Back to the very basics?
Sadun Kal
Friday, 07 November 2008 20:53 UTC
Originally my intention was to discuss what I’m about to discuss in another forum/topic titled “Back to The Basics?” . But it has rightly been suggested that I create a new forum for this, so here we are.
Assuming that you read the forum description, I won’t spend further time preparing you for what I intend to talk about here. If there is anything that troubles you about the idea behind this forum, please either express your concern in a civilized manner or if you can’t do that, restrain yourself until you can.
Now let’s begin.
I’d like to start with going over the very roots of the HIV/AIDS science and I think that this essay might be the right tool for stretching our assumptions a little:
Questioning HIV/AIDS: Morally Reprehensible or Scientifically Warranted?
I know that most of you might instinctively have very strong opinions about such an essay. But please read it from start to finish and restrain your emotional reactions so that we can objectively exchange opinions. Personally, I’m very sympathetic towards such views as you might have already realized. I’ve spent a significant amount of time informing myself about the skeptical views in regard to the AIDS phenomenon and I don’t think that such views have received the scientific responses they deserve.
Apart from that essay, there have been some recent developments about the 1984 papers by Prof. Robert Gallo, which have resulted in the announcement “The probable cause of AIDS has been found.” by the US government at a press conference and the beginning of the AIDS era. These new developments I’m talking about are summarized here in connection with the recent Nobel Prize announcement:
CRITIQUE OF THE NOBEL AWARD 2008 FOR THE DISCOVERY OF HIV
It’s not an easy text to swallow if you’re new to all this, so take your time.
It’s also explained HERE and HERE much more in detail. If you go directly to the homepage you can also review some digital copies of the documents yourself.
The media didn’t mention this at all as you must be aware, but this unnerving fact should best be discussed in another topic.
I don’t want to overload you with too much information, so I’ll leave you with a link to some open letters in response to the recent Nobel Prize announcement for now, one of them is written by me:
Should the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine be revoked?
I’m looking forward to hear your thoughts about these. I’m very hopeful that we can bring the HIV/AIDS skeptics and the mainstream scientists together through respectful, thoughtful and effective communication. Thank you very much for your attention.
-
Replies
-
These videos from the press conference in October were released just 2 days ago:
All of them combined they’re not any less than 5 hours long. If you’ve checked out the links above you’ll know most of the crucial stuff that’s being talked about in the videos. But if you didn’t, here’s your chance to get the information in a less effortless way. Please inform yourselves about this incredibly important topic, and make sure that you share this information.
-
I actually meant “more effortless”, not less…
-
So, would it be incorrect to assume that under the guise of ‘HIV/AIDS skeptic’, you are a HIV denialist? Just so that we are clear on that before we begin. In the spirit of frank discussion, perhaps you could enlighten us as to which of these observed, established facts you do not believe in or accept:
a) That HIV exists.
b) That HIV causes AIDS.
c) That HIV is transmitted through sexual contact.
d) That HIV can be iatrogenically transmitted through even trace amounts of blood exposure.
e) That currently the best available therapeutic option for AIDS is to treat HIV with antiretrovirals. -
This isn’t about who I am or what I believe in. Please express your opinions about the information I present to you, not your opinions about people you know almost nothing about.
Have you watched the video? Read the documents, briefs, papers I posted links to? What do you think about them?
-
Sadun,
I like to keep my personal and professional lives separate, and therefore, if you wish to discuss science, I would rather do it here; you know what I mean. Regarding your forum topic, of course, it is not about who you are. But knowing what you believe in is important, because one’s arguments are invariably colored by one’s perceptions; you see, I have been reading your posted opinions at different fora.I did not offer any opinion about any one, least of all, ‘people I don’t know anything about’. Rather, I am asking you to come clear about your opinions on this matter, since that would set a baseline of sorts – allowing me and others to engage in a meaningful debate.
Was I able to make my stand clear?
-
Your stand is relatively clear, it’s just that I don’t think that it’s the right one for this discussion. I’d prefer to keep unscientific labels like ‘denialist’ away from this topic for example. You immediately tried to take that path as soon as you entered the discussion. It has nothing to do with real science.
I hope that was clear. Now I still think we should be discussing information instead of opinions. But if it’ll make things clearer for you, currently my personal opinion is that it seems unlikely that the “accepted” view about HIV/AIDS can be correct. I avoid giving specific one-word-answers to your points because things can easily be misunderstood with such a complex topic. I suggest we explore your points throughout the discussion more in detail.
I suppose there is a lot to talk about. Maybe we all can first start discussing what those links I posted about the Nobel Prize and Prof. Gallo’s fraud might mean for the HIV/AIDS science. Check them out and let’s see where they’ll take us in this topic…
-
