NationStates Jolt Archive

Wangari Maathai demonstrates that not all nobel prize winners are in contact with reality:

Nobel peace laureate claims HIV deliberately created (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1216687.htm)

"Some say that AIDS came from the monkeys, and I doubt that because we have been living with monkeys (since) time immemorial, others say it was a curse from God, but I say it cannot be that.

"Us black people are dying more than any other people in this planet," Ms Maathai told a press conference in Nairobi a day after winning the prize for her work in human rights and reversing deforestation across Africa.

"It's true that there are some people who create agents to wipe out other people. If there were no such people, we could have not have invaded Iraq," she said.

"We invaded Iraq because we believed that Saddam Hussein had made, or was in the process of creating agents of biological warfare," said Ms Maathai.

"In fact it (the HIV virus) is created by a scientist for biological warfare," she added.

Nice to know it has been factually shown that HIV is a bio-agent and that Kenya invaded Iraq. :rolleyes:

Wow, that's impressive. That pretty much opens up the Nobel Prize field to anyone who has a crackpot theory. If she can win it, anyone can.

Wow, that's impressive. That pretty much opens up the Nobel Prize field to anyone who has a crackpot theory. If she can win it, anyone can.
did this person win the Nobel for the theory? did they win for excellence in any field related to the science of HIV?

somebody who is brilliant and wonderful in one field may be a total jerk or crackpot in another. Albert Einstein had an illegitimate kid who he treated like total crap, but that didn't mean that he wasn't brilliant. just because this person is a total looney in one area doesn't NECESSARILY mean that they didn't deserve to win a Nobel in another area.

that said, i don't know much about this person's background, so can't judge how worthy they were of the Prize.

did this person win the Nobel for the theory? did they win for excellence in any field related to the science of HIV?

somebody who is brilliant and wonderful in one field may be a total jerk or crackpot in another. Albert Einstein had an illegitimate kid who he treated like total crap, but that didn't mean that he wasn't brilliant. just because this person is a total looney in one area doesn't NECESSARILY mean that they didn't deserve to win a Nobel in another area.

that said, i don't know much about this person's background, so can't judge how worthy they were of the Prize.

Wow, really? I didn't realize that you could be brilliant in one field and an idiot in another. Thank you for pointing that out.

did this person win the Nobel for the theory? did they win for excellence in any field related to the science of HIV?

somebody who is brilliant and wonderful in one field may be a total jerk or crackpot in another. Albert Einstein had an illegitimate kid who he treated like total crap, but that didn't mean that he wasn't brilliant. just because this person is a total looney in one area doesn't NECESSARILY mean that they didn't deserve to win a Nobel in another area.

that said, i don't know much about this person's background, so can't judge how worthy they were of the Prize.

Exactly my point. Like I said, she just demonstraited that winning a Nobel Prize does not mean you are in contact with reality. (I never said she wasn't worthy.)

Wow, really? I didn't realize that you could be brilliant in one field and an idiot in another. Thank you for pointing that out.
you commented that "this opens up the Nobel Prize for anybody with a crackpot theory," which implies that having the crackpot theory is the criterion by which the Nobel is awarded. the Nobel has always been open to people who happen to hold crackpot ideas, provided that those people also show brilliance and excellence in a particular field, so i don't see what you think this changes, unless you are claiming that the Nobel was awarded to her BECAUSE of her crackpot theory.

you might want to be more clear with your posts, rather than getting defensive when people make legitimate conclusions based on your lack of clarity.

HIV is a bio-agent :rolleyes:
Wow . . . is that woman really so ignorant, yet she won a Nobel Prize?!?!

Wow . . . is that woman really so ignorant, yet she won a Nobel Prize?!?!
the Pope believes the HIV virus can pass through latex condoms, yet he is nominated for a Nobel and gets huge support. there is more conclusive evidence proving the Pope wrong than there is proving this woman wrong (though there IS evidence proving her wrong).

let's be fair: ignorance of molecular biology is not something that we normally look down on people for. this woman just makes the mistake of trying to draw conclusions before she educates herself; most people are just as ignorant as she is about this subject, they just don't showcase their ignorance :).

(though there IS evidence proving her wrong).

It's not so much a matter of evidence showing her wrong as it is a total lack of evidence leading to her conclusions. Extraordinary claims such as this must be backed up be extraordinary proof.

Wow . . . is that woman really so ignorant, yet she won a Nobel Prize?!?!

Yes, a peace prize. But the fact that she is using the power and forum created by winning a peace prize to dissimenate such BS does bother me.

Yes, a peace prize. But the fact that she is using the power and forum created by winning a peace prize to dissimenate such BS does bother me.
now THAT i can agree with. i absolutely cannot stand when persons with special status use their power to advertise lies.

It's not so much a matter of evidence showing her wrong as it is a total lack of evidence leading to her conclusions. Extraordinary claims such as this must be backed up be extraordinary proof.
there is significant evidence showing that HIV could evolve naturally, and much of that evidence also shows that the level of technology available at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic simply couldn't have engineered the HIV virus as we know it. now, a real conspiracy theorist can always claim that records from the beginning of the epidemic are falsified, or that any contradictory data is burried by the government or the Masons or the aliens or whatever, but that's what the published data says so far.

i have to say, though, that AIDS most certainly is being used as a biological weapon by several groups. it may not have been artificially created for that purpose, but natural biological agents are often employed as weapons.

Old news. It's was already posted once on here, on the old forums, that the US was the one behind the HIV virus. In order to depopulate the third world.

Wow . . . is that woman really so ignorant, yet she won a Nobel Prize?!?!
because there are at least a half dozen nobel prize categories that are completely unrelated to other fields

welcome to reality

i have to say, though, that AIDS most certainly is being used as a biological weapon by several groups. it may not have been artificially created for that purpose, but natural biological agents are often employed as weapons.

And who would use HIV against whom? The "first world" trying to depopulate the third world"? That's just silly.

Old news. It's was already posted once on here, on the old forums, that the US was the one behind the HIV virus. In order to depopulate the third world.

:confused:
I seriously doubt this been posted before - the dateline is "Saturday, October 9, 2004. 10:09pm (AEST)". (The article in question - not the silly conspiracy theory - that's been around since the 80's, hasn't it?)