you endorse would be very leftist?
3. I notice you didn't specifically disagree with any of the assumptions I've made about your favorite news channel. Are all of them totally wrong, or is there some truth to at least some of them?
4. After talking with my Scottish brother-in-law, it's become clear to me that "blame and bash America" is a common pasttime for many UKers. (Aside: My brother-in-law's words were, "I'm usually the *first* one to stand up for America." My first thought when he said this was, "Why would he need to?" The answer is becuase his peers make a pasttime of blaming and bashing America. I think the fact that he married my American sister has changed his perspective on Americans.) I notice that your
Did you happen to check out any of the sites that I posted in my last message? I posted them becuase I thought they would help expand your perspective on American politics. Perhaps you will be able to expand my perspective on UK politics.
From my POV (I am in the UK) all american news media is right wing.
From my point of view, all UKers fall somewhere between socialist and communist. Then again, sweeping generalizations like mine and yours are not very helpful.
Fox news is so right wing it is like a parody.
Oh, it can get much worse than the Fox news channel. Take, for example, WorldNet Daily or Newsmax.com, which make a point of headlining stories about Christian persecution and how Darwinism is being refuted. Hell, it can even get worse than that. Perhaps check out the Hal Turner Show.
For that reason I am always amazed to see some people claim CNN is "liberal".
CNN is pretty fair, though I've never heard them criticize a government program. Dan Rather is a much better example of Leftist bias in American media.
Can you US guys get Euronews (satellite news tv channel)? I wonder what you make of it in comparison to your home grown news channels.
Let me guess: "America is the source of all the world's problems. The Government is the solution to all the world's problems. Individality must be suppressed. The Government is the source of morality. Capitalism is evil. There is nothing wrong with communism; the problems have only been in its implementations." Did I get it right?
I don't think any handhelds will ever be for me. Sure, I've tinkered with them, and even found them convenient, but they suffer from two big problems:
1. The display is too small.
2. The input devices are too inconvenient/cumbersome.
Unfortunately, fixing either problem in a handheld would defeat the killer app of the handheld: portability. This is why I'm waiting for the device that uses a display that's directly connected to my optic nerve and uses neural-impulse-driven input. Am I right in thinking that this is the logical evolution of personal computing? And we think security is a big deal today. Heh, just wait until I can hack into your optic nerve!
Open mindedness is one thing. You are something else. Please stop helping me.
As usual, the response is mockery and invective, not dialog.
With regard to your sig, I happen to know some people who do HIV research. The hard kind, not the bullshit public health kind. They are not liable to be swayed by offers of money or other blandishments from the Eeeevile drug companies. And they are far from stupid.
And I happen to know some people who know that HIV is an orchestrated lie. See, I can make unsubstantiantiated claims, too!
The arguments cited by your web site are unscientific crap, and are getting a bunch of innocent people killed in Africa.
Yet you fail to indicate which arguments are "crap," you just dismiss them all with a sweep of your hand.
Evidence? There's a measurable, linear relationship between HIV virus load and the onset of full blown AIDS.
Are you discussing so-called "viral load"? There is quite a bit of criticism on this subject:
here
here
AIDS appears in the presence of HIV, does not appear in its absence.
You are merely quoting the definition of AIDS. How do you explain an HIV+ child born to two HIV- parents? How do you explain HIV+ children whose HIV mysteriously "goes away" as they get older?
You can even infect experimental animals and they get it. Transgenic mice, for example.
Yet you provide no evidence to back up your claim. Have other primates ever gotten HIV/AIDS?
That is known as Koch's Postulates of Pathogenicity. Look it up, it is the method used to identify and isolate pathogens so drugs can be made to fight them.
Has HIV been isolated? If so, who isolated it?
If your pet web site has anything substantive enough to pay attention to, you'll be able to prove at least one of the postulates
And interesting strategy: Find some criteria unrelated to the criticism and then declare that as reason enough to dismiss all the criticism as irrelevant. Furthermore, the web site is merely a collection of articles that have been written by many different scientists and journalists for many years. Your calling it my "pet" web site is an attempt to paint me as single-source.
If not, time to re-adjust your open mind.
I think, instead, that you should open yours. You've stated in no such uncertain terms that dissenting views of HIV/AIDS are beneath your contempt. Isn't this the very definition of closed-mindedness?
Remember, if you can't measure it, it ain't science.
I agree! I do not think that "HIV==AIDS" is science. I think it is money.
They aren't rapidly silenced; they were repeatedly rebutted over the years.
I agree; I spoke out of turn. Though "dismissed," I think, is more accurate than "rebutted." I visited the link you posted and it contains statements like these: "These drugs do tend to depress all lymphocyte functions, but long-term users who are not HIV-positive show no signs of long-term declines in CD4 lymphocytes in all the comparative studies which have been performed (Schechter)." Well, which studies, and what, specifically do they say? If you read the Phase II AZT trials, then there is some startling revelations about what those "studies" showed.
Furthermore, Peter Duesberg and others have extensively argued their case in high-impact scientific magazines (Nature, Science, PNAS...).
Again, you are correct. This does not save them from being demonized. There is a quote which I will have to dig deep to find where a AIDS official basically stated, "If we can just through a few of these HIV deniers in jail then we could stop this movement really quickly."
Yes, there are other conditions that cause the immune system to weaken. "What is unusual and new about AIDS, and requires that we classify it as a new syndrome, is the development of immune deficiency as the result of the loss of CD4 lymphocytes in people who would not normally be expected to develop immune deficiency"
So does this mean that we've tested millions of Africans for the loss of CD4 lyphocytes and thus determined that it is AIDS and certainly not the other conditions which are causing their immune systems to weaken? What about the US sufferers of AIDS? The HIV test only tests for "HIV antibodies" and does not measure the level of CD4 lymphocytes.
What are the pandemic patterns you refer to? Some background on your side would be useful too.
I'm arguing that for a disease to be epidemic (which I understand as a worldwide epidemic) then it needs to follow certain criteria. The pattern of AIDS differs widely from Africa to USA to the UK. Does it meet the criteria of pandemic? AIDS was called an "epidemic" in the early 80s in the USA and effectively started the AIDS panic. The number of AIDS cases in the USA hardly makes AIDS an "epidemic," but massive funding ensued nonetheless.
HIV has been found in all the risk groups in which AIDS has appeared
Again, you are correct. If I may backpedal, the number of AIDS cases outside of "high risk groups" is negligable.
and no other factor has been shown to be associated with the distinctive depletion of CD4 lymphocytes in the same way
Again, who's doing the testing for "CD4 lymphocytes"? And who are the subjects?
According to this argument, it is a coincidence that HIV appeared at the same time in these different risk groups, and a coincidence that the presence or absence of HIV can be matched so closely with the development of AIDS in the different risk groups.
What HIV? I'm not convinced it exists.
However, those who accept the association between HIV and AIDS point out that HIV has failed to spread widely amongst heterosexuals in the developed world due to a lack of pathways for the virus.
Why, because heterosexuals don't have multiple sex partners and don't share needles? That's a weak argument.
It doesn't care of course, but cultural differences will naturally cause differences in the epidemics.
Like which cultural differences? People all over the world have sex.
Recently developed sensitive testing methods, including the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and improved culture techniques, have enabled researchers to find HIV in patients with AIDS with few exceptions.
I don't know what a PCR test is, so I can't verify the validity of your claim. I notice that you admit to some exceptions. If these exceptions lead to a false positive, does that mean that the patient will be led to take highly toxic AIDS treatments?
(Bartlett, 1999; Hammer et al. J Clin Microbiol 1993;31:2557; Jackson et al. J Clin Microbiol 1990;28:16).
1. Do you have a URL for this study?
2. Do you know that there is a one thousand pound reward to anyone who can isolate the virus?
Current HIV antibody tests have sensitivity and specificity in excess of 98% and are therefore extremely reliable
98% reliability applies to both those who are HIV- and HIV+. What happens to false positives? They are told they have a fatal disease and must take toxic AIDS therapies until they die from them. There is lots of criticism about the HIV test. Have you read it?
Progress in testing methodology has also enabled detection of viral genetic material, antigens and the virus itself in body fluids and cells.
Is this referring to "viral load"?
As with medications for any serious diseases, antiretroviral drugs can have toxic side effects. However, there is no evidence that antiretroviral drugs cause the severe immunosuppression that typifies AIDS, and abundant evidence that antiretroviral therapy, when used according to established guidelines, can improve the length and quality of life of HIV-infected individuals
I'm glad that you admit to the "toxic side effects" of "antiretroviral drugs" (I believe we were talking about AZT). What are these "toxic side effects," in particular? Isn't one of them "wasting"? Wasn't wasting an alleged side effect of AIDS?
In the 1980s, clinical trials enrolling patients with AIDS found that AZT given as single-drug therapy conferred a modest (and short-lived) survival advantage compared to placebo.
John Lauritsen used FOIA to read the FDA research about the AZT trials. You can find them here and here. I really dislike saying, "Just go read this paper," but I really want to hear your take on his findings.
Not true according to what I read, it occurs mostly in men.
Be more specific. What are the rates of KS among gay men who use poppers as compared to other men?
Because HIV is spread primarily through sex or by the exchange of HIV-contaminated needles during injection-drug use, it is not surprising that a majority of U.S. AIDS cases have occurred in men
What is surprising is that AIDS cases have remained confined to those high-risk groups despite the apocolyptic warnings of the HIV==AIDS industry that "everyone is at risk."
The CDC estimates that 30 percent of new HIV infections in the United States in 1998 were in women.
Estimates.
In Africa, HIV was first recognized in sexually active heterosexuals, and AIDS cases in Africa have occurred at least as frequently in women as in men.
Why would the patterns in Africa be so different from those in the US?
The diseases associated with AIDS, such as PCP and Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), are not caused by HIV but rather result from the immunosuppression caused by HIV disease. As the immune system of an HIV-infected individual weakens, he or she becomes susceptible to the particular viral, fungal and bacterial infections common in the community.
You didn't answer my question. The question was this: "What additions and subtractions have been made to the list in recent years, and why?"
I didn't try to demonize you and I didn't treat you badly;
I disagree.
you just like to play the victim.
And this is a demonstration of your high level of respect for me, by essentially calling me a whiner?
I found the "written by a bunch of crackpots and loons" bit particularly funny because you are the only one using those words.
Your attempts to indimidate me will fail. The reason I use those words is because that is how I am treated by most everyone when I want to discuss my point of view. No one wants to talk about my points, they would rather mock and insult me. I get the same response when I discuss my skeptical views of Christianity with Christians: mockery and invective.
You also seem to believe you know what I think, as you state several times when that is obviously false.
This after you accuse me of playing the victim. How would you know that I was deliberately playing the victim unless you knew what I was thinking? If I've said something that is out of line, please point it out to me and I will retract it.
In the epitome of righteous indignation, you say "And I get a "people like you" comment". That was actually a compliment to your skeptic attitude.
I believe you are genuinely pleased by the fact that I am skeptical. I also believe your comment was condescending.
It would be nice if you would just take the time to read what it says rather than assuming you're being attacked.
I'm not assuming aything, Mister "you like to play the victim." I don't think you believe I have anything of value to add to this discussion. You find me "funny" (an attempt to humiliate) and here you accuse me of being hasty and presumptuous.
I'm looking forward to hear from you again, if you can drop the poor victim attitude and stick to the arguments.
I'll drop anything that is out of line. Will you also drop your condescending and belittling attitude? It won't win any points with me.
I will add here that your treatment of me, while still disrespectful, is better than that of most people I've debated on this issue. You've pointed out several times in which I've stated things that are inaccurate. Even if our opinions are unchanged after our discussion, I don't think that I will walk away empty-handed.
First: Touchy, Touchy. You're seeing a lot in my post that isn't there,
Like what, specifically?
and you missed my polite tips of the hat. Now that's telling
Let me translate what you've written: "You don't realize that I'm being a lot more gracious to you than you deserve." Did I read you right?
Advice: try being polite. It'll keep you from being written off as a crackpot who subscribes to a far-out conspiracy theory.
I apologize, I am talking about something about which I am passionate, and I don't always keep my cool. I will say here that the way I've treated you is much more polite than the way I've been treated for having the audacity to doubt the Sacred Writings.
I didn't answer the one question I cared to address directly because I thought it was ill-formed.
In other words, you don't even care to address the other questions. Case closed, end of discussion. Isn't this the very definition of closed-mindedness?
Again, I'll grant that there well may be political and monetary agendas behind the AIDS research funding. However, it's a rather extraordinary (and unbelievable) to claim that the number of AIDS sufferers, however, is a "handful" -- even if you don't believe that AIDS is actually caused by HIV.
Why is it extraordinary or unbelievable? We first have to come to an agreement as to what "AIDS" is before the discussion can have any meaning.
And yes, anyone who let that stand would be letting you "get away" with a rather disingenuous statement, unless you've got some rather extraordinary evidence to support that.
It is the "HIV==AIDS" supporters who need the evidence, not I. Do you know that there are cases of children being born HIV+ when both of their parents are HIV-? The "HIV==AIDS" hypothesis has a hard time explaining this phenomenon. I do not. Do you know there are HIV+ children whose HIV just magically "goes away" as they get older? The "HIV==AIDS" hypothesis has a hard time explaining this phenomenon. I do not.
So essentially, I responded to your question with a question: what makes you think that there are only a "handful" of aids sufferers?
I was speaking in terms of proportions. What is the number of AIDS cases in the USA? Compare that to cases of heart disease and cancer and maybe you'll understand why I used the term "handful," particularly in light of the massive funding that AIDS research receives.
I also granted you that the amount of funding AIDS get is disproportionate to the sufferers.
How "disproportionate" is it? Compare it to funding for cancer, Alzheimers, aging, and heart disease.
My point in saying that "diseases that attack the immune system are scary" was to say that the concept of a virulent pathogen that can directly attack and destroy the immune system is pretty startling, as much or more so than other pathogens that merely overwhelm the system, or chronic lifestyle related diseases.
This is a subjective statement. A disease that destroys your heart is just as lethal as a disease that destroys your immune system (albeit indirectly).
Is it more important than cancer research? Understanding filoviruses like Marburgh and Ebola? Heart disease, which kills many times more than the above? Automobile safety research? I don't know.
You write, "I don't know," but your words indicate that you think it's more important. It's at least more "scary" than those other diseases. I propose that diseases should receive funding based on their affect on human lives, on their costs to our health care system, and on how contagious they are. I'm not trying to oversimplify as much as I'm trying to show that AIDS gets more money that it deserves by almost any account, and that at least looks suspicious.
You're more likely to want to fund AIDS, autism, cancer, heart disease, polio, whatever if someone close to you has been touched by it.
I agree -- not that it has anything to do with whether or not HIV causes AIDS, or what the definition of "AIDS" is.
I'd think most people would be open to the idea progressive immune system dysfunction could have roots other than HIV, if you can provide convincing evidence for an alternative theory.
The evidence is there. Malnutrition and persistant, heavy drug abuse are both known to weaken the immune system. The side effects of AZT mirror those of AIDS. The problem is not that there are other explanations for AIDS, but instead that the public has had no exposure to any other explanations (the government has been unrelenting with its "HIV==AIDS" propaganda) and that any scientist who deigns doubt the theory is punished for it.
characterizing the number of sufferers as a "handful" sure looks like hyperbole at best
I retract the "handful" statement. Can we discuss some of the other issues? The fact that I said it has made you want to criticize me instead of discussing HIV and AIDS, and that doesn't get my position anywhere.
Just a quick question. You're alleging that HIV != AIDS. Now, doesn't the burden of proof rest firmly upon your shoulders?
No. The burden rests on those who originally stated that "HIV==AIDS." I'm not required to disprove it. Otherwise, they could claim that AIDS is caused by sunspots and then say, "The burden of proof falls on YOU because you are claiming that "sunspots!=AIDS." I refuse to blindly accept their assertions even in light of their billions of dollars.
I don't have much time to discuss it and I'm not a virologist, but I can suggest some reading
I think what you mean to write is, "I don't care to discuss it; I've already made up my mind."
The Barcelona report [unaids.org], the result of a conference last year. The link "The Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic" is particularly informative in showing it isn't just a "handful of sufferers". I suggest browsing around theUNAIDS [unaids.org] home page too.
There are two problems with your suggestions:
1. You have yet to admit that the *only* theory which receives any funding and credibility is the "HIV==AIDS" theory. Any differing or dissenting opinions are rapidly silenced. Doesn't this sound suspicious to you?
2. We first have to agree on what the definition of "AIDS" is. I agree that there are conditions that cause the immune system to weaken. Is it possible that some of those conditions have nothing to do with HIV (for example, malnutrition and heavy drug usage)?
About the HIV/AIDS link, if you have some time and an open mind, I suggest this site's [aegis.com] links, this one [nih.gov] being particularly useful.
I went to the nih.gov site and I saw problems in the first paragraph:
"The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) was first recognized in 1981 and has since become a major worldwide pandemic."
How can AIDS be a "major worldwide pandemic" if it doesn't follow pandemic patterns? Despite the NIH's claim that "everyone is at risk," AIDS cases in the USA alone have not spread beyond the original target groups (gay men and IV drug users). To point out the different AIDS pattern in Africa raises more questions than it answers: why should a virus care what continent a person is on? Will you try to argue that people in Africa are having sex more frequently than people in the USA? My grandmother actually argued this point with, "They [Africans] would fuck anything!"
Abundant evidence indicates that AIDS is caused by the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) , which was discovered in 1983.
What does "discovered" mean here? Does it mean "isolated," as is the usual means of discovering a pathogen? If so, then this web page is incorrect. What evidence do you have that the virus has been successfully isolated?
I followed one of the links on the web page entitled "The Durban Declaration: HIV Causes AIDS" and found many of the same, old religious language about HIV. It stated that 5,000 important people had signed a declaration that HIV causes AIDS (logical flaws: appeal to authority combined with appeal to numbers). It also stated that "People with AIDS are all infected with HIV" without mentioning the fact that the HIV test does not test for HIV (only antibodies which scientists claim "must react" in the presence of a virus WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ISOLATED), and that the execution of this test is widely flawed.
So, I'm not impressed with your submissions. Your actions are much like those of someone defending their religious faith: "I don't have time to argue with you. Just go read these tracts that support my point of view."
I don't know what you mean by epidemic patterns (I'm not an expert) but I don't think that question is important, if it's just a matter of calling it epidemics or not
Of course it's important. Research funding increases when the perceived threat is greater. My point is that AIDS is an industry, not a disease.
AZT is covered thoroughly in the links I gave you
But that doesn't answer my question. What is the history? What are the side effects of AZT? I believe I'm having this discussion with you, not with the links you sent me.
I read somewhere that, although not clinically proven, statistics say amyl nitrate increases the chances of HIV infected people developping Kaposi's syndrome
KS only occurs in gay men (who use poppers). Why should a virus care what the host's sexuality is?
but I don't know what is your point; diseases that are associated with AIDS are opportunistic diseases that take advantage of the damage to the immune system, I don't see a problem with that list changing.
Of course you don't see my point. You think I'm a crackpot and a loon. You think I'm beneath you. You think I can't form an argument.
The problem with the list changing is that the list is an integral portion of the definition of the disease. If the list changes, the definition of AIDS changes. What additions and subtractions have been made to the list in recent years, and why?
Of course, if you don't want to believe, it's pointless.
"Of course, if your heart is hardened to the Lord then all of this is pointless." Your language is religious language.
You can come up with a huge conspiracy theory involving thousands of scientists all over the world, and think whatever you want.
Not all scientists believe in the "HIV==AIDS" theory, but those that don't are ostracized, humiliated, and have their funding cut. It makes sense that there would be a large concensus of scientists who support the "HIV==AIDS" theory. People like getting paid and dislike being shunned.
Those who are affected by the disease deserve treatment though, and everyone deserves information, because denial theories could prompt people to stop being careful about prevention and to be hopeless about treatment
Not only are you assuming the point in dispute, but you are spreading FUD and attempting to demonize me.
That said, science lives off people like you
And I get a "people like you" comment from you as well! Will there be no end to your crass and rude treatment of me?
Contrary to what you may think, or not, scientists are encouraged to question and go against the establishment, that's very important and science isn't static
In theory this is true. In practice it is false. Those who dare question the "HIV==AIDS" hypothesis are treated as badly as you are treating me. Think of how bad it must be if a SCIENTIST dares question the holy truth! Tell me, what has happened to those scientists who dare question? Have you read their stories?
New evidence could come up, and there might be a report tomorrow, saying that HIV doesn't cause AIDS,
This evidence has been around since the inception of the Holy Theory. Have you read any of it, or is all written by a bunch of crackpots and loons?
but based on current evidence, most people strongly believe HIV causes AIDS.
If what I say is true (that the AIDS industry coupled with government rewards ahdherents and punishes dissidents) then what you claim is flawed.
BTW "you are biased against me, therefore I am right" is a ludicrous logical fallacy, no matter whether the first clause is true or not.
This is a strawman argument. You have chosen to stoop to invective several times in this discussion. If you had a strong position, then you would be able to convince me through showing me your evidence and providing me with a clear argument. Since you have to resort to personal attacks, it immediately makes your position look weak.
And since we're on the subject of logical fallacies, you've added the strawman to your already growing list of ad hominems. When will you start treating me with respect in this discussion? Just because we happen to disagree is no excuse for you to behave in an uncivil manner.
I think one might be able to get away with the statement that the funding for the disease is disproportionate the number of people suffering, and that there are political or business agendas behind pushing AIDS to the forefront of funded research.
Your choice of language is telling: I'm "getting away" with something, just as some people "get away" with murder.
Characterizing the number suffering as a "handful" or trivializing their suffering seems wrong, though.
How does the though of giving toxic "medication" to a person who has an imaginary disease make you feel?
Not to mention that diseases that attack the immune system are scary.
This is a subjective statement. Cancer is also "scary," and affects a far greater number of people than does AID$.
I notice you made no attempts to answer my other questions. Why is that?
And obviously UFO nuts are right because I call them nuts too.
First invective, now sarcasm. Furthermore, you fail to realize that it is you, not I, who is in the same camp as the UFO nuts. The burden of proof falls on he who alleges. The UFO nuts allege that there are UFOs. Show me the evidence, and I will believe it. You allege that HIV causes AIDS. Show me the evidence, and I will believe it. The fact that AIDS research is the singlemost well-funded disease research in history despite the fact that AIDS does NOT follow epidimic patterns and affects far less people than some other diseases (which get less money as a function of sufferers) raises suspicion in me. Why doesn't it do so in you? Are you one of the folks on the "HIV==AIDS" payroll?
Have you looked at the virusmyth web site yet?
You are kidding, right? You don't really believe that site.
I believe a lot of what is on that site. Would you like to discuss it with me? Most people seem content to mock and slander me and avoid answering my questions.
resident Mbeki's credibility suffered a huge blow after his statement that AIDS wasn't caused by HIV.
Of course it did. Anyone who doubts the gospel, holy truth of "HIV==AIDS" suffers for it. Just like religious dissenters of the past were persecuted by the church for doubting the sacred, holy doctrine.
Why is AIDS called an "epidemic" when it doesn't follow epidemic patterns?
Who isolated HIV?
What is the history of AZT? What are its side effects?
What is the correlation between amyl nitrate "poppers" and Kaposi's Sarcoma?
How many times has the list of "associated AIDS diseases" changed since the inceptions of the "HIV==AIDS" hypothesis?
All of these are valid questions. And every time I ask them, I get attacked for it. It seems that the "HIV==AIDS" camp is afraid of the answers, and rightly so.
AID$ is an industry, not a disease. Why else would there be such ma$$ive funding with a handful of sufferers?
I would hardly call the "evidence" sufficient or argued validly.
Yet you fail to indicate which evidence is insufficient and which arguments are invalid. Furthermore, you fail to realize that it is the "HIV==AIDS" camp which has failed to come up with the evidence, not the other way around. It's called, "The burden of proof falls on he who alleges." Show me that HIV has been isolated. Show me how HIV+ children can be born to two HIV- parents. How me how children who have HIV can "mysteriously" become HIV-. Explain to me why the "associated diseases" are different for gay men as than they are for others.
Every time I argue that "HIV!=AIDS" I get a bowlful of slander. You here argue that I must have abandoned my reason. The fact that you have to dip down into invective (and *everyone* who has argued with me on this topic chooses to do so) shows the immediate weakness of your position.
you can't convince me that Enron et. al. were just a couple of bad apples.
I can be convinced that the sky is green and grass is blue if you give me sufficient evidence and a valid argument. What you are admitting to here is closed-mindedness.
Answer me this: how many corporations are there in the United States? Be sure to account for Schedule C, Schedule S, and LLC-type corporations.
They're getting off easy! The top 1% controls about 43% of the wealth in the US. Top 10% has 77%.
It's an income tax, not a wealth tax. Because of that, the original poster's comment is correct and yours is irrelevant.