It's a conspiracy.
 

Wow.

Did you know? You cannot get AIDS from sitting on a toilet.


Unless a shadowy figure was in the stall just before you. :eek:

Hmm ... seems research along these lines may be a specialty of some of these folks

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00002/art00012
Birth Control Conspiracy Beliefs, Perceived Discrimination, and Contraception among African Americans: An Exploratory Study

EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP OF CONSPIRACY BELIEFS ABOUT HIV/AIDS TO SEXUAL BEHAVIORS AND ATTITUDES AMONG AFRICAN-AMERICAN ADULTS
http://www.nmanet.org/1057-1065jnma1103.pdf

Now, before people start wondering about my position on things like the grass knoll, I'm not saying there's anything biased at all in this research. I'm just saying that, sometimes, researchers develop tunnel vision & produce results to match the expected/desired results. That's all I'm saying.

"15.2 percent said AIDS is a form of genocide against blacks."

wtf

That's not too far from the truth considering how expensive HIV treatment is...

Ben,

A friends wife had a scholarship to Norfolk State. One of MLKs daughters spoke at the school and blamed the govt. for creating and spreading aids.

Someone should tell them that the real government conspiracy is to make them believe that AIDS is a government conspiracy so that they'll distrust the warnings, decide not to use condoms, and then get AIDS and die.

That should throw 'em for a loop.

To me, that actually seems much more plausible.

As someone who spent six years in graduate school with eyes open to what was going on instead of the tunnel vision required to get a Ph.D., I can assure you that this happens the VAST majority of time. When someone gets a grant to do research, they are expected to produce certain results. If they get the wrong results, there goes the follow on contract.

This also stresses the importance of randomized, double-blinded clincical trials. But the problem is you can't withhold a potential cure to have a placebo-controlled trial for something of this magnitude. Imagine thinking you got a potential cure only to find out you were in the placebo group.

Or that AIDS was made to force them to use condoms and reduce the black population. The options for absurd conspiracy theories are endless!

Essentially this was a study to determine how someone felt, and why they felt that way. It was certainly plausable that it was a randomized, blinded study. It really depends on where the sample came from, and to make sure that the people who are scoring the survey really have no information about what they are scoring. Thereby, providing the most objective results. Then when the researchers get the information returned they are strickly looking at the numbers and running the statistical analysis to see if there is any statistical correlation between anything. As long as you use a different set of assistants to disseminate, score and anylize the data, there should be no researcher bias in the study.

You do need to be on the lookout for individuals who were not honest in the inventory, and make sure that the questionnaire was written in such a way that random answers would highlight those individuals so that they could be excluded from the study.

If done correctly, can make this a valid and representative study.

Whoa there - the VAST majority of the time? Am I understanding you to say that you think most scientists systematically twist, unconsciously misperceive, or deliberately falsify data to get the desired result? If so, then I'd have to say that my experiences in grad school were apparently very, very different from yours. I'll acknowledge that there are certainly some unscrupulous folks out there who engage in this practice deliberately, and a few more who do so on a less-conscious level, but in my experience these folks constitute a very small minority. The VAST majority of the funded researchers I've worked with strongly embraced the scientific method, the desperate need for honesty in academic endeavors, and the need to keep an open mind about unexpected results. The unexpected results can often be a great deal more interesting than the expected results to those folks, too, and provide additional opportunities for obtaining funded research.

The beauty of the scientific method is that it allows for replication, and most intriguing research findings get replicated by other laboratories. If those unscrupulous folks were up to no good or had to go through numerous statistical contortions to obtain the predicted results then they'll be found out. And that does them a LOT more harm than getting unexpected results - and sometimes ends careers.

Of course, if I misunderstood what you were saying then please disregard this post. :)

Actually...I wouldn't be entirely surprised if in 100 years, somebody found documents that some virus got loose from military base and mutated into AIDS. Not a conspiracy, but a case of Murphy's Law.

True story... the founder of planned parenthood did so with the intention of curbing the black population.

Look it up.

"It's true"

Well, look at it this way - only 21.6 percent believe HIV is a man-made virus that was NOT produced in a government laboratory.

Rogue Mad Scientists???

Which one of the two was he? (no, not Hedley, the ones on the left) ;)



SI

"He" was named Margaret Sanger.

Do your own research. There's plenty of stuff out there on her.

Where the white women at?

You are taking entirely all the fun out of this.

SI

Sorry. I'll run along and find a funny KKK or Nazi pic to make up for it...

Yawn. "This is complete true even if it can't be found on any unbiased site! What do you mean a Christian site isn't neutral on Planned Parenthood?!?"

Yeesh, it's Blazing Saddles. You need to watch more Mel Brooks or lighten up or both.

SI

Excuse me while I whip this out.

the youngstown ladies sing this song.... DOODAR, DOODAR.