More HIV/AIDS insanity from 'scientists'. The Perth Group.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/cjepe.html

Anyone know what this group is talking about? An AGW denier is also believer this. Once again, a few, heroic, scientists are out there taking on the deluded majority, and waiting to be called the next Galileo.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

http://www.theperthgroup.com/INTERVIEWS/cjepe.html

Anyone know what this group is talking about? An AGW denier is also believer this. Once again, a few, heroic, scientists are out there taking on the deluded majority, and waiting to be called the next Galileo.

From your link:

Dr. Eleni Papadopulos is a biophysicist and leader of a group of HIV/AIDS scientists from Perth

From Wikipedia:

Some dissident websites refer to "Dr." Papadopulos-Eleopulos and claim that she has been a professor of medical physics at Royal Perth Hospital, a teaching hospital at the University of Western Australia.[8] However, according to a presentation by John P. Moore, Ph.D., at the XVI International AIDS Conference, she has no academic appointment.[9] Moreover she does not hold a doctorate; her highest academic degree is a Bachelor of Science degree in nuclear physics from the University of Bucharest.[10] Her duties at the Royal Perth Hospital are to test people for sensitivity to ultraviolet radiation.[10]
The Royal Perth Hospital has stated that it does not share the views of Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, who does not work in HIV research or with AIDS patients.[11] According to the hospital's executive director, Philip Montgomery:

Royal Perth Hospital does not support The Perth Group's views on HIV, and group members have been instructed that they will not use any hospital resources for work related to their private research. Furthermore, the staff have also been instructed that their private research should not be linked in any way to Royal Perth Hospital.
​

Thetwo other members of the "research group" seem to be an emergency doctor and a pathologist working in oncology.

 

[Criticalist]

I heard about them for the first time in 2007 when they were involved in a court case brought against an HIV positive man who had infected several women by having unprotected sex with them and not informing them of his HIV status. They were called by the defense to testify that as HIV did not cause AIDS there was no case to answer. Happily the judge did not share their view and pretty much destroyed them in his ruling.

http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/02/hivs_dover.php

gives a good overview

 

[Dr. Imago]

Human Immunodeficiency Virus satisfies Koch's postulates. End of story.

This is a cut-and-dry cause/effect relationship.

AUP, if you are making an assertion in any way, shape, or form that AGW skeptics (or, as you and your ilk like to call them "deniers") are akin to those who don't believe HIV causes AIDS, shame on you! Talk about an ugly and underhanded syllogism.

Keep the issues separate. You want to talk about HIV/AIDS, fine. Keep AGW out of it.

~Dr. Imago

 

[a_unique_person]

They are even more pathetic than I thought they would be. "Perth Group". Why don't they call themselves "The Famous Five"?

 

[a_unique_person]

Human Immunodeficiency Virus satisfies Koch's postulates. End of story.

This is a cut-and-dry cause/effect relationship.

AUP, if you are making an assertion in any way, shape, or form that AGW skeptics (or, as you and your ilk like to call them "deniers") are akin to those who don't believe HIV causes AIDS, shame on you! Talk about an ugly and underhanded syllogism.

Keep the issues separate. You want to talk about HIV/AIDS, fine. Keep AGW out of it.

~Dr. Imago

I'm talking about people on an AGW denier site who are HIV/AIDS deniers. They exist, and no-one other than AGW believers seem to call them on it.

 

[a_unique_person]

Human Immunodeficiency Virus satisfies Koch's postulates. End of story.

This is a cut-and-dry cause/effect relationship.

AUP, if you are making an assertion in any way, shape, or form that AGW skeptics (or, as you and your ilk like to call them "deniers") are akin to those who don't believe HIV causes AIDS, shame on you! Talk about an ugly and underhanded syllogism.

Keep the issues separate. You want to talk about HIV/AIDS, fine. Keep AGW out of it.

~Dr. Imago

The similarities in the arguments are notable. I don't know if I would call you a denier, Dr I. It's pretty easy to spot one, they will believe any nonsense, no matter how lunatic and how much it conflicts with some other piece of nonsense they already believe, purely on the grounds that it is anti-AGW.

A simple test is, do you believe in such papers as G&T, "The falsification of CO2 as a greenhouse gas", or Ference Miskolczi and his paper? If you don't, you are probably a sceptic, if you do, you are probably a denier. Are you prepared to tell people who do accept these papers that they are wrong?

 

[Dr. Imago]

No, I'm not going to have this argument with you... again. But, interesting to note your tactics. And, I do feel you are fully and completely wrong (perhaps deluded) if you actually believe that "no-one other than AGW believers seem to call them on it."

You are clearly trying to make some corollary here. Very sinister behavior, if you ask me.

~Dr. Imago

 

[Dancing David]

I agree that there are similarities is styles of argument, but i would not equate the two. HIV denial is much more specious. I doubt that the HIV denialist can really make a case. There is considerable data that most if not all people with AIDS have the HIV virus.

It is more reasonable to be AGW denying ( I don't agree with the arguments they use.) The data for AGW is much more diverse, and while I agree some use very poor argumentation, appeals to misdirection, vague authority, outright lies, all the strange woo tactics in the book. The subject of AGW is much more complex and by it's nature harder to be definitive.

That said, I am firmly in the AGW camp, Mhaze is on my very short IGNORE list and I believe that he and others are shills for the oil industry.

 

[a_unique_person]

No, I'm not going to have this argument with you... again. But, interesting to note your tactics. And, I do feel you are fully and completely wrong (perhaps deluded) if you actually believe that "no-one other than AGW believers seem to call them on it."

You are clearly trying to make some corollary here. Very sinister behavior, if you ask me.

~Dr. Imago

I am referring to a website I have been looking at. Don't blame me if that's what's happening.

 

[a_unique_person]

I agree that there are similarities is styles of argument, but i would not equate the two. HIV denial is much more specious. I doubt that the HIV denialist can really make a case. There is considerable data that most if not all people with AIDS have the HIV virus.

It is more reasonable to be AGW denying ( I don't agree with the arguments they use.) The data for AGW is much more diverse, and while I agree some use very poor argumentation, appeals to misdirection, vague authority, outright lies, all the strange woo tactics in the book. The subject of AGW is much more complex and by it's nature harder to be definitive.

That said, I am firmly in the AGW camp, Mhaze is on my very short IGNORE list and I believe that he and others are shills for the oil industry.

I think there are AGW 'skeptics' out there, as distinct from 'deniers'. The 'deniers', however, seem to far outnumber the 'skeptics'.

 

[a_unique_person]

I agree that there are similarities is styles of argument, but i would not equate the two. HIV denial is much more specious. I doubt that the HIV denialist can really make a case. There is considerable data that most if not all people with AIDS have the HIV virus.

It is more reasonable to be AGW denying ( I don't agree with the arguments they use.) The data for AGW is much more diverse, and while I agree some use very poor argumentation, appeals to misdirection, vague authority, outright lies, all the strange woo tactics in the book. The subject of AGW is much more complex and by it's nature harder to be definitive.

I agree entirely. But when you look around at denier sites, you realise that people aren't arguing on that basis. They are arguing based on any number of 'papers' that cannot be published in recognised journals because they are so poor. You also see people quite happy to accept multiple, mutually conflicting, ideas on why AGW is wrong. That's what I call a 'denier'.

Typically.

* There is no such thing as a global mean temperature.
* But it's not warming.
* But if it is, it's because of the sun.
* But if it is, it's because of cosmic rays.
* But all the science is wrong, this new theory explains it all, written by one lone scientist.
* But we will just adapt anyway, the magical scientists we don't trust will pull a rabbit out of their hat and fix everything.

 

[Dancing David]

I agree entirely. But when you look around at denier sites, you realise that people aren't arguing on that basis. They are arguing based on any number of 'papers' that cannot be published in recognised journals because they are so poor. You also see people quite happy to accept multiple, mutually conflicting, ideas on why AGW is wrong. That's what I call a 'denier'.

Typically.

* There is no such thing as a global mean temperature.
* But it's not warming.
* But if it is, it's because of the sun.
* But if it is, it's because of cosmic rays.
* But all the science is wrong, this new theory explains it all, written by one lone scientist.
* But we will just adapt anyway, the magical scientists we don't trust will pull a rabbit out of their hat and fix everything.

I agree, I have seen some stupid stuff here, ranks with trying to overturn special relativity in many ways. Okay, i will make distinct between deniers and sceptics.