quote:

---

Originally posted by montygram
No conpiracy required. There is little incentive to question existing
dogma, even if it was not properly established in the first place
(using controlled, double-blinded experiments, for example).

There are many scientific models that coexist, yet one must be correct,
or at least more accurate, than the other. Those who don't examine the
points made by the Perth Group, for example, are not doing science,
which requires that all scientific challenges be taken seriously. A
hypothesis is supposed to be scrutinized; otherwise, we would still
believe in a flat earth.

As an example of a what is going on all the time (though the public is
not aware of it), the following report is from TODAY. There are
similar examples all over the place. Go to www.gilbertling.org and
read about how he has tried to get funding for more experiments to
clarify his A-I hypothesis, but because a bureaucrat does not like him,
the experiments are not getting done.

Wake up and smell the coffee, people!

9/24/2005
"Sugar Helps Control Cell Division"

"...The dogma for decades has been that the cycle of cell division is
controlled by the appearance and disappearance of certain proteins
called cyclins, but experiments have shown that you can knock out any
of these and still get perfectly normal cell division..."

Source: www.sciencedaly.com


The other intesting thing is that there really is no "HIV/AIDS
hypothesis," because it varies from one period of time to another and
from one place to another. Let's start with exactly what the
hypothesis is, otherwise, there can be no scientific debate. Most
people in the USA (including doctors) think that after infection, a
person will live several years, perhaps a decade or so, then die of
"immune system failure," yet there is the following:

"Less than a quarter of HIV-positive men with haemophilia in the United
Kingdom are still alive 20-25 years after infection with HIV,"
So over 20% of people who are already very ill people can live over 25
years or so with HIV.

And then: "... liver disease has become the major cause of death
amongst HIV-positive men with haemophilia."

This is not an "AIDS defining illness," nor has anyone suggested it is.

How is this possible? What is the hypothesis, exactly?

Source: Sabin C et al. Twenty five years of HIV in haemophilic men in
Britain: an observational study. BMJ, September 16th, 2005 (online
edition).

I have accepted my version of the Duesberg challenge, but nobody wants
to take me up on it, so they don't even believe in their own nonsense.

Then I asked, hypothetically, if someone did take me up on the
challenge, what would you inject me with? I will only allow "pure
virus" and an inert susbstance in which to suspend the virus. How are
you going to obtain this virus, since it was never isolated? How will
you isolate it, exactly? Explain it. Only fragments, either of the
wrong size and right shape (according to the dogma, anyway) or of the
correct size and wrong shape, have ever been found, and they are most
likely from humans cells that destroyed in the massive oxidative stress
that actually does cause most of what is called "AIDS" these days (in
the USA, at least).

No conspiracy, just stupidity, fear of reprisals and loss of grants,
greed, etc. - all the things that make us human.

So take me up on the Duesberg challenge, or we could agreee upon a Hep
C challenge. How, exactly, are you going to isolate this "Hep C
virus?" If you beleive in a virus, isolate it and let's talk about
doing a experiment that will determine who is correct. The problem, of
course, is that you cannot isolate what is not present.

Even true believers have to admit the nonsense, though they do it in a
quiet way:

"...the virus has not been grown in tissue culture. Thus, basic studies
of the virus are not possible and studies are limited to gene
sequencing and clinical studies. and clinical studies..."

Source: http://www.hepnet.com/hkn/c11.html

Do you people understand the implications of this? Why can't they grow
it? There is no reason, except that it does not exist!

They say: " The virus for hepatitis C was cloned in 1989," but what
does this mean, exactly? Again, fragments were found that most likely
were part of human cells that underwent tremendous stress and died off.
These fragments were cloned and said to be "Hep C." Why? So that a
big company could make big money. Does that surprise you? Is it the
first example in human history of a company claiming something that is
not likely true in order to make huge profits? Do you think everyone
in the company understand exactly what is going on at the molecular
level? Let's be real now! You are the ones with the naive view of
humanity.

The "studies" that allegedly support the virus claim are circular logic
- they assume a virus. In science, you cannot assume what you seek to
demonstrate. That is what religious debate is often like, for example,
assuming the Bible is the word of God, when there is no way to know
that scientifically. So of course the studies will appear to support
the virus idea. Do they compare this claim to an oxidative stress
hypothesis? Find me a citation that answers that question.

I have confidence that I could "cure" "Hep C" in an animal model, but
these clowns admit that they have not been able to create one for "Hep
C," which is a damning statement by itself. In people, we are dealing
with "patients" who have done tremendous damage to themselve, and who
usually don't listen to any authorities, let alone those who have no
power to enforce their demands (such as doctors), which is why I offer
myself up to demonstrate that this is all nonsense. However, because
there is no virus, there is no way for anyone to take me up on my
offer, even if they were naive enough to do so.

---