Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > Social Engineering
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 10-21-2009, 08:42 AM
EireEngineer's Avatar
EireEngineer EireEngineer is offline
Woo Nemesis
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Posts: 583
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax


Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
Oh, stop it already with the peer reviewed journals.

As if this makes you an expert on anything and, as if everything published by the SCIENTIFIC community is to be considered as FACT.
As if Eyekon, or yourself, are experts from reading WOO websites on the internet. See you next Tuesday.

__________________
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-21-2009, 08:57 AM
EireEngineer's Avatar
EireEngineer EireEngineer is offline
Woo Nemesis
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Posts: 583
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eye-Kon View Post
I went through those articles and I couldn't find any where it said that it was certain HIV could perform zoonosis. Even if you can find an article it still doesn't mean its true. I also never agreed it could perform zoonosis I just said it was a possibility. Is there actually any records of people contracting AIDS/HIV from a monkey to this day? Besides the so called introduction of AIDS? You would think other people would still be getting it from monkeys in Africa rarely if it happend once already. Oh and thanks for ignoring my information on Boyd Graves. Trying looking up the "The Special Cancer Virus Program" if you can even find anymore these days you'll see this program clearly lays out the development of AIDS and how to make essentially a contagious cancer. You'll also notice the report sugests introducing this 'cancer virus' in to the public domain through vaccinations. I'm not asking you guys to totally buy my theory, however its illogical to not even consider it. I'm not MD or scientist, but you don't have to be to read through lines.
I looked up the Special Cancer Virus Program. Interesting stuff, though I couldn't help but notice the fact that most of the pages were typical Woo type sites with very little in the way of corroborating references. I would feel more comfortable if there were at least a few mainstream sources. Its not out of the realm of possibility though, since there are at least a handful of cancers known to be caused by viruses. As for zoonosis, it is true that the SIV2 is not the most readily capable organism for crossing the species barrier, but it does happen. All it takes is one Typhoid Mary.

"Despite the frequent human exposure to SIV-infected monkeys in Africa, only 10 cross-species transmission events have been documented and only four of these have resulted in successful human-to-human transmission, generating HIV-1 group M and group O, and HIV-2 groups A and B. The closest relatives of SIVcpz (HIV-1 group N) and of SIVsm (HIV-2 groups C through G) are extremely rare, with only six HIV-1 group N-infected patients and single individuals infected by HIV-2 groups C-G."
__________________
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-21-2009, 02:31 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 EireEngineer View Post
You yourself say you have gotten most of your info from the internet, info which is far more likely to be wildly inaccurate that anything published in a peer reviewed Journal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAngel View Post
Oh, stop it already with the peer reviewed journals.

As if this makes you an expert on anything and, as if everything published by the SCIENTIFIC community is to be considered as FACT.
Both of you have a point. Internet sources are often highly unreliable and should only be used when other sources are too hard to get or too expensive. On the other hand, peer reviewed journals tend to be biased on certain areas of science and therefore unlikely to give you a balanced view of the available evidence regarding those particular areas. Thus, both the person limiting himself to "conspiracy websites" and the person limiting himself to "peer reviewed journals" are only able to see on particular perspective of an issue and thereby risk being poorly informed.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-21-2009, 03:15 PM
commonsense commonsense is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 20
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax

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. Ofcourse science is constantly evolving and many things that were once written in stone are now blatantly wrong. Basically most of the medical breakthroughs and major treatments have been based on the back of peer reviewed journals.
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.

BlueAngel, what's your issue with EireEngineer - although new to this forum your comments have all been harsh and immature toward him/her.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-21-2009, 03:53 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
  #46  
Old 10-21-2009, 08:22 PM
EireEngineer's Avatar
EireEngineer EireEngineer is offline
Woo Nemesis
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Posts: 583
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax

Quote:
Originally Posted by Out of the Box View Post
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.



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.



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.



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)
First of all, its interesting that you say that their work "cannot be published". Obviously you were able to read them, so they must have been published somewhere. Theories that test the normal paradigm crop up all the time in the world of science. If they are testable, the peer review process will fairly quickly eliminate those ideas that are not tenable, and give at least preliminary confirmation to those that are. There is nothing "mainstream" or "non-mainstream" about the process, except of course for those that prefer to forgo the process altogether, like many of those in the flat earth/alternative medicine/conspiracy crowd.
As for your assertion that I will swallow anything thats mainstream, that is a strawman of epic proportions, especially since it seems that many in the "Woo" crowd will swallow anything they see on the internet. The burden of proof for what I will believe is fairly simple, and to a certain point follows closely the scientific method, albeit in somewhat abbreviated form.
1. The idea must be testable and capable of falsification.
2. The idea must conform with what we know about workings of the universe, or be specific in how it modifys our knowledge.
3. The idea must be capable of independant verification.

Until the "Woo" crowd starts observing these principles there will always be skeptics around to challenge them.
__________________
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-22-2009, 02:07 AM
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 EireEngineer View Post
First of all, its interesting that you say that their work "cannot be published". Obviously you were able to read them, so they must have been published somewhere.
These cannot publish in mainstream journals because of the controversial nature of their studies, but they can publish in books or some journals that are not mainstream. Most people (scientists and laymen alike), however, ignore studies that are not published in mainstream journals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
If they are testable, the peer review process will fairly quickly eliminate those ideas that are not tenable, and give at least preliminary confirmation to those that are.
To be able to be subjected to the standard process of peer-review, you first have to be able to publish in peer-reviewed journals. The problem is that many controversial theories are not allowed to be published there not because of the quality of their studies but because of the controversial nature of their studies. As such, these studies are ignored by academia while there should at least be attempts to debunk them scientificly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
There is nothing "mainstream" or "non-mainstream" about the process, except of course for those that prefer to forgo the process altogether, like many of those in the flat earth/alternative medicine/conspiracy crowd.
The people I mentioned do actively try to get their studies publicated in peer-reviewed journals but they're simply not allowed to. You seem to imply these people choose to stay outside of mainstream science but it's the other way around. It's mainstream science that ignores them due to the controversial nature of their studies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
As for your assertion that I will swallow anything thats mainstream, that is a strawman of epic proportions
I wasn't referring to you but to the kind of people most common among self-proclaimed "sceptics" as I'm pretty sure BlueAngel beliefs you're one of them. If you think I was talking about you, I guess you do indeed fit the description.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
especially since it seems that many in the "Woo" crowd will swallow anything they see on the internet.
True. There's but a small amount of people who're truely sceptical and question both mainstream knowledge and controversial knowledge. Dogmatism and narrowmindedness are common on both sides. Didn't I already mention that before?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
The burden of proof for what I will believe is fairly simple, and to a certain point follows closely the scientific method, albeit in somewhat abbreviated form.
1. The idea must be testable and capable of falsification.
2. The idea must conform with what we know about workings of the universe, or be specific in how it modifys our knowledge.
3. The idea must be capable of independant verification.

Until the "Woo" crowd starts observing these principles there will always be skeptics around to challenge them.
I've encountered many so-called "sceptics" who betray those principles and I've also encountered many so-called "conspiracy theorists" who follow those principles. You like to pretend it's all black-and-white with "sceptics" being rational science-oriented people and "conspiracy theorists" being gullable tin foil hat morons. That's simply idiotic.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-22-2009, 09:08 AM
EireEngineer's Avatar
EireEngineer EireEngineer is offline
Woo Nemesis
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Posts: 583
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax

That is a prime example of a strawman. I have never asserted the "all" members of the conspiracy movement are kooks, any more that all skeptics are purely rational. However, many of the arguments that the conspiracy/alt medicine/flat earth crowd are tendentious, working backward from a pre-concieved conclusion. What is more, many of them are backed by untestable hypotheses, and when evidence to the contrary is posited they resort to special pleading to counter it. There are many threads on this site that avoid this kind of logical fallacy, and I have for the most part let them alone. For those that do, however, there will always be someone to point out the mistakes. Its called the marketplace of ideas, and dissent only leads to an improvement of the concept.
__________________
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-22-2009, 09:56 AM
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 EireEngineer View Post
That is a prime example of a strawman. I have never asserted the "all" members of the conspiracy movement are kooks, any more that all skeptics are purely rational.
You said :

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer
As for your assertion that I will swallow anything thats mainstream, that is a strawman of epic proportions, especially since it seems that many in the "Woo" crowd will swallow anything they see on the internet. The burden of proof for what I will believe is fairly simple, and to a certain point follows closely the scientific method, albeit in somewhat abbreviated form.
1. The idea must be testable and capable of falsification.
2. The idea must conform with what we know about workings of the universe, or be specific in how it modifys our knowledge.
3. The idea must be capable of independant verification.

Until the "Woo" crowd starts observing these principles there will always be skeptics around to challenge them.
I'm not sure how you define "the Woo crowd", but thusfar your context seems to imply it is a reference to "conspiracy theorists". If this is not a reference to "conspiracy theorists" please explain who you consider to be part of the "Woo crowd" or use a more common term. It is a term I've never heard or read before.

Anyway, you did explicitly say that the "Woo crowd" does not observe the principles supposebly held dear to you, while you (implicitly) suggest that so-called "sceptics" do observe those principles considering you didn't care to mention them and you singled out the "Woo crowd".

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
However, many of the arguments that the conspiracy/alt medicine/flat earth crowd are tendentious, working backward from a pre-concieved conclusion.
First of all, there's no reason to mention "conspiracy", "alternative medicine" and "flat earth" theory in one breath as these are completely different areas. Also, the first two areas both vary from plausible to outer fringe making it quite absurd as well to put all these people and theories in one category. I already explained this in a previous comment and find it quite offensive to be put in the same category as "flat earthers", "David Icke fanatics" or "Creationists" just because I reject the mainstream account in certain areas (eg. certain specific historical events).

Further, I've seen so-called "sceptics" behave in exactly the same way. Many of them also start with a pre-concieved conclusion and work backwards towards their arguments. Similarly, I've encountered so-called "conspiracy theorists" who do base their conclusions on the evidence rather than vice versa. You like to pretend that having pre-conceived conclusions is typical for "conspiracy theorists" but I've seen it on both sides at varying degree and in some fields of expertise I've seen it even far more among the so-called "sceptics".

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
What is more, many of them are backed by untestable hypotheses
Many are. Many others are not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
when evidence to the contrary is posited they resort to special pleading to counter it.
You'll find the same behavior among so-called "sceptics" as I explained earlier. Such pathetic behavior is NOT exclusive to so-called "conspiracy theorists" and at least as common among those dedicated to "debunking conspiracy theorists". In fact, I've encountered dozens of self-proclaimed sceptics who are no less narrowminded and gullible as your average "David Icke fanatic".

Quote:
Originally Posted by EireEngineer View Post
There are many threads on this site that avoid this kind of logical fallacy, and I have for the most part let them alone. For those that do, however, there will always be someone to point out the mistakes. Its called the marketplace of ideas, and dissent only leads to an improvement of the concept.
I couldn't agree more. However, by only criticising so-called "conspiracy theorists" and pretending this behavioral flaw does not exist among so-called "sceptics" you're portraying a black-and-white view of reality and you're offending those "conspiracy theorists" who do not fit those criteria.

Last edited by Out of the Box : 10-22-2009 at 10:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 11-06-2009, 06:11 AM
Out of the Box Out of the Box is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 518
Default Re: The Great "HIV" Hoax

Still no response?!?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dinosaur Hoax - Dinosaurs Never Existed! rushdoony Alternate History 80 02-05-2012 09:15 AM
Moon Landing Hoax rushdoony Alternate History 17 02-01-2012 06:37 AM
http://www.gaiaguys.net/ the O.T.O Hoax General Conspiracy Discussion 16 04-30-2009 07:56 PM
The Bird Flu Hoax? Insider Opinions 0 01-30-2006 07:57 PM
Moon Hoax igwt General Conspiracy Discussion 0 11-07-2005 04:56 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.