Sophie, I like your work on HIV/AIDS denialism, but you seem to be borrowing the rhetorical style of the denialists yourself in this piece. Circumcision for HIV prevention is indeed culturally and logistically complex, and translating RCT results into real life is rarely straightforward. But I think you've messed up on the science. Happy to expand if you want to discuss it further.
@eSnout I did mislead once when I said male circumcision doesn't prevent HIV infection. What I mean to say was it doesn't prevent it in a meaningful capacity, especially when compared to other methods. Studies in low risk groups put the efficacy as low as 10%. If I messed up a bit on the science then the people who wrote the peer review article also messed up. Anyway pick this up with me in a couple weeks. My Grandfather just passed away.
@sofiarune I don't think the fact that Green et al was peer reviewed is a guarantee of its quality, and the six "concerns" you highlighted at 4:07 all seem significantly flawed as arguments.
Sorry to hear about your grandfather. Let's pick this up when you have less pressing concerns. PM me when you like.
I believe that circumcision would prevent HIV or STD if the medical authorities say it is okay for circumcised men to have uprotected sex. If they recommend that men use condoms anyway, that means the state of his penis, whether cut or uncut is irrelevant.
There is an abundance of info right here at home but, since it shows that circ either has no affect, or increases AIDS, Americans ignore that and look at Africa! If circ prevented AIDS, industrialized countries with the highest circ rates should have the lowest AIDS rates. We have the highest! In the 80s and 90s, thousands American men suffered horribly and died of AIDS. The vast majority were circumcised! Suggesting circ prevents AIDS is ridiculous, and irresponsible! Great video, BTW!
Circumcision reduces penile sensitivity as much as 80%. Women have about half as many vaginal orgasms with circumcised versus with uncircumcised. Mother Nature, or God, if you will, did not create a foreskin because it's wrong and needs to be cut off. There are LESS STD's with uncut because moisture produced in the foreskin contains immune factors, like lysozymes, which destroy HIV, and other invaders. See: wehonews dot com articleID=5792
Circumcision is Nonsense. I never had both of my own Sons Circumcised. One is getting near his Teen years. Neither one of them ever had a Problem once in their lives with their Private Parts. They never had one problem noted during a Doctor Visit. Circumcision in America is Nonsense and is an excuse to perform a Surgery used to save money on performing a Full Surgery later on
You are one tough and smart educated woman. An outstanding contribution to the intactivist argument.
Are your aware that the alleged prophylactic value of routine circ is being pushed mainly by a mere 20 odd American researcher (who have the WHO eating out of their hands) and Stephen Lewis, and Morris-Wodak in Oz? That the USA is the only western nation to believe that routine circ should be part of the battle against HIV?
The issue of the efficacy of the procedure is really secondary anyways. Two things that should be obvious (but apparently aren't):
1) Mutilation of an infants genitals is never excusable.
2) There are an awful lot of years before having sex in which a male can decide for himself whether he wants the procedure or not. The real issue here is about CONSENT.
@Ermac514 I'm actually going to get into the nitty gritty ethics of this since some ass has declared me an anti-circumcision fanatic and a self-righteous human rights advocate on a soap box. I guess my refusal to use sources from intactivist sites to avoid bias and the rejection of at least one paper due to unfounded bias for my position are perfect indications of my fanaticism. Needless to say I found that irritating but lucky for me I have a paper on just such a topic.
Even if the terribly flawed study that proposed circumcision reduced the risk of HIV infection WAS true... it never suggested total immunity. So, effectively you get to play Russian roulette with a life threatening virus (oh and a whole bunch of other fun ones too!) with fewer bullets in the gun.
But hey, the American medical profession needs to keep the folks back home certain that cutting off foreskins is god's work - rounds of golf don't pay for themselves, after all.
I've been following the youtube debates on circumcision, and find it truly bizarre how many Americans support it, for some of the most fallacious reasons you could think of (eg "foreskins are ugly", "it's cleaner"). In the UK, it's by no means the norm, it's pretty much just a jewish and muslim 'cultural' thing.
@nmm12nmm These aren't uniquely my ideas so I guess the scientists that published this review are the real ones who are full of it, right? Because I'm sure you've reviewed the literature yourself and are way more informed.
Greetings from Germany (in our country, only Muslims "cut")
Thank you; this is a good idea, to keep spreading the message.
I inspect the recent uploads about circumcision almost daily, only to find that the listing is "Diluted" by biblical Videos about the letters of the Apostle Paulus... and, even worse, advertisement for CC in (South)Africa.
I enjoyed the listen to your report. I heard that circumcised men tend to cause women to dry out more frequently which sometimes lead to vaginal bleeding. Either way I heard women are able to catch HIV easier than men. I think Africa is just being used a guinea pig for this misguided study.
WOW, this is the first American who I would consider intelligent. I applaud your video. The thought that mutilating a sexual organ can prevent a complex disease is simply grotesque. It is the continued attempt at denial after mr kellogs ultra idiotic doctrine in the USA... apart from religious motives.
@sofiarune they said "American". Canada is still in North America, right? And they only referenced the United States for having idiotic doctrines, which, I agree we have, although it should be noted that we do not all share them.
Google....More Prosecutors Dropping Criminal HIV Charges
"“While the AIDS industry has convinced Americans of the alleged AIDS epidemic, prosecutors have a hard time finding anyone willing to promote their propaganda under penalty of PERJURY.”
A fatal flaw with HIV tests leaves prosecutors with no credible witnesses from local, state or federal health agencies ..."
the direct link to the disclaimer is on my channel under the pic ofthe Pope
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Posting the same stupid shit you did a day ago doesn't make a difference. You're trying my patience. I already looked at some of the ridiculous links you have on your page and got a good laugh. I even read the instruction manual for the viral load test that you complain about so vigourously. Now stop commenting on my video and wait while I produce a video of my own. You can't launch a rebuttal against me without knowing the argument.
See on youtube....Why I Quit Hiv with Kary Mullis - Rodney Richards - more
Dr. Rodney Richards, PhD, Biochemist, Founding scientist for the biotech company Amgen. Collaborated with Abbott Laboratories in developing some of the first HIV tests
Neville Hodgkinson former Science Editor, The Times of London
Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD, Biochemist, Winner, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for inventing the PCR the basis for the HIV viral load tests
@mykoolaidtastesfunny The minute I saw the name Kary Mullis you set alarm bells off. I will however thank you for giving me the push to start working on my video about arguments from authority since that seems what you're doing here. Kary Mullis having a Nobel Prize doesn't automatically grant him comprehensive rights to having his word being on the same level as evidence. Should have a video about this up tonight. ;)
@sofiarune How is someone explaining why they quit hiv an argument from authority? If you have the scientific reference the people in the video would like to see feel free to share it. Three logical fallacies and you're out though. If a person is incapable of logical debate they're a waste of time don't you think?
@mykoolaidtastesfunny The argument from authority lies in your diligently listing out your sources credentials without actually listing their points. You're giving the illusion that because they have letters after their names and did some good work means that they're right. Whether this is your intention or not, it's what you did. Luckily I have a lot to say about Kary Mullis since a friend and I are already quite familiar with him. Video will be up later.
@sofiarune Please post whatever you come up with to the relevant video though. I'm tired of people not having the nerve to actually go to the relevant video where I clearly state logical fallcies are not tolerated. I'm tired of having my time wasted by people operating on emotion not logic.
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Right, just you wait. You might not be pleased with what we have to say but it certainly won't be based on emotional appeal. Did you personally make a video or am I just watching the one with the title you mentioned initially.
@sofiarune It's a series of interviews with various people that I uploaded the other day. There are links to articles in the video description box and if you want confirmation of the claims made by Richards and Hodgkinson in their articles re: the tests I have the direct link to the disclaimers on my channel under the pic of the Pope.
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Alright I've pretty much spent the last few hours researching the claims made in the interviews. I currently am sitting on 22 references and a few pages of notes to debunk this claim. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to put it together immediately but look for it some time this week as this is taking a good chunk of time.
@sofiarune Ok. You need the reference basically where the proteins used in/for all the antibody tests since the day Gallo got the patent were shown to belong to a unique viral entity and it was linked to immune problems. Title Date and Journal
@mykoolaidtastesfunny I shoudl have anticipated that you would move the goal post since the initial claim was that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, now you want me to talk about HIV testing. I'm not playing your game. What I will do is go through Koch's postulates, with numerous citations. Debunk Kary Mullis' complaint that there wasn't and isn't literature showing the link between HIV and AIDS and go through a preview of a paper that will be published in the Annual Review of Pathology: Mechanisms
@sofiarune Um.. no I did not move goal posts. I've been asking for the same thing for months now. You're hardly the first person I've come to. You can't use Gallo's tests to prove the existance of Gallo's virus. This is part of the problem. If you can't prove the existance of Gall's virus then Gallo's virus certainly can't cause aids.
@mykoolaidtastesfunny if Dusease 2011 6: 223-44 called pathogenic mechanisms of HIV disease. I'm not going to sit and deal with initial work when our understanding of HIV was in its infancy. It's like asking me to defend evolution by assessing Darwin's original theory while ignoring more recent data.
@sofiarune The pointis that you need evidence that the proteins used in/for ALL "hiv" tests actually come from Gsllo's virus. Gallo is the test kit patent holder andthose proteins have not changed since he got the patent back in the 80's.
@sofiarune When I look forthat reference I get this.....■Kruger L, Mantyh PW, Sternini C, Brecha NC, Mantyh CR. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in the rat central nervous system: patterns of immunoreactivity and receptor binding sites. Brain Res. 1988 Nov 1;463(2):223-44
This proves Gallo's virus exists and is the cause of aids how exactly?
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Wow you're a special one aren't you? You look up a reference, get an entirely different title then assume that was the reference I pointed out. Couldn't possibly be because you're looking in the wrong journal, in the wrong year with the wrong title. Protip: 1988 and 2011 aren't the same thing. Brain Res does not equate to Annual Review of Pathology: Mechanisms of Disease. Just what database are you using anyway?
@sofiarune That's why I was asking. How can something published in 2011 be the primary scientific reference? Are you saying Gallo's virus wasn't proven to exist and ause aids until 2011?
@mykoolaidtastesfunny No, I'm not but I'm giving you the most recent literature since you know, it's more up to date and informative than shit from 1985. And yes, papers published in 2011 can be used as primary literature which itself can cite new experiments that confirm older theories and hypotheses etc etc.
@sofiarune But ALL those studies revolve around the use of GALLOS antibody tests. These are the "hiv" proteins used in/for ALL the antibody tests since the day Gallo got thepatent... p17/18, p24/25, p31/32, gp41, p53/55, gp120, and gp160
Why ASSUME those proteins belong to Gallo's virus? There re literally dozens thins documented in the medical literature which ause reactions on those tests also. Without a means of ndependent verification aka a gold standard there's no way to know for sure
@mykoolaidtastesfunny What the fuck are you talking about? I didn't give you a reference number. I have you the title, the issue number, the pages it can be found and the journal it will be published in. Where the hell are you getting "reference number" from? Are you even remotely familiar with citations and scientific literature?
@sofiarune Ok sorry...found it. It's the same problem. That relies on the use of Gallo's antibody tests. That doesn't prove Gallo's virus exists...it ASSUMES it does. Also....all that's available at the moment is the abstract...Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Pathology: Mechanisms of Disease Volume 6 is January 24, 2011.
and...Review in Advance first posted online on October 25, 2010. (Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print.)
@mykoolaidtastesfunny You may only be able to access the abstract but I have the entire paper from the preprint server. You're also one of those special individuals who doesn't even believe HIV exists? Suddenly I feel like I'm wasting my time. Oh well I'll present my case and you can take it or leave it. You'll probably be like Deusberg and be unable to admit you're wrong but if it prevents you from convincing other suckers then I'll take it.
@sofiarune if you believe Gallo's the you have the burden of proof. You can't just slap up random studies which are all based on a false premise. I do not care to ASSUME Gallo's virus exists. Calling me "special" isn't a scientific reference now is it? The primary reference should be no trouble.
@mykoolaidtastesfunny I cite one of my >20 references and you think you've got it figured out. I already mentioned to you that I will be going through Koch's postulates as it relates to HIV/AIDS. Also I'm making snidey comments because your ignorance is trying my patience, as it would with anyone in academia. I'm not here to spoon feed someone who thinks the page numbers of a journal articles is a reference number.
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Jesus Christ, you're still here? And you're spitting random statistics at me as if it means something? Man I wish you had been at blogtv last night.
@mykoolaidtastesfunny As usual, you just copy-pasted this trio of citations off a denialist website without bothering to even read the titles. If you had you might have realised that Songok 1994 is "Low Prevalence of Human T-Lymphotrophic Virus Type 1 (HTLV-1) in HIV patients in Kenya". 100% of their subjects were HIV+. Only a few of them were HTLV-1+ as well. HTLV-1 is not HIV.
@eSnout what are you 12 years old? Either post the primary peer reviewed reference that the dissidents scientists have been asking to see to my featured video....Why I Quit Hiv
or go away. I'm sick of you virus of mass destruction cultists.
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Title: "Low prevalence of human T-lymphotrophic virus type I (HTLV-I) in HIV-positive patients in Kenya." Author: Songok et al. Reference: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1994 Aug;7(8):876-7.
Why did you cite this paper to claim "913 patients with "AIDS": 71% test HIV-negative"?
@eSnout Just an fyi I had actually never blocked that douchebag before now. I threatened to because they didn't give me a chance to actually reply. I'm currently dealing with some serious stuff and I can't be bothered allowing this dumbass free reign on my channel. Sorry to cut the debate short but I have blocked them so they will no longer be replying to you.
@sofiarune Stop lying. You said you were blocking me "temporarily" Go fuck yourself you cultist. The ONLY reason this sad ass cult has had free reign for as long as it has is because of censorship.
Move goal posts all day the FACT is you did not manage to come up with the relevant studies. I do not share your ASSUMPTIONS. You may was well try to prove body thetans using a frikkin e-meter.
I won't bother commenting again and only did because esnout replied to me.
@sofiarune And btw...spare me your claims of important work. You had all the time in the world to move goal posts with your propaganda videos when all you had to do is simply NAME the primary reference and post it to my featured video.
@sofiarune Koolaid's been doing this for years now. If you check the comments of virtually any HIV-related vid on youtube you'll find dozens and sometimes hundreds of examples of her copy-paste spam. Don't feel bad about blocking her. Even the most patient rational person gets sick of her eventually.
@eSnout If you have the primary peer reviewed papers where Gallo showed these proteins.... p17/18, p24/25, p31/32, gp41, p53/55, gp120, and gp160 ...used in/for ALL the "hiv" tests since the day he got the patent actually belong to a SPECIFIC viral entity and it was linked to immune problems feel free to post the reference to my featured video
Title Date Journal. 3 logical fallacies and you're out. Sofiarunes couldn't scrape them up so she moved the goal posts and declared herself victorious
@eSnout NONE of you virus of mass destruction cultists can just NAME the reference. All you do is post studies which ASSUME those proteins belong to Gallo's virus.
I'm sick of you cultists and your logical fallacies so make sure you read what is stated clearly in the video description box....3 ogical fallacies and you're out.
I'm not replying to this video anymore. She already blocked me once for asking about any conflicts of interest she may have re: Gallo's virus as the cause of aids.
@mykoolaidtastesfunny I expext AT MINIMUM that someone who is making a claim such as yourself should be at least superficially familiar with referencing, citations and common conventions used for investigating primary scientific literature. You appear to be missing that quality. You don't seem to even understand how to navigated the data.
@sofiarune Excuse me? I'm not making a claim as much as asking you justify your belief in Gallo's virus as the cause of aids. You assured me yor responses would be based on logica not emotion. The primary reference where Gallo established these proteins.... p17/18, p24/25, p31/32, gp41, p53/55, gp120, and gp160 .. belong to a UNIQUE viral entity and it was linked to immune problems should be no trouble at all.
@sofiarune Edit...if you believe in Gallo's virus then you have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on those who make a claim not on those who dispute it. Remember....making snidey comments about people who ask to see your evidence is not the appropriate scientific reference.
@sofiarune Also...Duesberg has been proven correct more than once on more than one issue...Google....Duesberg vindicated
"...Two months later, the university admits that it finds no reason to take action on the charges (Martin Enserink, “Berkeley drops probe of Duesberg after finding ‘insufficient evidence’”, June 21 2010
Lol....wow. I see you favorited the youtube "scientist's" appeal to emotion. Or is it a false dilemma? Either you believe in Gallo's virus or you're a murderer? Ask concordance for the primary scientific reference. Surely he has something to back up his propaganda videos beyond logical fallacies and false references that don't say what he claims they say. ;)
cont..."In this connection, it’s worth noting too that Duesberg’s criticism of inflated AIDS-death numbers for South Africa, suppressed from Medical Hypotheses, has been vindicated by publication in a peer-reviewed, PubMed-abstracted journal [Medical students in Africa need not fear HIV, 2010/05/31 ; REPRINT of Galletti & Bauer, 2010/06/03].
@mykoolaidtastesfunny I highly recommmend shutting up until I make my video since you have no idea what I'm actually going to say. Also, you should have come to blogtv last night where I criticised the peer review process for not being what the public (ie you) thinks it is. Nothing pisses me off more than people like you reading the abstract of a paper, seeing the word peer-review next to it then running around shouting from the roof tops that your position is 100% supported.
@sofiarune All you need to do is post the primary peer reviewed scientific reference where Gallo demonstrated that the proteins used in ALL the "hiv" tests (which Gallo holds the patent on) actually come from Gallo's virus and it was linked to immune problems. You know? Like we already discussed.
You have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on those who make a claim not on those who dispute it.
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Do you just string words together or do you think about it sometimes? I never said I dont have the burden of proof and I'm not in any way disputing it. I have done what I would assume is way more research than you have done on this subject in the last few days and will be presenting what I've learned in a video yet you keep commenting as if you've won. I don't trust citing things to you anyway since you don't even know how to interpret a citation properly. That and you
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Because I can't fit >20 references in under 500 characters and you have already demonstrated that you have a difficult time finding the papers even when I do. I will be going through them IN THE VIDEO I have been telling you I'm working on since the beginning. They will fully by cited and you can make an attempt at reading them yourself.
@sofiarune There aren't 20 primary references. I think the reason you're avoiding posting them to video we discssed is because I don't tolerate logical fallacies there.
@mykoolaidtastesfunny You really are an impatient ass aren't you? You make absurd claims about science then get irritated when someone actually takes time to look into the science. Note the word time there. That's right, debunking stupid bullshit takes a good deal of time and investigation if someone is sincere and doing it properly. Reading papers alone takes a huge amount of time. If you consider speed to be a symbol of validity then I am afraid you have no intellectual integrity.
@sofiarune I made no claims. I asked you to provide the primary peer reviewed reference and to post it to my feature video. You assured me your response would be based on logic and not emotion.
@mykoolaidtastesfunny And you haven't even given me a chance to make a response. You just keep commenting on my video even though I told you I'm putting a video together for you and it will take time since it's pretty in depth but you keep commenting here as if I owe you something. You have presenting the claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, viral load tests are flawed and later on that HIV doesn't even exist at all. I am debunking them but I am doing so with proper scholarship so I can't just
@sofiarune And I told you to post your evidence to the relevant video. I made NO claim. I asked you to justify your belief in Gallo's virus as the cause of aids and I stated the evidence required quite clearly. Do you have a financial stake in Gallo's virus?
@mykoolaidtastesfunny I don't censor comments but you are dangerously close to being temporarily blocked until I produce my video because I'm frankly sick of repeating myself to you. One more time and if you don't get it we'll be done here until I make my response is complete:
I am making a video to present my case that HIV causes AIDS. Scholarly research of literature takes a long time but all of my references will be included in the video. I will post that video to the one you referred to.
@sofiarune Lol..but did you "forget"? All that's needed is the primaruy scientific reference where Gallo demonstrated that the proteins used in his "hiv" tests.... p17/18, p24/25, p31/32, gp41, p53/55, gp120, and gp160....since the day he got the patent bck in the 80's actually come from a UNIQUE viral entity and i was linked to immune problems
If yuwant to present as a video reply I have no objection although idk why you want to move the goal posts. Title Date and Journal is all you need.
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Are you done? You keep pasting the same thing and I keept telling you to wait for a fucking second as I think the best way to address this is via video response since 500 characters isn't enough for the number of references I have and I don't trust you to actually read the papers (or even find them) so I'll be presenting what's in them to you. A proper citation of all papers will be in the description of the video. Anything other than a "Ok I will wait and (cont pt 2)
@mykoolaidtastesfunny ... wait and watch your video before I comment anymore" you will be blocked temporarily until I have actually made my response. At that point I will unblock you and we can continue this debate. Until then I don't want to hear from you or listen to you bitch about me not having any argument when I haven't had a chance to adequately present it.
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Too bad you're a complete idiot since I don't censor comments and that chances are you can't find your comment because you've butchered the way these comments thread by replying in stupid places instead of replying to the last comment rendered. This means all two part comments are getting separated and the overall layout is muddled. Your replies are all off in the middle of no where. Look harder before flinging accusations in future.
@mykoolaidtastesfunny seem to think that reading an abstract of a peer-reviewed article makes you some how informed. You clearly don't understand peer-review or how to read a paper if that's what you think. I will cite all of my sources in my video and go over information from the actual paper, not some summary of it. You know, the paper I actually read in full which you don't seem to do. Give me time, it's easy to spout nonsense but much more involved to actually study it.
@sofiarune The primary reference should be no trouble. You need the peer reviewed scientific reference where Gallo showed these proteins... p17/18, p24/25, p31/32, gp41, p53/55, gp120, and gp160...used in/for ALL th "hiv" antibody tests since the day he got he patent actually come frm a UNIQUE viral entity and proved it was a causal microorganism. Title Date and Journal.
Why not just go post to it my feature video? Then all the dissidents will go home.
@mykoolaidtastesfunny I have over 20 fucking references and several pages of solid notes. I know this may shock you but I actually have other things to do than make videos on youtube for people like you. This video is probably going to be a 3 part series and it's going to take a good deal of time to put it together. Hopefully I can have it up by this weekend, like I have been telling you this entire time but listening isn't your strong suit it would seem. I'll post it to your vid when done.
@sofiarune So the PRIMARY reference should be no trouble. Anything that uses Gallo's antibody test as the foundation of the evidence doesn't prove his virus exists...it ASSUMES it does. That's like using an e-meter to "prove" bodythetans. You need independent veirfication.
As a European woman, I find the idea of a "naked" penis "gross". (no offense meant ;) ) So the argument "women prefer circumcised men" doesn't hold any water. As a mother, the thought of anybody inflicting non-necessary pain on my children abhores me and makes my blood boil.
Evil boy by Die Antwoord, actually revolves around the ritualistic circumsisions done in South Africa in the Xhosa tribe. If you don't go to the bush and get your circumsision done with unclean instruments, you are not a man, you are GAY!! Oh and isn't rap on Africaan cool? The vid might be a bit disturbing, but attractive just the same
the 2 protein hiv test is not accurate and those proteins can be produced by many other conditions including drug use, vaccinations and pregnancy - we must help people to question the hiv test and the changing definition of AIDS
circumcision permanently and painfully removes healthy, sensitive, functional, erogenous genital tissue. The foreskin has the same type of nerve endings as those found in the fingertips, lips, and palms of the hands. thousands and thousands of them.
doing it to an infant does this without adequate informed consent.
P.S. wearing a condom when sleeping with an untested partners nullifies any POSSIBLE effect (good or bad) of circumcision.
The HIV Circumcision research in Africa have no external validity as the highly controlled studies results do not replicate themselves in the uncontrolled real world as Circumcision nations have high levels of HIV infections, eg USA higher HIV infections than Europe
@perthfem The "US has more circumcision and more HIV than Europe" argument is very weak. No one claims that male circumcision directly reduces any transmission mode but F to M heterosexual. F to M transmission is a very minor part of the US epidemic, which is mainly M to M, IDU and M to F. However most HIV in subsaharan Africa is either F to M or caught from someone who got infected F to M.
Just one minor nitpick: male circumcision is not really ingrained into _Western_ culture, only in North-American culture. In Western Europe, for example, male circumcision (done not for real medical reasons like a deformed / too tight foreskin, of course) is only common among the Jewish population.
@AnonymousCoward23 And perhaps the distinction should be made between US, Mexican and Canadian statistics as well - and not lump all North America together... the US heads the pack at somewhere between 60 and 80% of the male population circumcized. Mexico is somewhere around 1-30%, and Canada ranges from 0-40%. Unfortunately, the statistics are hard to pin down, but the trend is there... the US is way more likely to promote it.
@insightnew - your parents likely didn't have access to the information parents have access to today when researching the topic. It is the doctors who likely promoted (and profited) and performed the procedure on you should be the directed focus of your growing anger/distaste with the procedure and your loss of healthy, sensitive, functional genital tissue.
I implore you to not just "let it go" but to speak out and help people realize they shouldn't do it to THEIR kids. Make a difference!
Ugh. Just when news was going around that circumcision rates in America (the only developed country to practice it routinely on infants) had dropped to a minority (in the 30% range), and global circumcision rates were at an all time low...This. First it was to mark slaves, then it was to prevent masturbation, now this. It has to end, these organizations never tell you about the downsides to circumcision like the loss of nerve endings, and stand to gain a large amount of cash from each foreskin.
@tipoomaster Thanks for the subscription! The paper was actually a really interesting read. Hopefully some of you have access to it so you can read it for yourself. There were some points I didn't even get to in this video that were though provoking none the less.
When i had my first child, my wife and I got public assistance to help with the medical bills because we were both in school and had very little income. It turns out that circumcision is covered by public health in the US, and I believe most private insurance companies. On top of this, even though we chose not to get our son circumcised the doctor still billed the government for the procedure.
Thinking I'll watch your page for something more is wishful thinking. The information you present is mixed; truth mixed with falsehood. Not helpful. I haven't pointed to any evidence...the links aren't accepted, so don't bother making any effort for my benefit. I'm as interested in your stuff as you are interested in mine. Waste of time. Adieu
@amaragrace713 Which is why I was going to go through those "many" papers referenced by the commentor on c0nc0rdance's video which you said did a better job presenting evidence than you could and on top of that I gave you my email address so you could send me links... cause I'm totally not interested, right?
On the other hand I'm not surprised that YOU'RE not actually interested in being refuted. This little paragraph from you is actually incredibly revealing.
@sofiarune I had not seen your offer of e-mail communication before I worte the signing off. I'm not afraid to see your rebuttal, but I won't be back here. I'll send you the links through e-mail, but It's obvious you already know it all. and BTW, if vaccines were harmless, manufacturers wouldn't need immunity from liability for deaths & injuries. The drug industry is not trustworthy.
@sofiarune :p I'm not anti vaccination. Though I do believe there are alot of scare tactics used to push vaccinations. Though vaccination has proven itself millions of times over unlike genital mutilation. Haha. Are u a fan of Penn and tellers : bullshit?
@drealgrin Yes, Pen and Teller rock. I wish more people would watch them so I could stop having stupid internet arguments. It looks like I'll be doing a anti-vaccine debunk tomorrow (or at least getting started on one). Hopefully it doesn't take forever to produce.
Please read the *many* references a kind commentor left under that guy's video re: Wakefield's work. Plenty videos exist already, better than I could do. Scientific method is exceedingly valuable; those who use it objectively & expose vaccine injury are discredited. Research studies can't be falisified? Like research that proved - for decades - that tobacco ≠ people's cancer? These issues have *Everything* in common: same incestous gov't./industry politics.
@amaragrace713 You're not even listening to me at this point. I said the methods are either valid or not. There is no inbetween. When you talk about "Big Pharma" sponsored evidence I guess you're referring to flat out falsified evidence. Companies sponsoring studies doesn't necessarily mean the data are falsified or that the studies methodology were flawed. As I pointed out, the methods must be stated in papers and issues can't be hidden when the reader is careful but I doubt you even care.
@sofiarune BTW, the Wakefield 12 paper was not a research study, it was submitted as - & published as - a case series; not the same thing. Labeling it a fraudulent research study was purposly deceptive defamation, because it wasn't a research study to begin with. But it sounded good to people who dont' know the difference; you fell for it. See
@amaragrace713 Ah resorting to semantic nitpicking, fantastic. I'll be going through those citations from C0nc0rdance video tomorrow and make a whole video debunking it just for you and BryTee. I'll throw in the original Wakefield paper free of charge. Hopefully it doesn't take too long to put together so I can have it to you in a couple of days.
@sofiarune Thank you for the (dot) info. Not me that's nitpicking...this report does it I listened to you, I watched the guy's video. You didn't examine the links referenced under the guy's video; it's you who hasn't listened to me. disguised link info still not accepted
@sofiarune The link that confirms that my comment revealing the difference between case series & research study is not posting even when I disguise the (dot)s so I am at a loss to give you the information that may help you understand there is no nitpicking just a legitimate accuracy point of fact. Is there something else I must do to make the link acceptable?
You assume incorrectly that I base my understanding of the circ issue on - or accept - your critical analysis; I don't. Likewise my understanding of vaccine issues are not based on one paper OR mountains of pharma sponsored "evidence" [sic]. You're the doublethinker with Circ prevents HIV; rejected....Vax prevents illness: accepted. The video you referenced does not impress me either - his assertions are easily refutable. again, space here too limited.
@amaragrace713 Well make a video then because I'd really love to see this apparent easy argument from you. I still don't understand how you seem to think evidence can be faked when papers are required to report their methods. Methods are either flawed or not and that's not something that you can simply hide... unless you're flat out asserting that data sets are entirely falsified. If that's the case and there's some conspiracy, why would the Lancet publish the MMR "study" in the first place?
I agree with you about the HIV-circumcision issue, but your misunderstanding of the vaccine issue is simply untenable, regardless of how enormously educated your left brain is. You’ve bought into a flawed paradigm. My whole comment won't appear here.
@amaragrace713 Contrary to what you seem to think, I find your insistence that these two isses have nothing in common to be "simple untenable". You accept a critical analysis of male circumcision but are fine with basing your opinions on MMR and autism on one extremely flawed paper in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. It seems to me that you're engaging in double think. You keep complaining about paradigms, are you suggesting we dispose of the scientific method entirely?
The science mentality that produced the 'credible evidence' you're speaking out against here, is the same science mentality that produces the 'credible evidence' that vaccines are safe & necessary and don't cause autism and vaccine injuries occur at a rate of 1 in 1,000,000. Same system, same paradigm, same source, same agenda. How is that mysterious or invisible to you?
@amaragrace713 It isn't. See, unlike the general public, I'm well trained in the scientific method and applied statistical analysis so I'm able to pick through different studies and assess their validity independent of the media or the internet. The whole "vaccines cause autism" uproar resulted from one paper published in The Lancet that was found to be methodologically suspect, like the circumcision trials done in Africa.
Before commenting further, watch this video: watch?v=8Tl3tUQng9Q
BUT at 3:28 is a statement "junk pseudo science on par with Autism being linked to vaccines". However, there is a growing number of people (including in the medical field) requesting a strong need to fully research this and not simply believe statements from pharmaceutical companies (who make profit from vaccines).
Many people who see through government and researchers claims on HIV & circumcision have a correlation with the denial of Autism from vaccines.
This stems from the observation that since vaccines were introduced there has been a 6000% increase in Autism, and while it may not be connected, it deserves research outside of those who make money from vaccines.
Risks of vaccines are also shown to be played down by (say) the CDC, when real world studies have shown greater risks than the CDC claim (eg with the RRT-TV vaccine: CDC say 0.6/100000 risk, but two independent studies show 292/100000 & 312/100000 risk).
You might do well to reconsider why you believe in vaccines and research who you are believing it from, and look into what incentives they have to make biased statements (or reasons they have to not rock their boat).
There are plenty of places for quotes about vaccines effectiveness being trumped up, including from former chiefs of departments in the FDA, heads of children's hospitals, researchers, doctors, and news reports of incidents.
@BryTee I really could care less what the media is telling me. As I mentioned to another commentor, I am well trained in the scientific method and applied statistical analysis. I can read the literature for myself and come to my own conclusions. I'm not believing things just because some guy in a suit says so.
For evidence regarding vaccine effectiveness watch this video: watch?v=VW1IEqKuf6s
For evidence against vaccines causing autism watch this video: watch?v=8Tl3tUQng9Q
@sofiarune I watched and saw a statement for flu and H1N1 shots. However I see the videos were recorded Oct 2009, prior to the discovery that the H1N1 issue was massively inflated by Big Pharma for profits.
Also 1968 and 2003 flu shots were ineffective, missed their target, as good as a placebo, yet after the season there were no more deaths and about the same people sick from flu.
So a placebo was as effective as a flu shot? More likely, flu shots are a similar scam.
I see the facts there are from sources that stand to gain from promoting the vaccination myth.
I agree with not listening to the media, they convince people to get flu shots.
But be careful about the literature you read, there is documented evidence that scientists who go to publish findings against big pharma and/or the government held belief on vaccines are threatened with their funding being withdrawn. Those who do publish are often found to be funded by these biased sources.
My point was not to get onto the controversy of vaccines, but to state that throwing someone else's strongly held beliefs "under the bus" with that throw away statement very much jeopardizes the whole video.
What is the point of a video raising an important issue, if early on you insult and alienate the audience! Especially there was no extra value to the issue, and was quite irrelevant.
However I do feel the rest of the video is intelligent and based in real science and statistics.
@BryTee No seriously, I actually can understand literature and I am more than capable of noticing whether a study's methods are sounds. I take serious issues with your argument against holding someone else's strongly held beliefs. Strongly held and accurate are not synonyms. The methods used for the circumcision trials were extremely poor, as were the ones linking MMR to autism. It's not my problem if my audience likes to pick and choose which issues they care to know the facts about (pt1)
@BryTee At the end of the day I can only present what I understand to be the case. If my audience doesn't appreciate it and would rather plug their ears because I mentioned that anti-vaccination groups use junk pseudoscience then they may as well be on board with circumcision in my opinion since the evidence about as rigourous in both cases.
@sofiarune Sure, feel free to believe the arguments of "men in suits" who make profits from gullibility of people who actually (surprisingly, if they're intelligent) believe the pseudo (junk) science of vaccines.
If anyone is "plugging their ears" it's people who are not listening to the mounting evidence and testimonies from people who were IN the industry that vaccines have been the myth and scam of century.
You can read papers all you like, but you are not questioning their motives.
You do question the motives of the HIV/circ studies (and I applaud you for that) but somehow do not apply the same criticism of the pro-vax lobby and those profiteers.
All I'm saying (if you stop bringing the vaccination myth into this) is that you could improve your presentation skills by not being anti-social to a fair portion of the audience, especially when it was totally unnecessary and irrelevant.
A good presentation deals with the topic at hand, and does not backstab other causes.
@BryTee I can't believe you don't see the difference. The methods used to show vaccines are effective are SOUND. It doesn't matter what the motives are if the science can stand up to scrutiny. The methods showing BOTH MMR/autism and circumicsion/HIV are INCREDIBLY flawed.
I am not going to be delicate toward people who I feel are making the exact same mistakes as PEPFAR is. You and that other user have irritated me enough that you can look forward to an anti-vax debunk soon.
@sofiarune That vaccines cause antibodies to appear in a person's blood is not disputed. That is called "vaccine efficacy"...that is not *immunity*; that is not *health*; that is not *entirely beneficial*. Why can't I include a link in one of these posts?
@sofiarune Well, I hope you have learned to not make backstabbing statements of some other irrelevant topic in the middle of that (and other future) presentations.
Sophie, I like your work on HIV/AIDS denialism, but you seem to be borrowing the rhetorical style of the denialists yourself in this piece. Circumcision for HIV prevention is indeed culturally and logistically complex, and translating RCT results into real life is rarely straightforward. But I think you've messed up on the science. Happy to expand if you want to discuss it further.
eSnout 11 months ago
@eSnout I did mislead once when I said male circumcision doesn't prevent HIV infection. What I mean to say was it doesn't prevent it in a meaningful capacity, especially when compared to other methods. Studies in low risk groups put the efficacy as low as 10%. If I messed up a bit on the science then the people who wrote the peer review article also messed up. Anyway pick this up with me in a couple weeks. My Grandfather just passed away.
sofiarune 11 months ago
@sofiarune I don't think the fact that Green et al was peer reviewed is a guarantee of its quality, and the six "concerns" you highlighted at 4:07 all seem significantly flawed as arguments.
Sorry to hear about your grandfather. Let's pick this up when you have less pressing concerns. PM me when you like.
eSnout 11 months ago
Comment removed
eSnout 11 months ago
I believe that circumcision would prevent HIV or STD if the medical authorities say it is okay for circumcised men to have uprotected sex. If they recommend that men use condoms anyway, that means the state of his penis, whether cut or uncut is irrelevant.
PungiFungi 11 months ago
There is an abundance of info right here at home but, since it shows that circ either has no affect, or increases AIDS, Americans ignore that and look at Africa! If circ prevented AIDS, industrialized countries with the highest circ rates should have the lowest AIDS rates. We have the highest! In the 80s and 90s, thousands American men suffered horribly and died of AIDS. The vast majority were circumcised! Suggesting circ prevents AIDS is ridiculous, and irresponsible! Great video, BTW!
aMarinedaughter 11 months ago
Circumcision reduces penile sensitivity as much as 80%. Women have about half as many vaginal orgasms with circumcised versus with uncircumcised. Mother Nature, or God, if you will, did not create a foreskin because it's wrong and needs to be cut off. There are LESS STD's with uncut because moisture produced in the foreskin contains immune factors, like lysozymes, which destroy HIV, and other invaders. See: wehonews dot com articleID=5792
michaelkmooney 11 months ago
Circumcision is Nonsense. I never had both of my own Sons Circumcised. One is getting near his Teen years. Neither one of them ever had a Problem once in their lives with their Private Parts. They never had one problem noted during a Doctor Visit. Circumcision in America is Nonsense and is an excuse to perform a Surgery used to save money on performing a Full Surgery later on
Roadracer987654321 1 year ago
You are one tough and smart educated woman. An outstanding contribution to the intactivist argument.
Are your aware that the alleged prophylactic value of routine circ is being pushed mainly by a mere 20 odd American researcher (who have the WHO eating out of their hands) and Stephen Lewis, and Morris-Wodak in Oz? That the USA is the only western nation to believe that routine circ should be part of the battle against HIV?
alnot01 1 year ago
The issue of the efficacy of the procedure is really secondary anyways. Two things that should be obvious (but apparently aren't):
1) Mutilation of an infants genitals is never excusable.
2) There are an awful lot of years before having sex in which a male can decide for himself whether he wants the procedure or not. The real issue here is about CONSENT.
Ermac514 1 year ago
@Ermac514 I'm actually going to get into the nitty gritty ethics of this since some ass has declared me an anti-circumcision fanatic and a self-righteous human rights advocate on a soap box. I guess my refusal to use sources from intactivist sites to avoid bias and the rejection of at least one paper due to unfounded bias for my position are perfect indications of my fanaticism. Needless to say I found that irritating but lucky for me I have a paper on just such a topic.
sofiarune 1 year ago
Even if the terribly flawed study that proposed circumcision reduced the risk of HIV infection WAS true... it never suggested total immunity. So, effectively you get to play Russian roulette with a life threatening virus (oh and a whole bunch of other fun ones too!) with fewer bullets in the gun.
But hey, the American medical profession needs to keep the folks back home certain that cutting off foreskins is god's work - rounds of golf don't pay for themselves, after all.
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago
Circumcision seems like a Pascal's wager - and I wouldn't take this one either if I had had the chance.
JPO1618 1 year ago
I've been following the youtube debates on circumcision, and find it truly bizarre how many Americans support it, for some of the most fallacious reasons you could think of (eg "foreskins are ugly", "it's cleaner"). In the UK, it's by no means the norm, it's pretty much just a jewish and muslim 'cultural' thing.
alexvegas 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
your full of it
nmm12nmm 1 year ago
@nmm12nmm These aren't uniquely my ideas so I guess the scientists that published this review are the real ones who are full of it, right? Because I'm sure you've reviewed the literature yourself and are way more informed.
sofiarune 1 year ago
from kleenex3000
Greetings from Germany (in our country, only Muslims "cut")
Thank you; this is a good idea, to keep spreading the message.
I inspect the recent uploads about circumcision almost daily, only to find that the listing is "Diluted" by biblical Videos about the letters of the Apostle Paulus... and, even worse, advertisement for CC in (South)Africa.
madbr3991 1 year ago
from yoda002
I enjoyed the listen to your report. I heard that circumcised men tend to cause women to dry out more frequently which sometimes lead to vaginal bleeding. Either way I heard women are able to catch HIV easier than men. I think Africa is just being used a guinea pig for this misguided study.
madbr3991 1 year ago
@madbr3991 I'm actually getting a bit shocked at the number of experimental treatments that seem to be tested out in subsaharan Africa.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune : the African clinical trials would never make it past a Human Ethics Committee in the First World, especially the USA.
alnot01 1 year ago
from trident3b
WOW, this is the first American who I would consider intelligent. I applaud your video. The thought that mutilating a sexual organ can prevent a complex disease is simply grotesque. It is the continued attempt at denial after mr kellogs ultra idiotic doctrine in the USA... apart from religious motives.
madbr3991 1 year ago
@madbr3991 I hate to burst your bubble but I'm actually a Canadian. ;)
sofiarune 1 year ago 2
@sofiarune they said "American". Canada is still in North America, right? And they only referenced the United States for having idiotic doctrines, which, I agree we have, although it should be noted that we do not all share them.
patrick1020000 1 year ago
Google....More Prosecutors Dropping Criminal HIV Charges
"“While the AIDS industry has convinced Americans of the alleged AIDS epidemic, prosecutors have a hard time finding anyone willing to promote their propaganda under penalty of PERJURY.”
A fatal flaw with HIV tests leaves prosecutors with no credible witnesses from local, state or federal health agencies ..."
the direct link to the disclaimer is on my channel under the pic ofthe Pope
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Posting the same stupid shit you did a day ago doesn't make a difference. You're trying my patience. I already looked at some of the ridiculous links you have on your page and got a good laugh. I even read the instruction manual for the viral load test that you complain about so vigourously. Now stop commenting on my video and wait while I produce a video of my own. You can't launch a rebuttal against me without knowing the argument.
sofiarune 1 year ago
See on youtube....Why I Quit Hiv with Kary Mullis - Rodney Richards - more
Dr. Rodney Richards, PhD, Biochemist, Founding scientist for the biotech company Amgen. Collaborated with Abbott Laboratories in developing some of the first HIV tests
Neville Hodgkinson former Science Editor, The Times of London
Dr. Kary Mullis, PhD, Biochemist, Winner, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for inventing the PCR the basis for the HIV viral load tests
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny The minute I saw the name Kary Mullis you set alarm bells off. I will however thank you for giving me the push to start working on my video about arguments from authority since that seems what you're doing here. Kary Mullis having a Nobel Prize doesn't automatically grant him comprehensive rights to having his word being on the same level as evidence. Should have a video about this up tonight. ;)
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune How is someone explaining why they quit hiv an argument from authority? If you have the scientific reference the people in the video would like to see feel free to share it. Three logical fallacies and you're out though. If a person is incapable of logical debate they're a waste of time don't you think?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny The argument from authority lies in your diligently listing out your sources credentials without actually listing their points. You're giving the illusion that because they have letters after their names and did some good work means that they're right. Whether this is your intention or not, it's what you did. Luckily I have a lot to say about Kary Mullis since a friend and I are already quite familiar with him. Video will be up later.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune Please post whatever you come up with to the relevant video though. I'm tired of people not having the nerve to actually go to the relevant video where I clearly state logical fallcies are not tolerated. I'm tired of having my time wasted by people operating on emotion not logic.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Right, just you wait. You might not be pleased with what we have to say but it certainly won't be based on emotional appeal. Did you personally make a video or am I just watching the one with the title you mentioned initially.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune It's a series of interviews with various people that I uploaded the other day. There are links to articles in the video description box and if you want confirmation of the claims made by Richards and Hodgkinson in their articles re: the tests I have the direct link to the disclaimers on my channel under the pic of the Pope.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Alright I've pretty much spent the last few hours researching the claims made in the interviews. I currently am sitting on 22 references and a few pages of notes to debunk this claim. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to put it together immediately but look for it some time this week as this is taking a good chunk of time.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune Ok. You need the reference basically where the proteins used in/for all the antibody tests since the day Gallo got the patent were shown to belong to a unique viral entity and it was linked to immune problems. Title Date and Journal
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny I shoudl have anticipated that you would move the goal post since the initial claim was that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, now you want me to talk about HIV testing. I'm not playing your game. What I will do is go through Koch's postulates, with numerous citations. Debunk Kary Mullis' complaint that there wasn't and isn't literature showing the link between HIV and AIDS and go through a preview of a paper that will be published in the Annual Review of Pathology: Mechanisms
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune Um.. no I did not move goal posts. I've been asking for the same thing for months now. You're hardly the first person I've come to. You can't use Gallo's tests to prove the existance of Gallo's virus. This is part of the problem. If you can't prove the existance of Gall's virus then Gallo's virus certainly can't cause aids.
I was making it clear what's necessary.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny if Dusease 2011 6: 223-44 called pathogenic mechanisms of HIV disease. I'm not going to sit and deal with initial work when our understanding of HIV was in its infancy. It's like asking me to defend evolution by assessing Darwin's original theory while ignoring more recent data.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune The pointis that you need evidence that the proteins used in/for ALL "hiv" tests actually come from Gsllo's virus. Gallo is the test kit patent holder andthose proteins have not changed since he got the patent back in the 80's.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@sofiarune When I look forthat reference I get this.....■Kruger L, Mantyh PW, Sternini C, Brecha NC, Mantyh CR. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in the rat central nervous system: patterns of immunoreactivity and receptor binding sites. Brain Res. 1988 Nov 1;463(2):223-44
This proves Gallo's virus exists and is the cause of aids how exactly?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Wow you're a special one aren't you? You look up a reference, get an entirely different title then assume that was the reference I pointed out. Couldn't possibly be because you're looking in the wrong journal, in the wrong year with the wrong title. Protip: 1988 and 2011 aren't the same thing. Brain Res does not equate to Annual Review of Pathology: Mechanisms of Disease. Just what database are you using anyway?
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune That's why I was asking. How can something published in 2011 be the primary scientific reference? Are you saying Gallo's virus wasn't proven to exist and ause aids until 2011?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny No, I'm not but I'm giving you the most recent literature since you know, it's more up to date and informative than shit from 1985. And yes, papers published in 2011 can be used as primary literature which itself can cite new experiments that confirm older theories and hypotheses etc etc.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune But ALL those studies revolve around the use of GALLOS antibody tests. These are the "hiv" proteins used in/for ALL the antibody tests since the day Gallo got thepatent... p17/18, p24/25, p31/32, gp41, p53/55, gp120, and gp160
Why ASSUME those proteins belong to Gallo's virus? There re literally dozens thins documented in the medical literature which ause reactions on those tests also. Without a means of ndependent verification aka a gold standard there's no way to know for sure
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@sofiarune I looked up the reference number. Title Date and Journal is easier so that's why I asked for it.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny What the fuck are you talking about? I didn't give you a reference number. I have you the title, the issue number, the pages it can be found and the journal it will be published in. Where the hell are you getting "reference number" from? Are you even remotely familiar with citations and scientific literature?
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune Ok sorry...found it. It's the same problem. That relies on the use of Gallo's antibody tests. That doesn't prove Gallo's virus exists...it ASSUMES it does. Also....all that's available at the moment is the abstract...Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Pathology: Mechanisms of Disease Volume 6 is January 24, 2011.
and...Review in Advance first posted online on October 25, 2010. (Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print.)
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny You may only be able to access the abstract but I have the entire paper from the preprint server. You're also one of those special individuals who doesn't even believe HIV exists? Suddenly I feel like I'm wasting my time. Oh well I'll present my case and you can take it or leave it. You'll probably be like Deusberg and be unable to admit you're wrong but if it prevents you from convincing other suckers then I'll take it.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune if you believe Gallo's the you have the burden of proof. You can't just slap up random studies which are all based on a false premise. I do not care to ASSUME Gallo's virus exists. Calling me "special" isn't a scientific reference now is it? The primary reference should be no trouble.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny I cite one of my >20 references and you think you've got it figured out. I already mentioned to you that I will be going through Koch's postulates as it relates to HIV/AIDS. Also I'm making snidey comments because your ignorance is trying my patience, as it would with anyone in academia. I'm not here to spoon feed someone who thinks the page numbers of a journal articles is a reference number.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune great. I would love for Koch's Postulates to be brought up
more than half of Africans who qualify for an AIDS diagnosis test HIV-negative:
227 patients with "AIDS": 59% test HIV-negative (Hishida, 1992)
122 patients with "AIDS": 69% test HIV-negative (Brindle, 1993)
913 patients with "AIDS": 71% test HIV-negative (Songok, 1994)
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Jesus Christ, you're still here? And you're spitting random statistics at me as if it means something? Man I wish you had been at blogtv last night.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny As usual, you just copy-pasted this trio of citations off a denialist website without bothering to even read the titles. If you had you might have realised that Songok 1994 is "Low Prevalence of Human T-Lymphotrophic Virus Type 1 (HTLV-1) in HIV patients in Kenya". 100% of their subjects were HIV+. Only a few of them were HTLV-1+ as well. HTLV-1 is not HIV.
eSnout 11 months ago
@eSnout test
mykoolaidtastesfunny 11 months ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny fail
eSnout 11 months ago
@eSnout what are you 12 years old? Either post the primary peer reviewed reference that the dissidents scientists have been asking to see to my featured video....Why I Quit Hiv
or go away. I'm sick of you virus of mass destruction cultists.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 11 months ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Title: "Low prevalence of human T-lymphotrophic virus type I (HTLV-I) in HIV-positive patients in Kenya." Author: Songok et al. Reference: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1994 Aug;7(8):876-7.
Why did you cite this paper to claim "913 patients with "AIDS": 71% test HIV-negative"?
eSnout 11 months ago
@eSnout Just an fyi I had actually never blocked that douchebag before now. I threatened to because they didn't give me a chance to actually reply. I'm currently dealing with some serious stuff and I can't be bothered allowing this dumbass free reign on my channel. Sorry to cut the debate short but I have blocked them so they will no longer be replying to you.
sofiarune 11 months ago
@sofiarune Stop lying. You said you were blocking me "temporarily" Go fuck yourself you cultist. The ONLY reason this sad ass cult has had free reign for as long as it has is because of censorship.
Move goal posts all day the FACT is you did not manage to come up with the relevant studies. I do not share your ASSUMPTIONS. You may was well try to prove body thetans using a frikkin e-meter.
I won't bother commenting again and only did because esnout replied to me.
myspareaccount303 11 months ago
@sofiarune And btw...spare me your claims of important work. You had all the time in the world to move goal posts with your propaganda videos when all you had to do is simply NAME the primary reference and post it to my featured video.
myspareaccount303 11 months ago
@sofiarune Koolaid's been doing this for years now. If you check the comments of virtually any HIV-related vid on youtube you'll find dozens and sometimes hundreds of examples of her copy-paste spam. Don't feel bad about blocking her. Even the most patient rational person gets sick of her eventually.
eSnout 11 months ago
@eSnout If you have the primary peer reviewed papers where Gallo showed these proteins.... p17/18, p24/25, p31/32, gp41, p53/55, gp120, and gp160 ...used in/for ALL the "hiv" tests since the day he got the patent actually belong to a SPECIFIC viral entity and it was linked to immune problems feel free to post the reference to my featured video
Title Date Journal. 3 logical fallacies and you're out. Sofiarunes couldn't scrape them up so she moved the goal posts and declared herself victorious
mykoolaidtastesfunny 11 months ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Go fuck yourself.
sofiarune 11 months ago
@eSnout NONE of you virus of mass destruction cultists can just NAME the reference. All you do is post studies which ASSUME those proteins belong to Gallo's virus.
I'm sick of you cultists and your logical fallacies so make sure you read what is stated clearly in the video description box....3 ogical fallacies and you're out.
I'm not replying to this video anymore. She already blocked me once for asking about any conflicts of interest she may have re: Gallo's virus as the cause of aids.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 11 months ago
@sofiarune Also...Gallo never found any such virus in any of his aids patients so....
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny I expext AT MINIMUM that someone who is making a claim such as yourself should be at least superficially familiar with referencing, citations and common conventions used for investigating primary scientific literature. You appear to be missing that quality. You don't seem to even understand how to navigated the data.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune Excuse me? I'm not making a claim as much as asking you justify your belief in Gallo's virus as the cause of aids. You assured me yor responses would be based on logica not emotion. The primary reference where Gallo established these proteins.... p17/18, p24/25, p31/32, gp41, p53/55, gp120, and gp160 .. belong to a UNIQUE viral entity and it was linked to immune problems should be no trouble at all.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@sofiarune Edit...if you believe in Gallo's virus then you have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on those who make a claim not on those who dispute it. Remember....making snidey comments about people who ask to see your evidence is not the appropriate scientific reference.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@sofiarune Also...Duesberg has been proven correct more than once on more than one issue...Google....Duesberg vindicated
"...Two months later, the university admits that it finds no reason to take action on the charges (Martin Enserink, “Berkeley drops probe of Duesberg after finding ‘insufficient evidence’”, June 21 2010
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Oh yeah? And what journal did you find that little gem in?
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune Which "little gem"?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
Lol....wow. I see you favorited the youtube "scientist's" appeal to emotion. Or is it a false dilemma? Either you believe in Gallo's virus or you're a murderer? Ask concordance for the primary scientific reference. Surely he has something to back up his propaganda videos beyond logical fallacies and false references that don't say what he claims they say. ;)
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
cont..."In this connection, it’s worth noting too that Duesberg’s criticism of inflated AIDS-death numbers for South Africa, suppressed from Medical Hypotheses, has been vindicated by publication in a peer-reviewed, PubMed-abstracted journal [Medical students in Africa need not fear HIV, 2010/05/31 ; REPRINT of Galletti & Bauer, 2010/06/03].
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny I highly recommmend shutting up until I make my video since you have no idea what I'm actually going to say. Also, you should have come to blogtv last night where I criticised the peer review process for not being what the public (ie you) thinks it is. Nothing pisses me off more than people like you reading the abstract of a paper, seeing the word peer-review next to it then running around shouting from the roof tops that your position is 100% supported.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune All you need to do is post the primary peer reviewed scientific reference where Gallo demonstrated that the proteins used in ALL the "hiv" tests (which Gallo holds the patent on) actually come from Gallo's virus and it was linked to immune problems. You know? Like we already discussed.
You have the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on those who make a claim not on those who dispute it.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Do you just string words together or do you think about it sometimes? I never said I dont have the burden of proof and I'm not in any way disputing it. I have done what I would assume is way more research than you have done on this subject in the last few days and will be presenting what I've learned in a video yet you keep commenting as if you've won. I don't trust citing things to you anyway since you don't even know how to interpret a citation properly. That and you
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune So the primary reference should be no trouble. I asked you to post your evidence to the relevant video. Why haven't you done that?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Because I can't fit >20 references in under 500 characters and you have already demonstrated that you have a difficult time finding the papers even when I do. I will be going through them IN THE VIDEO I have been telling you I'm working on since the beginning. They will fully by cited and you can make an attempt at reading them yourself.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune There aren't 20 primary references. I think the reason you're avoiding posting them to video we discssed is because I don't tolerate logical fallacies there.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny You really are an impatient ass aren't you? You make absurd claims about science then get irritated when someone actually takes time to look into the science. Note the word time there. That's right, debunking stupid bullshit takes a good deal of time and investigation if someone is sincere and doing it properly. Reading papers alone takes a huge amount of time. If you consider speed to be a symbol of validity then I am afraid you have no intellectual integrity.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune I made no claims. I asked you to provide the primary peer reviewed reference and to post it to my feature video. You assured me your response would be based on logic and not emotion.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny And you haven't even given me a chance to make a response. You just keep commenting on my video even though I told you I'm putting a video together for you and it will take time since it's pretty in depth but you keep commenting here as if I owe you something. You have presenting the claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, viral load tests are flawed and later on that HIV doesn't even exist at all. I am debunking them but I am doing so with proper scholarship so I can't just
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune spit out bullshit like you do. Proper scholarship takes hours of work.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune The PRIMARY reference should be no trouble though.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@sofiarune Apologies...no censorship...it was just moved very quckly off the first page. concordance censors so I made a hasty ASSUMPTION
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@sofiarune And I told you to post your evidence to the relevant video. I made NO claim. I asked you to justify your belief in Gallo's virus as the cause of aids and I stated the evidence required quite clearly. Do you have a financial stake in Gallo's virus?
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny I don't censor comments but you are dangerously close to being temporarily blocked until I produce my video because I'm frankly sick of repeating myself to you. One more time and if you don't get it we'll be done here until I make my response is complete:
I am making a video to present my case that HIV causes AIDS. Scholarly research of literature takes a long time but all of my references will be included in the video. I will post that video to the one you referred to.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune Lol..but did you "forget"? All that's needed is the primaruy scientific reference where Gallo demonstrated that the proteins used in his "hiv" tests.... p17/18, p24/25, p31/32, gp41, p53/55, gp120, and gp160....since the day he got the patent bck in the 80's actually come from a UNIQUE viral entity and i was linked to immune problems
If yuwant to present as a video reply I have no objection although idk why you want to move the goal posts. Title Date and Journal is all you need.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Are you done? You keep pasting the same thing and I keept telling you to wait for a fucking second as I think the best way to address this is via video response since 500 characters isn't enough for the number of references I have and I don't trust you to actually read the papers (or even find them) so I'll be presenting what's in them to you. A proper citation of all papers will be in the description of the video. Anything other than a "Ok I will wait and (cont pt 2)
sofiarune 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny ... wait and watch your video before I comment anymore" you will be blocked temporarily until I have actually made my response. At that point I will unblock you and we can continue this debate. Until then I don't want to hear from you or listen to you bitch about me not having any argument when I haven't had a chance to adequately present it.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune Censoring comments? Good thing I take screenshots ;)
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny Too bad you're a complete idiot since I don't censor comments and that chances are you can't find your comment because you've butchered the way these comments thread by replying in stupid places instead of replying to the last comment rendered. This means all two part comments are getting separated and the overall layout is muddled. Your replies are all off in the middle of no where. Look harder before flinging accusations in future.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny seem to think that reading an abstract of a peer-reviewed article makes you some how informed. You clearly don't understand peer-review or how to read a paper if that's what you think. I will cite all of my sources in my video and go over information from the actual paper, not some summary of it. You know, the paper I actually read in full which you don't seem to do. Give me time, it's easy to spout nonsense but much more involved to actually study it.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune The primary reference should be no trouble. You need the peer reviewed scientific reference where Gallo showed these proteins... p17/18, p24/25, p31/32, gp41, p53/55, gp120, and gp160...used in/for ALL th "hiv" antibody tests since the day he got he patent actually come frm a UNIQUE viral entity and proved it was a causal microorganism. Title Date and Journal.
Why not just go post to it my feature video? Then all the dissidents will go home.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
@mykoolaidtastesfunny I have over 20 fucking references and several pages of solid notes. I know this may shock you but I actually have other things to do than make videos on youtube for people like you. This video is probably going to be a 3 part series and it's going to take a good deal of time to put it together. Hopefully I can have it up by this weekend, like I have been telling you this entire time but listening isn't your strong suit it would seem. I'll post it to your vid when done.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune So the PRIMARY reference should be no trouble. Anything that uses Gallo's antibody test as the foundation of the evidence doesn't prove his virus exists...it ASSUMES it does. That's like using an e-meter to "prove" bodythetans. You need independent veirfication.
mykoolaidtastesfunny 1 year ago
As a European woman, I find the idea of a "naked" penis "gross". (no offense meant ;) ) So the argument "women prefer circumcised men" doesn't hold any water. As a mother, the thought of anybody inflicting non-necessary pain on my children abhores me and makes my blood boil.
giliellthesecond 1 year ago 2
Evil boy by Die Antwoord, actually revolves around the ritualistic circumsisions done in South Africa in the Xhosa tribe. If you don't go to the bush and get your circumsision done with unclean instruments, you are not a man, you are GAY!! Oh and isn't rap on Africaan cool? The vid might be a bit disturbing, but attractive just the same
BjornSeverinLarsen 1 year ago
#i2 Fantastic video. I tweeted it to the #i2 campaign.
toddlusk 1 year ago
the 2 protein hiv test is not accurate and those proteins can be produced by many other conditions including drug use, vaccinations and pregnancy - we must help people to question the hiv test and the changing definition of AIDS
hivquestions 1 year ago
GREAT video.
circumcision permanently and painfully removes healthy, sensitive, functional, erogenous genital tissue. The foreskin has the same type of nerve endings as those found in the fingertips, lips, and palms of the hands. thousands and thousands of them.
doing it to an infant does this without adequate informed consent.
P.S. wearing a condom when sleeping with an untested partners nullifies any POSSIBLE effect (good or bad) of circumcision.
Wear condoms, don't cut off baby foreskins!
joelface 1 year ago 2
Fuckin' subbed.
TalynCo 1 year ago 2
The HIV Circumcision research in Africa have no external validity as the highly controlled studies results do not replicate themselves in the uncontrolled real world as Circumcision nations have high levels of HIV infections, eg USA higher HIV infections than Europe
perthfem 1 year ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@perthfem The "US has more circumcision and more HIV than Europe" argument is very weak. No one claims that male circumcision directly reduces any transmission mode but F to M heterosexual. F to M transmission is a very minor part of the US epidemic, which is mainly M to M, IDU and M to F. However most HIV in subsaharan Africa is either F to M or caught from someone who got infected F to M.
eSnout 11 months ago
Just one minor nitpick: male circumcision is not really ingrained into _Western_ culture, only in North-American culture. In Western Europe, for example, male circumcision (done not for real medical reasons like a deformed / too tight foreskin, of course) is only common among the Jewish population.
AnonymousCoward23 1 year ago 3
@AnonymousCoward23 No you're right. I'll add an annotation later.
sofiarune 1 year ago 2
@AnonymousCoward23 And perhaps the distinction should be made between US, Mexican and Canadian statistics as well - and not lump all North America together... the US heads the pack at somewhere between 60 and 80% of the male population circumcized. Mexico is somewhere around 1-30%, and Canada ranges from 0-40%. Unfortunately, the statistics are hard to pin down, but the trend is there... the US is way more likely to promote it.
jkzl1008 1 year ago
The more I learn about circumcision the more I hate my parents.
insightnew 1 year ago 2
@insightnew - your parents likely didn't have access to the information parents have access to today when researching the topic. It is the doctors who likely promoted (and profited) and performed the procedure on you should be the directed focus of your growing anger/distaste with the procedure and your loss of healthy, sensitive, functional genital tissue.
I implore you to not just "let it go" but to speak out and help people realize they shouldn't do it to THEIR kids. Make a difference!
joelface 1 year ago 2
Well done.
SpookyFan 1 year ago
Very nice video. Myths like this need to get obliterated quickly and thoroughly
GeneralMontague 1 year ago 2
Thank you for fighing for my penis. :D
azumaninjay 1 year ago 12
@azumaninjay Any time! Cutting off pieces of genitals because of false assertions is really awful.
sofiarune 1 year ago 15
@sofiarune Its sad that so many think it affective.
azumaninjay 1 year ago
@sofiarune - "cutting off pieces of genitals because of false assertions is really awful"
.... truth.
joelface 1 year ago 2
Ugh. Just when news was going around that circumcision rates in America (the only developed country to practice it routinely on infants) had dropped to a minority (in the 30% range), and global circumcision rates were at an all time low...This. First it was to mark slaves, then it was to prevent masturbation, now this. It has to end, these organizations never tell you about the downsides to circumcision like the loss of nerve endings, and stand to gain a large amount of cash from each foreskin.
tipoomaster 1 year ago 18
@tipoomaster
p.s by "dropped to a minority" I mean in newborns, not the total population.
tipoomaster 1 year ago
@tipoomaster
p.p.s, subscribed, your arguments are very well stated.
tipoomaster 1 year ago
@tipoomaster Thanks for the subscription! The paper was actually a really interesting read. Hopefully some of you have access to it so you can read it for yourself. There were some points I didn't even get to in this video that were though provoking none the less.
sofiarune 1 year ago
When i had my first child, my wife and I got public assistance to help with the medical bills because we were both in school and had very little income. It turns out that circumcision is covered by public health in the US, and I believe most private insurance companies. On top of this, even though we chose not to get our son circumcised the doctor still billed the government for the procedure.
michalchik 1 year ago
@michalchik Wow. That is really shady.
sofiarune 1 year ago
Thinking I'll watch your page for something more is wishful thinking. The information you present is mixed; truth mixed with falsehood. Not helpful. I haven't pointed to any evidence...the links aren't accepted, so don't bother making any effort for my benefit. I'm as interested in your stuff as you are interested in mine. Waste of time. Adieu
amaragrace713 1 year ago
@amaragrace713 Which is why I was going to go through those "many" papers referenced by the commentor on c0nc0rdance's video which you said did a better job presenting evidence than you could and on top of that I gave you my email address so you could send me links... cause I'm totally not interested, right?
On the other hand I'm not surprised that YOU'RE not actually interested in being refuted. This little paragraph from you is actually incredibly revealing.
sofiarune 1 year ago 2
@sofiarune I had not seen your offer of e-mail communication before I worte the signing off. I'm not afraid to see your rebuttal, but I won't be back here. I'll send you the links through e-mail, but It's obvious you already know it all. and BTW, if vaccines were harmless, manufacturers wouldn't need immunity from liability for deaths & injuries. The drug industry is not trustworthy.
amaragrace713 1 year ago
@amaragrace713 "if vaccines were harmless, manufacturers wouldn't need immunity from liability for deaths & injuries."
Because it makes sense to accept the consequences of immunity from liability in exchange for the millions of lives that vaccines save?
SAsgarters 1 year ago
@sofiarune :p I'm not anti vaccination. Though I do believe there are alot of scare tactics used to push vaccinations. Though vaccination has proven itself millions of times over unlike genital mutilation. Haha. Are u a fan of Penn and tellers : bullshit?
drealgrin 1 year ago
@drealgrin Yes, Pen and Teller rock. I wish more people would watch them so I could stop having stupid internet arguments. It looks like I'll be doing a anti-vaccine debunk tomorrow (or at least getting started on one). Hopefully it doesn't take forever to produce.
sofiarune 1 year ago
Please read the *many* references a kind commentor left under that guy's video re: Wakefield's work. Plenty videos exist already, better than I could do. Scientific method is exceedingly valuable; those who use it objectively & expose vaccine injury are discredited. Research studies can't be falisified? Like research that proved - for decades - that tobacco ≠ people's cancer? These issues have *Everything* in common: same incestous gov't./industry politics.
amaragrace713 1 year ago
@amaragrace713 You're not even listening to me at this point. I said the methods are either valid or not. There is no inbetween. When you talk about "Big Pharma" sponsored evidence I guess you're referring to flat out falsified evidence. Companies sponsoring studies doesn't necessarily mean the data are falsified or that the studies methodology were flawed. As I pointed out, the methods must be stated in papers and issues can't be hidden when the reader is careful but I doubt you even care.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune BTW, the Wakefield 12 paper was not a research study, it was submitted as - & published as - a case series; not the same thing. Labeling it a fraudulent research study was purposly deceptive defamation, because it wasn't a research study to begin with. But it sounded good to people who dont' know the difference; you fell for it. See
amaragrace713 1 year ago
@amaragrace713 Ah resorting to semantic nitpicking, fantastic. I'll be going through those citations from C0nc0rdance video tomorrow and make a whole video debunking it just for you and BryTee. I'll throw in the original Wakefield paper free of charge. Hopefully it doesn't take too long to put together so I can have it to you in a couple of days.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune Thank you for the (dot) info. Not me that's nitpicking...this report does it I listened to you, I watched the guy's video. You didn't examine the links referenced under the guy's video; it's you who hasn't listened to me. disguised link info still not accepted
amaragrace713 1 year ago
@amaragrace713 Watch for my debunk of the evidence you point to coming soon. That's all I have to say until then.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune The link that confirms that my comment revealing the difference between case series & research study is not posting even when I disguise the (dot)s so I am at a loss to give you the information that may help you understand there is no nitpicking just a legitimate accuracy point of fact. Is there something else I must do to make the link acceptable?
amaragrace713 1 year ago
@amaragrace713 If you're really really hell bent on sending it to me then email it to me
sofiarune at hotmail dot com
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune ww (dot) irishhealth (dot) com/article (dot) html?id=18246
amaragrace713 1 year ago
@sofiarune won't let me post the link...any suggestions on how to?
amaragrace713 1 year ago
@amaragrace713 replace the . with (dot) so it doesn't recognize it as a link.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune Wakefield did not say MMR caused autism; you're incorrect in that assertion. Trying to post the link but won't let me.
amaragrace713 1 year ago
You assume incorrectly that I base my understanding of the circ issue on - or accept - your critical analysis; I don't. Likewise my understanding of vaccine issues are not based on one paper OR mountains of pharma sponsored "evidence" [sic]. You're the doublethinker with Circ prevents HIV; rejected....Vax prevents illness: accepted. The video you referenced does not impress me either - his assertions are easily refutable. again, space here too limited.
amaragrace713 1 year ago
@amaragrace713 Well make a video then because I'd really love to see this apparent easy argument from you. I still don't understand how you seem to think evidence can be faked when papers are required to report their methods. Methods are either flawed or not and that's not something that you can simply hide... unless you're flat out asserting that data sets are entirely falsified. If that's the case and there's some conspiracy, why would the Lancet publish the MMR "study" in the first place?
sofiarune 1 year ago
Boring? I Subbed because of this video!
Also, Marry me <3
drealgrin 1 year ago
@drealgrin Liar! I didn't get an email telling me all about your alleged subscription! :P
As for the marriage proposal, it depends... you're not another anti-vaccine proponent like the last couple of commentors are you?!
sofiarune 1 year ago
I agree with you about the HIV-circumcision issue, but your misunderstanding of the vaccine issue is simply untenable, regardless of how enormously educated your left brain is. You’ve bought into a flawed paradigm. My whole comment won't appear here.
amaragrace713 1 year ago
@amaragrace713 Contrary to what you seem to think, I find your insistence that these two isses have nothing in common to be "simple untenable". You accept a critical analysis of male circumcision but are fine with basing your opinions on MMR and autism on one extremely flawed paper in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. It seems to me that you're engaging in double think. You keep complaining about paradigms, are you suggesting we dispose of the scientific method entirely?
sofiarune 1 year ago
The science mentality that produced the 'credible evidence' you're speaking out against here, is the same science mentality that produces the 'credible evidence' that vaccines are safe & necessary and don't cause autism and vaccine injuries occur at a rate of 1 in 1,000,000. Same system, same paradigm, same source, same agenda. How is that mysterious or invisible to you?
amaragrace713 1 year ago
@amaragrace713 It isn't. See, unlike the general public, I'm well trained in the scientific method and applied statistical analysis so I'm able to pick through different studies and assess their validity independent of the media or the internet. The whole "vaccines cause autism" uproar resulted from one paper published in The Lancet that was found to be methodologically suspect, like the circumcision trials done in Africa.
Before commenting further, watch this video: watch?v=8Tl3tUQng9Q
sofiarune 1 year ago
I agree with the video as a whole.
BUT at 3:28 is a statement "junk pseudo science on par with Autism being linked to vaccines". However, there is a growing number of people (including in the medical field) requesting a strong need to fully research this and not simply believe statements from pharmaceutical companies (who make profit from vaccines).
Many people who see through government and researchers claims on HIV & circumcision have a correlation with the denial of Autism from vaccines.
BryTee 1 year ago
This stems from the observation that since vaccines were introduced there has been a 6000% increase in Autism, and while it may not be connected, it deserves research outside of those who make money from vaccines.
Risks of vaccines are also shown to be played down by (say) the CDC, when real world studies have shown greater risks than the CDC claim (eg with the RRT-TV vaccine: CDC say 0.6/100000 risk, but two independent studies show 292/100000 & 312/100000 risk).
BryTee 1 year ago
You might do well to reconsider why you believe in vaccines and research who you are believing it from, and look into what incentives they have to make biased statements (or reasons they have to not rock their boat).
There are plenty of places for quotes about vaccines effectiveness being trumped up, including from former chiefs of departments in the FDA, heads of children's hospitals, researchers, doctors, and news reports of incidents.
eg vaclib.org/basic/quotes.htm
BryTee 1 year ago
@BryTee I really could care less what the media is telling me. As I mentioned to another commentor, I am well trained in the scientific method and applied statistical analysis. I can read the literature for myself and come to my own conclusions. I'm not believing things just because some guy in a suit says so.
For evidence regarding vaccine effectiveness watch this video: watch?v=VW1IEqKuf6s
For evidence against vaccines causing autism watch this video: watch?v=8Tl3tUQng9Q
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune I watched and saw a statement for flu and H1N1 shots. However I see the videos were recorded Oct 2009, prior to the discovery that the H1N1 issue was massively inflated by Big Pharma for profits.
Also 1968 and 2003 flu shots were ineffective, missed their target, as good as a placebo, yet after the season there were no more deaths and about the same people sick from flu.
So a placebo was as effective as a flu shot? More likely, flu shots are a similar scam.
BryTee 1 year ago
I see the facts there are from sources that stand to gain from promoting the vaccination myth.
I agree with not listening to the media, they convince people to get flu shots.
But be careful about the literature you read, there is documented evidence that scientists who go to publish findings against big pharma and/or the government held belief on vaccines are threatened with their funding being withdrawn. Those who do publish are often found to be funded by these biased sources.
BryTee 1 year ago
My point was not to get onto the controversy of vaccines, but to state that throwing someone else's strongly held beliefs "under the bus" with that throw away statement very much jeopardizes the whole video.
What is the point of a video raising an important issue, if early on you insult and alienate the audience! Especially there was no extra value to the issue, and was quite irrelevant.
However I do feel the rest of the video is intelligent and based in real science and statistics.
Thank you.
BryTee 1 year ago
@BryTee No seriously, I actually can understand literature and I am more than capable of noticing whether a study's methods are sounds. I take serious issues with your argument against holding someone else's strongly held beliefs. Strongly held and accurate are not synonyms. The methods used for the circumcision trials were extremely poor, as were the ones linking MMR to autism. It's not my problem if my audience likes to pick and choose which issues they care to know the facts about (pt1)
sofiarune 1 year ago
@BryTee At the end of the day I can only present what I understand to be the case. If my audience doesn't appreciate it and would rather plug their ears because I mentioned that anti-vaccination groups use junk pseudoscience then they may as well be on board with circumcision in my opinion since the evidence about as rigourous in both cases.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune Sure, feel free to believe the arguments of "men in suits" who make profits from gullibility of people who actually (surprisingly, if they're intelligent) believe the pseudo (junk) science of vaccines.
If anyone is "plugging their ears" it's people who are not listening to the mounting evidence and testimonies from people who were IN the industry that vaccines have been the myth and scam of century.
You can read papers all you like, but you are not questioning their motives.
BryTee 1 year ago
You do question the motives of the HIV/circ studies (and I applaud you for that) but somehow do not apply the same criticism of the pro-vax lobby and those profiteers.
All I'm saying (if you stop bringing the vaccination myth into this) is that you could improve your presentation skills by not being anti-social to a fair portion of the audience, especially when it was totally unnecessary and irrelevant.
A good presentation deals with the topic at hand, and does not backstab other causes.
BryTee 1 year ago
@BryTee I can't believe you don't see the difference. The methods used to show vaccines are effective are SOUND. It doesn't matter what the motives are if the science can stand up to scrutiny. The methods showing BOTH MMR/autism and circumicsion/HIV are INCREDIBLY flawed.
I am not going to be delicate toward people who I feel are making the exact same mistakes as PEPFAR is. You and that other user have irritated me enough that you can look forward to an anti-vax debunk soon.
sofiarune 1 year ago
@sofiarune That vaccines cause antibodies to appear in a person's blood is not disputed. That is called "vaccine efficacy"...that is not *immunity*; that is not *health*; that is not *entirely beneficial*. Why can't I include a link in one of these posts?
amaragrace713 1 year ago
@sofiarune Well, I hope you have learned to not make backstabbing statements of some other irrelevant topic in the middle of that (and other future) presentations.
BryTee 1 year ago