View Single Post
  #49  
Old 10-21-2009, 04:53 PM
Out of the Box Out of the Box is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 518
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax

Quote:
Originally Posted by commonsense View Post
I'd have to disagree Out of the Box. Although you have a point about peer reviewed journals, it doesn't change the fact that they are peer reviewed by highly educated scientists.
It doesn't change the facts that some scientists with controversial views like Peter Duesberg (known for his controversial theory on HIV and AIDS), Albert Hofmann (inventor of LSD and supporter of the legal use of LSD as medicine for the soul), Arthur Butz (Holocaust revisionist), Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist and critical expert on Jewish culture), J Philippe Rushton (psychologist specialised in intelligence and racial differences) or Tomislav Sunic (anticapitalist, anticommunist and antimulticulturalist political scientist) are not given an oportunity to publish their work not because the quality is poor but because the conclusion of their research is just too controversial for academia too handle. Modern science has been dilluded by an malign ideology that got hold of Western society during the late '60s. As such, some areas of science has returned to dogma on a way reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by commonsense View Post
Basically most of the medical breakthroughs and major treatments have been based on the back of peer reviewed journals.
It is only on some specific areas that science becomes dogmatic and political within academia. With regards to technology, censorship tends to be fairly mild in comparison with the heavily politicised social sciences.

Quote:
Originally Posted by commonsense View Post
Now some wacky websites with no credible sources? It doesn't mean they're all wrong but without being able to differentiate between the bull and the truth....why even bother wasting your time.
What about controversial websites that do provide a list of verifiable sources? What about video footage that shows us some controversial facts? Can they be ignored too, just because the mainstream rejects them?

The Internet doesn't always offer poor quality, just like peer reviews don't always offer scientific fact. Real life isn't as black-and-white as you like to pretend it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by commonsense View Post
BlueAngel, what's your issue with EireEngineer - although new to this forum your comments have all been harsh and immature toward him/her.
Maybe because he calling himself an engineer and some of the arguments he makes could suggest he's one of those many arrogant self-proclaimed "sceptics" who love to "debunk" controversial theories using peer-reviewed propaganda by quoting unreliable mainstream sources like parrots and ignoring other people's arguments because they're quoting from a highly reputated mainstream source whereas the others are just quoting from some website, some Internet video or some book by a fairly unknown author... of course regardless of the quality of the sources but only judging by the reputation of the source. These people are both pretentious and arrogant because they are anything but sceptic as they swallow pretty much anything that's mainstream whereas they look down upon those who actually are sceptic and question everything (in this case both "conspiracy theories" and mainstream theories)
Reply With Quote