tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7721098568390636553.post3828057201608192148..comments2023-06-06T07:02:56.002-07:00Comments on The Spark of Reason: Getting to the Heart of Heart DiseaseDavehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18290594860469294453noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7721098568390636553.post-26556634411864820072008-01-23T09:29:00.000-08:002008-01-23T09:29:00.000-08:00Here is an article detailing recent research linki...Here is <A HREF="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080122203124.htm" REL="nofollow">an article detailing recent research linking stress and heart disease</A>.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18290594860469294453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7721098568390636553.post-12219441396311483552008-01-23T06:59:00.000-08:002008-01-23T06:59:00.000-08:00Hi GreatnessBlog. Good stuff in the link you sent....Hi GreatnessBlog. Good stuff in the link you sent. I'm glad to see that effort was made to answer the "dissidents". I must admit I was a little underwhelmed by a lot of the evidence presented. For example, the baboon thing is interesting, except that as far as I know (anybody know differently?) the HIV virus cannot be isolated and purified. So said baboons were not only injected with HIV, but also with other stuff. It is my understanding (albeit limited) that injecting animals with random proteins can cause a wide range of immune reactions. I'd also like to see these results replicated on a larger number of animals. For instance, chimpanzees will generate HIV antibodies when injected with the virus - do they also progress to AIDS, and ultimately death? For that matter, did the baboons die, or did they recover? I can't get at the full text of <A HREF="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/266/5185/642" REL="nofollow">the article</A>, maybe somebody who can will summarize it for us.<BR/><BR/>Even if chimpanzees don't get AIDS or the baboons did recover, it doesn't necessarily mean that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. Chimpanzees and baboons are not humans. But it would be nice to know the outcome of that experiment.<BR/><BR/>The site you linked is dated 1995. I'm hoping further progress has been made in the ensuing 13 years. Maybe somebody can point it out? There still seem to be an awful lot of people who come across as sane and responsible scientists asking tough questions. This 2007 <A HREF="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/266/5185/642" REL="nofollow">interview with Andrew Maniotis</A> is a good example.<BR/><BR/>One key question I have involves the mechanism of a "slow" virus, of which HIV is supposed to be one type. The slow virus idea is that somehow your body gets infected by a virus and generates antibodies to that virus. The virus becomes latent for some period, perhaps many years, and then causes a disease state. This is supposedly not the same as "latent" viruses like herpes, which can hide from the immune system and pop up during episodes of immunosuppression. Can anybody point me to a good explanation? Thanks.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18290594860469294453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7721098568390636553.post-38501263371673150732008-01-22T12:46:00.000-08:002008-01-22T12:46:00.000-08:00Hi GreatnessBlog. Thanks for the link and informat...Hi GreatnessBlog. Thanks for the link and information. That's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. I will check it out and let you know what I think.<BR/><BR/>I agree with your point that scientists often badly react to those who disagree with the prevailing hypothesis. Whether said hypothesis is "right" or not, it is usually still a case of the defending scientist holding a dogmatic belief in that hypothesis. It's bad science either way.<BR/><BR/>I don't have a "cause", other than to encourage people to obtain good information relating to health issues (just as you've done) so that they can make decisions in their own best interest. If the evidence for AIDS/HIV (or the lipid hypothesis, for that matter) does lean heavily one way or another, people should be able to discover said evidence, rather than rely on "experts" with questionable motivations. Questioning hypotheses is never bad in science, as long as it done in a rational way (creationists generally fall into the irrational category, as they are driven by their own dogma). Dogmatic acceptance of a hypothesis is always bad in science.<BR/><BR/>I actually wouldn't feel strongly if somebody published the books you suggest. After evaluating the evidence, I would try to make a judgment as to which hypothesis is correct. There's no reason to get emotionally attached to hypotheses - their merit lies strictly in the weight of the evidence which supports them, including their predictive power.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18290594860469294453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7721098568390636553.post-90431992979043728672008-01-22T12:11:00.000-08:002008-01-22T12:11:00.000-08:00I've done a little informal poking around since ou...I've done a little informal poking around since our last discussion about HIV/AIDS and frankly, I can't imagine why you are skeptical that HIV causes AIDS. There appears to be <A HREF="http://www.niaid.nih.gov/Publications/hivaids/hivaids.htm" REL="nofollow">plenty of evidence</A> not only of the virus, but of the virus's timeline without medication and with various medications. We can inject a baboon with a quite similar virus -- HIV-2 and, lo and behold, they get all of the symptoms of AIDS. People who test positive for HIV who aren't treated are so close to 100% likely to get AIDS that it's hard to imagine some unrelated mechanism involved.<BR/><BR/>The reaction of some scientists to those who question the "hypothesis" is perhaps rude and counterproductive, but young-Earth creationists probably get a similar response when they question paleontologists or cosmologists. That doesn't mean they are right.<BR/><BR/>I think this combining of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis with the lipid hypothesis is bad for your cause. Imagine how you would feel if you found out that Taubes wrote a book strongly arguing that the Earth is literally flat or that automobile collisions don't cause fatalities.GreatnessBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01364374417904851444noreply@blogger.com