Evolutionary biologists sometimes think we microbiology people have it easy. "No one doubts the germ theory!," they claim.
Do some research Tara. Then you will be ready to start from scratch again, forget the germ theory nonsense and become a real scientist.
And I bet this insult will sound familiar to many used to dealing with the anti-science brigades:
Evidence is all around and you have as much evidence as I do. The sole difference between you and me is that you are still blindfolded by a century of dogmatic thinking and are not able to see the evidence.You can do what you want with your special laboratory mice, but whan it comes to it nobody has ever proven that germs cause disease and a century of war on microbes has had no results and, to cite a professor of the Villejuif hospital "up to today medicine doesn't know the cause of any disease".
***
You are blind and cannot see they still are widespread [regarding cholera, TB, etc.--TS]. They are still all around in places where people suffer. Which is natural because the suffering is the cause, not the germs. TBC is as widespread in places of poverty and famine as it was a century ago. You must fight poverty and famine and suffering, you dummy. Not the germs.
They even have their own deathbed conversion story!
As for the denial of HIV: nobody ever really proved it exists so why do you want to call people who doubt its existence Denialists? Until research comes up with something more consistant than hypothetical viruses hiding away, HIV is junk science, as were the findings of Louis Pasteur. The amusing thing about it all is that Louis Pasteur admitted that himself just before he died.
I was familiar with the nutty arguments against the germ theory, and HIV-deniers who also deny that any virus causes disease or that H5N1 doesn't exist, but I've never heard that Pasteur admitted that his findings were "junk."
But of course, why have Pasteur's ideas prevailed, and Béchamp's been dismissed? Conspiracy!
Béchamp has been censored. Censoring is done to keep people from knowing the truth.
Comments
Until our friend showed up, I wasn't aware that Béchamp was an altie hero. Ye Gods.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | July 24, 2006 2:07 PM
The Pasteur deathbed conversion is right up there reliability-wise with the Darwin deathbed conversion. Which is to say, not at all.
Of course, we could also note that even had Pasteur denounced germs (or Darwin evolution) that would not mean anything as far as the science goes, since those are discoveries, not inventions. They would stand or fall on the evidence.
According to Pasteur's biography, written by his son-in-law René Vallery-Radot:
Posted by: Dave S. | July 24, 2006 2:38 PM
That's the downside of good science work -- it's inevitably against the orthodoxy, bitterly opposed, and so on -- just like the germ theory was when it originated. But the converse of a true statement isn't necessarily true -- it's not the case that just b/c some idea is against the grain or opposed, then folks 100 years from now will take it for granted, after the opposition dies off.
Posted by: Agnostic | July 24, 2006 2:46 PM
Actually Béchamp's ideas were not disregarded straight away in favour of Pasteur's. Both sets of ideas were evaluated, and Pasteur's was found to be supported by the evidence, while Béchamp's didn't.
Here is a link to a Danish science publication from 1873, where in passing it's explained why Pasteur's ideas were more likely.
Since then, every bit of research done, have supported the principles behind Pasteur's ideas.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | July 24, 2006 2:56 PM
This is generally true of many ideas. Phlogiston theory for instance, or continental drift/plate tectonics. Both eventually prevailed on the strength of the evidence and the accuracy of prediction. In short, their explanatory power.
Posted by: Dave S. | July 24, 2006 3:21 PM
Why are you surprised that there are alties out there who don't accept the germ theory of disease? For one thing, antivaxers love Bechamps because if there isn't a germ (be it bacteria or virus) causing infectious disease, then there's no reason to vaccinate. HIV/AIDS "dissidents" are also fond of Bechamps for similar reasons: The "soil not the seed" idea thta Bechamps supported is very appealing to those who deny that HIV causes AIDS.
I've written about this before, and Peter Bowditch has posted a succinct and to-the-point refutation of the ridiculous "Pasteur deathbed recantation" myth.
Posted by: Orac | July 24, 2006 3:23 PM
You forgot to mention that the world is flat...
Posted by: DouglasG![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 24, 2006 3:30 PM
You win: The crazies who visit your blog are crazier than my crazies.
best,
Flea
Posted by: Flea | July 24, 2006 4:12 PM
Once upon a time I was thinking about starting a blogspot blog vehemently arguing that the Earth is round, just to see what kinds of arguments flat-earthers would bring to the comments. Probably something very similar to what you got - all denialist "theories" look the same and use the same kinds of arguments.
Posted by: coturnix | July 24, 2006 4:42 PM
Coturnix,
Hmmm, I could probably make a random generator for new nutty conspiracy theories at my site. It sounds easier than I'd thought . . .
Posted by: DragonScholar | July 24, 2006 4:55 PM
Ha, ha, ha! The gathering of the brave who answer from behind.
Why don't you all read this very interesting document "The Third Element of The Blood" so we can join together in a discussion that will make some sense?
Direct download:
http://perso.orange.fr/jan.spreen/english/tteotb.pdf
Posted by: jspreen | July 24, 2006 5:12 PM
The first time I came across this particular flavor of zaniness, it was through a stunningly wacky site linked to by PZ Myers, courtesy Pooflinger.
There is a strain of crackpottery that is characterized by a ferocious energy defying all opposition. Words gush forth, describing bizarre alternate universes in baroque detail. It's a wonderful thing it its way, but I find it exhausting to follow -- kind of like trying to read the Urantia book in one sitting.
Posted by: jre | July 24, 2006 5:46 PM
I was impressed with the French knight at your site, jspreen, making me wonder if you didn't actually mean to say
I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
...
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!
Posted by: jre | July 24, 2006 6:01 PM
For a while, I've toyed with the idea of setting up a parodic "Dissent from Mendel" website that would provide make false claims about Mendelian genetics ("Mendel's famous pea-plant experiments are wholly fictitious; peas DO NOT GROW in Eastern Europe") and allege that Lysenkoism has been suppressed for political reasons.
But it's obvious now that there's the possibility that a sizable portion of the Internet might think it was a legitimate site.
Posted by: Sean Foley | July 24, 2006 6:39 PM
Oh, I'm not surprised. As I mentioned, I've run across them before, though I don't think any have visited me here. What I wasn't familiar with was the deathbed confession story, and I thought it amusing that jspreen's arguments were practically verbatim out of the creationist handbook.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | July 24, 2006 9:06 PM
Do you realize that Pasteurization of water is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Darwinist plot we have ever had to face?
Posted by: Coin | July 24, 2006 9:40 PM
To Dave S.:
Do you realize that Phlogiston Theory lost out to Combustion Theory? It ranks up there with Lamarkian Theory?
Posted by: Norman Costa | July 24, 2006 11:42 PM
Flea: LOL!
Coturnix, Sean Foley: You are wise to fear the dreaded Swift Effect. But of course, the eponymous incident occurred well before the invention of the typewriter, let alone the 'Net!
Posted by: David Harmon | July 24, 2006 11:43 PM
Here is what I can tell you that will help set you free.
The only person crazier than the guy yelling on the streetcorner about the microchip the FBI put in his brain, is the person who stops to argue with him about the validity of his FBI-microchip-brain theory.
They're crazy, it's ok to ignore them. The only thing crazier is to engage them.
Posted by: quitter | July 25, 2006 12:37 AM
Since I think I was the one most active in engaging this specific speciment, let me make clear that I don't engage him to convince him he is wrong. I engage him. to show everyone else he is wrong. People who don't know anything about the subject might be lead into believing that there is something valid in his stance (though his more and more rambling comments should make that less and less likely).
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | July 25, 2006 1:22 AM
I buy that argument when there are people to be swayed, like with the creationists, or global warming deniers. But in this case, there aren't any more people to be swayed. The only people denying this are crazy. A tiny crazy minority of craziness. No one is being swayed by their crazy arguments. Just like the flat-earthers. So arguing with them is just a waste of energy, you're not changing anyone's mind. The only minds that will be changed are those dosed with Lithium or Thorazine.
Posted by: quitter | July 25, 2006 1:32 AM
Actually, there are a lot of people who argue for alternative treatments based upon Béchamp (something I found out when I did a google search after he was brought up here), so there is obviously a need to make clear why Béchamp was disregarded even within his own lifetime.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | July 25, 2006 1:41 AM
quitter, I think the problem is this. When you notice how many people believe the guy on the street corner rather than the scientist who has spent his whole career tackling the subject, you start to wonder if there is a conspiracy after all - masterminded by a shadowy global network of alties!
Posted by: Peter Barber | July 25, 2006 3:12 AM
I'm curious. How do the germ theory doubters explain small pox (and lack thereof)?
Conspiracy?
Posted by: Corbs | July 25, 2006 3:40 AM
What is wrong with Lamark? He is more plausible than Neo-Darwin.
What's wrong with Bechamp? It's not the germ, it's the terrain?
Isn't that reasonable, more so than the germ-hunting moronic microscopic majority ruining the world with your crack-potted conspiracy theories of wild-mutating RNA virus and sexual-inhibition programs?
Of course germs are real. And they are also limited, not magical, as you seem to think they are, evading capture and typification, and only trouvable through over-senstive hardly reproducible-technologies like PCR amplification? Or consensus sequence?
What happened to the germ in germ theory? What happend to the patients? They are gone, and so are the originating environments for the ailments, and all you are left with are your primers and whatever drugs you have to sell.
But you are immune to criticism. Must be a vaccine you've pioneered?
Posted by: Lamark | July 25, 2006 4:18 AM
I am curious as to how these germ-theory deniers explain Fleming, Florey, and Chain. If you follow their reasoning, penicillin has never had any effect on human health.
Posted by: bernarda![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 25, 2006 5:01 AM
Norman Costa writes:
Whoops, gaff on my part! Meant to write that combustion theory was evaluated vis phlogiston theory and the former accepted (although not right away).
Thanks for picking that up Norman.
Posted by: Dave S. | July 25, 2006 6:44 AM
From what I remember orthodox chiropractors deny the germ hypothesis. As for the other examples, can anyone find any sincere phlogistians? :)
Posted by: Keith Douglas | July 25, 2006 9:05 AM
Keith Douglas jibes:
Har. Har. I think phlogistonians sounds better. :)
Actually, if you wanted to, you probably could formulate a modern plogiston theory. It would likely involve the assumption of negative mass, and although counter-intuitive, I'm betting someone trolling through the literature could find as much support for that concept as he could for germ-denial. I remember a grad-student friend of mine for a few fleeting moments thought bubbles in water must have negative mass because they rose up. A seconds thought put things right, but the inclination was there, even if only briefly.
Posted by: Dave S. | July 25, 2006 9:19 AM
Phlogisticians. They study phlogistics. OR possibly just phlogic.
Posted by: fnxtr | July 25, 2006 10:10 AM
fnxtr, that's just not phlogical. :)
Posted by: Dave S. | July 25, 2006 10:51 AM
Actually I think Bill Maher subscribes to a watery version of Bechamp's theories. He mentions it whenever anyone brings up the poor state of American health. He, and others, seem to think that if you live a "clean" life then you will never get sick and particularly never get sick with infectious illness.
My counterexample would be Native Americans. You can hardly argue that Native Americans were paragons of "natural living" - only whole foods they killed or gathered themselves and tons of daily exercise. What killed off 95% of Native Americans? Infectious illness (see Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond)
Posted by: Dr. Steve | July 25, 2006 12:34 PM
What killed off 95% of Native Americans? Infectious illness
How wrong you are. Native Americans died because they have been treated worse than lice. They have been chased off of their fathers land by bandits with shotguns. Their mothers, wives and daughters have been raped, their kids murdered.
You stupid little kids of the rich, you have shit for brains and cannot understand anymore that people who are living in poverty and filth die young simply because their terrible diseases are caused by their misery. You have no eyes to see that, you can only look in a microscope and say: "Hey, another virus! I found out why they're sick! Let's heal'em with chemo".
But the microbes, they are not the cause of disease. They are the result.
Sorry, what did you say? I'm a fool and a Denialist? Yeah I know. And very proud to be one.
Posted by: jspreen | July 25, 2006 1:49 PM
What killed off 95% of Native Americans? Infectious illness
How wrong you are. Native Americans died because they have been treated worse than lice. They have been chased off of their fathers land by bandits with shotguns. Their mothers, wives and daughters have been raped, their kids murdered.
The stupid little kids of the rich, they have shit for brains and cannot understand anymore that people who are living in poverty and filth die young simply because their terrible diseases are caused by their misery. You have no eyes to see that, you can only look in a microscope and say: "Hey, another virus! I found out why they're sick! Let's heal'em with chemo".
But the microbes, they are not the cause of disease. They are the result.
Sorry, what did you say? I'm a fool and a Denialist? Yeah I know. And very proud to be one.
Posted by: jspreen | July 25, 2006 1:51 PM
jspreen: I will assume ignorance rather than blindness.
I would suggest you consult Sherburne F Cook, Alfred Crosby, and William H McNeil (Sorry Dr. Steve, I personally think Diamond is a johnny come lately, and does not offer much that is new)first before you spout off your ignorance of smallpox and malaria etiology in the New World.
Why is it that the population of the Aztecs and Incas were decimated prior to their ill treatment at the hands of the conquistadores?
What happended to the mound builders along the Mississippi Valley prior to LaSalle?
Why do we not see the etiology consistent with malaria among the Mission abused and unabused California Indians until 1829 when introduced by a Hudson Bay trapper with those same symptoms? (Prior to that time we have descriptions of outbreaks consistent with measles among the missionized Indians, such as 1806, in written accounts.) How is it that villages sequentially are depopulated, rather than all at once?
Posted by: mgr | July 25, 2006 2:55 PM
You get the good ones, Dr. T. I mean I still consider Wilhelm the piece de resistance, but this cat is certainly in the running.
Posted by: Pinko Punko | July 25, 2006 4:24 PM
Right.
Find the healthiest person you can. Give them a dose of ebola. You can contemplate the error of you ways while his organs liquify and you await sentencing.
(Prediction: even if such an experiment were done you would blame the result on some made up BS like a lack of wheat germ in his diet or something)
Posted by: Dr. Steve | July 25, 2006 4:27 PM
Tara,
who are "they", these HIV-deniers who deny that any virus causes disease as well?
I know plenty of AIDS reappraisers (HIV-deniers to you), and have found less than a handful of people that question whether viruses cause disease. You're dealing in hyperbole here, but carry on, it "works" for you.
Did you start this thread so you and your friends can beat up on Jan? Very respectable.
Posted by: Corn-Catt | July 25, 2006 5:42 PM
Absolutely incredible. I guess it shows how new I am to the anti-science crowd that I find jspreen and his ilk astounding. I mean, these people are alive and healthy today because of public-health measures predicated on the germ theory of disease, measures that their families have benefitted from for generations.
And still they babble about censorship and tell doctors and researchers to do "real science".
Posted by: wright | July 25, 2006 8:39 PM
Major props, this site is absloutely hilarious. But I think you need to break character at least one somewhere on the site so no one actually starts to think that you believe this stuff.
Posted by: Steve | July 25, 2006 11:07 PM
Do you realize that Pasteurization of water is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Darwinist plot we have ever had to face?
I thought that's what fluoridation was!
Posted by: George Cauldron![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 26, 2006 12:06 AM
I've been wondering something over the last couple of days: if bacteria and viruses don't cause disease, why do we have an immune system? Perhaps Jan could enlighten me. I would seriously be interested to know.
Posted by: Peter Barber | July 26, 2006 12:09 AM
Glancing over the manic claims, wild assertions, loopie conspiracies and hilarious allegations made by many folks in this menagerie of faux scientists, it's easy to see why Bush and his pals have absolutely nothing whatsoever to worry about.
Posted by: Charles | July 26, 2006 1:05 AM
I suppose that the reduction and near disappearance of polio after the introduction of the Salk and Sabin vaccines was just a coincidence.
Well, one positive aspect of the jspreens is that if they refuse such treatments and antibiotic treatments for a variety of illnesses, we soon won't by encumbered by them.
Posted by: bernarda![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 26, 2006 5:31 AM
We don't have immune systems, silly. We have poverty amelioration systems.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | July 26, 2006 8:24 AM
'Assume ignorance'? What nonsense -- no person with even a subnormal intelligence can escape certain points of general knowledge in our societies. Denial of those points does not constitute evidence of ignorance, but active rejection of those facts.
A person who thinks that we must reject the germ theory of disease wholesale is as reasonable as one who thinks we must reject the idea that different masses fall at the same rate. Isn't it more reasonable to think that heavy objects fall faster than light ones?
Posted by: Caledonian | July 26, 2006 9:20 AM
This is a joke right? Tell me one of your friends is a sociology professor who is studying herd behavior. Tell me the crazies that came out of the woodwork are just grad students helping with the experiment. That letter has to be a parody of creationist criticism of the theory of evolution. It just has to be, it matches almost verbatim but replacing Darwin with Pasteur and germ with evolution.
Please tell me this is just an experiment. Noone could be as obtuse as this and still be able to use a computer.
Posted by: commissarjs | July 26, 2006 9:24 AM
What terrorize me is that those people are those that vote in the USA, I didn't know that education in the USA is so F**** up.
This is realy dangerous, because mixing Bombs and Nut People is explosive.
Posted by: zouhair | July 26, 2006 9:30 AM
Nuts like this are encouraged by the likes of Bill Maher who spouts the same nonsense on TV.
Posted by: Skeptico | July 26, 2006 10:09 AM
Yep Rich people never get sick because all money, Mercedes Benz, foie gras and stock certificates are coated with a anti-poverty-sickness gel. It only works when you come into contact with it at a frequency that no poor person would ever be able to. HA HA. I love being rich.
I plan on heading down to the (cover your eyes, the following word may too vulgar for you) Pharmacy to pick up a Chemo pack next time I get a cold.
And the universe was designed by an Intelligent Designer and evolution is junk science because I want it to be, even in light of all the evidence to the contracy. All that evidence and science talk is for rich shit for brains.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 26, 2006 10:17 AM
From what I remember orthodox chiropractors deny the germ hypothesis. As for the other examples, can anyone find any sincere phlogistians? :)
I dunno, I went to a chiropractor once who believed in the germ hypothesis. (Back problems, I gave it a shot.)
In fact, he had a little gizmo that was intended to combat germs.
It was a little metal rod with a box and a 9-volt battery attached. He came into the room to see me examining it, and he explained that he has a guy make them for him... and that it prevents colds.
All you have to do, he explained, is hold on the metal rod, push the button, and it kills the cold viruses "and their eggs, too!"
Yes, he said that. "and their eggs, too!" all full of excitement. He actually believed that crap.
Posted by: craig | July 26, 2006 10:30 AM
Phlogistines!!!
::sigh:: Yeah, I'm late with that joke. Oh, well...
Posted by: Scenedesmeriffic | July 26, 2006 10:32 AM
Michael Crichton's current flavor of kookery is global warming denialism--but before he got into that, his autobiography "Travels" makes clear that he explored the dark side of the moon on a wide range of topics, from psychic spoonbending to demonic possession and exorcism. And also denial of the germ theory of disease.
Yes, former DOCTOR Crichton made clear in his autobiography that he had doubts about the theory and thought it had been too quickly embraced by the medical community--that there might even be an element of greed-driven coverup going on, with doctors standing to gain monetarily from one treatment after another that, of course, did not cure you because, of course, there were no "germs" there to be treated.
I'm just glad no one I know was ever under his scalpel.
Posted by: TTT | July 26, 2006 10:33 AM
Caledonian:
I agree with you, but I think you are building a strawman from my position, as you only quote a clause from a sentence--"I will assume ignorance, rather than blindness."
If you note the credulity of other posters that no one can be that stupid, you can see my point--that it is likely jspreen is taking the position to be contrary just to be contrary out of callowness. My responses to jspreen are directed not only to him, but anyone sympathetic to his argument. It works well at the hand waving level to argue that one theory has as much merit as another, but it is where the rubber hits the road, when the implications of the theory that fail to address empirical evidence, that one should address. Jeering does not help.
As to ignorance, I asked my son who is fourteen and starting high school who Pasteaur is, and he could not give me an answer. I do not recall addressing germ theory with him during his earlier science education, though to his credit, his interest is in physical science rather than biological, and he does have a handle on Darwin and evolution. But there is also a children's book on Pasteaur on the bookshelf. Looks like time for some home schooling by Dad.
Mike
Posted by: mgr | July 26, 2006 10:46 AM
I'd like to ask a few questions here of our friend jspreen. I apologize to the others if this constitutes "feeding the troll," I'll certainly be quiet if requested. It's just that I've never met one of his kind before. Specifically:
1. As Peter Barber said: Why do we have immune systems?
2. What causes anthrax, and what killed the victims of the "anthrax letters" attack shortly after 9/11?
3. What is your response when the persistence of a usually-treatable disease is observed in direct association with antibiotic resistant bacteria? Note, too, that in some cases we know the precise biochemical modes of action of these antibiotics on these bacteria and the biochemical changes these bacteria have evolved to evade the drugs.
4. I am not ghoulish, nor do I wish harm to you (indeed I would beg you not to try this), but in an academic sense I AM curious about your response to the classic question, already asked above: Why NOT inject yourself with ebola/HIV/anthrax/whatever?
If "Lamark" is at all representative, I sense a hint at a possible response to many of these questions...specifically, that some of these germs CAN cause disease but are exceptions to the rule. Though that would seem to me to move the debate to the arena of public health and prevention vs. "magic pill," cure-based medicine. Regardless, I'd like to hear your responses.
Posted by: rrt | July 26, 2006 10:46 AM
Interesting thread.
Even though I would be classified as an HIV-denier in Tara lingo, I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater in denying the germ theory.
If all you folks are so confident in your assertions, why are you expending so much energy on Jan?
Posted by: Corn-Catt | July 26, 2006 10:56 AM
Did you follow the links in the post?
I started this thread because jspreen's claims were rather outrageous, even to someone like myself who's been watching anti-science groups for quite some time. And again, the parallel with creationists is quite striking. Do y'all have some kind of shared playbook that you consult?
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | July 26, 2006 10:58 AM
Mike:
How old is that book?! I think I had it as a kid, too!
Regarding Caledonian's comment, I'm inclined to be a lot more cautious about ruling out ignorance these days. It wasn't too long ago that I learned my sister, in her mid-late twenties, well-educated (graduate school), very intelligent, with broad interests...had no idea who Anne Frank was, and knew almost nothing about the holocaust, as in, no knowledge of concentration camps, etc...nothing more than "the Nazis didn't like Jews and killed some." This was not a case of holocaust denial or living in an environment that in ANY way would have tried to shelter her from it...she simply did not know. My sister is NOT an idiot, nor a "flighty" personality, which made it all the more stunning.
I have had much more minor gaps in my common-sense knowledge...for instance, I didn't know until my early twenties how garbage disposals worked (in my defense, some odd circumstances contributed to that...) I just hadn't realized the holes could be that large.
Posted by: rrt | July 26, 2006 11:00 AM
"And again, the parallel with creationists is quite striking. Do y'all have some kind of shared playbook that you consult?"
Yes, Dr. T, your attempt at framing "HIV-deniers" as synonymous with creationists is obvious. We get it.
You'd think that there would be a creationist within the "HIV-deniers" ranks, but I have yet to meet one.
It's a pretty weak tactic, but it serves the purpose as a distraction from discussing more vital issues in the "HIV/AIDS" realm
Posted by: Corn-Catt | July 26, 2006 11:07 AM
You've never heard of Phillip Johnson? Jon Wells? Tom Bethell?
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | July 26, 2006 11:09 AM
Are they? That's super, but I don't know them.
I suppose when dealing with Tara math...three equals much more than three, or is simply called "they", implying ALL. Go for it, Tara.
Posted by: Corn-Catt | July 26, 2006 11:12 AM
I should note, though, that even most creationists aren't so self-defeating as to deny the germ theory of disease.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | July 26, 2006 11:12 AM
Then I'll assume you're not familiar with the creationist movement. I can point you to many resources if you'd like to learn more.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. I never said all HIV-deniers, nor even many, are creationists (though the membership does, indeed, overlap). I simply said they use the same tactics. Surely you can see the difference?
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | July 26, 2006 11:17 AM
The same people believe we never landed on the moon...
Posted by: Duane Keys | July 26, 2006 11:23 AM
It's painfully obvious what you're doing, Tara. You're attempting to equate AIDS reappraisal with creationism. You state that there are three people who overlap into both categories, which most prove, um, something.
Now you start a thread to beat up on Jan, who questions the germ theory.
Instead of discussing the science behind AIDS, you're taking the tabloid journalism approach.
Posted by: Corn-Catt | July 26, 2006 11:35 AM
Somehow, somewhere, I'd love to see a study (by whom, or what field of inquiry) that could reassure me about the following: how many idiots does it take to doom a society; or, conversely, in a society of idiots, how many geniuses are required to keep it from foundering? Clearly, the idiots are on the rise. At what point do we have to worry? Or do Tara, PZ, Orac, and their like exist in great enough numbers that we'll still be ok. I lie awake at night...
Posted by: Sid Schwab | July 26, 2006 11:40 AM
Yes it is painfully obvious but you seem to miss the point. She is saying that it follows the mold that science deniers and junk-science advocates as well as creationists all seem to be cast in. They all have the same inability to see facts, proof and evidence and instead rely on faith, mined tidbits of anecdotal evidence and just plain personal fancy when explaining phenomenon. You said you had not yet to meet one. She gave you three prominent members of the groups. She answered your question. You are the one projecting.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 26, 2006 11:41 AM
Posted by: wamba | July 26, 2006 11:48 AM
Posted by: wamba | July 26, 2006 11:51 AM
I have a question:
If infectious diseases are caused by poverty and famine - why is it that rich and non-famished people catch them too?
Posted by: Paul | July 26, 2006 11:54 AM
Wow, I knew there were people who didn't 'believe' in the AIDS virus, but I had no idea that there were people who dismissed germ theory in whole.
And disease is caused solely by the poverty itself? WTF is wrong with this person? The level of magical thinking is astounding.
Posted by: Sean | July 26, 2006 11:58 AM
This is fantastic.
Suffering causes disease.
Disease causes suffering.
You get sick, and then you can never get better.
Posted by: j![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/nav-commenters.gif)
|
July 26, 2006 12:18 PM
I have a reasonable suggestion for those who deny "germ theory" (since it's just a theory, after all): Put your your money where your mouth is! It's simple enough to do, after all.
Go have unprotected sex with an HIV-infected partner. Spend time on a flu ward without protection for you nose and mouth. Eat undercooked, unprepared meat. Refuse the required vaccinations for smallpox, rubella and the like. After all, "germ theory" is just a crock, right? Why, there's no such thing as viruses and bacteria!
Just don't chastise the rest of us when we laugh at you for proving natural selection in action. When you come back sick and dying of various STIs, exotic diseases, and several forms of disentary and stomach viruses, we reserve the right to say: "I told you so."
Posted by: raptor_red | July 26, 2006 12:32 PM
I think we used to call this a hog-pile when I was in grade school...a whole bunch of kids all piling on top of one.
There's just ONE person here doubting Pasteur and the germ theory. How many of you are there chiming in, as if this was somehow threatening? Geez. Have some respect for yourselves. You're acting as if Jan could somehow single-handedly bring down the germ theory. Don't worry, it isn't happening.
Posted by: DB | July 26, 2006 12:41 PM
And science isn't under attack by this administration and other wingnut groups either. If we just ignore them I'm sure the creationist, anti-vaccine, anti-germ theory, anti-modern medicine, pro-woo treatment and Intelligent Design groups will just disappear.
Take a few mins and stroll around the web and see how many offshoots the "altie" medicine crowd there are.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 26, 2006 12:47 PM
What a stellar assortment of scientists, anti-creationists, logicians, and true believers we have here.
Here's a little question that perhaps this august body can answer for me.
We all know that AIDS is an infectious disease (or a syndrome or a collection of signs and symptoms) for which we are all at risk.
In the city of San Francisco (population 700,000), over the past 25 years, there has been a cumulative total of only 254 heterosexual contact female cases of AIDS (about 10 per year).
Despite the prominence of the city's gay and lesbian community, anyone who lives in or near San Francisco knows that the overwhelming majority of the city's population is heterosexual.
So, dear friends and esteemed colleagues, what is your best, most economical and logical explanation for why there have only been 254 heterosexual female AIDS cases in San Francisco since 1981?
Brief, complete sentences with a subject, verb and nouns would be great. No lazy references to this or that website.
Just some straightforward, to-the-point, evidence-based, logical and believable explanations.
Okay - go! This'll be good.............
Posted by: Charles | July 26, 2006 1:01 PM
We called it a dogpile in my school, DB. I'm of the school of thought that the truth needs to be told rapidly and directly to these folks. I think it is worse to leave a falsehood unanswered, however much indifference and ridicule we may exhibit toward it, than to grant the falsehood attention and a sense of power by giving the appearance that it commands a response from me and/or instills fear and uncertainty in my position. We also get very tired of pseudoscience and the mindset associated with it, and thus enjoy venting. Although my questions above are much less venting than curiosity laced with challenge.
Raptor Red, keep in mind some of these folks (including both of our friends here) do not deny the existence of viruses and bacteria. They seem to be claiming they're secondary, or most often secondary, and not the primary cause of illness. Or, to put it another way, they seem to think that these diseases would still exist in identical or nearly identical forms in humans living in completely sterile environments. Your suggestion of eating undercooked, unprepared meat might even be part of their model of behavior leading to disease.
Posted by: rrt | July 26, 2006 1:03 PM
grant the falsehood attention and a sense of power by giving the appearance that it commands a response from me and/or instills fear and uncertainty in my position
Yet that's exactly what you and others here have done. You've spelled it all out right there. I think you're being more honest than you realize.
Posted by: DB | July 26, 2006 1:30 PM
Deathbed conversions: Did you hear that Pope JPII apologized on his deathbed for opposing birth control?
...no, I haven't heard this either, but two sides could play this game.
Charles: because while most of SF is heterosexual, most of the infected population of SF is gay men. And there are these things called "condoms" which women might be insisting on use of.
http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/PHP/RptsHIVAIDS/HIVAIDAnnlRpt2004-20050609-fnlWeb.pdf
has a table showing cumulative numbers, and the number of men who've acquired AIDS through hetero contact is even lower than for women, which makes sense. I am surprised that the numbers of men with AIDS from drug use haven't led to higher numbers of women with AIDS from sex. But the vast majority of cases are linked to male-male sex, sans drugs.
Actually, the drug/sex thing may make sense. If I were a woman I wouldn't have unprotected sex with a needle-sharer. I probably wouldn't have sex at all with him. I'd guess that the women most likely to have unprotected sex with a needle-sharer might well be sharing the needle themselves, so they'd get infected through direct blood contact before they got infected through the vaginal lining.
Posted by: Damien | July 26, 2006 2:27 PM
I think the jury is in:
This is NOT a science blog.
If it were we'd get answers to even the silliest and most outrageous questions and that's what professors and scientists do, they inform (remember, there are no stupid questions, only stupid answers as is vividly shown on this thread) . But not here. The inhouse people are WAY above that lowly occupation. No, here we pontificate and when that doesn't work we engage in swarming character assassinations. I would have loved to hear more mature talk about Bechamp and why it is believed that he was right or why he was wrong. No, again.
Here we have the same collection of "flamers" that can be found on any mediocre internet blog, without exception (with less outright profanity than GNN I concede) but, alas, with the same poor hyperbole and lazy dogmatic logic. Tara, your attempts and those of your fellow cyber-sisters at digging trenches in this imagined "US vs THEM" theory of scientific warfare are truely reaching into the ludicrous. If jspreen is correct about anything it is that there are indeed no denialists in science but merely scientific disagreements. Your and your Cyber Sisters inability to comprehend basic scientific ettiquette is simply mind boggling. You seem incapable of seperating the message from the messanger, unless of course they agree with you. Example: You speak of Duesberg as having being "discredited"; that is a bold statement coming from a scientist like you who, compared to him, is still wet behind the ears. You willfully dismiss all his other work based on his lone scientific disagreement about the causes of AIDS ("you threw the baby out with the bath water" I think the adage goes). Any joe/jane with a brain cell of his/her own can see through your dogmatic statement about Duesberg.
It all started for me with your thread about the "Boredom of debating denialists" when it became apparent to me that in fact you LOVE debating "denialists" and you love putting labels like that on any one who disagrees with you. It's your hobby, it gives you that little ego boost you need because you are not comfortable with the fact that NOTHING in science is clear cut and unambiguous. If history teaches us anything it is precisely that science IS murky and ambiguous to us mere mortals of which you are one but apparently are in "denial" of.
Posted by: pat | July 26, 2006 2:40 PM