How to ask your favorite expert about their expertise.

a.
Are you an infectious disease specialist?...
b.
or an HIV specialist?... You may know about HIV...but not as any
established AIDS expert.

c.
Do you treat people with HIV?...

d.
With what HIV specialists have you relationships?...
e.
in your state?...
f.
in your city?...

g.
How are you involved with the AIDS Education and Training Center
AETC in your state?...

h.
How are you involved with clinicians
teaching other clinicians?...

i.
With what other AIDS organizations have you relationships?...

j.
With what trusted web sites have you relationships?...
for example,
k.
how about your involvement with
http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/InSite


An expert is someone who goes to all the AIDS conferences, knows all the
current research and treats people with HIV.

L.
What is your expertise?...

m.
What peer reviewed papers have you published recently?...

n.
What other questions would you ask?... about the expertise of
your favorite expert.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Saklad" <dsaklad@nestle.csail.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: misc.health.aids,soc.motss,soc.bi,alt.polyamory,al t.politics.homosexuality
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:44 PM
Subject: How to ask your favorite expert about their expertise... Are you an infectious
disease specialist?


You don't ask anything at all. You tell him he's nuts if he still believes that HIV causes
Aids and
you say he'd better watch this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...act+or+Fiction

That would be a good example of a bad example !

What is your expertise?...

"don warner saklad" <don.saklad@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1161298313.594026.302410@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups. com...
What do you care who or what I am? Find out for yourself!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...act+or+Fiction

Are you an infectious disease specialist?...

"thesak" <don.saklad@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news:
1161336368.538797.163530@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups. com...
HIV is not an infectious agent, it's a scam. Watch this. You'll be very surprised first,
then you'll know.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...act+or+Fiction

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:03:09 +0200, "js" <me@nospamplease> wrote:

Watch crap? Why? Why not just get infected? Then you'll discover that
HIV is not just a scam.

Or perhaps you are already?

George M. Carter

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
dnahj2h99tomoig5tn11atmmmoi3t5kujv@4ax.com...
Hey Carter ! Bummer this video, ain't it?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...act+or+Fiction

Each time you guys write a message, all I have to do is send the link as an answer.

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 02:26:34 -0400, js <me@nospamplease> wrote:

"The AIDS dissident arguments are considered pseudoscience by mainstream
scientists and public health workers, who argue that dissidents
selectively ignore evidence in favour of HIV's role in AIDS and endanger
public health by dissuading people from utilizing proven treatments."


--
____________ _____________ __________________
__ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ /
_____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ /
____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ /
/____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/
Skeptic, atheist...and somehow an optimist. Go figure.
I want to change the world.

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 06:03:09 -0400, js <me@nospamplease> wrote:

"The AIDS dissident arguments are considered pseudoscience by mainstream
scientists and public health workers, who argue that dissidents
selectively ignore evidence in favour of HIV's role in AIDS and endanger
public health by dissuading people from utilizing proven treatments."
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_denialism

We're not suckers.


--
____________ _____________ __________________
__ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ /
_____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ /
____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ /
/____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/
Skeptic, atheist...and somehow an optimist. Go figure.
I want to change the world.

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:19:36 -0400, js <me@nospamplease> wrote:

It's pseudoscience, nothing more.


--
____________ _____________ __________________
__ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ /
_____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ /
____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ /
/____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/
Skeptic, atheist...and somehow an optimist. Go figure.
I want to change the world.

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:19:36 +0200, "js" <me@nospamplease> wrote:

Don't know...haven't bothered to watch it and don't trust your links.
I'm beginning to think you're not an MD. You can't be as stupid as
you've portrayed yourself on this ng to be and really be an MD, can
you?

In article <4538b0c5$0$25910$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
js <me@nospamplease> wrote:
No evidence for any dissident claims was presented in the first
10 minutes. Around the 10-minute mark they start talking about
T-cells, with little or no mention that there are several kinds
of T-cells, and claiming that the job of T-cells is to produce
antibodies with no mention of cell-mediated immunity. After 10
minutes, no evidence had been presented and the scientific
exposition just starting was wrong already. It is not worth
another hour and 50 minutes of my life to find out how n=much
worse it gets.

Video is a wasteful medium. Anything a video can say in 2 hours
can be written in words and numbers on a few sheets of paper and
read in less than half an hour.

Video is a bad medium for anything technical or scientific,
or anything else requiring careful thought. A person reading a
printed page can go back a paragraph or a page to re-read for
missed details, and read more slowly in order to understand
a difficult point. Video can be rewound and re-watched, but
rewinding is not as easy and natural as moving your eyes up the
page or flipping back to the previous page. And after you rewind,
you can't watch video slowly -- narration becomes unintellgible
when slowed down too much.

Video, by its nature, can't teach about complex ideas: it must
simplify, and it must rush the viewer past weak arguments.

Is it any wonder that creationists love video, 9/11 conspiracy
theorists are starting to use it heavily, and AIDS dissidents
are now discovering it?

--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |

"David Canzi -- non-mailable" <dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca> a écrit dans le message
de news: ehc0dt$dqu$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...

Wow! That's about the silliest HIV=Aids believer's paper I've ever read. How come you Aids
apologists always look so dumb? Ha, ha, ha, he talks about explaining anything technical
or scientific but he needs to watch a video slowly to understand. But as he watches the
video in slow-motion, he then doesn't understand what it says. No wonder you buy into the
crappy official 9/11 version.

Here, now you can try to figure out what really happened on 911:

http://www.reopen911.org/

No, forget it, you won't be able to figure out at all.

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:25:01 +0000 (UTC),
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) wrote:

snip
Ah...that's not even correct? T cells do NOT produce antibodies. Did
they actually say that?

Undoubtedly. Wow. The denialists used to have at least a modicum of
brains--but then I guess they think they can play the Bush game. Say
whatever the hell you want, evidence, truth or reality be damned and
some sucker will believe you!

Sorta like Duesberg saying the presence of antibodies is the absence
of disease. Would that it were so! But how breathtakingly stupid.

George M. Carter

On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:51:37 -0400, js <me@nospamplease> wrote:

Controlled demolition happens bottom up, not top down. You dumbass
conspiracy theorists.

Also: explosions are caused by things other than bombs.


--
____________ _____________ __________________
__ ___/_ /__________(_)__ __/____/__ /_ ___/__ /
_____ \_ __/_ ___/_ /__ /_ _ _ \_ /_ __ \__ /
____/ // /_ _ / _ / _ __/ / __/ / / /_/ /_ /
/____/ \__/ /_/ /_/ /_/ \___//_/ \____/ /_/
Skeptic, atheist...and somehow an optimist. Go figure.
I want to change the world.

In article <4539c375$0$5065$ba4acef3@news.orange.fr>,
js <me@nospamplease> wrote:
You should probably get hold of "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by
Neil Postman. He goes into considerable detail about how the
nature of a medium affects the types of messages the medium can
carry.

i viewed part of a 9/11 video, once. One of the weak arguments
it rushed past claimed that one of the towers fell in 8 seconds
(based on measuring a seismograph trace), and a billiard ball
dropped from the top of the tower would have taken 9 seconds to
hit pavement, "therefore" the collapse of the tower must have
been a controlled demolition.

Some people who passed their high school physics courses are
probably rolling their eyes right now.

There is no way the "Conspiracy" could make a building collapse
faster than free fall, no matter what super-duper space-age
explosives they used. But if the video makers rush past this
and the viewer failed high school physics or has fallen into a
TV trance, he might not notice this physical impossibility.

It's interesting that you are both an AIDS dissident and a
9/11 conspiracy theorist. Do you have any other colourful
"alternative" beliefs? I saw a previous AIDS dissident poster,
Hayek, also posting in sci.physics.relativity opposing the theory
of relativity, and another who spent time here, Wolfgang, spent
time in sci.physics.relativity arguing against relativity and
in talk.origins arguing against evolution. I could give more
examples of people who adhere to extreme "alternative" theories
in more than one field of science.

None of these people are geniuses who have somehow seen through
fallacies that have fooled conformist scientists for decades.
That's what they want to believe, and that's what they want the
rest of us to believe, but it is plainly shown not to be so when
they fall for stupid arguments like the "faster than free fall"
argument from the 9/11 video I described above. Something else
is going on here.

I once asked in this group: How does it feel to be right when
everybody else is wrong? Nobody took the bait -- nobody answered
it. If they had, I would have followed up with a second question:
How does it feel to be wrong when everybody else is right?
I believe most dissidents will get the right answer to the first
question but not the second one.

--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |

David Canzi ,
How can there be a right or wrong answer to the question "How do you
feel about _______?"

"David Canzi -- non-mailable" <dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca> a écrit dans le message
de news: ehets4$8iq$1@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...

So then David, how does it feel to be wrong when everybody else is wrong?

You know why eternal truths come and go, David? It's because there's always a dissident
hangin' around somewhere. Otherwise eternal truth, which is always a lie, would stay
forever.

In article <ehijfg$is8$1@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
Doug B <doug.black@osumc.edu> wrote:
There is no one right answer to the first question, but once
you've given an answer to the first question, there are wrong
answers to the second one.

--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |