Lonan3 Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Independent Article Most scientists involved in Aids research believe that a vaccine against HIV is further away than ever and some have admitted that effective immunisation against the virus may never be possible, according to an unprecedented poll conducted by The Independent. The Independent's survey of more than 35 leading Aids scientists in Britain and the United States found that just two were now more optimistic about the prospects for an HIV vaccine than they were a year ago; only four said they were more optimistic now than they were five years ago. Nearly two thirds believed that an HIV vaccine will not be developed within the next 10 years and some of them said that it may take at least 20 more years of research before a vaccine can be used to protect people either from infection or the onset of Aids. A substantial minority of the scientists admitted that an HIV vaccine may never be developed, and even those who believe that one could appear within the next 10 years added caveats saying that such a vaccine would be unlikely to work as a truly effective prophylactic against infection by the virus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Its not exactly news that an HIV vaccine is really challenging science: BBC News Link from January, but pick any year and you'll find exasperated scientists and researchers saying it is one tough challenge. It's evolving so quickly, and is so well evolved, that science is having great difficulty keeping up. The sadest thing about HIV is that crack-pots using anti-science have put back prevention efforts by years if not decades. Some have done it for religious reasons, but for me the really frightening ones are those, just like the Global Warming deniers, the Vaccine deniers, the "Autism is linked to X,Y&Z conspiritors" [add in many of our own fluoride crazies], who have cherry picked the science for their own ends and used this to create a political frenzy which isn't evidence based. The non-evidence based policy this has produced has killed many millions of people. It is bad enough when the religious do this, claiming that condoms are a bigger sin than the many millions dying of aids in Africa, but the failures of science to inform policy shows just how easily it is to manipulate politicians if you can get your half-truths right. Sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 I tried that AIDS thing one but gave it up, it was a pain in the arse trying to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Deniers are the new satans, demonise them first then burn them at the stake [ for the uninitiated deniers used to be called people with a different opinion, its a newspeak thing] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 They may be pessemistic at present, but I can't see them giving up. We haven't found a cure for cancer yet, yet the odd breakthrough is made, and millions upon millions is still spent looking. Sometimes fresher eyes are what are required, as some scientists tend to stick with particular theories on coming up with a particular solution, often which they have invested many years following and are unwilling to let go of. That, and the reality that AIDs is now more seen as an African (i.e. less of a western) problem, and so less money is now being thrown at it. Current pessimism shouldn't be confused too much with the probabilities and possibilities of an eventual cure IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Deniers are the new satans, demonise them first then burn them at the stake [ for the uninitiated deniers used to be called people with a different opinion, its a newspeak thing] Rather emotive language - and I don't think deniers are people with different opinions, they are people who cherry pick and distort evidence. They are people who will never mention the 10 or 100 sets of evidence that say A is the most likely result/cause, rather deniers distort the 1 set of evidence that says B is a possibility that should be investigated further to make it seem like it is the only answer. People like that have destroyed AIDS prevention in South Africa and cost millions of lives; and have nearly destroyed faith in vaccination, one of the world's most important health advances. Science is full of people with different opinions - people who spend their lives working to show their pet theory is correct and someone elses is incorrect. But these people respect evidence and don't try to hide or distort it. That is what deniers do and I believe it is one of the most dangerous phenomenons the world is facing - the African example shows it is far more dangerous than Terrorism. How about this for an example of politically biased blindness from a US Republican in favour of "absinence only" sex education who calls science "elitist" for showing these programs don't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted April 24, 2008 Share Posted April 24, 2008 Those with whacky ideas about AIDS (Thabo Mbeki for one, but then his cosy attitude to Zimbabwe highlights him as a man who values ideology over human life any day) certainly contribute directly to the pandemic but they're not the only problem, although certainly the largest in terms of limiting prevention and access to existing therapies. AIDS is today often seen as a third world and preventable problem (the latter might to some extent be true, but it's something of a moot point when there's over 30 million already suffering from the syndrome) - in the minds of some that puts it on a lower rung of priority for research than extending the lives of westerners and improving their quality of life in old age (cancer, alzheimers, etc). This is particularly the case now with the western world finding itself worrying financial troubles; UK science budgets are already being cut quite substantially, and I suspect it will get only worse in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Deniers are the new satans, demonise them first then burn them at the stake [ for the uninitiated deniers used to be called people with a different opinion, its a newspeak thing] Rather emotive language - and I don't think deniers are people with different opinions, they are people who cherry pick and distort evidence. They are people who will never mention the 10 or 100 sets of evidence that say A is the most likely result/cause, rather deniers distort the 1 set of evidence that says B is a possibility that should be investigated further to make it seem like it is the only answer. People like that have destroyed AIDS prevention in South Africa and cost millions of lives; and have nearly destroyed faith in vaccination, one of the world's most important health advances. Science is full of people with different opinions - people who spend their lives working to show their pet theory is correct and someone elses is incorrect. But these people respect evidence and don't try to hide or distort it. That is what deniers do and I believe it is one of the most dangerous phenomenons the world is facing - the African example shows it is far more dangerous than Terrorism. How about this for an example of politically biased blindness from a US Republican in favour of "absinence only" sex education who calls science "elitist" for showing these programs don't work. My prob isnt with the topic, its the use of "fashionable" terms to rubbish others opinions, nowhere in your original post do you differentiate between outright idiotic radicals and someone with a genuinly held opinion. We now have holocust deniers, global warming deniers, bloody aids deniers, its almost biblical , and never heard untill a few years ago. Discussions should be without demonisation which , i think, the use of this term has become. Some years ago one of our more sooty MLC's acussed me of being "militant tendancy" ok says i, tell me what it is about them you dislike "well they are all bastards and reds" was the reply. He had no idea who they were, what they stood for etc but he knew the demonising term. I think we are better than that on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatshaft Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Deniers are the new satans, demonise them first then burn them at the stake [ for the uninitiated deniers used to be called people with a different opinion, its a newspeak thing] Rather emotive language - and I don't think deniers are people with different opinions, they are people who cherry pick and distort evidence. They are people who will never mention the 10 or 100 sets of evidence that say A is the most likely result/cause, rather deniers distort the 1 set of evidence that says B is a possibility that should be investigated further to make it seem like it is the only answer. People like that have destroyed AIDS prevention in South Africa and cost millions of lives; and have nearly destroyed faith in vaccination, one of the world's most important health advances. Science is full of people with different opinions - people who spend their lives working to show their pet theory is correct and someone elses is incorrect. But these people respect evidence and don't try to hide or distort it. That is what deniers do and I believe it is one of the most dangerous phenomenons the world is facing - the African example shows it is far more dangerous than Terrorism. How about this for an example of politically biased blindness from a US Republican in favour of "absinence only" sex education who calls science "elitist" for showing these programs don't work. Sorry me old Chinahand, but I'm a global warming "denier" because 20 years ago we were heading for an ice age, now we're heading for total ice cap meltdown. So in no time at all, the experts have completely about faced. Once they can prove that they are correct I'll give in, until then, I'm extremely wary of the like sof Al Gore and his global warming bully boys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Sorry me old Chinahand, but I'm a global warming "denier" because 20 years ago we were heading for an ice age, now we're heading for total ice cap meltdown. So in no time at all, the experts have completely about faced. Once they can prove that they are correct I'll give in, until then, I'm extremely wary of the like sof Al Gore and his global warming bully boys. The trouble is with what you are saying is its a distortion of what climate scientists were saying in the 1970s. Link1 Link2 During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different from what you see today. There was far less integration among the various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found: 7 articles predicting cooling 44 predicting warming 20 that were neutral It is fully admitted that there wasn't a consensus back in the 1970s about climate change - but less than 10% of papers published talked about cooling - the consenus opinion, representing 62% of papers published predicted warming. This consensus has got stronger and stronger in the intervening period until it is now almost impossible to say warming will not occur without denying, or distorting, the available evidence. If you do not understand that science is full of scepticism, demands for high standards of proof, and robust defences and criticisms of researchers theories you are really missing something. But scepticism is quite different from denial. People who claim that HIV has a minor role in AIDS are deniers. People who claim Global Warming is not a great great risk are deniers. People who claim that the benefits of vaccination don't outway the risks by orders of magnitudes are deniers. And yes, mollag, people who claim that 3 odd million people weren't systematically and deliberately murdered by the Nazis are deniers. That in no way says don't be sceptical, but it does say don't distort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 Again, the topic is incidental, the use of the term " deniers" to ridicule / demonise ANY opposing opinion, is poor rhetoric, its the stuff of teens and adolescents. There are many shades of opinion and the old "if your not with me, your agin me" sounds like those fundamentalist christianswho who would love to condemn all deniers to hell, thrice you will deny before the cock crows,n shit. We used to be proud in this country to support alternative thinking, Hyde Park corner for example, " i may disagree with your opinion but will fight for your right to hold it" for another, but now in comes the intolerant, "they are all deniers," the inference being they are not entitied to that opinion, in some cases now with threat of jail---what we have become. The gravity of the topic you choose does not in any way strenghen or use of rubbishing. I in all ways accept the validity of the horrors of the death camps of the wars, but to jail people for not accepting it is wrong, they are just plain stupid, f me if we start jailing people cos they are stupid, where will it end! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 But Mollaq who is using this to demonise ANY opposing opinion - I most definitely am not - I've tried as clearly as I can to explain how I define a denier - someone who cherry picks and distorts evidence to only support their position (and its mirror: those who cherry pick and distort evidence to only attack a contrary position) - see this link for an entire ScienceBlog dedicated to the subject! You've used all sorts of emotive language, and I have no idea who you are getting at, I assume its me, but what you are saying seems to becoming increasingly less relevent to my comments, so maybe I should just shut up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted April 25, 2008 Share Posted April 25, 2008 No China, its not you in particular and i would prefer if you didnt shut up, you are good value for money, im a tad anal about the english language and go off on crusades about what i think is wrong usage. I dislike things like the trend to turn nouns into verbs, lunching, parenting etc i hate jargon as and when it appears, new names for old hats are another, fits---siezures, nurses----carers, councellers---gawd knows what they called them before. I appear before you as a grumpy old twat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted April 26, 2008 Share Posted April 26, 2008 No China, its not you in particular and i would prefer if you didnt shut up, you are good value for money, im a tad anal about the english language and go off on crusades about what i think is wrong usage. I dislike things like the trend to turn nouns into verbs, lunching, parenting etc i hate jargon as and when it appears, new names for old hats are another, fits---siezures, nurses----carers, councellers---gawd knows what they called them before.I appear before you as a grumpy old twat Mollag, you're leaning against an open door on this one with me, I hate it when people start sentences with "Actually" or "Basically". But to get back to your slight rant and look at your wording in the order it has been put: it is didn't not didnt, it is I'm not im, English not english, . after etc please, I not i, counsellors not councellers and twat is a naming noun so should be Twat. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted April 26, 2008 Share Posted April 26, 2008 Tis but fair comment, i do go at things at a rush sometimes, i must do more Englishing stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.