It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gorilla HIV/AIDS - new strain or disinformation?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You're confusing the scientific term with the common use of the term. A scientific theory is one that has been deeply researched and is now generally accepted as valid. The common use of the word "theory" is much looser and implies little to no research.


I am not confusing anything at all, it appears as if you are, and if one wants to look up the common usage of the term theory, and contrast that with the the scientific method it should be clear based upon your own lazy definition of the word who is confused.




posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


The scientific method is the common use of the term. Beyond high school, the terms used in the scientific method aren't often used. You have to realize that there are difference in deductive and inductive theories, hypotheses, laws, correlatives, and so on. These are ALL different from the basic definitions given in the scientific method, which is nothing more than a broad logic framework to introduce children to science and scientific thought.

Here's a better explanation for you:

Scientific Theory

Here's the best part of the link above, if you don't want to read it:


According to the United States National Academy of Sciences, ]Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."


Obviously, I can't assume that everyone on here has a basic science education, but people who throw the word "theory" around incorrectly really bug me. So, if you think I've given you an improper definition of a scientific theory, you should probably take it up with the US National Academy of Science, not me.


[edit on 5/17/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


here..read this..

www.originofaids.com...



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


It has not been I throwing the word theory around loosely, and as I have stated, I rely upon the scientific method for the understanding of that word when it comes to medical issues. If this "bugs" you, that is your problem. The fact that most people don't even have a clue what the scientific method is, and that they so willingly accept whatever is told to them as fact, is an important issue and should be addressed. I have not advocated anything other than expecting a rigid standard when dealing with science. The HIV=AIDS advocates are clearly advocating HIV as the source of AIDS, and it may be, I have offered no opinion what so ever on that matter, and have merely spoken to the very real anomalies that exist with this advocacy.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by baddmove
 


The article is inaccurate. We have isolated samples of HIV from the 1950s, thus Myers hypothesis that is began in the 1970s cannot be true, unless someone has invented a time machine and transported HIV back an addtional 20-30 years.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You misused the word theory, I gave you the proper use, you accused me of being "lazy" and "confused" (your words, specifically), and then when I give you the official definition by the governing scientific body of the United States, suddenly you become contrite and accuse me of attacking you? Get over yourself.

You absolutely gave an opinion on the cause of AIDS. your exact words were:


if HIV is a virus why doesn't it act like all other viruses? There certainly does have to be a problem in order for AIDS to exist. Something is causing that, but Even Gallo has backed off of advocating HIV as the sole source of causing AID


and


This so called retro-virus HIV acts like no other virus on the planet, and in terms of a theory, fails to predict at every step, which keeps this from truly being anything more than a hypothesis.


So, don't try to pretend you're the innocent, unbiased bystander. You have already given your stance, and trying to backtrack now is just silly. All you have to do now is defend your stance against the evidence I've given, which you seem to have ignored, by and large.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


I am not at all backtracking, and it is you who clearly have an agenda other than truth. The quotes of mine you used remain true, and all you have done is argue the point without offering any evidence to support your claim. The HIV virus certainly doesn't act like the small pox virus, nor the measles, nor polio, it acts in ways the keep forcing the CDC to redefine AIDS, in order to keep advocating HIV as the primary source of AIDS. I have clearly stated that my agenda is expecting an adherence to a rigid standard, and what you quoted of me does not contradict that. What bothers you, clearly, is that I am pointing to problems with HIV as a theory, and you are not willing to speak to those problems and instead attack. I certainly have accused you of using lazy definitions as the one you first provided was indeed lazy.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


I don't believe you..the farthest back it can be traced was the late 70's early 80's..it was man made..not a monkey thing....

www.righto.com...

www.righto.com...

www.righto.com...

Another smoking gun against the visna theory is that HIV-1 and HIV-2 have a vpr gene, SIV has a vpr gene, but visna and the other viruses do not. If HIV came from visna and HTLV-I, where did the vpr gene come from?

[edit on 17-5-2010 by baddmove]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I am not at all backtracking, and it is you who clearly have an agenda other than truth. The quotes of mine you used remain true, and all you have done is argue the point without offering any evidence to support your claim. The HIV virus certainly doesn't act like the small pox virus, nor the measles, nor polio,


Why would is act like an entirely unrelated virus? Polio doesn't act like measles. Measles doesn't act like small pox. Small pox doesn't act like polio. They all have unique targets, genes, and receptor affinities. Why would HIV be required to act like any of these if they, themselves, don't act like each other?


it acts in ways the keep forcing the CDC to redefine AIDS, in order to keep advocating HIV as the primary source of AIDS.


The CDC has done no such thing. The only "redefinitions" of AIDS have come from newer technology allowing us to more accurately measure C4+ counts and viral loads, along with other factors in the immune system. Can you provide sources for some of these radical redefinitions?


What bothers you, clearly, is that I am pointing to problems with HIV as a theory, and you are not willing to speak to those problems and instead attack.


No, what bothers me is your clear lack of any desire to actually understand science, and at the same time you desire to disparage that same science. How can you debate something if you don't even understand the basic terms, like "theory" versus "hypothesis"?


I certainly have accused you of using lazy definitions as the one you first provided was indeed lazy.


And yet, it was nearly word for word the same definition of the National Academy. Yes, lazy indeed.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by baddmove
 


Please see my post from page 2.

Post and sources regarding 1959 sample

As for your other question, Visna is not a preogenitor of HIV. It is used as an in vivo model because of it's structural similarities, but it has little to no similar genetic code. No one is proposing Visna as a precursor to HIV, especially since it is a lentivirus, and not a retrovirus (as HIV is). The most likely (and most accepted) progenitor to HIV is SIV, which DOES have a vpr gene (it has two, in fact, which is collectively known as the vpx gene).



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


ok..but what about this statement from your post on page 2?


The oldest known case of HIV-1 infection was reported to be that of a sailor from Manchester who died of an AIDS-like illness in 1959; however, the authenticity of this case has not been confirmed



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by baddmove
 


If you'll read two lines underneath the bit you quoted, you'll see that the sera they tested was from different samples dating to 1959, not those of the sailor.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:34 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


It's not that i think you are wrong, it's actually a fact you are wrong..sorry bro..


go a. and watch this video.....

[edit on 17-5-2010 by baddmove]

[edit on 17-5-2010 by baddmove]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by baddmove
 


I've seen this video many times on ATS. If you're willing to believe a random youtube video over decades of research, and if you think that thousands upon thousands upon thousands of scientists and doctors are "in on it", then there is no arguing with you. It's akin to arguing about religion with someone: you'll never convince them.

And with that, I need to get some sleep. Rounds are in 4 hours, and I'd like to be somewhat awake.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:39 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


ok..same here..night my friend!



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 




The CDC has done no such thing. The only "redefinitions" of AIDS have come from newer technology allowing us to more accurately measure C4+ counts and viral loads, along with other factors in the immune system. Can you provide sources for some of these radical redefinitions?


www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.aids.org...

www.virusmyth.com...

www.thebody.com...

jama.ama-assn.org...

www.mccgham.org...

74.125.155.132...:4PCrjIp5iHsJ:scholar.google.com/+The+origin+persistence+and+Failings+of+HIV/AIDS+Theory&hl=en&as_sdt=2000&as_vis =1

74.125.155.132...:LLVwkOKEczcJ:scholar.google.com/+The+origin+persistence+and+Failings+of+HIV/AIDS+Theory&hl=en&as_sdt=2000&as_vis =1

www.springerlink.com...

74.125.155.132...:hTq0MAxRmuUJ:scholar.google.com/+The+origin+persistence+and+Failings+of+HIV/AIDS+Theory&hl=en&as_sdt=2000&as_vis =1

There is much data out there, and one has to sift through the data and decide for themselves what is actually information, and what is disinformation. That those who bring up valid scientific questions to the prevailing consensus on AIDS, or too quickly labeled "AIDS denialists" or even more revealingly "AIDS dissenters", speaks volumes to the political movement behind the HIV=AIDS paradigm than it does to those asking the questions.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


In all of your links (except for the last few, I think there was a problem when you typed them in, they seem to link no where), they explain exactly what I told you a few posts up. The only changes in "definition" of AIDS were made when our technology and understanding of the HIV-AIDS relationship allowed us to pinpoint the beginning of the symptomatic phase of AIDS to the period when the patient's CD4+ count drops below 200. Obviously, we need a way to determine when a patient is HIV+ or has AIDS (as the aggressiveness of treatments will change, as well the chance of non-profit funded care), so being able to determine when "HIV+" ends and "AIDS" starts is a necessity.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Wow, this thread is filled with people blabbering out about stuff they sure hell don't know anything about!


I recommend just about any scientific literature on HIV/AIDS, and not just random things they read on questionable websites.

[edit on 17/5/10 by Thain Esh Kelch]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by tauempire
 

Well, sex and sexuality have been stigmatized for ages. I remember one quote from the Hindu scriptures where it talks of a saint speaking of people "enjoying themselves like elephants", and simply rubbing their urinary parts together. Putting it like that doesn't make it sound so hot.
Yet, the gods enjoyed sex, and even the Bible is very sexual.
It is the religious injunctions aginst condoms that are really shocking.
Since condoms weren't even invented when scriptures were written, how can people say this???

In any case, since HIV seemingly stems from bush-meat, then religion needs to re-inforce dietery and environmental laws!!!


This HIV stems from bush-meat. dont be a moron. We still have a HIV epidemic thats transmited through sexual intercourse.

Its not about sex being stigmitized. you are blind good sir.

Its about men dipping there wick in anything that moves. and women who spread there legs for 4 people a month. people who have had more then 10 sexual partners in there life. those that go to sex partys. Those that cheat on there partners.

If you dont find that repulsive.....well.....your probably part of the problem.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by tauempire]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tauempire

Originally posted by halfoldman
reply to post by tauempire
 

Well, sex and sexuality have been stigmatized for ages. I remember one quote from the Hindu scriptures where it talks of a saint speaking of people "enjoying themselves like elephants", and simply rubbing their urinary parts together. Putting it like that doesn't make it sound so hot.
Yet, the gods enjoyed sex, and even the Bible is very sexual.
It is the religious injunctions aginst condoms that are really shocking.
Since condoms weren't even invented when scriptures were written, how can people say this???

In any case, since HIV seemingly stems from bush-meat, then religion needs to re-inforce dietery and environmental laws!!!


This HIV stems from bush-meat. dont be a moron. We still have a HIV epidemic thats transmited through sexual intercourse.

Its not about sex being stigmitized. you are blind good sir.

Its about men dipping there wick in anything that moves. and women who spread there legs for 4 people a month. people who have had more then 10 sexual partners in there life. those that go to sex partys. Those that cheat on there partners.

If you dont find that repulsive.....well.....your probably part of the problem.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by tauempire]


What the... Mr Warhammer Fan... I'm 30 and I've had more than 10 sexual partner, actually way more... but... endulge me, those 10 sexual partners you speak of... did you just make up a number that seemed right or was that just a stupid idea that seemed right at the time you typed it? Why not 11... or 9?... 11 is over the top already?

And what am I? Part of the problem? Look... I dont like porn, I dont watch it, I dont get off with some pics on the internet, I refuse to pay for sex so... hey one has to get a life right?
We aim to please


Funny remark... the average american MAN has 7 (yes lol seven... so sad) sexual partners in his ENTIRE LIFE... the average american WOMAN has sex with 15 or more (the AVERAGE lol) - I mean... I have to quote Joker from The Dark Knight with a twist:

"Let's wind the clocks back a couple of a hundred years. These girls and women wouldn't dare have more fun than any of you. I mean, what happened? Did, did your balls drop off? Hm?"




new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join