Comments on: HIV Denier, Christine Maggiore, Dies.

By: sezwho

sezwho — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 22:11:23 +0000

If they thought the viruses were “similar” and that hep B vaccine offered cross protection they were singularly uninformed and profoundly ignorant. Even by the mid to late 80s enough was known about HIV to make such speculation utterly baseless.

By: HHC

HHC — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:20:28 +0000

Back in the early 1980s, I was team meetings at another state hospital where they discussed AIDS would be a future problem for policy-making. They decided to take no action because they felt the mentally retarded population would have less exposure to the virus.

By: HHC

HHC — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:42:32 +0000

sezwho : Two state hospital professionals stated this to me and others. Both were anxious for good reasons. I received this information from a male physician and a female nurse who did staff training. I remember the nurse stating that they were counting on the fact that both viruses had similar properties. The male physician wanted to protect his staff and felt he was battling HIV.

By: sezwho

sezwho — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:16:30 +0000

I received Hepatitis B immunizations in the early 1990s. I was told by state physicians and nurses that this was the best protection that we had against HIV. Is this still true?

I fear you may have misconstrued what someone said to you. I doubt that so many professionals could have told you something that was untrue.
What did they say?

By: sadunkal

sadunkal — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:10:03 +0000

Straw-mans and and ad hominems appear to be the rules of retroviral isolation… It’s depressing… I wish good luck to the human race.

By: HHC

HHC — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:05:22 +0000

I received Hepatitis B immunizations in the early 1990s. I was told by state physicians and nurses that this was the best protection that we had against HIV. Is this still true?

By: PaulG

PaulG — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:35:28 +0000

Chris – have just ordered the whole array of colours for a display in our staff room I shall call “Pseuds Corner”, in honour of a great UK publication – Private Eye…

http://www.compulink.co.uk/~stevemann/pseuds.htm

Sadunkal – I’m afraid I did indeed read Gaedes’ web site, I also did a bit of YouTube watching, also did a bit of ‘phoning around a couple of physicists of my acquaintance, to get a more expert opinion than that of a humble behavioural zoologist (of almost no note).

So far, this has been, almost the most pointless waste of time in my entire life, with the possible exception of my first girlfriend, but let’s not go there. But what the Hell, all this meant that I wasn’t marking 50 assignments on human and computer interaction.

The general consensus of my efforts?

The theories expressed on Gaedes’ web site are to modern scientific thought, what George W. Bush has been to the English language (American or UK).

Where are Gaedes’ peer-reviewed theories, published in credible journals for researchers worldwide to analyse his calculations? Where even is his systematic review of the literature he denigrates?

It’s very easy to stand on the sidelines and throw cheap shots. Quite another to put your ideas forward in a credible manner and have them reviewed by peers.

Of course, by “peer review” we usually mean the process by which an article is investigated by other experts in the field – usually thought of as equals.

In a search for equals, I suppose we could always give Gaedes’ stuff to a bunch of mental patients that have no idea of basic scientific methodology or even reality… waitagoddamnminute!!!! He did get it peer reviewed!!! Sadunkal read it!!!!

Damn, knew there was a flaw in that reasoning somewhere!

Anyway, we did manage to break the 300 posts barrier, even if we have all descended to taking cheap shots (and mine possibly the cheapest – for which you all have my apologies).

It’s late in the UK, I’m going to bed.

By: weing

weing — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:44:40 +0000

sadie,

The ancient Greeks philosophized about the nature of reality and speculated about definitions and were able to make progress but they did not do science as we know it and therefore could get only so far. Because of the scientific method and experimentation and not simple speculation we have been making progress in all the sciences. You will not find out more about the physical world without doing experiments.

By: Fifi

Fifi — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:20:17 +0000

sadukal – No, I’m just well versed on the history of AIDS and have seen your kind a million times – it was clear from the get-go that you’re an ideologue and interested in pseudoscience not science (as was so ably made clear by Chris again and again) and I see no point in participating in your theatrical ritual of pretend science – aka pseudoscience – that is one of your objectives here). I know, at the tender age of 22, you don’t have much life experience or any real world experience at all with AIDS and all this seems terribly new and radical to you. You probably even believe you’re “anti-authoritarian”, even though you espouse the most reactionary beliefs espoused and promoted by Fundamentalist religious authorities and the likes of George Bush (who, like you, spends his time trying to polish his turds).

Why would I email you or visit your blog and discuss it there when you’ve failed so spectacularly to make your case here in an open, uncensored forum? Do you have some sEKrIt knowledge? Or do you just want my email so you can sign me up for spam? That seem about your level of sophistication (ie. not very). You’re not even a particularly clever troll!

By: sadunkal

sadunkal — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:46:15 +0000

And Fifi,

“…(but then seemed to quickly take that “interest” off your list once I mentioned it here)…”

Again, what are you talking about? What list?