Harry Pasternak, an AIDS-denier, wrote an extremely disingenuous letter to Jimbo and the rest of us. Mr. Pasternak falsely claimed that their are no peer-reviewed studies and papers that prove that the HIV virus causes AIDS. For shame.
He is using the same tactic used by certain religious fundamentalists who deny that there are any peer-reviewed papers which prove that Evolution occurs, and the same tactic used by religious fundamentalists who claim that there are no peer-reviewed papers which prove that the world is 4.5 billion years old.
In all such cases there *are* such papers, and in all cases Wikipedia articles *do* link to reputable cites which have vast amounts of peer-reviewed scientific information on this topic. We can add more citations of course, but Pasternak's claim is not meant to improve the article. It is meant to mislead, obfuscate, and push AIDS-denial, and it is written in the same way that Evolution deniers and Holocaust deniers work. They give the appearance of being rational, but they distort statements made by other people, and refuse to accept any evidence at all.
The utter denial of the existence of such peer-reviewed papers is dishonest, and borders on a pathological obesession. We need not take such bizarre rants to this list, for any form of "denial".
On this subject, some good reading material about PEER-REVIEWED studies, can be found here:
http://www2.niaid.nih.gov/newsroom/focuson/hiv00/default.htm
http://www2.niaid.nih.gov/Newsroom/FocusOn/Hiv00/MACSWIHS.htm
Unless these websites don't exist either, and the studies cited within do not exist, and the scientists quoted do not exist....
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 10:16:33 -0800 (PST), Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com wrote:
He is using the same tactic used by certain religious fundamentalists who deny that there are any peer-reviewed papers which prove that Evolution occurs, and the same tactic used by religious fundamentalists who claim that there are no peer-reviewed papers which prove that the world is 4.5 billion years old.
In all such cases there *are* such papers, and in all cases Wikipedia articles *do* link to reputable cites which have vast amounts of peer-reviewed scientific information on this topic. We can add more citations of course, but Pasternak's claim is not meant to improve the article. It is meant to mislead, obfuscate, and push AIDS-denial, and it is written in the same way that Evolution deniers and Holocaust deniers work. They give the appearance of being rational, but they distort statements made by other people, and refuse to accept any evidence at all.
Let's be careful with wording here. There is nothing to *prove* evolution, the age of the Earth or the link between HIV and AIDS. What there is is a great deal of evidence, probably overwhelmingly so, to suggest these things. I personally agree with all these points, but it is not correct to say that they are proved. Also, I think any claims that the Holocaust did not occur are absolute nonsense - however, there are reasonable arguments against evolution. We must, however, understand that peer-review does *not* alone make something true and undisputable.
Smoddy
--- Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Let's be careful with wording here. There is nothing to *prove* evolution, the age of the Earth or the link between HIV and AIDS. What there is is a great deal of evidence, probably overwhelmingly so, to suggest these things. I personally agree with all these points, but it is not correct to say that they are proved. Also, I think any claims that the Holocaust did not occur are absolute nonsense - however, there are reasonable arguments against evolution. We must, however, understand that peer-review does *not* alone make something true and undisputable.
It is possible to say something is 'true beyond a reasonable doubt'. This is the case for the HIV/AIDS issue and for the age of the Earth (along with plate tectonics, btw).
Micro evolution (small-scale genetic changes in a population) is also in the 'true beyond a reasonable doubt' category, but macro evolution (large-scale changes over a longer time, leading to the formation of new species) is still in the 'preponderance of evidence' stage (although, with increasing evidence to support this idea each year and with the consensus view of biologists being that it is 'true beyond a reasonable doubt').
-- mav
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail