• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Do HIV and AIDS exist

lionking said:
I didn't miss it skeptigirl, I just didn't see the revelence. Still dont.
Click to expand...
I think you did miss it. This is what I bolded:

"...Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos says AIDS is a disease caused by the inside of the body becoming oxidised following repeated exposure to semen through passive anal intercourse. It cannot be transmitted from one person to another during vaginal sex."

If you don't think it's funny it's because you don't know how absurd the claim is.
 
lionking said:
...He has the support of a medical physicist (I didn't know there was such an occupation) Elani Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos, who testified that she would happily have unsafe sex with a HIV positive man.
Click to expand...

Interesting. So when's she gonna?
 
lionking said:
That's how you think justice is done in Australia? Sad.
Click to expand...
You're really are misunderstanding my posts. What I am saying is the outcome of that trial is not in doubt. You don't need to tell us they will rule against the defendant. Unless the judge is crazy or took a bribe, the outcome is already clear. HIV causes AIDS. There is no controversy and the testimony as reported in the news article is laughable.
 
skeptigirl said:
I think you did miss it. This is what I bolded:

"...Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos says AIDS is a disease caused by the inside of the body becoming oxidised following repeated exposure to semen through passive anal intercourse. It cannot be transmitted from one person to another during vaginal sex."

If you don't think it's funny it's because you don't know how absurd the claim is.
Click to expand...
I cant let this go. You asked me if I missed the report that the mother put up the money, and I didnt. I also didnt miss what you bolded, simply didnt comment.
 
skeptigirl said:
You're really are misunderstanding my posts. What I am saying is the outcome of that trial is not in doubt. You don't need to tell us they will rule against the defendant. Unless the judge is crazy or took a bribe, the outcome is already clear. HIV causes AIDS. There is no controversy and the testimony as reported in the news article is laughable.
Click to expand...
No misunderstanding at all. Your comments about either an insane or corrupt judge are gratuitous.
 
lionking said:
No misunderstanding at all. Your comments about either an insane or corrupt judge are gratuitous.
Click to expand...

No, they where not. Just in the same was that if a judge ruled in favor of any number of wacky tax protester arguments, he would be either insane or corrupt. When the evidence so overwhelmingly favors one side, and the decision goes eth other way, what would your third option be?
 
skeptigirl said:
Depends on your definition of "serious debate", lionk. There is no serious debate among any legitimate scientists. There are a couple of scientists off their rocker and a small group of "believers" who deny HIV-AIDS. It's really a shame the beliefs of so many people in the third world (and a few in every country) who still have such magical thinking as to believe in witches, curses, black magic and these beliefs spill over into disease beliefs with results such as the So. African President and a Nobel Prize winner (for her tree planting program, not for her scientific achievements) believing AIDS is caused by HIV drugs and general poor nutrition. It is incredibly ignorant. In fact, it's mind bogglingly ignorant.
Click to expand...
Uh. I have no idea who Mary Mullis is, but it's probably referring to Kary Mullis (a male), who got the Chemistry prize in 1993 for his work on DNA replication/testing. Although this is related to HIV research in some ways, he is as far as I know no expert on HIV and has, as far as I know, not published any scientific research on the subject.

While Mullis is no doubt very much on the fringe here, I disagree that he's not a 'legitimate' scientist. Just because someone has wacky opinions doesn't make them illegitimate. It does make them wrong, though.
 
brodski said:
Just in the same was that if a judge ruled in favor of any number of wacky tax protester arguments, he would be either insane or corrupt. When the evidence so overwhelmingly favors one side, and the decision goes eth other way, what would your third option be?
Click to expand...
Political bias or very strong prejudice. I've seen it happen. Extreme stupidity would be another possibility.
 
Merko said:
Political bias or very strong prejudice. I've seen it happen. Extreme stupidity would be another possibility.
Click to expand...

A judge allowing political bias to influence his judgment would be corruption, the bigotry and stupidity I will take as one option. OK.
So a judge who finds that there is no HIV? aids link is either corrupt, insane or stupid. Not much better is it?
 
lionking said:
I had no idea there was a serious debate about this (although I recall denial by the South African President), but there is an interesting court case in South Australia, reported in Melbourne's Age (sorry I cant post a link). A man convicted of knowingly infecting two women with HIV, and receiving 15 years jail, has appealed on the grounds that HIV and AIDS do not exist. He has the support of a medical physicist (I didn't know there was such an occupation) Elani Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos, who testified that she would happily have unsafe sex with a HIV positive man.

The article quoted a couple of sceptical scientists, Dr Mary Mullis, a Noble Prize winner, and Dr Harry Rubin.

The article was headed "25 million dead people can't be wrong. Or can they?". Is there any real doubt about HIV or is this criminal clutching at straws?
Click to expand...
Why no, no there isn't - and I say let Elani try!! Should be entertaining (and really stupid!!)
 
John Safran did a series on the Foo Fighters supporting this rubbish
 
fuelair said:
Why no, no there isn't - and I say let Elani try!! Should be entertaining (and really stupid!!)
Click to expand...

She won't though: she'll pull a Duesberg.

Duesberg and Bryan J. Ellison famously claimed in 1990 that they had no hesitation to being injected with HIV - the only stipulation was that the injectors had to prove beyond any doubt that the injection contained pure HIV... ie: science has to prove nonexistence of every (unspecified) contaminant.

(This is in everybody's best interest anyway: if Duesberg actually got sick, he'd be able to claim that the injection had been contaminated with his hypothesized 'true' cause of AIDS.)

So, Duesberg has spent the last twenty years capitalizing on his 'brave' offer, with zero risk of actually having to have to do it.
 
Too bad nobody is unethical enough to stick him with a needle full of HIV. He deserves it more than all the hapless children who have gotten it, like Maggiore's daughter.
 
lionking said:
I cant let this go. You asked me if I missed the report that the mother put up the money, and I didnt. I also didnt miss what you bolded, simply didnt comment.
Click to expand...
You are acting bizarre here. I said what I bolded was what I said was funny. You said you were annoyed I found [??] funny.

Huh??????????

It was funny this idiot Papadopoulos-Eleopoulos said, "AIDS is a disease caused by the inside of the body becoming oxidised following repeated exposure to semen through passive anal intercourse".

That is funny.

So what are you on about? Go back and look at the exchange. Either explain what the hell you are annoyed about or tell me why the above isn't funny. Because for anything else, I don't have a clue what you are talking about.
 
Merko said:
Uh. I have no idea who Mary Mullis is, but it's probably referring to Kary Mullis (a male), who got the Chemistry prize in 1993 for his work on DNA replication/testing. Although this is related to HIV research in some ways, he is as far as I know no expert on HIV and has, as far as I know, not published any scientific research on the subject.

While Mullis is no doubt very much on the fringe here, I disagree that he's not a 'legitimate' scientist. Just because someone has wacky opinions doesn't make them illegitimate. It does make them wrong, though.
Click to expand...
You're right, it was Kary Mullis. The typo is mine. The facts are the same, however. Mullis made comments about the lack of evidence for HIV in 1994 according to the Aussie news article lionking linked to:
"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability," Nobel prize-winning chemist Dr Kary Mullis said in 1993. "There is no such document."
Click to expand...

My comment remains valid. Anything someone said 13 years ago re HIV isn't relevant today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom