Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Duesberg Hypothesis

Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 3:33:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is a thread that was actually inspired by a class discussion with my chemistry teacher, and holds the purpose of AIDS denialism--and specifically the Duesberg hypothesis...

The Duesberg Hypothesis, according to Duesberg's own article, argues that the HIV virus is "collection of chemical epidemics, caused by recreational drugs, anti-HIV drugs, and malnutrition." Duesberg's article also claims that AIDSis not contagious or immunogenic, treatable by vaccines or antiviral drugs, and that HIV is actually a passenger virus. In addition, it "explains why AIDS epidemics strike non-randomly if caused by drugs and randomly if caused by malnutrition, why they manifest in drug-and malnutrition specific diseases...." and so forth. [1] (http://www.springerlink.com...)

Responses? Is this theory valid? Note that I do not necessarily agree with this theory but would like to see arguments for and against this hypothesis..........
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 3:33:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Moreover, if anyone can clarify more about the hypothesis and what Duesberg actually used to "confirm" it, then feel free to do so....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 3:38:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What is a "chemical epidemic"? Logically, if AIDS was caused by drug use or malnutrition, then it would go away when the drugs and malnutrition went away. Also, if those were the causes of it, then why would we see people getting AIDS that don't do drugs or suffer from malnutrition?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 3:46:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 3:38:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
What is a "chemical epidemic"? Logically, if AIDS was caused by drug use or malnutrition, then it would go away when the drugs and malnutrition went away. Also, if those were the causes of it, then why would we see people getting AIDS that don't do drugs or suffer from malnutrition?

Oddly, that doesn't seem to be the type of evidence that refuted the hypothesis....but it is definitely something to consider.

Actual refutations focus on, for example, a counter-argument in terms of Duesberg's use of an AIDS epidemic in Thailand....http://www.sciencemag.org...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 3:47:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 3:46:41 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 12/1/2011 3:38:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
What is a "chemical epidemic"? Logically, if AIDS was caused by drug use or malnutrition, then it would go away when the drugs and malnutrition went away. Also, if those were the causes of it, then why would we see people getting AIDS that don't do drugs or suffer from malnutrition?

Oddly, that doesn't seem to be the type of evidence that refuted the hypothesis....but it is definitely something to consider.

(lol to show good-sidedness)

Actual refutations focus on, for example, a counter-argument in terms of Duesberg's use of an AIDS epidemic in Thailand....http://www.sciencemag.org...

And to be honest, the evidence against it is convincing, but since this is a debate site, I'd like to see some arguments supporting the hypothesis...hehe...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 3:59:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I still don't understand what is meant by "chemical epidemic" so I can't formulate too strong of a counter.

Does it mean that rather than having a living virus, the symptoms are caused by just a chemical issue in the body?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 4:08:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 3:59:41 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I still don't understand what is meant by "chemical epidemic" so I can't formulate too strong of a counter.

Does it mean that rather than having a living virus, the symptoms are caused by just a chemical issue in the body?

Hmmm....I suppose it means that the AIDS epidemic is the result of using chemicals--drugs, antiviral drugs, and even "lifestyle" judging from his description of the chemical AIDS hypothesis (389) and other means, "non-contagious risk factors such as immunosuppressive proteins associated with transfusions of blood clotting factors"

In fact, Duesberg himself probably proposed the cause as "prenatal consumption
of recreational and anti-HIV drugs by unborn babies together with their pregnant mothers"....so perhaps chemical=consumption of drugs? (392)

Though I fail to see how AIDS would spread if it is caused by such a method....

Source: http://www.virusmyth.com...
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 4:13:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 4:08:15 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 12/1/2011 3:59:41 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I still don't understand what is meant by "chemical epidemic" so I can't formulate too strong of a counter.

Does it mean that rather than having a living virus, the symptoms are caused by just a chemical issue in the body?

Hmmm....I suppose it means that the AIDS epidemic is the result of using chemicals--drugs, antiviral drugs, and even "lifestyle" judging from his description of the chemical AIDS hypothesis (389) and other means, "non-contagious risk factors such as immunosuppressive proteins associated with transfusions of blood clotting factors"

In fact, Duesberg himself probably proposed the cause as "prenatal consumption
of recreational and anti-HIV drugs by unborn babies together with their pregnant mothers"....so perhaps chemical=consumption of drugs? (392)

Though I fail to see how AIDS would spread if it is caused by such a method....

Source: http://www.virusmyth.com...

Exactly, it also doesn't really have any kind of adequate explination as to why or how this started (or perhaps he mentioned that in a part that hasn't been quoted). Drugs have been consumed for a very very very long time in the world, and anti-AIDS drugs were not used before AIDS.

Though, in reality, this would be extremely easy to prove/dis-prove, though it would also be extremely un-ethical by most medical standards (pesky standards, House would do it).

Get a hot women with AIDS, and have a bunch of men have a lot of sex with her and moniter them that they are not engaging in any of the activities that would give them AIDS by Duesberg's theory. If they get AIDS, then we know it is sexually transmitted.

Though it is not likely that you'll get a lot of volunteers to do that.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 4:19:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 4:13:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2011 4:08:15 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 12/1/2011 3:59:41 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I still don't understand what is meant by "chemical epidemic" so I can't formulate too strong of a counter.

Does it mean that rather than having a living virus, the symptoms are caused by just a chemical issue in the body?

Hmmm....I suppose it means that the AIDS epidemic is the result of using chemicals--drugs, antiviral drugs, and even "lifestyle" judging from his description of the chemical AIDS hypothesis (389) and other means, "non-contagious risk factors such as immunosuppressive proteins associated with transfusions of blood clotting factors"

In fact, Duesberg himself probably proposed the cause as "prenatal consumption
of recreational and anti-HIV drugs by unborn babies together with their pregnant mothers"....so perhaps chemical=consumption of drugs? (392)

Though I fail to see how AIDS would spread if it is caused by such a method....

Source: http://www.virusmyth.com...

Exactly, it also doesn't really have any kind of adequate explination as to why or how this started (or perhaps he mentioned that in a part that hasn't been quoted). Drugs have been consumed for a very very very long time in the world, and anti-AIDS drugs were not used before AIDS.

Though, in reality, this would be extremely easy to prove/dis-prove, though it would also be extremely un-ethical by most medical standards (pesky standards, House would do it).

Get a hot women with AIDS, and have a bunch of men have a lot of sex with her and moniter them that they are not engaging in any of the activities that would give them AIDS by Duesberg's theory. If they get AIDS, then we know it is sexually transmitted.

Though it is not likely that you'll get a lot of volunteers to do that.

Actually, he also stated that "Distinct chemical pathogens cause distinct AIDS-defining diseases. Since chemicals are not self-replicating,
like viruses, pathogenicity is dose- and thus also timedependent
(Duesberg and Rasnick 1998). Take for example the average 20 years of smoking to cause cancer (figure 3b), (Cairns 1978)."

So.....AIDs-defining? Distinct diseases that congregate to form what is now known as AIDS?

Also note that he tries to make several parallels with malnutrition....and so on....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 4:24:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 4:19:49 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 12/1/2011 4:13:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/1/2011 4:08:15 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 12/1/2011 3:59:41 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
I still don't understand what is meant by "chemical epidemic" so I can't formulate too strong of a counter.

Does it mean that rather than having a living virus, the symptoms are caused by just a chemical issue in the body?

Hmmm....I suppose it means that the AIDS epidemic is the result of using chemicals--drugs, antiviral drugs, and even "lifestyle" judging from his description of the chemical AIDS hypothesis (389) and other means, "non-contagious risk factors such as immunosuppressive proteins associated with transfusions of blood clotting factors"

In fact, Duesberg himself probably proposed the cause as "prenatal consumption
of recreational and anti-HIV drugs by unborn babies together with their pregnant mothers"....so perhaps chemical=consumption of drugs? (392)

Though I fail to see how AIDS would spread if it is caused by such a method....

Source: http://www.virusmyth.com...

Exactly, it also doesn't really have any kind of adequate explination as to why or how this started (or perhaps he mentioned that in a part that hasn't been quoted). Drugs have been consumed for a very very very long time in the world, and anti-AIDS drugs were not used before AIDS.

Though, in reality, this would be extremely easy to prove/dis-prove, though it would also be extremely un-ethical by most medical standards (pesky standards, House would do it).

Get a hot women with AIDS, and have a bunch of men have a lot of sex with her and moniter them that they are not engaging in any of the activities that would give them AIDS by Duesberg's theory. If they get AIDS, then we know it is sexually transmitted.

Though it is not likely that you'll get a lot of volunteers to do that.

Actually, he also stated that "Distinct chemical pathogens cause distinct AIDS-defining diseases. Since chemicals are not self-replicating,
like viruses, pathogenicity is dose- and thus also timedependent
(Duesberg and Rasnick 1998). Take for example the average 20 years of smoking to cause cancer (figure 3b), (Cairns 1978)."

So.....AIDs-defining? Distinct diseases that congregate to form what is now known as AIDS?

Also note that he tries to make several parallels with malnutrition....and so on....

Confluence of drugs=>Produce AIDS-defining diseases=>Chemical AIDS hypothesis/Duesberg Hypothesis?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
headphonegut
Posts: 4,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 5:06:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 3:33:01 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
This is a thread that was actually inspired by a class discussion with my chemistry teacher, and holds the purpose of AIDS denialism--and specifically the Duesberg hypothesis...

The Duesberg Hypothesis, according to Duesberg's own article, argues that the HIV virus is "collection of chemical epidemics, caused by recreational drugs, anti-HIV drugs, and malnutrition." Duesberg's article also claims that AIDSis not contagious or immunogenic, treatable by vaccines or antiviral drugs, and that HIV is actually a passenger virus. In addition, it "explains why AIDS epidemics strike non-randomly if caused by drugs and randomly if caused by malnutrition, why they manifest in drug-and malnutrition specific diseases...." and so forth. [1] (http://www.springerlink.com...)

Responses? Is this theory valid? Note that I do not necessarily agree with this theory but would like to see arguments for and against this hypothesis..........

his claim "chemical epidemics" I think is referring to treatment that does not cure the virus so you have a plethora of drugs treating someone, but someone with a different strain of virus might have a different treatment. Then when two people do the nasty wala a different strain "is born." So there is all these drugs at different doses and different drugs treating one disease. [I think]
crying to soldiers coming home to their dogs why do I torment myself with these videos?
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 5:09:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 5:06:59 PM, headphonegut wrote:
At 12/1/2011 3:33:01 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
This is a thread that was actually inspired by a class discussion with my chemistry teacher, and holds the purpose of AIDS denialism--and specifically the Duesberg hypothesis...

The Duesberg Hypothesis, according to Duesberg's own article, argues that the HIV virus is "collection of chemical epidemics, caused by recreational drugs, anti-HIV drugs, and malnutrition." Duesberg's article also claims that AIDSis not contagious or immunogenic, treatable by vaccines or antiviral drugs, and that HIV is actually a passenger virus. In addition, it "explains why AIDS epidemics strike non-randomly if caused by drugs and randomly if caused by malnutrition, why they manifest in drug-and malnutrition specific diseases...." and so forth. [1] (http://www.springerlink.com...)

Responses? Is this theory valid? Note that I do not necessarily agree with this theory but would like to see arguments for and against this hypothesis..........

his claim "chemical epidemics" I think is referring to treatment that does not cure the virus so you have a plethora of drugs treating someone, but someone with a different strain of virus might have a different treatment. Then when two people do the nasty wala a different strain "is born." So there is all these drugs at different doses and different drugs treating one disease. [I think]

Hmmm...interesting. I'll have to look up what he is writing, though I'll keep ^^^in mind.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Willoweed
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 7:57:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, however AIDS which essentially means you have no immune system can also be caused by other things such as chemotherapy or another immune diseases.
Any one who argues that HIV doesn't cause AIDS is incorrect and stupid.
However there are note HIV drugs that can postpone the development of AIDS for a long time in fact they do not really know how long HIV drugs can prevent AIDS. Recent new developments are very positive on they have actually found several cures but they haven't found a way to make develop those cures into drugs that everyone can take, they even have vaccines that can severely limit your chances of catching HIV.
Also if you are ever exposed to HIV you should seek medical treatment immediately they have drugs that prevent the catching of HIV e after you've been exposed
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2011 8:27:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 7:57:02 PM, Willoweed wrote:
AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, however AIDS which essentially means you have no immune system can also be caused by other things such as chemotherapy or another immune diseases.
Any one who argues that HIV doesn't cause AIDS is incorrect and stupid.
I guess that includes my chemistry teacher....lol.
However there are note HIV drugs that can postpone the development of AIDS for a long time in fact they do not really know how long HIV drugs can prevent AIDS. Recent new developments are very positive on they have actually found several cures but they haven't found a way to make develop those cures into drugs that everyone can take, they even have vaccines that can severely limit your chances of catching HIV.
Also if you are ever exposed to HIV you should seek medical treatment immediately they have drugs that prevent the catching of HIV e after you've been exposed
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 7:44:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 3:33:01 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
This is a thread that was actually inspired by a class discussion with my chemistry teacher, and holds the purpose of AIDS denialism--and specifically the Duesberg hypothesis...

The Duesberg Hypothesis, according to Duesberg's own article, argues that the HIV virus is "collection of chemical epidemics, caused by recreational drugs, anti-HIV drugs, and malnutrition." Duesberg's article also claims that AIDSis not contagious or immunogenic, treatable by vaccines or antiviral drugs, and that HIV is actually a passenger virus. In addition, it "explains why AIDS epidemics strike non-randomly if caused by drugs and randomly if caused by malnutrition, why they manifest in drug-and malnutrition specific diseases...." and so forth. [1] (http://www.springerlink.com...)

Responses? Is this theory valid? Note that I do not necessarily agree with this theory but would like to see arguments for and against this hypothesis..........

No. It's not a valid theory because it's not a theory. It is, as you said, a hypothesis.

Definition of words for the win!
Chthonian
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 7:50:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/1/2011 3:47:42 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 12/1/2011 3:46:41 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 12/1/2011 3:38:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
What is a "chemical epidemic"? Logically, if AIDS was caused by drug use or malnutrition, then it would go away when the drugs and malnutrition went away. Also, if those were the causes of it, then why would we see people getting AIDS that don't do drugs or suffer from malnutrition?

Oddly, that doesn't seem to be the type of evidence that refuted the hypothesis....but it is definitely something to consider.

(lol to show good-sidedness)

Actual refutations focus on, for example, a counter-argument in terms of Duesberg's use of an AIDS epidemic in Thailand....http://www.sciencemag.org...

And to be honest, the evidence against it is convincing, but since this is a debate site, I'd like to see some arguments supporting the hypothesis...hehe...

I think what Duesberg and his colleagues are doing here is attacking the cause and effect relationship of the HIV hypothesis; demonstrating that the HIV virus is necessary but not sufficient to cause the disease state. They then provide a statistical correlation of drug use and malnutrition with the pathological condition to backup their hypothesis.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 9:08:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 7:44:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/1/2011 3:33:01 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
This is a thread that was actually inspired by a class discussion with my chemistry teacher, and holds the purpose of AIDS denialism--and specifically the Duesberg hypothesis...

The Duesberg Hypothesis, according to Duesberg's own article, argues that the HIV virus is "collection of chemical epidemics, caused by recreational drugs, anti-HIV drugs, and malnutrition." Duesberg's article also claims that AIDSis not contagious or immunogenic, treatable by vaccines or antiviral drugs, and that HIV is actually a passenger virus. In addition, it "explains why AIDS epidemics strike non-randomly if caused by drugs and randomly if caused by malnutrition, why they manifest in drug-and malnutrition specific diseases...." and so forth. [1] (http://www.springerlink.com...)

Responses? Is this theory valid? Note that I do not necessarily agree with this theory but would like to see arguments for and against this hypothesis..........

No. It's not a valid theory because it's not a theory. It is, as you said, a hypothesis.

Definition of words for the win!

Ok, to be serious. It's a hypothesis which, by definition is not supported by copious amounts of evidence. It hasn't gone through the rigorous testing scientific theories have undergone in order to be called theories. Until it does so, I won't consider it valid.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 10:16:03 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 9:08:52 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/2/2011 7:44:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/1/2011 3:33:01 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
This is a thread that was actually inspired by a class discussion with my chemistry teacher, and holds the purpose of AIDS denialism--and specifically the Duesberg hypothesis...

The Duesberg Hypothesis, according to Duesberg's own article, argues that the HIV virus is "collection of chemical epidemics, caused by recreational drugs, anti-HIV drugs, and malnutrition." Duesberg's article also claims that AIDSis not contagious or immunogenic, treatable by vaccines or antiviral drugs, and that HIV is actually a passenger virus. In addition, it "explains why AIDS epidemics strike non-randomly if caused by drugs and randomly if caused by malnutrition, why they manifest in drug-and malnutrition specific diseases...." and so forth. [1] (http://www.springerlink.com...)

Responses? Is this theory valid? Note that I do not necessarily agree with this theory but would like to see arguments for and against this hypothesis..........

No. It's not a valid theory because it's not a theory. It is, as you said, a hypothesis.

Definition of words for the win!

Ok, to be serious. It's a hypothesis which, by definition is not supported by copious amounts of evidence. It hasn't gone through the rigorous testing scientific theories have undergone in order to be called theories. Until it does so, I won't consider it valid.

According to the information on that site, that's completely false.

Moreover, it isn't the only theory that suggests HIV is man-made. According this http://www.originofaids.com... site:

"The most highly respected scientists and academicians debated the possibility that HIV-1, the most widespread and deadly human AIDS virus, evolved from accidental vaccine contaminations and subsequent transmissions to mostly African villagers."

"The hepatitis B vaccine...was produced in chimpanzees during pilot testing conducted in New York City, among gay men, and Central African villagers between 1972 and 1974."

Add to this, interesting little facts from here http://www.wired.com... like this:

"some people are resistant -- and in some cases virtually immune -- to the AIDS virus."

and

"The most powerful form of resistance, caused by a genetic defect, is limited to people with European or Central Asian heritage."

...you begin to realize that the origin of HIV is likely rooted in colonialism and biochemical warfare.

Its a sad world, kids.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 10:32:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 10:16:03 AM, Ren wrote:
At 12/2/2011 9:08:52 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/2/2011 7:44:57 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/1/2011 3:33:01 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
This is a thread that was actually inspired by a class discussion with my chemistry teacher, and holds the purpose of AIDS denialism--and specifically the Duesberg hypothesis...

The Duesberg Hypothesis, according to Duesberg's own article, argues that the HIV virus is "collection of chemical epidemics, caused by recreational drugs, anti-HIV drugs, and malnutrition." Duesberg's article also claims that AIDSis not contagious or immunogenic, treatable by vaccines or antiviral drugs, and that HIV is actually a passenger virus. In addition, it "explains why AIDS epidemics strike non-randomly if caused by drugs and randomly if caused by malnutrition, why they manifest in drug-and malnutrition specific diseases...." and so forth. [1] (http://www.springerlink.com...)

Responses? Is this theory valid? Note that I do not necessarily agree with this theory but would like to see arguments for and against this hypothesis..........

No. It's not a valid theory because it's not a theory. It is, as you said, a hypothesis.

Definition of words for the win!

Ok, to be serious. It's a hypothesis which, by definition is not supported by copious amounts of evidence. It hasn't gone through the rigorous testing scientific theories have undergone in order to be called theories. Until it does so, I won't consider it valid.

According to the information on that site, that's completely false.

Moreover, it isn't the only theory that suggests HIV is man-made. According this http://www.originofaids.com... site:

"The most highly respected scientists and academicians debated the possibility that HIV-1, the most widespread and deadly human AIDS virus, evolved from accidental vaccine contaminations and subsequent transmissions to mostly African villagers."

"The hepatitis B vaccine...was produced in chimpanzees during pilot testing conducted in New York City, among gay men, and Central African villagers between 1972 and 1974."

Add to this, interesting little facts from here http://www.wired.com... like this:

"some people are resistant -- and in some cases virtually immune -- to the AIDS virus."

and

"The most powerful form of resistance, caused by a genetic defect, is limited to people with European or Central Asian heritage."

...you begin to realize that the origin of HIV is likely rooted in colonialism and biochemical warfare.

Its a sad world, kids.

If it's false that it's a hypothesis, then the name is misleading. I was trying to be snarky. What evs.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2011 12:44:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/2/2011 10:32:48 AM, drafterman wrote:
If it's false that it's a hypothesis, then the name is misleading. I was trying to be snarky. What evs.

Well, gee, I mean't no offense. I was simply stating a fact--according to the website, pretty extensive and rigorous research was applied to this premise, and the scientist himself, who seems like a pretty authoritative source given his past achievements and honors, is rather convinced of the idea. Really, it appears as though the lack of credence given to that specific idea is mostly political, according to that site.

On the other hand, one must acknowledge that it's only one source. This is why I presented two more in an effort to provide more substantiation to what my personal theory is (in the general, rather than in the technical sense), based on evidence that the information the OP presented reinforces.