jacob_cannell comments on Open Thread, September, 2010-- part 2 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: NancyLebovitz 17 September 2010 01:44AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (858)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (858)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: jacob_cannell 21 September 2010 10:03:18PM 1 point [-]

I have some skepticism for the HIV/AIDS theory, perhaps on the level of say 20-30%. More concretely, I would roughly say I am only about 70% confident that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS,

This is something that should be relatively easy to confirm to a reasonable level of satisfaction. It would seem to require only a microscope, as syringe and a sufficient sample of people with AIDS. Has anybody ever founds someone with AIDS who did not have HIV?

Yes, unless one defines AIDS as a collection of symptoms plus HIV. I forget the name, but any definition of AIDS which does not include HIV has some HIV-.

Now on the other hand, AIDS is a syndrome of immune supression, not a disease, so there of course could be other things that cause a similar syndrome.

If not is that because nobody has bothered to take a close look? If so then I would certainly support your questioning of the standard of research supporting the mainstream position.

If you are interested in venturing down that rabbit hole, read a little Duesberg:

(warning: reading his papers may result in general increased skepticism about the medical establishment)

http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html

Comment author: wedrifid 21 September 2010 10:27:54PM *  3 points [-]

Now on the other hand, AIDS is a syndrome of immune supression, not a disease, so there of course could be other things that cause a similar syndrome.

Now that is a familiar mistake - and a negligence that does real damage. I'm more familiar with the mental side of the medical establishment so have seen, for example, ADD symptoms lumped together and medicated presuming there is only one distinct etiology. Looking at a brain scan could tell them the difference easily enough.

(warning: reading his papers may result in general increased skepticism about the medical establishment)

That would be surprising - purely because my existing skepticism is already significant. All the more so after I spent some time involved in medical research myself. Scary stuff. "Hang on, wait. you want me to do what with the data?"

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit