Recap.

Well, I've been accused of being a "pharma plant" (thanks Grog), a member of the "omnipotent American med establishment" (thanks again Grog), a "troll" (thanks #4732, who does conspicuously sound a lot like Grog does) and a "corporate lapdog" (#4732 again).

One person (Grog) did not debate at all, just randomly spat out accusations and "facts" without supporting them. Another (Ev) decided that I was too young and "inexperienced" for this debate, even though this person could not debate at the same level as I could. The lone supporting evidence, though not evidence at all, Ev gave was a listing of quotes by some notable (some not so notable) scientists.

I was also accused of not "considering all the sides of the debate." Well, it's not my job to dig up evidence for the opposing side, is it? My opponent(s) is/are supposed to provide evidence to me and explain why it is relevant. In order to refute opposing evidence, which I did, one would have to "consider" the opposing evidence. Logically, one would conclude that I did indeed read the evidence, not just "scoff at it," because I refuted the evidence. (excuse the repetitiveness, but I think it is much needed)

The "evidence" I was referred to consisted of five websites, by John Cullison:

1. A court case that relied on two papers to conclude, steadfastly, that "HIV not proven to cause AIDS," because it hasn't been proven to exist.

2. A letter from one Dr. Al-Bayati, who claimed that AIDS is caused by malnutrition and (toxic) medicine. Well, if you were actually reading my arguments, then you would have realized I read this letter. How can I refute something if I haven't read it? Also, I have to get this off my chest: Al-Bayati says AIDS is caused by malnutrition/toxins, but wait, Hulda Clark says AIDS is caused by intestinal parasites. One of them is wrong, but which one?

3. This horribly unorganized website, with more links "than I could possibly want" keeps going back to P Duesberg's testimony, then goes off on rambling tangents about various theories. I linked to a webpage that refutes Duesberg's claims. This website is also almost four years out of date, apparent by the note "Last updated December 1, 2000." Four years of HIV/AIDS research is a lot to ignore.

4. This website has "than 1200 web pages with over 850 articles." I went through the short tour to get an overview of the website. The author presents many statistics ("The same diseases are found in similar frequencies in HIV positive and HIV negative intravenous drug users, and the overall mortality in the two groups is the same."), but are we supposed to assume that the author got these statistics from studies, and not out of thin air? Also, the author explains the tendencies of "typical" viruses. He claims that he has "technical and medical education," but does this include extensive virology and immunology education?

5. Ah yes, the claim that AIDS is a cover for drug manufacturers. AIDS is caused by parasites (Clark), then it's caused by malnutrition (Al-Bayati), then it's bacteria (but the author really can't decide, see 3), but now it's caused by a number of manufactured drugs... Please choose a cause of AIDS and provide support for it. Do not try to say that AIDS is caused by anything but HIV.


It seems to me that my opponents are having trouble finding scientific evidence to support their claims, and keep trying to promote various Conspiracy theories (doctors are evil, drugs are evil, modern medicine is evil).

*****
I also have a challenge for someone. Since there are bad people in every career, please name me someone in alternative medicine who you think is bad.
***** Tweet