A few days ago I wrote about just two recent media reports of contradictory scientific findings that try to explain how the human immune system works. The point was that science does not yet have a unified theory concerning either the immune system, or even the very nature of viruses. It is difficult to understand why anyone would want to argue against that premise.
Some folks seem to be so deeply mired in the world of AIDS that they are unable to rise above their peer-reviewed journals and view the world as a big picture. This tunnel vision allows them to overlook, if not protest, all of the contradictions that are ever more likely to show up in the online media.
Reports like this one from the Journal of Medical Case Reports, via Medscape. A 28-year-old Polish woman presented at a hospital with respiratory problems, rash and ulcerations, among other things. Doctors were ready to presumptively diagnose “Human immunodeficiency virus seroconversion syndrome complicated by Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia” until a PCR test result came back negative.
The actual disease? Measles! I didn’t write the headline: Measles Mimicking HIV Seroconversion Syndrome: A Case Report, a peer reviewed journal editor determined that from reading the research.
In this case, the misdiagnosis was caught in a modern European hospital, but what would the outcome have been in a less developed part of the world, or even in a rural or community medical clinic with less capability?
Then there is this Reuters report about a supposedly deadly link between salmonella and HIV in Africa. That’s right, the bacteria typically responsible for food poisoning and the lethal HI virus. According to this report, researchers are puzzled to discover that HIV-positive people with salmonella did not have a suppressed immune system, but rather an excess of antibodies to salmonella.
“It’s quite a surprise and it suggests that what we are dealing with here is more of a consequence of an immune disregulation as opposed to an immune deficiency per se,” said lead researcher Cal MacLennan of the University of Birmingham.
MacLennan’s comment is spot-on consistent with the views of Dr. Heinrich Kremer, author of The Silent Revolution in Cancer and AIDS Medicine. Kremer is a qualified and outspoken opponent of the use of anti-retroviral drugs and a critic of the HIV theory of causation of AIDS.
I approach scientific research as a layperson. My interest is in taking the pulse of the current state of science, as presented in the media, including, but not limited to peer-reviewed journals. My area of interest is obviously AIDS, which I have been intimately involved with since it was called GRID.
It doesn’t take a lot of research to find these reports. Contradiction after contradiction parade across my screen these days, courtesy of Google Reader. Inconsistent information about AIDS was also the norm in the 1980s and 90s, when the current mainstream theory was being manufactured by the virologists.
I simple share some of the more obvious contradictions here occasionally, as well as at QuestioningAIDS and then leave it to others to draw whatever conclusions they can from this litany of inconsistencies, particularly as it pertains to AIDS.
What is almost amusing is how some of the more rabid AIDS apologists protest my posts about these questions. It’s kind of flattering to imagine they feel threatened, but I just don’t understand why anyone would think science is immune to contradictions. Historically, contradiction has been one of the essential engines for scientific advances.
4 Responses to “Science without contradictions is not really science”
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
In this piece you state:
“Some folks seem to be so deeply mired in the world of AIDS that they are unable to rise above their peer-reviewed journals and view the world as a big picture.”
And then you turn around and the first “case” you present is from…wait for it…a peer reviewed journal. Do you see how your own “tunnel vision” as you state about others, allows you to only comment on those cases that you, thru your misunderstanding of the science, can present via misrepresenting the cases you do not understand?
Just as you did with your Peroxisome study which you completely misrepresented due to your complete misunderstanding, as I pointed out at that thread, you have done the same thing here. It’s incredibly ironic that the main tag here is “contradictions” as you contradict yourself several times in this post. You claim the doctors were READY to PRESUMPTIVELY diagnose. But they did not until they had all the test results. That’s what happens ever day. People present with symptoms. Many, many diseases have the same symptoms. Doctors ask for diagnostic tests. Then the doctors diagnose based on those test results. Many times certain test results demand further testing. A good doctor will ask for as many tests as it takes to get the proper diagnosis. It is lay people like you who blog from a position of extreme ignorance.
As for the salmonella connection, I do not even know where to begin. You assessment here is rooted in such ignorance that I am at a loss as to even try to begin Immunity 101 Training. I suggest your readers click the link to the actual study and then study up on antibodies to sepcific infections. Then study how infections are compounded by co~infections. The way the body responds is different in different infections as well as the specific co~infection. This entire thread is further proof that Barnett is not quite the neutral party he pretends to be by claiming:
” I simple share some of the more obvious contradictions here occasionally, as well as at QuestioningAIDS and then leave it to others to draw whatever conclusions they can from this litany of inconsistencies, particularly as it pertains to AIDS.”
If that statement were true, he would not lead the reader to assume false conclusions that Barnett himself erroneous concludes.
JTD
The things that bother you, Todd… it really is disturbing. You are obviously reading more into my posts than I am writing, but I’m happy to give my readers the benefit of the doubt to try to decipher your response.
It’s good to know that you find so much of the material I present here of interest.
Having only recently stumbled on to your blog, I am left wondering why you allow Mr DeShong to post here at all, unless of course it is only for the readers amusement. I do worry that he has developed an unhealthy fixation with you though.
If he is one of the official defenders of the HIV/AIDS movement then they are in a truly sad state. He is the epitome of “Hysterical”.
Keep up the good work Jonathon, if only to keep Todd (deleted) frothing at the mouth.
You help confirm my hope that by publishing his comments, my readers would understand why there will be no more comments posted here from DeShong.