@metal-brain saidThis sort of reasoning led to AIDS denialism, because a small minority of scientists headed by the molecular biologist Peter Duesberg argued that HIV did not cause AIDS. Along with that claim was the assertion that the virus had never been isolated. The true impact of this denialism was felt in nations like South Africa where the government having embraced this denialism as "truth" directed public health policy to deny AIDS patients access to antiviral treatments especially AZT. Because AZT apparently was a poison worse than the disease...
You need to prove the virus identified is causing the disease. If you do not isolate the virus properly you may have the wrong virus. That is why it is important.
There are certain procedures that must be followed to establish that.
Estimates for South Africa are that there were 330,000 excess deaths from AIDS as a result of South Africa's AIDS denialism.
Being a maverick is one thing. Standing outside of the scientific consensus is all well and good, but not when it prevents treatments that have been shown to work.
@kmax87 saidSimple solution. Isolate the virus.
This sort of reasoning led to AIDS denialism, because a small minority of scientists headed by the molecular biologist Peter Duesberg argued that HIV did not cause AIDS. Along with that claim was the assertion that the virus had never been isolated. The true impact of this denialism was felt in nations like South Africa where the government having embraced this denialism as "t ...[text shortened]... ic consensus is all well and good, but not when it prevents treatments that have been shown to work.
Is that such a horrible solution?
Why do you have such a big problem with easy solutions?
@metal-brain saidIt has been isolated. As every reliable source explains to you.
Simple solution. Isolate the virus.
Is that such a horrible solution?
Why do you have such a big problem with easy solutions?
@shavixmir saidHas the SARS2 virus been Isolated According to Koch’s Postulates or River’s Postulates?
It has been isolated. As every reliable source explains to you.
@metal-brain saidKoch's postulates were established with bacteria in mind, not viruses which behave differently to bacteria.
Has the SARS2 virus been Isolated According to Koch’s Postulates or River’s Postulates?
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
@metal-brain saidYour incessant campaigns of disinformation must be intentional:
On the science forum I provided a link explaining isolation in great detail. Perhaps it is you that do not understand the concept.
From now on, when anyone gives you a paper that suggests the SARS-CoV-2 virus has been isolated, please check the methods sections. If the researchers used Vero cells or any other culture method, you know that their process was not isolatio ...[text shortened]... they know it came from a lab and it was genetically engineered.
Why isolate a virus you created?
Otherwise, you're truly a bungling dolt.
@woofwoof saidWhat disinformation?
Your incessant campaigns of disinformation must be intentional:
Otherwise, you're truly a bungling dolt.
You need to prove me wrong to establish it is disinformation.
You are calling me a liar since disinformation is "intentionally" spreading untrue information. Perhaps you meant misinformation.
Whichever you meant prove it or shut up. If you are not here to debate you are here to troll. Demonstrate which one you are.
@Metal-Brain
In other words, when you puke out an opinion, if we disagree, WE are the idiots.
THAT is not debate. And you know it full well. Well maybe not.
@sonhouse saidDebating is not puking out opinions. You are not debating, you are trolling. That is the problem. And you know it full well.
@Metal-Brain
In other words, when you puke out an opinion, if we disagree, WE are the idiots.
THAT is not debate. And you know it full well. Well maybe not.
@Metal-Brain
I am merely pointing out how you 'debate'. You DON"T debate. You put up BULLSHYTE sites from ultrarightwingnutjobs whom you THINK agrees with your POV.
THAT is not debating. THAT is distraction.
You also LOVE 'whataboutisms' where someone mentions some disaster and someone goes, yeah, well what about Mai Lai?
THAT is ALSO not debating.
You don't know the difference between unbiased websites and total biased ones like Newsmax or Fox news.
For instance, I hear you ultrarightwingnuts jab at Rachael Maddow as if she is spouting misinformation just like you do.
Hint:
She has folks on and when she describes some issue invariably she says to the guest, did I say anything wrong, misrepresent or such? Did you EVER hear such a statement from your buddy Tucker Carlsen or the rest of the idiots at Fox?
But OF COURSE you would NEVER know that little bit unless you actually had the brains to watch her.
She is the real deal, she pulls no punches, she reported just as heavily on Cuomo, for instance, a dem, as she does against OTHER criminals like your god king Trump.
So you discount her without actually ever watching a single Maddow show.
@sonhouse saidYet you have failed to prove any of it wrong.
@Metal-Brain
I am merely pointing out how you 'debate'. You DON"T debate. You put up BULLSHYTE sites from ultrarightwingnutjobs whom you THINK agrees with your POV.
THAT is not debating. THAT is distraction.
You also LOVE 'whataboutisms' where someone mentions some disaster and someone goes, yeah, well what about Mai Lai?
THAT is ALSO not debating.
You don't know the d ...[text shortened]... ke your god king Trump.
So you discount her without actually ever watching a single Maddow show.
That says more about you than it does about me.