bishop
Member
That works in reverse too, right? For parapsychology?Science needs people who question all its discoveries, and they absolutely need to be listened to, and answered carefully, and that isn't what happens.
That works in reverse too, right? For parapsychology?Science needs people who question all its discoveries, and they absolutely need to be listened to, and answered carefully, and that isn't what happens.
You know what, delete my account, whatever this forum was meant to be, it's long gone, it should have been put down like a sick dog a long time ago. The fact that AIDS denial gets any airtime at all is a pretty good indication of this.
Precisely so! Parapsychologists point to evidence that mainstream science would rather forget about - evidence that something is radically wrong with the way science views consciousness.That works in reverse too, right? For parapsychology?
You know what, delete my account, whatever this forum was meant to be, it's long gone, it should have been put down like a sick dog a long time ago. The fact that AIDS denial gets any airtime at all is a pretty good indication of this.
Maybe you could wait for what I have to say about it before making such a dumbass call PJ.
You wouldn't have to wait if you took the time to read the thread.Oh, I didn't realize I was supposed to wait. Sorry, bishop. Won't happen again.
If anyone is convinced about HIV being the cause of AIDS, please show me a paper where:
1. Sample tissue that contained the HIV virus was taken from a patient with AIDS.
2. Where HIV virus from that sample was isolated and purified, and electronmicrographs taken to prove it.
3. Where the virus from that sample was also used to infect a susceptible uninfected host tissue sample: i.e. where "before" EM pictures showed no HIV was present, and "after" EM pictures showed HIV proliferation.
Even that wouldn't be definitive: it doesn't prove that HIV causes the actual symptoms of AIDS, many of which are known to be caused by pre-existing pathogens; but nonetheless, it would go some way towards assuaging my doubts.
Can anyone do that? If you can, please provide the reference.
HIV fulfills Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS.
That isn't a scientific paper - it is an editorial, if you like! ML is asking for an original research paper.
That isn't a scientific paper - it is an editorial, if you like! ML is asking for an original research paper.
David
If anyone is convinced about HIV being the cause of AIDS, please show me a paper where:
1. Sample tissue that contained the HIV virus was taken from a patient with AIDS.
2. Where HIV virus from that sample was isolated and purified, and electronmicrographs taken to prove it.
3. Where the virus from that sample was also used to infect a susceptible uninfected host tissue sample: i.e. where "before" EM pictures showed no HIV was present, and "after" EM pictures showed HIV proliferation.
Even that wouldn't be definitive: it doesn't prove that HIV causes the actual symptoms of AIDS, many of which are known to be caused by pre-existing pathogens; but nonetheless, it would go some way towards assuaging my doubts.
Can anyone do that? If you can, please provide the reference.
What an odd thing to say. That piece is (extraordinarily well) backed up by references to scientific papers throughout.That isn't a scientific paper - it is an editorial, if you like! ML is asking for an original research paper.
David
What an odd thing to say. That piece is (extraordinarily well) backed up by references to scientific papers throughout.
The "editorial" lays out how converging lines of evidence strongly suggest that HIV leads to AIDS. These are the points that need to be addressed by those who see a different causal factor.
No, converging lines of evidence don't matter. Someone needs to prove with a scientific paper that what what Dr. Eleni Papadopulos said in that interview from 1997 about the isolation and purification is wrong. That's the only thing.
The presence of cellular proteins outside and inside retroviruses can indicate the roles they play in viral biology. However, experiments examining retroviruses can be complicated by the contamination of even highly purified virion preparations with nonviral particles (either microvesicles or exosomes). Two useful methods have been developed that can remove contaminating particles from virus stocks to produce highly pure virus preparations. One approach, the subtilisin digestion procedure, enzymatically removes the proteins outside the virions. While this method is well suited for the analysis of the interior proteins in the virions, it removes the extracellular domains of the integral membrane proteins on the virion. To preserve the proteins on the exterior of the virion for biochemical studies, a CD45 immunoaffinity depletion procedure that removes vesicles by capture with antibody-linked microbeads is employed. These methods allow for the isolation of highly purified virion preparations that are suitable for a wide variety of experiments, including the biochemical characterization of cellular proteins both on and in HIV virions, examination of virion/cell interactions, and imaging of virions.
What an odd thing to say. That piece is (extraordinarily well) backed up by references to scientific papers throughout.
The "editorial" lays out how converging lines of evidence strongly suggest that HIV leads to AIDS. These are the points that need to be addressed by those who see a different causal factor.
Where's the denial? The argument is that HIV-AIDS dissidents' arguments ought to be taken seriously. You're confusing denial with healthy scepticism. I'm still waiting for a straight answer to my question about the provenance of the image posted here claiming to be a picture from 1985 of HIV-1. If you can point me to the paper, I'm perfectly prepared to accept it if it actually depicts HIV-1 and shows the virus was isolated and purified from infected tissue.