Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Soul_Rebel
"If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document."
Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.
"Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology."
Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sänger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, München.
|
Def: The Scientific Method.
The scientific method or scientific process is fundamental to scientific investigation and to the acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence by the scientific community. Scientists use observations and reasoning to propose tentative explanations for natural phenomena, termed hypotheses. Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by various experiments, which should be reproducible. An important aspect of a hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable, in other words, it must be possible to prove the hypothesis to be false. If a proposition is not falsifiable, then it is not a hypothesis, and instead an opinion or statement not based upon the scientific method.
-----------------------------
Ok,
How this relates to the H.I.V. topic is simple. By the fact that there are membres of the scientific community can offer evidence that conflicting evidence about this virus. The proposition is now "false" and the accepted knowledge on this disease is only opinion and statements.
IE: H.I.V. = AIDS is pure bullshit. In fact you discover that H.I.V. being deadly or dangerous is also bullshit.
Henceforth offering possible evidence that the person of this story may have indeed recovered from this virus.