A Bigger Threat Even Than The Debt Crisis?

[mirage]

Why thankyou! And MMMGW is'nt media-driven? Try the climate debate daily for other links.

Thank you for the general reference to a website that in turn references journalists that in turn references scientists. If you had paid attention you would have noticed that I said the cooling panic was primarily a media driven event without much scientific backing.

MMGW is a huge media event, of course. What does that say about the scientific backing? Nothing much.

Edited December 24, 2008 by mirage

[bogbrush]

Juist as with terrorism, as the old problems that required a huge state and all it's powers went away, more new problems arose to take it's place.

MMGW just so happens to need a huge, great big ****** off government to fix.

Fancy that.

It's just another set of excuses for the boot on your neck. That's all it is.

I want to have another argument with you, but on this subject there is not an iota of difference in our opinion.

[Minos]

Can you summarise what point you are making about fake AIDS?

I'm no expert on this, but I believe there is no such things as AIDS. People with common diseases are classed as AIDS patients because at some point the HIV was detected in their blood. They will die from the same diseases that you or I could.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Minos

[Guest theboltonfury]

I'm no expert on this, but I believe there is no such things as AIDS. People with common diseases are classed as AIDS patients because at some point the HIV was detected in their blood. They will die from the same diseases that you or I could.

That's pretty much my understanding too. It's the HIV virus that allows these ailments to kill you due to a lack of immune system.

Maybe programs like Horizon have conditioned me

[The Ponz]

There are some interesting parallels between HPI/HPC and the the Man Made Global Warming thing

You got one group of people looking at graphs of recent upward trending data, extrapolating that trend way, way up and coming up with explanations as to why this time it's different and why the upward trend is going to continue for the foreseeable future. They currently have the majority of politicians and the media on their side

On the other side you've got people arguing that global mean temperature, like house prices, is cyclic, that there are signs a turning point has been reached and a downturn could well be on the cards

The question I always ask people when the subject of MMGW comes up, whether they are pro or anti, is what data would it take for you to change your point of view, or is your position just a matter of faith and more or less set in stone?

Personally, I'm sceptical about the significance of the human component in global climate change. That's, I believe, a reasoned and well researched opinion and I have set the boundaries at which I will change that point of view. The spectacle of watching people accuse each other of being retards or invoking the consensus of vested interests, for or against, ain't going to swing it for me

[Nickolarge]

And your evidence for this is......

Even if you are a fully paid up member of the 'man made' club and don't think that the change from 'Global Warming' to 'Climate Change' was just a cynical PR move, you have to accept that most of the measures enacted by governments to fight the problem are nothing more than cash raising scams.

Cancer exists but that does not make the guy selling a miracle cure any less of a conman.

[salamander]

I'm no expert on this, but I believe there is no such things as AIDS. People with common diseases are classed as AIDS patients because at some point the HIV was detected in their blood. They will die from the same diseases that you or I could.

People die from infections and cancers particularly as they age. The immune system winds down in old age and cancers become much more likely. This much is true. However, when millions of people below the age of 40 die from illnesses that normally affect people in their sixties and upwards, and they happen to harbor a virus which in addition to its destructive effect on the immune system has mutagenic effects which make certain types of lymphoma far more common in HIV positive people, then it's probably reasonable to give the resulting syndrome a name and try to figure out how to stop it from killing so many people at such a young age.

[King Stromba]

Can you summarise what point you are making about fake AIDS?

There is nothing fake about AIDS, I just happen to think it is caused by lifestyle, not by a virus. The original name for AIDS was GRID, and it was common medical opinion that GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) was caused by certain lifestyle habits, one being the heavy use of reacreational drugs. Drugs that have been shown many times to lower immune status of those that use them.

But lifestyle diseases are not profitable. Viruses are. Because we can waste billions looking for a causative virus that doesnt exist.

Follow the money.

Edited December 24, 2008 by King Stromba

[mirage]

I'm no expert on this, but I believe there is no such things as AIDS. People with common diseases are classed as AIDS patients because at some point the HIV was detected in their blood. They will die from the same diseases that you or I could.

You are indeed no expert. You are not even a moderately-well educated lay person, are you?

AIDS is a syndrome characterised by a group of signs and symptoms and the occurrence of "opportunistic" diseases. This latter means getting diseases such as infections from organisms that the immune system of a healthy person is more than capable of fighting off. So yeast fungus growing all through your lungs. Unusual types of diarrhoea. Florid occurence of rare cancers that were previously only seen in the likes of old Ashkenazy Jews. That kind of thing.

And yes, they can also get disease that "you or I" might get, often much more severely, though these are not characteristic of AIDS.

In addition there are symptoms and pathological damage identifiable in AIDS as a likely direct effect of HIV infection. An example is HIV dementia.

HIV infected people are not classed as "AIDS patients" unless they fulfil certain criteria of the AIDS syndrome. The aim is to prevent them developing significant immune deficiency by treating the virus. (You know, the one that is found exactly in these patients and where the levels correlate very well with clinical symptoms.). And lo and behold if you keep the virus counts down then the corollaries of HIV infection can be largely avoided.

Edited December 24, 2008 by mirage

[Nickolarge]

What disappoints me about these sorts of threads is the way it discredits people whose opinions I previously respected. Still, I guess it helps me filter out the worthy from the worthless. In fact, perhaps threads like this should be encouraged.

So you are saying that because someone disagrees with you on one subject that makes them worthless.

What places your view of the subject on such a high plateau, where no contrary view can have any merit at all?

[Minos]

People die from infections and cancers particularly as they age. The immune system winds down in old age and cancers become much more likely. This much is true. However, when millions of people below the age of 40 die from illnesses that normally affect people in their sixties and upwards, and they happen to harbor a virus which in addition to its destructive effect on the immune system has mutagenic effects which make certain types of lymphoma far more common in HIV positive people, then it's probably reasonable to give the resulting syndrome a name and try to figure out how to stop it from killing so many people at such a young age.

I'm not arguing with you here, but how many "millions" of people under 40 have died of "older" diseases and HIV has been detected?

[salamander]

There is nothing fake about AIDS, I just happen to think it is caused by lifestyle, not by a virus. The original name for AIDS was GRID, and it was common medical opinion that GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) was caused by certain lifestyle habits, one being the heavy use of reacreational drugs. Drugs that have been shown many times to lower immune status of those that use them.

But lifestyle diseases are not profitable. Viruses are. Because we can waste billions looking for a causative virus that doesnt exist.

Follow the money.

If you're so sure about this, why don't you run a simple experiment. Find someone who is HIV+ and inject some of their blood into yourself. If you are right you have nothing to fear.

[Minos]

If you're so sure about this, why don't you run a simple experiment. Find someone who is HIV+ and inject some of their blood into yourself. If you are right you have nothing to fear.

Hasn't a doctor who doubts HIV causes death already tried this and lived to tell the tale?

[mirage]

There is nothing fake about AIDS, I just happen to think it is caused by lifestyle, not by a virus. The original name for AIDS was GRID, and it was common medical opinion that GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) was caused by certain lifestyle habits, one being the heavy use of reacreational drugs. Drugs that have been shown many times to lower immune status of those that use them.

But lifestyle diseases are not profitable. Viruses are. Because we can waste billions looking for a causative virus that doesnt exist.

Follow the money.

Yep. Because alcohol is profitable they tell you it can get you drunk. I happen to think it isn't alcohol, it's the arm exercise of lifting the pint glass because of {insert totally pointless non-sequitur here}.

Follow the money.

(Interesting, isn't it how total morons lack insight into their condition, and not only form opinions about subjects they are profoundly ignorant of, but actually think they are worth sharing?)

[The Ponz]

If you're so sure about this, why don't you run a simple experiment. Find someone who is HIV+ and inject some of their blood into yourself. If you are right you have nothing to fear.

One question I haven't seen a clear answer to is how is it domestically contracted AIDS infections in the UK haven't risen in the same way that other STDs have in recent years?

Where's the epidemic we were warned about 20 years ago?

It's not as if Brits have become super-careful about sexual health over that time

[King Stromba]

If you're so sure about this, why don't you run a simple experiment. Find someone who is HIV+ and inject some of their blood into yourself. If you are right you have nothing to fear.

Do you actually know what the 'HIV test' measures in a patient's blood samples? Do you know what tests they do?

[mirage]

Hasn't a doctor who doubts HIV causes death already tried this and lived to tell the tale?

Oh yes. I'm sure you are just about to point us to the evidence. The paper of this suicidal doctor who performed his experiment under fully controlled conditions with lots of observers present.

It's absolutely amazing how bad people's thinking can be. One attractive conspiracy meme and they so totally underweight absolute mountain of actual experiment and clinical practice that they don't even bother finding out what the evidence is!

And "hasn't some doctor" level evidence counts as debate!

I'm enjoying this. Can we talk about how Darwinism is a materialist conspiracy and how increasing evidence like "some doctor" has shown it is all wrong and how this is being suppressed by the liberal elite establishement even though I personally have never actually understood a word of the evidence either way. I've just read a couple of scientifically-illiterate polemics that appeal to my particular biases. Can we? can we?

Edited December 24, 2008 by mirage

[Financial Hack]

This one seems to have the Worlds "leaders" in just as tight a grip as the false economy. The idealogically driven Carbon agenda has the potential to set back the Global economy far more even that the current affair, yet it appears that any sense of scepticism or rationale is drowned under the clamour. At least you were allowed to have a contrary view to the phantom boom but on carbon you either tow the line or risk the vitriol of the media.

If you are looking for uncritical media coverage, forget the "downturn", this is in a class of its own.

Unless these nutters are challenged they will consign the 3rd World to further decades of misery and send our economies off on a wild goose chase, causing even greater long term problems due to spiralling energy costs and shortages. In the words of Jim Royle, wind power, my @rse.

I'm all for new fuel sources - my pet favourite is tidal (not wave) power as it is predictable, vast and powered by the moon - because anything that reduces international dependances is good for the cause of peace, harmony and a fair chance for the 3rd World, but unless this thing is got onto sound factual and economic footings soon it'll pull the World even further down.

Whether global warming is real and caused by humans or not (and there is no definitive proof either way), surely it's a good idea to wean ourselves off fossil fuels and stop polluting the Earth.

Fossil fuels won't last forever, and various types of pollution cause immense damage to the natural world, which we ultimately rely on. I see your point about economics, but it may not become economically viable until the point at which fossil fuels are in such short supply that Governments won't let them be wasted on piffling civilian needs. It might not make the big profits that fossil fuels make, but it can still work and any company which gets the infrastructure in place now will reap huge rewards in the future. That's one of the problems with the short-termism of modern capitalism, which also caused the housing boom, the 'credit crunch' and all the associated problems.

Personally I agree with David Attenborough's critique that there are simply too many of us, and we're putting too much strain on the Earth. I don't think it's likely we will destroy life on Earth (though we may severely damage a lot of it), but we will eventually get to the point where the Earth cannot sustain us any longer, and we will be wiped out.

Whether you agree with the 'green' agenda or not, it's only logical to put as much effort as we can into maintaining our world and reducing our population humanely.

[King Stromba]

One question I haven't seen a clear answer to is how is it domestically contracted AIDS infections in the UK haven't risen in the same way that other STDs have in recent years?

Where's the epidemic we were warned about 20 years ago?

It's not as if Brits have become super-careful about sexual health over that time

This is the question everyone should be asking, and the one that started my interest in the subject. If, as we are told, HIV is a sexually transmitted disease that can affect anyone, why are over 90% of all AIDS cases gays and IV drug users?

If it was a normal sexually transmitted disease, the women to men slipt would be 50 / 50 (or close) and the numbers would be rising (which they are not, and never have done).

Women just dont get AIDS unless they take IV drugs. A study amongth prostitutes found a ZERO percent infection rate with HIV.

Edited December 24, 2008 by King Stromba

[Financial Hack]

There is nothing fake about AIDS, I just happen to think it is caused by lifestyle, not by a virus. The original name for AIDS was GRID, and it was common medical opinion that GRID (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) was caused by certain lifestyle habits, one being the heavy use of reacreational drugs. Drugs that have been shown many times to lower immune status of those that use them.

But lifestyle diseases are not profitable. Viruses are. Because we can waste billions looking for a causative virus that doesnt exist.

Follow the money.

I'm nominating this for Dumbest Post of All Time.

[salamander]

Do you actually know what the 'HIV test' measures in a patient's blood samples? Do you know what tests they do?

I know of two. There's the antibody test for measuring the body's immune response to HIV infection and the viral load test which uses a polymerase chain reaction to amplify and measure the amount of genetic materal from HIV that is found in the bloodstream. Did I miss any ?

[King Stromba]

I know of two. There's the antibody test for measuring the body's immune response to HIV infection and the viral load test which uses a polymerase chain reaction to amplify and measure the amount of genetic materal from HIV that is found in the bloodstream. Did I miss any ?

So shall we talk about western blotting to start?

[mirage]

I'm not arguing with you here, but how many "millions" of people under 40 have died of "older" diseases and HIV has been detected?

It's not older diseases.

It is a very specific pattern of opportunitic infections that only occur only when your immune system is trashed, particularly when the damage is to your CD4 +ve helper T cells. Even then the pattern of the AIDS complex is unique.

It is not people getting "older infections". Some older people with poor immune systems can get a few of these diseases, but they do not, unless infected with HIV, develop the very specific pattern of infections, cancers and other signs and symptoms that is AIDS.

HIV is as well established the infective agent for AIDS as mycobacterium is for TB. It fulfils Koch's postulates.

Here is an article from 2000 before a lot of the molecular stuff was worked out.

Since then, guess what, molecular mechanisms have been found further solidifying and enriching the links between HIV with the disease. What are the chances?

Edited December 24, 2008 by mirage

[Nickolarge]

Actually I agree with the Global Warming bit. I studied Glaciology, Geography and a few other things at Uni. I am not convinced by the 'man made' aspect of climate change on a large scale. Small scale of course. Large scale - no.

We are pretty insignificant when it comes to climate change. The Earths climate changes constantly - with or without us.

That would be my position. We must have an effect on our climate but not to the extent that is claimed.

Why is no mention ever made of the actual heat that we give off. As population increases each human gives off some heat but also creates far more in other ways. Each running car engine gives off a large amount. Each heated house or workplace ditto. Every manufacturing plant or power station the same. Why does this not raise global temperatures in any significant way but the gases produced by these things does?

I also agree with the point about the current temperature levels. Who are we to say that today's temperatures are the correct ones and should be preserved at great cost?

[King Stromba]

I'm nominating this for Dumbest Post of All Time.

Dont be too hard on yourself, its not that bad.