Interesting, I double checked my tags and it still fucked up. Ricky, are things broken?

Here's a repost...

Uhm reread what you just said...


"where it was produced using organs from other types of monkeys," (Emphasis on TYPES OF MONKEYS)

Other types of course won't show the type they are testing for but that he neither here nor there.

Also note the stuff they tested wasn't the stuff in question which was the locally grown stuff. Hence no samples are there to test.



"I'd say they still had samples of the original vaccine."

Perhaps of the stuff they grew in the US but not the stuff grown in the congo. So while technically true they had some sort of sample from that time period to test it isn't the stuff in question.



"Get enough empirical evidence and you can make an accurate determination."

It is still guesswork. You can make a hypothesis but unless there is an actual sample of the locally grown batch there's no telling. While DNA testing may be useful to some extent, the accuracy isn't enough to trace things to a lone monkey carrying the SIV which mutated.

No way to determine the timeline? Why not, they have started doing just that. Simulations or not given enough time they should be able to track this down. How do you think they have solved the mysteries of other killer diseases?

They are just finding numbers that fit the timeline they are looking for. Basically a form of Occam's razor specifically suited to the needs of the scientists to prove their theory. Given enough time and playing with numbers you could prove a great number of things erroneously... especially when you don't have the proof to back it up. (i.e. a sample of the original disease, the exact date and time of transfer, etc.)

It all goes back to guesswork. I could come up with all sorts of theories (including numbers to "prove it") that "prove" something happened at a certain date but that doesn't make it true.



"15 years ago no one knew much about Ebola (they still don't know everything) but today they can pinpoint its emergence to a single cave in Africa."

You said it yourself they still don't know everything. So how can anyone say that this in fact happened on such and such date in this particular cave etc.? Without all information and variables accounted for there is a margin of error just sitting there. Could you also provide a reference to your information regarding how they pinpointed ebola to this one cave you speak of? I would like to see exactly how they came to this conclusion considering the strains out there and how long it's been in the works.



"As I've repeatedly said you can't know what they said to the reporter."

Then neither can you. Who are YOU to slander a reporter, claiming their reporting isn't credible? Sorry chum, I'll go by the quotes. I won't guess as to what was or wasn't said. That's a bad way to make any kind of judgement or discern things. That would be like me guessing what Einstein discussed with the various folks he spoke with and concluding the theories he came up with were someone elses but that bit of info was left out of the books.

Absurd isn't it?

It is a better idea to make decisions based on what is rather than what isn't. Bush worships the devil. Sure he tells everyone that he's a man of God but what we don't hear is that it is a facade to hide his worship of the dark lord himself.

Seems that line of thinking (i.e. speculating the reporter has some hidden agenda and thus left out information) leads to tin-foil hats and conspiracy theories.



"Scientists do place credence and weight on opposing opinions when they write. They have to or the scientific community wouldn't lend any credibility to their work."

Ahem, no, they place credibility on THEIR OWN works and distance themselves from opposing views as much as possible from what I have seen. That is unless of course, it is a popular view with no real opposition.

If they didn't include the opposing theories then their work would look exactly as you say - one sided and close minded. But real scientists don't leave things like that out.

But they do look close minded and one-sided. I doubt very much that the scientists who write these articles for science magazines include this controversial theory. Nor do I believe they will state why they are doing the next "Study" to refute the controversial theory. Rather it will simply be a one-sided piece showing a timeline and a speculation as to where HIV came from.



"But real scientists don't leave things like that out. Granted they may not be as ardent supporters of an opposing theory, but why should they - they are talking about their own work, not someone else's."

That seems like a contradiction. It just reinforces my statement that they are a pretty close-minded bunch when it comes to their theories and are unwilling to accept that there may be a possibility that they are in fact wrong.

As for why they should... to prove that they are in fact looking at ALL evidence when making their decisions. It helps demonstrate an unbiased mind and way of thinking when you aren't afraid of stating what your opponent feels is right.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't care if they want to create a study which is one sided just to have a study but when they are going to cry foul about someone else doing that they need to be knocked up-side the head with a crowbar.


"Again the supposition that they are whining doesn't enter into it. They are simply pointing out that this film isnt useful as a weighted argument. It's too one-sided."

This boarders on the lines of hypocrisy. They are more than just "pointing out" things. The first scientist was in a full-fledged whine. A couple of the others who were quoted or mentioned actually had something useful to add. And as stated, the film isn't the part of the argument at all. The argument is in the subject matter of the film.

Their own works are very one sided. If they want to express their views they can. Rather than do so they would rather cry foul and make appeals to authority.

Hope that works better...

"I can't say that's an entirely fair depiction. Who knows what they said aside from that which was printed?"

Just because you think a journalist has some sort of agenda and a conspiracy is there doesn't mean it is so. Who are you to say anything was omitted?


"I'd further pose the argument that had the entire contents of what people said actually been published this wouldnt seem controversial."

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Wow what a kneejerk... you completely missed the point... I'll try and break it down into terms you can understand.

"So, just disregard scientists who have published peer-reviewed studies and take the word of a jounalist who's theory has been discredited by the scientific community and who has nothing but purely circumstancial evidence on his side? Yeah, that advances human knowledge. "

So, just disregard what other free thinkers have researched on their own and take the word of the high and mighty scientists who are beyond reproach because well... they said so.

Indeed, such an advancement you propose.


"One of the principal tenants of scientific research is that your findings should hold up to scrutiny and evidence of your peers."

Then they should be proving otherwise if this theory is so incorrect rather than bitch about not being given the opportunity.

"In the film, all dissent was left on the cutting room floor- knowing full well the audience is unlikely to read jounals like "Nature" to get the other side. "

So it is claimed. And who here needs to check their tin-foil hat? You presume much if you believe everyone is into conspiracies as you seem to be. The audience if they are interested in the origins of HIV would be inclined to read more than one article, or see more than one show on it. You are very amusing.


"Anyone familiar with the workings of science knows that scientists are constantly questioning each other. That's why their results are published in peer-reviewed journals- to give others the opportunity to examine and refute their findings."

Funny they were questioned in this case and got their panties in a bunch. (Look there's the point of the whole issue. Keep an eye on it or it may give you the slip yet again.)

Considering your "logic" regarding the people viewing the film... couldn't the same type of conspiracy theory be applied to those journals of "peers?" I mean, they are after all a bunch of good old boys, if you aren't in with that crowd your work isn't likely to get published... you are trule astounding the way you think.


"The whole point is that they weren't given the opportunity to offer evidence in the film."

Oh, the poor babies. Was the journalist given the opportunity to publish his findings in their precious journals? Doubtful. After all, his research was a mockery of the scientific community and their lofty culture.


"It's hardly an "appeal to authority" to refer to someone who has conducted the research and provdided relevant evidence."

Yes it is when they don't cite the actual evidence, and expect you to take their word for it that the journalist is wrong.

"It's easier to just say "according to Smith" though; studies are usually referred to that way- "did you read the Smith study in Nature?" "

No, did you see the film? Hardly matters when it comes to this discussion there chum. Red herring. Carry on though, you're dancing just fine.


"You think maybe their opinions are based on evidence obtained in a scientific manner?"

You think maybe Hooper's opinions are based on evidence obtained in a scientific manner? (Of course we know you'll say no. But any good journalist does do his research.)

""Wired News" is hardly the forum for an in-depth scientific debate on the issue... few of us would understand it if they did."

And where the fuck did this come from? This has nothing to do with anything here. *blink* Wired was just a news source. Hello? Earth to HP, come in retard.

How about you try and follow along with what the adults here are discussing before piping in your usual drivel hmmm?

If the debate is "alive and well" as you say it is then there has to be something to what the journalist is proposing. After all if the "peers" are debating (i.e. ARGUING) about the matter then it is undecided and there is supporting evidence for both sides of a lack of evidence on both sides to make a final decision that is beyond contestation.

If things are so inconclusive, perhaps they should stop holding onto their opinions so hard and actually listen to what the other parties have to say rather than stick their fingers in their ears singing, "La LA LA, CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUUUU" like children (something you do a lot of by the way.) Real scientists are open-minded and willing to hear ALL evidence.

Hell, even I'm willing to hear what others have to say even if I disagree with them. Surely if even I can do that, these men and women of such HIGH standing :rolleyes: can do the same rather than whine about a "biased" view of a journalist.

If it was so worthless when it came to research why dignify the piece at all by responding?

These scientists are just children. They have the education but lack the social skills, wisdom, and understanding of how the world turns to put that education to good use. This is probably because they were forced to hit the books rather than be allowed to grow up normally. The result, children with elitest attitudes and big brains. Or if you prefer, arrogant pricks who are educated but completely separated from humanity.

But I digress. I hope you get the point of things now. Rather than trying to drum up an argument about something that isn't an issue stay on task please.

I still don't give a fuck. It's thread-jacking dickhead.

link]" border="0">

Nope, you didn't close your bold tag

<i>where it was produced using organs from <b>other types of monkeys,<b> <i>

Boy, it's one of my pet peeves when somebody blames someone else for something before checking their own work to make sure they aren't the one who fucked up.

is this their evidence?-->>[<[link]>]

if that link dont work try going to www.funsnap.com/1/bushgirl.swf

www.funsnap.com/1/bushgirl.swf

Hey asshole, it was a simple question. I double checked my tags because I keep forgetting them. I was more than sure that I got at least the italics closed.

I went back twice.

If you think it was blame thats tough shit. MAybe you should get your fucking act together and work out the fucking flaws that are there before you bitch about others asking if something is broken.

Fucking "sensitive" cocksucker.

"Wow what a kneejerk... you completely missed the point..." hmm sounds just like you rev, strange!

Wow, that was one of the most senseless posts I've seen since reading the "ICP Sucks" thread.

So, just disregard what other free thinkers have researched on their own and take the word of the high and mighty scientists who are beyond reproach because well... they said so.

No, because they've conducted the research and published their results for all to see and critique. No one is suggesting the journalist in question shouldn't be able to present his findings; the whole point is that opposing views (and the evidence supporting those views) were intentionally excluded.

Then they should be proving otherwise if this theory is so incorrect rather than bitch about not being given the opportunity.

And just how the fuck are they supposed to "prove" otherwise if they were prevented from doing so by being excluded from the film? Again, that's the entire point.

"It's easier to just say "according to Smith" though; studies are usually referred to that way- "did you read the Smith study in Nature?" "

No, did you see the film? Hardly matters when it comes to this discussion there chum. Red herring. Carry on though, you're dancing just fine.

Bloody hell, I didn't think I had to spell it out for you, but the "Smith study in Nature" was a hypothetical example. The point is that a person's opinion is only as respected as the research they've done. No matter what the "evidence", it still takes a person to conduct the research and document the results.

You think maybe Hooper's opinions are based on evidence obtained in a scientific manner? (Of course we know you'll say no. But any good journalist does do his research.)

You give journalists way too much credit. Allowing your work to stand up to the scrutiny of others is part of the scientific process. He conveniently left such scrutiny out- bad journalism and very UNscientific.

If the debate is "alive and well" as you say it is then there has to be something to what the journalist is proposing. After all if the "peers" are debating (i.e. ARGUING) about the matter then it is undecided and there is supporting evidence for both sides of a lack of evidence on both sides to make a final decision that is beyond contestation.

Such a simplistic, black and white world you live in. That something hasn't been "proven" true doesn't imply that evidence supporting a theory is invalid. Again, you missed the entire point- the film in question ignores the mainstream view and the evidence to back it up, and presents only one side- a side that most experts disagree with, based on the published evidence.

If things are so inconclusive, perhaps they should stop holding onto their opinions so hard and actually listen to what the other parties have to say rather than stick their fingers in their ears singing, "La LA LA, CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUUUU" like children (something you do a lot of by the way.) Real scientists are open-minded and willing to hear ALL evidence.

Again, you have it backwards- the article gave the impression that the experts listened to what the journalist had to say, and found his evidence lacking or otherwise contradicted by their own research. The journalist and film maker completely ignored such contradicting evidence.

If it was so worthless when it came to research why dignify the piece at all by responding?

Because the general public- who doesn't read scientific journals- will be given a one-sided view. Basically the film is one-sided propaganda. They're complaining that his theory isn't widely accepted- for good reason- and those who tried to explain why were cut out of the film.

These scientists are just children. They have the education but lack the social skills, wisdom, and understanding of how the world turns to put that education to good use. This is probably because they were forced to hit the books rather than be allowed to grow up normally. The result, children with elitest attitudes and big brains. Or if you prefer, arrogant pricks who are educated but completely separated from humanity.

Ah, and here it is- nice to see that you're so open minded. You clearly have an irrational mistrust of and disdain for science and the scientific community, and have little clue how science is conducted.

I've little doubt that had you been alive 600 years ago, you'd be among those calling the scientists of the day "heretics" for maintaining that the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun. That's OK, Rev- continue to take your "herbal remedies" and live in the blissful ignorance that comes with your complete lack of critical thinking skills.

My sex-ed teacher warned me about eating the bushmeat.

As long as the bushmeat in question has been washed and shaven you should be ok... just don't bite too hard :D

Wow what a troll!

Really, do try harder, your Queen is watching ;)

"o, because they've conducted the research and published their results for all to see and critique. No one is suggesting the journalist in question shouldn't be able to present his findings; the whole point is that opposing views (and the evidence supporting those views) were intentionally excluded. "

You just said it yourself fucktard, their findings are published. IT's there for folks to see. Can't exclude something that has already come to pass.

"And just how the fuck are they supposed to "prove" otherwise if they were prevented from doing so by being excluded from the film? Again, that's the entire point. "

Gee, your basis of trusting them is on their findings. So which is it? Have they or have they NOT published their works? Prevented indeed. Again, your point is pointless.

"Bloody hell, I didn't think I had to spell it out for you, but the "Smith study in Nature" was a hypothetical example. The point is that a person's opinion is only as respected as the research they've done. No matter what the "evidence", it still takes a person to conduct the research and document the results."

Gee guess what, you don't have to spell it out. I was pointing out the fucking obvious to you cum-dumpster. Your examples apply to the other side as well.

"Such a simplistic, black and white world you live in. That something hasn't been "proven" true doesn't imply that evidence supporting a theory is invalid. Again, you missed the entire point- the film in question ignores the mainstream view and the evidence to back it up, and presents only one side- a side that most experts disagree with, based on the published evidence. "

Ahhh he we go. You see, I never said it was, I said they need to stop living under their rocks and be open the the chance that there may be someone else out there with an answer. Again, you missed the fucking short bus to school... again.

It goes against the mainstream view... yet it is a view that is debated... both sides have evidence and a lack there of... sounds like the whole issue is in the air and should be treated as such, not a couple of egomaniacs holding to their opinions because they believe theirs to be the right one even if there is a lack of evidence to back them up. Funny, sounds like a lot of Foobies :D

"The journalist and film maker completely ignored such contradicting evidence. "

Or so the whiner claims. IF their evidence has been published they only need to direct folks to it, instead of whine about something they claim as done like leaving their interviews on the cutting room floor.

"Because the general public- who doesn't read scientific journals- will be given a one-sided view. Basically the film is one-sided propaganda. They're complaining that his theory isn't widely accepted- for good reason- and those who tried to explain why were cut out of the film. "

Now who wears the tin-foil hat? You are the extreme right side of the conspiracy theorists. For fuck sake, grow up. But of course, I'm just one of the blind folks who don't know what those dirty bastards behind the curtains are pulling. :rolleyes:

"Ah, and here it is- nice to see that you're so open minded. You clearly have an irrational mistrust of and disdain for science and the scientific community, and have little clue how science is conducted."

Not so. I have a disdain for the children amongst the learned. I think science is great when performed properly and with an open mind. Sorry, your logic fallacies aren't working.

"I've little doubt that had you been alive 600 years ago, you'd be among those calling the scientists of the day "heretics" for maintaining that the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun. That's OK, Rev- continue to take your "herbal remedies" and live in the blissful ignorance that comes with your complete lack of critical thinking skills."

Well you can think what you like but I believe in people acting like adults and not whining when others do the same things they do.

As for herbal remedies, you know, there are actually scientists... gee who would have thought it... that study the effects of plants on the body.While some of the stuff is a bit bizarre and outrageous, some of it is quite useful. But you're big business and all for the money so of course you'll side with pharm companies rather than look at the actual value of something you can grow in your fucking yard.

Hey look... there's a cruise ship with your fucking name on it! Oh, they have salsa dancing lessons too!

Dance.

Well you replied...

...with another attempt of an insult

I'd say it worked, your no different from anyone else - pathetic.

LOL