Bitmask due stlll peddle AIDS DENIAL

[KenyanPlato]

• Tweet

You really went deep in th3 rabbit hole of Aids denial. Mbeki too made a lot of South Africans die due to his love of aids denialism

I wonder if you still deny existence of AIDS

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I have never denied AIDS.  Ever.  If you are interested in a good faith position, at least be ready to acknowledge facts.

[KenyanPlato]

what was your beef with AIDS? I remember you and that woman who died in RV were very vocal about it

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

what was your beef with AIDS? I remember you and that woman who died in RV were very vocal about it

Etiology.  Yes, I was vocal about it.  And I do know the scientific consensus about it probably at a deeper level than I would have cared.  The orthodoxy(current view) is very convincing to the man on the street, and even in the lab.  You have a virus(I know, retrovirus), and it spreads through mostly sexual contact.  It damages the immune system, and you die of opportunistic infections, thankfully we have meds that now make it controllable, so the theory goes.  Take your meds and you should be okay.

Me?  I think the jury is still out.  I feel that I don't know what causes it and by extension I am not sure I know how to entirely avoid it.  But I have a pretty good idea of how not to live to minimize damage to my health and immune system in general.  For that reason, I don't care too much about AIDS. 

In general I am always super skeptical of ideas that rely on suppression of opposing ideas with suggestions that they are dangerous.  I know that makes me a conspiracy theory nut on AIDS, but that's not my problem.

On a different note, this topic helped me see in sharper relief the political element of science, which I had till then assumed to be completely absent.  Science, much like any other field, while subject to more rigor, is still not immune to the other forces in our daily lives.

[RV Pundit]

You cannot bring pseudo-science into science when people are dying. The HIV-AIDS deniliast were not publishing their dissenting articles or peer review research  in Lancet or medical Journals - they were playing politics in era where HIV was killing millions. The worse arse.hole is one MBEKI. And the BEST HERO remain one MUSEVENI - who stopped HIV-AIDS - in Uganda by focusing on prevention. Look at South Africa - totally decimated by HIV-AIDS (50% at some point infection rate) - as Mbeki dithered and questioned science - when he is not a scientist.

What really amazes me is someone like you without ANY SCIENTIFIC CREDENTIALS - can rush headlong into a technical subject like HIV-AIDS - and create all sort of controversies.This why we say little knowledge is more dangerous than blissful ignorance.

Conclusive evidence dating nearly 40 yrs ago - HIV causes AIDS. That is how long the virus was isolated and positively identified as the cause of AIDS.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

You cannot bring pseudo-science into science when people are dying. The HIV-AIDS deniliast were not publishing their dissenting articles or peer review research  in Lancet or medical Journals - they were playing politics in era where HIV was killing millions. The worse arse.hole is one MBEKI. And the BEST HERO remain one MUSEVENI - who stopped HIV-AIDS - in Uganda by focusing on prevention. Look at South Africa - totally decimated by HIV-AIDS (50% at some point infection rate) - as Mbeki dithered and questioned science - when he is not a scientist.

What really amazes me is someone like you without ANY SCIENTIFIC CREDENTIALS - can rush headlong into a technical subject like HIV-AIDS - and create all sort of controversies.This why we say little knowledge is more dangerous than blissful ignorance.

Conclusive evidence dating nearly 40 yrs ago - HIV causes AIDS. That is how long the virus was isolated and positively identified as the cause of AIDS.

The jury is out there as far I am concerned.  And no I did not create the controversy.  Neither do I need credentials to delve into any subject I like.

[RV Pundit]

Stay away from technical subjects like medicine. If you like it so much - enrol in medical school for at least 10yrs, publish some research on HIV-AIDS and the very least stay in hospital wards for like 5yrs.

The jury is out there as far I am concerned.  And no I did not create the controversy.  Neither do I need credentials to delve into any subject I like.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Stay away from technical subjects like medicine. If you like it so much - enrol in medical school for at least 10yrs, publish some research on HIV-AIDS and the very least stay in hospital wards for like 5yrs.

The jury is out there as far I am concerned.  And no I did not create the controversy.  Neither do I need credentials to delve into any subject I like.

To be honest.  It's subject to which I no longer pay much attention to.  So, you don't have to worry that I might mislead some impressionable soul into "catching" AIDS .

[RV Pundit]

Very nice - that is one "dangerous" field you cannot just google around.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Very nice - that is one "dangerous" field you cannot just google around.

Google was barely a thing when I was interested in the subject.  In fact the book Inventing the AIDS Virus by Peter Duesberg was the source of the controversy and one of the first indications that there was even a disagreement.

I don't share your view that there are "dangerous" areas of knowledge or even anything wrong with anyone googling stuff and trying piece together a picture of reality.

[vooke]

what was your beef with AIDS? I remember you and that woman who died in RV were very vocal about it

Etiology.  Yes, I was vocal about it.  And I do know the scientific consensus about it probably at a deeper level than I would have cared.  The orthodoxy(current view) is very convincing to the man on the street, and even in the lab.  You have a virus(I know, retrovirus), and it spreads through mostly sexual contact.  It damages the immune system, and you die of opportunistic infections, thankfully we have meds that now make it controllable, so the theory goes.  Take your meds and you should be okay.

Me?  I think the jury is still out.  I feel that I don't know what causes it and by extension I am not sure I know how to entirely avoid it.  But I have a pretty good idea of how not to live to minimize damage to my health and immune system in general.  For that reason, I don't care too much about AIDS. 

In general I am always super skeptical of ideas that rely on suppression of opposing ideas with suggestions that they are dangerous.  I know that makes me a conspiracy theory nut on AIDS, but that's not my problem.

On a different note, this topic helped me see in sharper relief the political element of science, which I had till then assumed to be completely absent.  Science, much like any other field, while subject to more rigor, is still not immune to the other forces in our daily lives.

You are right about science. Look at how they treat creation science even when they can’t explain origins in any coherent form.

But AIDS?
Well, I know for sure denialism was largely pushed by HIV positive dudes who shunned medication and were naturally selected out. But permit me to ask, do you or did you at any point believe research on AIDS was steered in a particular direction for whatever reasons?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

what was your beef with AIDS? I remember you and that woman who died in RV were very vocal about it

Etiology.  Yes, I was vocal about it.  And I do know the scientific consensus about it probably at a deeper level than I would have cared.  The orthodoxy(current view) is very convincing to the man on the street, and even in the lab.  You have a virus(I know, retrovirus), and it spreads through mostly sexual contact.  It damages the immune system, and you die of opportunistic infections, thankfully we have meds that now make it controllable, so the theory goes.  Take your meds and you should be okay.

Me?  I think the jury is still out.  I feel that I don't know what causes it and by extension I am not sure I know how to entirely avoid it.  But I have a pretty good idea of how not to live to minimize damage to my health and immune system in general.  For that reason, I don't care too much about AIDS. 

In general I am always super skeptical of ideas that rely on suppression of opposing ideas with suggestions that they are dangerous.  I know that makes me a conspiracy theory nut on AIDS, but that's not my problem.

On a different note, this topic helped me see in sharper relief the political element of science, which I had till then assumed to be completely absent.  Science, much like any other field, while subject to more rigor, is still not immune to the other forces in our daily lives.

You are right about science. Look at how they treat creation science even when they can’t explain origins in any coherent form.

But AIDS?
Well, I know for sure denialism was largely pushed by HIV positive dudes who shunned medication and were naturally selected out. But permit me to ask, do you or did you at any point believe research on AIDS was steered in a particular direction for whatever reasons?

Scientific knowledge is not always one coherent whole.  That is an elementary mistake most people make; the notion that stuff that is accepted by scientific consensus is the incontrovertible truth.  Look at scientific knowledge as models.  Models that can be improved upon, tweaked, have asterisks, or be entirely discarded as new facts and knowledge emerge.  And you can have more than one generally accepted model at the same time e.g relativity and quantum theory.  To be fair, some of the current models are impressive, in their predictive power, so I would understand a lack of inertia towards summarily dropping them even when a sexier explanation emerges.  So much has been invested in them.

The reason creationism is not enjoying pride of place at the high table of science IMO could be because it's not a particularly predictive theory.  It also means we stop digging for more knowledge.  If we assume(yes it's an assumption) that something unnatural created life on earth the story ends there.  Unless we wade into the supernatural realm - but that is not science.  "AIDS denialism" is based on measurable claims.  There is also the denialism of the kind you mention, but I too can recognize that - I would never fall for it.

I have never thought why AIDS research is in the current direction.  It's not necessarily a nefarious reason though.  I was more intrigued by the ruthless stigmatization and silencing of contrarian ideas.  But I do realize real conspiracy theorists also feel this way; that they are being unfairly silenced, even when their ideas are truly baloney.  So I can understand all perspectives when it comes to HIV and AIDS.

[vooke]

Scientific knowledge is not always one coherent whole.  That is an elementary mistake most people make; the notion that stuff that is accepted by scientific consensus is the incontrovertible truth.  Look at scientific knowledge as models.  Models that can be improved upon, tweaked, have asterisks, or be entirely discarded as new facts and knowledge emerge.  And you can have more than one generally accepted model at the same time e.g relativity and quantum theory.  To be fair, some of the current models are impressive, in their predictive power, so I would understand a lack of inertia towards summarily dropping them even when a sexier explanation emerges.  So much has been invested in them.

The reason creationism is not enjoying pride of place at the high table of science IMO could be because it's not a particularly predictive theory.  It also means we stop digging for more knowledge.  If we assume(yes it's an assumption) that something unnatural created life on earth the story ends there.  Unless we wade into the supernatural realm - but that is not science. "AIDS denialism" is based on measurable claims.  There is also the denialism of the kind you mention, but I too can recognize that - I would never fall for it.

I have never thought why AIDS research is in the current direction.  It's not necessarily a nefarious reason though.  I was more intrigued by the ruthless stigmatization and silencing of contrarian ideas.  But I do realize real conspiracy theorists also feel this way; that they are being unfairly silenced, even when their ideas are truly baloney.  So I can understand all perspectives when it comes to HIV and AIDS.

What in your opinion is the motivation behind stifling these ‘contrarian ideas’ which you insist have a veneer of sound scientific process behind them?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Scientific knowledge is not always one coherent whole.  That is an elementary mistake most people make; the notion that stuff that is accepted by scientific consensus is the incontrovertible truth.  Look at scientific knowledge as models.  Models that can be improved upon, tweaked, have asterisks, or be entirely discarded as new facts and knowledge emerge.  And you can have more than one generally accepted model at the same time e.g relativity and quantum theory.  To be fair, some of the current models are impressive, in their predictive power, so I would understand a lack of inertia towards summarily dropping them even when a sexier explanation emerges.  So much has been invested in them.

The reason creationism is not enjoying pride of place at the high table of science IMO could be because it's not a particularly predictive theory.  It also means we stop digging for more knowledge.  If we assume(yes it's an assumption) that something unnatural created life on earth the story ends there.  Unless we wade into the supernatural realm - but that is not science. "AIDS denialism" is based on measurable claims.  There is also the denialism of the kind you mention, but I too can recognize that - I would never fall for it.

I have never thought why AIDS research is in the current direction.  It's not necessarily a nefarious reason though.  I was more intrigued by the ruthless stigmatization and silencing of contrarian ideas.  But I do realize real conspiracy theorists also feel this way; that they are being unfairly silenced, even when their ideas are truly baloney.  So I can understand all perspectives when it comes to HIV and AIDS.

What in your opinion is the motivation behind stifling these ‘contrarian ideas’ which you insist have a veneer of sound scientific process behind them?

They think they are irresponsible and dangerous .  At least that is one of the motivations I saw when I followed the saga.

[vooke]

Scientific knowledge is not always one coherent whole.  That is an elementary mistake most people make; the notion that stuff that is accepted by scientific consensus is the incontrovertible truth.  Look at scientific knowledge as models.  Models that can be improved upon, tweaked, have asterisks, or be entirely discarded as new facts and knowledge emerge.  And you can have more than one generally accepted model at the same time e.g relativity and quantum theory.  To be fair, some of the current models are impressive, in their predictive power, so I would understand a lack of inertia towards summarily dropping them even when a sexier explanation emerges.  So much has been invested in them.

The reason creationism is not enjoying pride of place at the high table of science IMO could be because it's not a particularly predictive theory.  It also means we stop digging for more knowledge.  If we assume(yes it's an assumption) that something unnatural created life on earth the story ends there.  Unless we wade into the supernatural realm - but that is not science. "AIDS denialism" is based on measurable claims.  There is also the denialism of the kind you mention, but I too can recognize that - I would never fall for it.

I have never thought why AIDS research is in the current direction.  It's not necessarily a nefarious reason though.  I was more intrigued by the ruthless stigmatization and silencing of contrarian ideas.  But I do realize real conspiracy theorists also feel this way; that they are being unfairly silenced, even when their ideas are truly baloney.  So I can understand all perspectives when it comes to HIV and AIDS.

What in your opinion is the motivation behind stifling these ‘contrarian ideas’ which you insist have a veneer of sound scientific process behind them?

They think they are irresponsible and dangerous .  At least that is one of the motivations I saw when I followed the saga.

Why dangerous?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Scientific knowledge is not always one coherent whole.  That is an elementary mistake most people make; the notion that stuff that is accepted by scientific consensus is the incontrovertible truth.  Look at scientific knowledge as models.  Models that can be improved upon, tweaked, have asterisks, or be entirely discarded as new facts and knowledge emerge.  And you can have more than one generally accepted model at the same time e.g relativity and quantum theory.  To be fair, some of the current models are impressive, in their predictive power, so I would understand a lack of inertia towards summarily dropping them even when a sexier explanation emerges.  So much has been invested in them.

The reason creationism is not enjoying pride of place at the high table of science IMO could be because it's not a particularly predictive theory.  It also means we stop digging for more knowledge.  If we assume(yes it's an assumption) that something unnatural created life on earth the story ends there.  Unless we wade into the supernatural realm - but that is not science. "AIDS denialism" is based on measurable claims.  There is also the denialism of the kind you mention, but I too can recognize that - I would never fall for it.

I have never thought why AIDS research is in the current direction.  It's not necessarily a nefarious reason though.  I was more intrigued by the ruthless stigmatization and silencing of contrarian ideas.  But I do realize real conspiracy theorists also feel this way; that they are being unfairly silenced, even when their ideas are truly baloney.  So I can understand all perspectives when it comes to HIV and AIDS.

What in your opinion is the motivation behind stifling these ‘contrarian ideas’ which you insist have a veneer of sound scientific process behind them?

They think they are irresponsible and dangerous .  At least that is one of the motivations I saw when I followed the saga.

Why dangerous?

Perhaps it would make people care less about taking safety precautions.  It would spread like an Aussie wildfire.

[RV Pundit]

Matters medicine are life n death. It like those religious nuts arguing about taking their sick kid to hospital or not. I think somethings are better left to professionals - and medicine is one such field. Unless you have sworn the Hippocratic Oath please kindly stay away.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow

Perhaps it would make people care less about taking safety precautions.  It would spread like an Aussie wildfire.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Matters medicine are life n death. It like those religious nuts arguing about taking their sick kid to hospital or not. I think somethings are better left to professionals - and medicine is one such field. Unless you have sworn the Hippocratic Oath please kindly stay away.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow

Perhaps it would make people care less about taking safety precautions.  It would spread like an Aussie wildfire.

I understood your point.  I just don't subscribe to it.  I agree with your point on the religious nuts.  There is a difference between religious nuts and people having a different take on the same data.  I don't believe in silencing good faith scientific debates.  No matter how dangerous.

And Hippocratic Oath is for physicians.  Most people involved in AIDS research are not physicians.

[vooke]

Matters medicine are life n death. It like those religious nuts arguing about taking their sick kid to hospital or not. I think somethings are better left to professionals - and medicine is one such field. Unless you have sworn the Hippocratic Oath please kindly stay away.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow

Perhaps it would make people care less about taking safety precautions.  It would spread like an Aussie wildfire.

I understood your point.  I just don't subscribe to it.  I agree with your point on the religious nuts.  There is a difference between religious nuts and people having a different take on the same data.  I don't believe in silencing good faith scientific debates.  No matter how dangerous.

And Hippocratic Oath is for physicians.  Most people involved in AIDS research are not physicians.

That’s what conspiracy theorists say. They are being silenced, nobody is paying attention to their views, there is a conspiracy to crush dissent however valid. Etc

I am not an expert in AIDS Denialism but  all I have seen on it is empty skepticism that never stand scrutiny. Flat earthers in lab coats. The scientific community is way too diverse to be herded in a particular direction for whatever nefarious reasons.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Matters medicine are life n death. It like those religious nuts arguing about taking their sick kid to hospital or not. I think somethings are better left to professionals - and medicine is one such field. Unless you have sworn the Hippocratic Oath please kindly stay away.

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow

Perhaps it would make people care less about taking safety precautions.  It would spread like an Aussie wildfire.

I understood your point.  I just don't subscribe to it.  I agree with your point on the religious nuts.  There is a difference between religious nuts and people having a different take on the same data.  I don't believe in silencing good faith scientific debates.  No matter how dangerous.

And Hippocratic Oath is for physicians.  Most people involved in AIDS research are not physicians.

That’s what conspiracy theorists say. They are being silenced, nobody is paying attention to their views, there is a conspiracy to crush dissent however valid. Etc

And I agree.  I even mention the same in this post https://nipate.net/index.php?topic=7961.msg68830#msg68830. I am not sure how you missed it.

I am not an expert in AIDS Denialism but  all I have seen on it is empty skepticism that never stand scrutiny. Flat earthers in lab coats. The scientific community is way too diverse to be herded in a particular direction for whatever nefarious reasons.

Not surprising, especially since you seem to have mostly(maybe only?) heard from those HIV positive dudes who shunned medication and were naturally selected out.  You don't need nefarious reasons for people to conform.  I think you should read up on the history of scurvy.  Yes, people can be wrong because they are wrong, not because they are evil or any such thing.