Once again, I'm wrong. I said yesterday that HIV deniers accused scientists of thinking of Robert Gallo as a deity. Silly, silly me--my mistake. Turns out he's just a high preist:
We point to this phenomenon of how easily religious belief triumphs over the most irrefutable evidence to the contrary, in order to challenge all critics of HIV/AIDS to answer this question:How does this kind of thought-resistant religiosity differ in the slightest from the twenty year adherence of believers in HIV to their favored dogma in the face of similar overwhelming evidence against the belief?
We suggest that there is an exact equivalence, as follows:
Science - Religion
Theory - Dogma
Conference Hall - Church
HIV - The Devil
David Ho - Son of God
AZT, ddI, Protease Inhibitors, Nevirapine - Holy Water
David Baltimore - Pope
Anthony Fauci - Bishop
Robert Gallo - High Priest
NIH Granting Process - Inquisition
Activists - Missionaries
Patients - Penitents
Taxpayer support - Vatican holdings and collections
Paradigm critics - Heretics
Canceled funding - The stake
Evidence overwhelmingly against - Evidence overwhelmingly against.
All objections converted to supporting evidence - All objections converted to supporting evidence.We cannot discern any difference at all between the two paradigms in nature or shape. However, we have no doubt those cleverer than us will be able to find some difference, however small.
"Irrefutable" evidence that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, eh? With apologies to Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Image from http://media.lawrence.com/img/photos/2005/04/07/inigomontoya.jpg
Comments
I've always wondered about the fascination of the AIDS deniers [and the deniers that deny they are deniers, even though they don't know what a denier is (like our Hank Barnes)] with Gallo. It appears to be related to their focus on the first appearance of evidence, or the first paper providing support for X. To them, every other advancement since then is clearly tainted by the "assumption" that HIV causes AIDS based on these first papers. The idea seems to be that if you can discredit the "source" of the knowledge, then everything afterwards is irrelevant since it depends on those initial papers being absolutely correct. Strange lawyer-like approach to thinking about science, but that seems to be the case.
Posted by: Dave S. | June 6, 2006 8:40 AM
They like Gallo because they can truthfully assert that Gallo was discredited. Of course they tend to gloss over the fact that Gallo's conclusions weren't discredited just Gallo's claim to have isolated HIV in his own laboratory.
Posted by: Dale | June 6, 2006 8:58 AM
Bruce Alberts actually made an interesting comment at his opening talk during the ASM meeting last month. He said that scientists do carry some blame for the continuing science=relgion debates by allowing science to be taught as if it were a religion. Most elementary and High School science text books are little more than a bound compendium of facts with little discussion of where those facts came from. That is, the science/experiments behind the facts. Without this there is little to differentiate textbooks from the Bible as just two different, dogmatic, belief systems.
BTW, I would have made Gallo the prophet (ie John the Baptist) and Fauci the Cardinal.
Posted by: DDS | June 6, 2006 8:59 AM
"I've always wondered about the fascination of the AIDS deniers [and the deniers that deny they are deniers, even though they don't know what a denier is (like our Hank Barnes)] with Gallo."
This personalisation is a common thing among anti-science types - creationists are obsessed with Darwin and Haeckel, and assume that evolutionary biologists are too. Presumably it's because it's a lot easier to just say "You worship Gallo" than it is to actually address the evidence. Also, for people whose objections are religiously motivated, their epistemology is based on authority, which comes from priests and texts, rather than evidence.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | June 6, 2006 12:58 PM
Tara,
It's hard to sort out all the strawmen from your silly post -- the connection between Gallo and "Deity" is a bit stretched.
I do know a few things about Gallo:
1. He committed scientific misconduct.
2. His data didn't support his conclusions: He only found the virus in about 36% of AIDS patients. So, what accounted for the other 64%?
This would be a purely academic matter, but for one thing. The drugs prescribed to AIDS patients are highly toxic, and cause more severe or life-threatening illness than the underlying disease, particularly liver failure. (See Reisler paper in JAIDS)
I can't speak for other folks, but for me, this seems like a serious bungle -- where people are getting hurt.
HankBarnes
Posted by: Hank Barnes | June 6, 2006 1:40 PM
A number of reasons. Low viral load at the time. Poorly preserved samples. etc. etc. etc. That's why the antibody test was used--it was a more reliable indicator of infection.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | June 6, 2006 2:00 PM
Again, Hank, you misread the paper. As the author's themselves state:
"In summary, morbidity and mortality for patients with HIV infection have been substantially reduced with HAART. However, morbidity remains high in the era of HAART."
HIV/AIDS will kill you. If you take HAART you will live much longer. But, HAART is a toxic drug regimen. There are side effects. The side effect of not taking the drugs is death (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5521a2.htm). HIV causes AIDs (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm).
D
Posted by: DDS | June 6, 2006 2:07 PM
Addendum:
There is also a huge problem in the medical industry of "making up" diseases.
The newest example is Intermittent Explosior Disorder.
New diseases = new drugs = new tests = new research $$.
Gallo, for example, patented the test for HIV anti-body -- based on his fraudulent research --which made him a wealthy man.
His science was compromised by financial gain.
Hank Barnes
Posted by: Hank Barnes | June 6, 2006 2:13 PM
DDS,
No, I didn't. Focus on the data, not the conclusion.
During follow-up, 675 patients experienced a grade 4 event (11.4 per 100 person-years); 332 developed an AIDS event (5.6 per 100 person-years);
675 is greater than 332.
But, HAART is a toxic drug regimen.
Glacial progress, I'll take it.
Hank B
Posted by: Hank Barnes | June 6, 2006 2:16 PM
I did see the data. It supports exactly what I said. The number of AIDs events was lower because HAART treatment prevents AIDS events. Without HAART treament those 675 patients would have died from AIDs long before any of the reported grade 4 events.
I await you detailed response to the papers (that contain data) to which I provided links. I especially await your detailed response to the data from the NIAID site(http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm).
I do agree with your comment.
"There is also a huge problem in the medical industry of "making up" diseases." But, I don't think it applies to AIDs. It is not a made up disease.
D
Posted by: DDS | June 6, 2006 2:33 PM
DDS,
Without HAART treament those 675 patients would have died from AIDs long before any of the reported grade 4 events.
Pure unscientific speculation. Would like to see a controlled study: (1) cohort of HIV+ who don't take HAART and (2) cohort of HIV+ who do take HAART.
"There is also a huge problem in the medical industry of "making up" diseases."
Hey, we have agreement! I'll take it:)
But, I don't think it applies to AIDs. It is not a made up disease
I agree, too. Immune deficiency is harmful. But it's multi-factoral, not caused solely a virus, unknown prior to 1983. Clinically, AIDS is merely a collection of old diseases (tuberculosis, pneumonia, yeast infection, dementia etc, etc.)
With respect to the anonymous Government website you cite, isn't this merely an appeal to authority? Who cares what the Government thinks? I prefer the peer-reviewed published literature. Don't you?
Hank B
Posted by: Hank Barnes | June 6, 2006 2:42 PM
Hank since you're so fond of questions,
1) Since AIDS pre-dates the drugs used to cause AIDS, how can they cause AIDS?
2) Why does the condition of AIDS patients dramatically improve when they start taking HAART tratment?
3) Why did all of those hemopheliacs develop AIDS? Why did the number of hemopheliacs getting AIDS drop dramatically after we started screening blood for HIV?
4) Why do you ignore most of the available data and continue to spout off mischaracterizations of a few hand picked studies?
Posted by: tonyl | June 6, 2006 2:43 PM
Pure unscientific speculation. Would like to see a controlled study: (1) cohort of HIV+ who don't take HAART and (2) cohort of HIV+ who do take HAART.
If there were an appropriate animal model for HIV/AIDS you would see such a controlled study. But since there isn't and since the available evidence (comparing pre HAART with HAART mortality rates) indicates that HAART is better than nothing it would be unethical to refuse to treat HIV+ individuals with HAART if they request it. I note from Internet postings that even dissidents often request HAART when they start developing AIDS.
Posted by: Dale | June 6, 2006 3:00 PM
Bean-Counter Alert!!!!
Tonyl, your first question is 3-dimensional babble:
Since AIDS pre-dates the drugs used to cause AIDS, how can they cause AIDS?
I've read is slowly 3 times -- it still makes no sense.
First, AZT was developed in 1964. So, AIDS (1981)doesn't pre-date AZT (1964).
Second, your first "cause" is gibberish. Do you mean "treat"?
Third, strawmen. Show me where I said that AIDS drugs "cause" AIDS.
According to the Riesler paper:
The most common grade 4 events were: liver related (148 patients; rate = 2.6 per 100 person-years); neutropenia (89; 1.5/100 person-year); anemia (64; 1.1/100 person-year); cardiovascular (51; 0.89/100 person-year); pancreatitis (50; 0.85/100 person-year); psychiatric (44; 0.75/100 person-year); kidney-related (34; 0.58/100 person-year); thrombocytopenia (32; 0.54/100 person-year); and hemorrhage (25; 0.42/100 person-year)
Some of these illnesses may or may not overlap with AIDS-defining diseases, but ......WHO CARES?
Hank B
Posted by: Hank Barnes | June 6, 2006 3:00 PM
Hank,
The site isn't anonymous. It clearly states that it is an NIH website. You can see this by reading the URL. The site has links to the original peer-reviewed data so that you can judge it for yourself. I didn't ask you to believe the site. I wanted you to provide clear refutation of the data within it. If you can't or don't want to just say so.
On what do you base your hypothesis that AIDS is simply a compendium of other diseases? You are always asking Tara for citations and yet you do not provide any.
As for your proposed experiment with HAART the comparison has been done. Here is a link to one of many many many papers (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11071184&dopt=Abstract)
HIV causes AIDs. If you have AIDs take HAART and live longer.
D
Posted by: DDS | June 6, 2006 3:01 PM
DDS,
The site isn't anonymous. It clearly states that it is an NIH website
Who is the scientist who wrote it?
You are always asking Tara for citations and yet you do not provide any.
A lie. I cited the Riesler paper above. I've cited Padian numerous times.
As for your proposed experiment with HAART the comparison has been done
That's funny. My friend, Dale, above just wrote:
If there were an appropriate animal model for HIV/AIDS you would see such a controlled study. But since there isn't and since the available evidence (comparing pre HAART with HAART mortality rates) indicates that HAART is better than nothing it would be unethical to refuse to treat HIV+ individuals with HAART if they request it.
So, has the study been done or not -- due to ethical concerns?
HB
Posted by: Hank Barnes | June 6, 2006 3:07 PM
The comparison has been done using historical data - a matched control study can't be done for ethical reasons.
Posted by: Dale | June 6, 2006 3:21 PM
Hank,
If you would look at the paper you would see that it is a prospective study. That is they compared people who didn't have HAART treatment (for whatever reason) with a matched control group who did. Read the paper then respond. Dale is correct, it is unethical to do the experiment now because we know that HAART works. When that study was done we didn't know that.
I didn't lie, you don't read. I said you didn't cite any work to support your statement "But it's multi-factoral, not caused solely a virus, unknown prior to 1983. Clinically, AIDS is merely a collection of old diseases". Niether of the papers in your last post address this hypothesis. I want to see the citations to back up what you say.
If you want some names attached to the data go here: http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/news/focuson/hiv/resources/macs_and_wihs.htm
You ask for a lot but provide nothing in return.
D
Posted by: DDS | June 6, 2006 3:26 PM
DDS,
I didn't lie, you don't read.
Well, here's what you said.
You are always asking Tara for citations and yet you do not provide any.
Note the words "always" and "any." Note the introduction of "Tara" into our dialogue. Sounds like a lie to me.
I said you didn't cite any work to support your statement "But it's multi-factoral, not caused solely a virus, unknown prior to 1983. Clinically, AIDS is merely a collection of old diseases". Niether of the papers in your last post address this hypothesis. I want to see the citations to back up what you say.
Totally false. I've cited Duesberg many times. Go read his first paper on this issue and/or his last.
Hank Barnes
Posted by: Hank Barnes | June 6, 2006 3:39 PM
What does mentioning Tara have to do with it sounding like a lie? I see we have a problem with the English language here.
I said "On what do you base your hypothesis that AIDS is simply a compendium of other diseases? You are always asking Tara for citations and yet you do not provide any." Clearly, the word "any" was referring to the sentence that immediately preceded it. That is what I meant by read the post.
And, you still haven't refuted any of the citations I mentioned in my previous posts.
I am waiting...or maybe you can't? I know, just call me a liar and ignore everything else in the post. I cited a study that shows that HAART works and yet you say nothing. Why not?
In any case I don't believe that I will ever change your mind. I post mostly to provide an accurate couterpoint.
D
Posted by: DDS | June 6, 2006 4:06 PM
DDS,
Look genius, perhaps we should cut the discussion short, because it is becoming non-fruitful (if that is a word.)
I cited Reisler for HAART. You agree that it is a toxic regimen. Fine, so let's move on.
I cited Gallo's misconduct. You are silent. Tara gives more misdirection.
If you cannot grasp that Gallo, contrary to his claims, failed to establish that HIV caused AIDS, then so be it.
But, nearly every paper following Gallo's fraud in 1984, simply presumes that HIV causes AIDS. Massive, repetetive confirmation bias.
Very few papers set out to test whether HTLV-III
was a passenger virus or a pathogenic virus. Except, of course, for all the animal studies which showed no pathogenesis.
Finally, I cited Duesberg for the global proposition that AIDS is multi-factoral. Surely, you knew about Duesberg before you posted on this thread. So, if you are interested, you will read his work and if not, you won't.
Hank Barnes
p.s. As for the NIH website you cite, well it is pathetic. Triple Play!
Posted by: Hank Barnes | June 6, 2006 4:18 PM
Hank, Duesberg is not an appropriate citation for evidence of anything pertaining to HIV or AIDS as Duesberg has published no clinical or laboratory studies that contain original data.
Posted by: Dale | June 6, 2006 4:23 PM
Hank,
Gallo was cited for scientific misconduct; his conclusions weren't at issue only who deserved credit for isolating the virus.
I would also note that although the vast majority of current studies start with the assumption that HIV causes AIDS, many (i.e. any of those that include HIV- controls) also indirectly test the hypothesis.
Posted by: Dale | June 6, 2006 4:27 PM
Hahaha, Hank, you're ridiculous. You cite only selective few references that seemingly support your views, yet clearly these papers are just argumentative papers with little technical data or just information that can be broadly interpreted; yet when the nice folks around here present well studied clinical papers or even technical papers indicating views that deviate from your own, you clearly don't read them, and try to deflect them by indicating language flaws in their response? just ridiculous
If you like to believe that HIV is not the causal agent of AIDS, until some sort of detailed study is done to compare HIV VS. HAART contribution to AIDS (which I think is a waste of time and resources), you seem to be immensely curious or the outcome, and very doubtful of HIV causing AIDS, why not you volunteer to take in a dose of HIV as a experimental model, you'll serve well to clear up the questions about HIV causing AIDS or not.
I've got plenty of concentrated HIV aliquots stored away in the lab, from M strains to O strains, all genetically and positively identified and classified. Care to inject a dose of these and see if you ever acquire full blown AIDS? I'm happy to donate one aliquot or two.
P.S. Don't mind my language, English is not my first language. this response is probably pock marked with plenty of grammatical errors and mannerisms misused
Viji
Posted by: Viji | June 6, 2006 8:15 PM
Bean-Counter Alert!!!!
Thank you for the compliment. I try to pay attention to the totality of the evidence. Which means I have to count all those beans and not just pick out the two that are the shape I'm looking for.
Tonyl, your first question is 3-dimensional babble:
yes, I made a typo, my most humble and sincere apology. But since I was mistaken and you do not claim AIDS drugs cause AIDS, you just claim they are bad, I'll withdraw the question.
but first,
First, AZT was developed in 1964. So, AIDS (1981)doesn't pre-date AZT (1964).
AZT isn't the only AIDS drug, and although it was developed in 1964, it proved ineffective for its initial purpose and wasn't widely used as a treatment for anything until 1985. So yes, AIDS predates the USE of AZT.
Now, do you have any answers to the remaining questions.
Posted by: tonyl | June 6, 2006 10:56 PM
Hank, I presume this would be your response. QUOTE "3. Well, since hundreds of chimpanzees have been injected with HIV and not one has died, I doubt anything will happen to me. By the way, you do understand that it is nearly impossible to find and culture any infectious HIV from an AIDS patient, don't you? Hence, the controversy." END QUOTE
Hahaha, you clearly have absolutely no idea about research on HIV or even the biology of HIV, if i may add
Indeed, chimpanzees can be infected by HIV, and HIV can replicate and persist in chimpanzees, but chimpanzees do not develop the human equivalent of AIDS, current research have yet to assign all the broad mechanisms behind this phenomenon (As studying HIV pathogenesis in humans are the priority of research funds, rather than in chimpanzees), but we do have some observations that can explain some part of it, here is one example http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/9/6502
"I doubt anything will happen to me." Thats wishful thinking. Hey Hank, I'm offering you a free trial, no strings attached. Whats more, you will become famous for offering yourself for the understanding/ or in your case refuting that HIV is the causal agent of AIDS. Its your dream come true. Of course you will have to shy away from HAART at anytime after you've injected yourself with HIV
As for the last part of your response regarding the difficulty of culturing HIV from patients, I think many of the above comments have adequately address this issue, if you care to look. And if you're still no convinced, fly over to Australia and I'll show you how to detect low levels of HIV replication in AIDS patients using the HIV-1 RNA detection technique
Viji
Posted by: Viji | June 7, 2006 12:09 AM
If Hank is still claiming that it is "nearly impossible to find and culture any infectious HIV from an AIDS patient" he is now simply a liar rather than just ignorant.
I have cited this article several times already.
Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Detected in All Seropositive Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Individuals
Posted by: Chris Noble | June 7, 2006 1:06 AM
The same pseudoscientific pattern of attacking a scientist rather than the science is also seen with anti-vaccination kooks.
If you read the internet you'll find out that Louis Pasteur was a fraud and therefore the entire germ theory of disease is flawed.
You don't have to read any of the science that was done after Pasteur's death because Pasteur was a fraud, fraud, fraud!
A Faulty Medical Model: The Germ Theory
Posted by: Chris Noble | June 7, 2006 5:16 AM
Sorry I didn't get a chance to check the boards before everyone else chimed in with res pones to Hank's non-answers.
Let me just say that I have read Duesberg's AIDs work but none of it has been backed up by significant data. He had a hypothesis, others have proven it wrong or falsified it as we say.
The Science of AIDs and HIV has moved forward and provided treatments that extend life and prevent infection. Duesberg's work on AIDs has provided no treatments or prevention strategies. Duesberg's work has not helped a single AIDs patient. Duesberg is wrong and his opinions deadly.
You still haven't given me a strong refutation of any of the scientific articles or science containing websites that I have questioned you on. Your comment that the site is pathetic without a reasoned explanation is poor form on your part. If by pathetic you mean you can't muster a good response then I would agree.
I am not sure about a triple play. I have not called you a denialist. I provided links to other authored papers and commentaries. The sites I gave also cited the peer-reviewed literature. They have links and citation lists to the actual peer-reviewed articles. I could copy and paste those links and citations into a post but, since you won't read them anyway it is no use.
D (Hank's Genius Friend)
Posted by: DDS | June 7, 2006 8:07 AM
As for Gallo. He did unethical things to achieve a laudable scientific end. Gallo's ethics though don't invalidate the scientific end.
HIV causes AIDS. HAART saves lives. Condoms can help prevent spread.
D
Posted by: DDS | June 7, 2006 8:12 AM
Viji wrote:
...why not you volunteer to take in a dose of HIV as a experimental model, you'll serve well to clear up the questions about HIV causing AIDS or not.
Triple Play!
DDS:
We disagree, but you are fairly reasonable, so we'll just leave it at that. Repeating this mantra:
HIV causes AIDS. HAART saves lives. Condoms can help prevent spread doesn't make it so.
HI Chris Noble!
Hank Barnes
Posted by: Hank Barnes | June 7, 2006 1:02 PM
2. His data didn't support his conclusions: He only found the virus in about 36% of AIDS patients. So, what accounted for the other 64%?
Please provide evidence that this is true.
Posted by: simon s | June 7, 2006 4:33 PM
Viji, you crazy aborigine!
Hey Hank, I'm offering you a free trial, no strings attached. Whats more, you will become famous for offering yourself for the understanding/ or in your case refuting that HIV is the causal agent of AIDS. Its your dream come true. Of course you will have to shy away from HAART at anytime after you've injected yourself with HIV
This ain't a bad idea! I've never been to Australia -- G'day mate!
How about a comparison experiment, though:
1. Viji injects Hank with HIV. No medication.
2. Hank gives daily dose of AZT to Viji
Then, we see what happens!
After 1 year, I'll be healthy as a horse and you'll be on death's doorstep with anemia, neutropenia, wasting disease, bald-ass head, and lymphoma.
I'm intrigued by this proposition, Viji. Is there a way to get sponsorship for this, though? Mebbe a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation?
HankB
p.s. Oooh. Logistical problem. 10-year latency period of said deadly virus. We'd have to sustain public interest for a decade. Might be tough.
Posted by: Hank Barnes | June 7, 2006 5:12 PM
Hank,
why are you spending your time here, "debating" these wolves?
You, myself and anybody else that questions the holy house of "AIDS" becomes their whipping boys. Why? Because they don't want to look inward, and see what they're doing. Otherwise they might feel extremely bad about it, possibly even responsible. So they need to beat up others to rid themselves of their psychic pain. It's pretty simple stuff. They know they're wrong, but this is what they need to do until they can begin the healing process. Don't be their whipping boy, Hank.
Hi, Chris!
Posted by: Dan | June 7, 2006 6:12 PM
Hey Dan,
Yeah, your actual experiences hit much closer to the bone on this hideous tragedy, so I respect you views.
On an aside, have you heard of this novel about AIDS by Stephen Davis?
It's interesting. Who is this dude?
I reiterate my earlier observation:
HB
Posted by: Hank Barnes | June 7, 2006 6:43 PM
Hank,
we've mucked through Gallo with these folks over and over...
He's quite the sore spot for them. Without Gallo's pronouncement (much less "research") we wouldn't have HIV as the cause of AIDS. But with his finding of "HIV" in roughly one-third of his patients, it's looking like some pretty weak science. So you can see why they like to toss him off of the boat. He's a major embarassment.
Here are the basics...
Gallo claims to have found the cause of AIDS...HIV.
Gallo's research proves anything but HIV as the cause of AIDS. Ooops.
Rather than admit grave error, Dr. Tara and her friends abandon Gallo and furiously attack those who question Gallo's involvement in laying claim to HIV as the cause of AIDS...and of course all the science thereafter resulting from that basic premise (established by Gallo).
Dr. Tara and company should try out for the Olympics in the event of mental gymnastics. They're attempts to somehow make Gallo a less than primary player in the AIDS paradigm are impressive!
Posted by: Dan | June 7, 2006 7:04 PM
Dan,
Good points. You know what's it like?
If fraudulent Korean Stem-Cell scientist was not discovered, but allowed to dominate stem cell research for 10-15 years.
Hank
Posted by: Hank Barnes | June 7, 2006 7:25 PM
,,, and company should try out for the Olympics in the event of mental gymnastics.
What is it they say Dan? If the shoe fits ... Gallo seems to be a sore spot for you and Hank, not Tara or any of the other supporters of the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis. The latter recognize that the science (which has been validated over and over) is more important than the scientist (who was found guilty of scientific misconduct).
Posted by: Dale | June 7, 2006 8:44 PM
Indeed Dale... and they seem to miss the fact the existance of so many AIDS sufferers I've seen in the most unfortunate places around the globe which have no access to AZT or HAART but invariably tested seropositive for the
HIV virus
YET suffering from the very same symptoms of immune deficiency syndrome of the fortunate "wealthier" people elsewhere in Europe or America, those on HAART or those that do not.
Hmmmm how then should I account for such an observation... prob Hank and his lot will attribute it as divine intervention perhaps, or some novel alien intervention, hahaha
its a waste of time trying to explain science and testable facts to Hank and his lot of friends, clearly they do not understand the scientific approach, do not appreciate empirical esearch, and seemingly base all their "facts" on mere speculation, one or two disproved papers, or some dodgy website written by equally deluded individuals (equivalent to cuckoo Soothsayers of the days past). I think they've watched too much X-files for their own good, so many conspiracy theories and the such. Rather, they should try to spend 24/7 caring for afflicted persons and observe first hand how advancements in AIDS treatments help improve lives. And not waste time reiterating the same pseudoscience crank and mud-slinging like a broken gramaphone, promoting disinformation.
Just by reading at their rude comments, particularly Hanks, that they are just a bunch of ruffian crybabies which dreads using their grey matter to critically appraise the wealth of research being done.
Posted by: Viji | June 8, 2006 12:43 AM
Here's another irony.
"Dissidents" go on and on about the various tests for being completely unreliable. They do this by citing studies that show that false positives do occur and extrapolate this to "totally unreliable". A false dichotomy.
Now they insist that Gallo's first antibody tests had to be %100 reliable. The first tests were relatively crude. The specificity and sensitivity of these early tests were not high. Why expect the first tests to be perfect?
Like all other tests specificity and sensitivity have improved over time.
Why does Hank neglect later work such as.
Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Detected in All Seropositive Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Individuals
Even if we assume (falsely) that Gallo's earliest tests were %100 accurate why were 36% of AIDS patients infected with a virus that is present in only very low levels in the general population? Coincidence?
Posted by: Chris Noble | June 8, 2006 5:51 AM
Good God! DID YOU READ THAT? The paper that Chris Noble cited? Have these people no shame? To begin with, there are 9 authors again, the hallmark of crappy science. You'll only find this phenomenon in today's biomedical corner. In other fields, researchers still write their papers alone, or in collaboration with one other colleague.
But let's talk about the paper itself. Read the "Materials and Methods" section:
Briefly, PBMC were separated from 30 ml of heparinized blood on a Ficoll-Paque (Pharmacia, Inc., Piscataway, N.J.)gradient, and 1 x 107 cells were placed in a 50-ml tissue culture flask containing 15 ml of RPMI 1640 medium-20% fetal calf serum-5% interleukin-2-Polybrene (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, Mo.) (5 lig/ml)-penicillin (200 U/ml)-streptomycin (200 ,ug/ml) and cocultured with 5 x 10'phytohemagglutinin-stimulated PBMC from an HIV-1 antibody-negative blood donor.
Wel, well... a complete witches' brew. Sure, you may argue that this is all standard procedure, but that's exactly what worries me. That culture has everything thrown in but the kitchen sink. I have no idea what's going on in there... and sad to say, neither do the people who did this work.
But they have no difficulty explaining the results, because the conclusions were fixed before the experiments were performed. See here an illustration:
To confirm the presence of HIV-1 infection in the antibody-positive, culture-negative subjects, a rapid lysis-extraction technique and a PCR assay were used to detect HIV-1 gag sequences.
Ah, I see! When the co-culture soup didn't give the results they wanted, they committed PCR on eh... something that they have (by Papal decree?) declared to be an HIV-1 gag sequence. Without ever having seen, heard or smelled an HIV particle. And please let's not forget that we're talking about DNA now. That has nothing to do with a retrovirus directly (they contain RNA), but folklore has it that HIV produces a proviral DNA first through the action of a reverse transcriptase (yes indeed, that's what retroviruses do), and this DNA is integrated into the host cell genome (so far so good). But from this position it produces a lot of new virus particles, so goes the story, and they destroy all the lymphocytes. - A crazy story! Did Stephen King write it?
Look at the conclusion of this study:
HIV-1 infection is present in all HIV-1 antibody-positive adults, regardless of clinical status, by using a sensitive culture or PCR assay for detection of the virus.
This takes balls, especially since the previous paragraph reads:
It should also be noted that PCR analysis as done in this study does not distinguish active from latent infection or defective from nondefective virus.
No, indeed it doesn't. It doesn't even distinguish a virus from no virus at all, you swampheads! (I mean all 9 or you).
You're doing a roundabout experiment on DNA (supposedly part of "Viral Load, whatever that is) to "prove" that there's an infection with an RNA-containing virus, for catsake!
Let's look at what we really have here:
409 Subjects, all showing a positive Western Blot. They have antibodies against something, but I don't know what, and neither do you. A number of them are sick (must be, because they are declared to have AIDS). From all of them it's possible to grow something in a stimulated cell culture. That works fine with the subjects who are already sick (with something), but I sense some uneasiness in the case of the asymptomatic ones. So they go the extra mile with PCR, because they want to prove so bad that all 409 subjects have that same something.
Well, I'm ready to believe that sick people under certain circumstances have something,/I> in their blood that you choose to call "Viral Load". But when you, without valid grounds, call that "something" a retrovirus named HIV, I have to object. On peer review, I wouldn't have passed this paper.
Nice to run into you again, Mr. Noble. Please try to get that Shygetz character in here, too, so we can have a ball.
Unfortunately, just when I intended to get rough with Shygetz's ideas last time, Tara pulled the plug on that thread. But shucks... It's her blog.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | June 8, 2006 6:40 PM
The first tests were relatively crude. The specificity and sensitivity of these early tests were not high. Why expect the first tests to be perfect?
So, what's the real story then, Chris? If those tests weren't so crude, might Gallo have scored 100%? Should we just assume that? Let me know, is this how science works?
Or do we go with your other line of reasoning?
...why were 36% of AIDS patients infected with a virus that is present in only very low levels in the general population? Coincidence?
Posted by: Dan | June 8, 2006 8:28 PM
Ah, the mocking. Much easier, albeit more intellectually sloppy, than actually critiquing a paper.
It's called a retrovirus because, as Peter Duesberg has pointed out, you can amplify those DNA sequences, purify them away from any cellular proteins, put them back into cells and generate retroviral particles that are then capable of infecting other cells. Cute trick that, don' cha think?
Posted by: Dale | June 8, 2006 8:36 PM
How nice to find all of you gathered here again! I feel as happy as a dog who sees a fire hydrant. It's good to be among all the pharma phlunkies again. Sure, I know most of you claim not to get paid a penny by the pharma industry. And you know, I believe you. But... how about that scholarship that made it possible for you to study?
But let me greet some of you personally:
Tara:
How does this kind of thought-resistant religiosity differ in the slightest from the twenty year adherence of believers in HIV to their favored dogma in the face of similar overwhelming evidence against the belief?
You are baiting us, aint-cha? Well, happy to oblige. But please don't close the thread abruptly when things get hairy.
Dave S.
The idea seems to be that if you can discredit the "source" of the knowledge, then everything afterwards is irrelevant since it depends on those initial papers being absolutely correct.
A paper doesn't have to be 100% correct, but if the central theme is wrong, the paper is useless. The problem with Gallo's (and also Montagnier's) papers is that the conclusions were not even plausible. Let me explain this in a form even you can understand:
If Euclid had written a paper saying "The shortest distance between two points is a parabola", then any subsequent paper based on this assumption would have been suspect.
Neither Montagnier nor Gallo found any virus particles. So on what grounds do later investigators base their assumption that there is a virus?
Dale:
Of course they tend to gloss over the fact that Gallo's conclusions weren't discredited
The story about Santa Claus traveling in a flying sleigh pulled by reindeer has never been discredited either.
There was nothing to discredit, because Gallo (among others) never backed up his conclusions with evidence.
And now you expect us to prove a negative?
DDS
But, HAART is a toxic drug regimen. There are side effects. The side effect of not taking the drugs is death
What "side effects"? The toxicity is the main effect. Only, they don't call the effect of HAART "death". They call it a "grade 4 event". How nice of them.
tony
Why does the condition of AIDS patients dramatically improve when they start taking HAART tratment?
Because these people are sick with something. The HAART drugs are also toxic to bacteria. So they have some effect on whatever disease the patient really has. The problem comes with the long term: The patient kicks the bucket from liver failure. Well, at least he doesn't die from AIDS, because liver failure is not an AIDS-defining disease.
DDS
On what do you base your hypothesis that AIDS is simply a compendium of other diseases?
On the CDC, of course. (Jeez, these questions are getting dumber and dumber)
Dale
...indicates that HAART is better than nothing it would be unethical to refuse to treat HIV+ individuals with HAART if they request it.
I know people (personally) who find that "nothing" is better than HAART. But don't read that sentence wrong (LOL). They were on HAART, but quit, and are now taking nothing and feeling a lot healthier.
I agree that individuals who request HAART, should get it. But in this country we have no problem with euthanasia.
Viji
why not you volunteer to take in a dose of HIV as a experimental model, you'll serve well to clear up the questions about HIV causing AIDS or not.
Oh, there he goes again! Sooner or later somebody comes up with this ridiculous proposal. You are bluffing, mate. You have no idea what's in those preparations you have in the lab. Nobody does. So why should anybody agree to take a dose of that crap? The only thing we know for sure it's NOT is "HIV". And by the way: It has been done. By Dr. Robert Willner.
Viji
Here's a quote from that abstract you cited:
Chimpanzees infected with HIV-1 show viral replication resembling early infection in humans but do not show T-cell depletion or progression towards AIDS.
I have the perfect explanation: Today's clinical virologists are incompetent, and their viral replication methods in heavily stimulated co-cultures are not worth a damn. They would get the same results if they inoculated their cell cultures with juice squeezed from a teddy bear.
And of course chimpanzees do not show T-cell depletion or progress to AIDS. The poor animals wouldn't even know how to use poppers or inject heroin.
Chris Noble
I have cited this article several times already.
Yes, you did. And it's the S.O.S. I dissected this paper already in my previous post.
DDS
Let me just say that I have read Duesberg's AIDs work but none of it has been backed up by significant data.
First of all, Duesberg's funding was cut off abruptly, because he is branded as an infidel. He has advanced a hypothesis that is infinitely more plausible than the fairy tales about a retrovirus causing this whole package of diseases. And about retroviruses Duesberg knows a thing or two. He is the world's major expert on them. The crap that the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy is peddling to the mass media is so off the wall, virologically speaking, that any undergraduate student can see straight through it. But shucks... if Glaxo-Smith-Kline offers to pay for your graduate studies...
The Science of AIDs and HIV has moved forward and provided treatments that extend life and prevent infection.
Now that's a bald-faced lie, plain and simple. You money wasters have been at it for 25 years, and you can't even come up with one unequivocal isolation of the virus you have dreamed up, and a cure for the disease you have invented.
Yes, you have provided treatments, and all the patients are raving... R.I.P.
Dale
The latter recognize that the science (which has been validated over and over) is more important than the scientist (who was found guilty of scientific misconduct).
Eh... What science exactly, Dale? I've read a lot of papers on the subject, but I find precious little science in them. What Gallo claimed was highly improbable, and almost certainly wrong. He never backed it up with evidence. And all the other prophets after him just repeat the same noncense without any of them ever proving it. Really, we don't just indulge in Gallo-bashing. The ones who came later (Fauci, Ho, Wainberg, Tramont, and countless others, are at least as bad.
Viji
its a waste of time trying to explain science and testable facts to Hank and his lot of friends, clearly they do not understand the scientific approach, do not appreciate empirical esearch, and seemingly base all their "facts" on mere speculation, one or two disproved papers, or some dodgy website written by equally deluded individuals
Why don't you stop crying on Dale' shoulder, Viji. Show some spunk and come out with some real scientific facts. But all you're doing is running with the herd, because you're uncapable of doing anything else. So if you understand scientific methods so well, please come up with something more convincing than an attitude. I've been doing science when you were still in short pants, chasing wallabies. The people who are looking for HIV in AIDS patients are mostly the same who wasted many years and billions of dollars searching for viruses that cause cancer. Some people are just not cut out for science. They should learn a useful profession instead, such as carpentry or bartending.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | June 8, 2006 9:31 PM
Wilhelm wrote:
Only in Denialist circles is a statement declaring ones own ignorance considered to be a valid argument.
Not content with his own ignorance Wilhelm has the gall to insist that everbody else must be as clueless as himself. Brilliant!
As Wilhelm knows HIV is a retrovirus that inserts its proviral DNA into the human genome. Wilhelm neglects to even attempt to explain why it is that HIV DNA is found in the cells of people that have antibodies to HIV but not in antibody-negative patients. A wild coincidence?
As you have admitted to your ignorance of the subject I somehow doubt that you would be asked to review a paper like this seeing as you also claim that RNA viruses don't mutate and other nonsense. Even implying that you are a peer is laughable.
Posted by: Chris Noble | June 8, 2006 9:42 PM
Dale
Ah, the mocking. Much easier, albeit more intellectually sloppy, than actually critiquing a paper.
Are you talking to me, Dale? I took that paper apart, shred by shred. It sucks. Unfortunately, it's typical for what's being written about HIV/AIDS these days. I recently saw one written by 20 (!) authors. You would think that the contents would be earth-shattering. (Hahahahahahahaaaa!)
Yes, the mocking. That's the only thing that gets me through an experience like that. Otherwise I might become hostile, and we don't want that.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | June 8, 2006 9:51 PM
No, you simply demonstrated that you cannot even understand the paper. Not only that you are actually proud of it.
Your critique based on the number of authors shows your desperation to find an excuse for ignoring inconvenient experimental results.
Posted by: Chris Noble | June 8, 2006 10:09 PM
Ah, that's the way I know you again, Chris:
Not content with his own ignorance Wilhelm has the gall to insist that everbody else must be as clueless as himself. Brilliant!
Yes, they are clueless. They make up their mixtures, because everybody does it that way. I've known lots of them. Completely devoid of originality, but well-trained, like a circus elephant.
Wilhelm neglects to even attempt to explain why it is that HIV DNA is found in the cells of people that have antibodies to HIV but not in antibody-negative patients.
Why should I attempt to explain something that is simply not true? Sure, there may be something different in people who are seropositive (for what, by the way?). So if they find some piece of DNA that they can't find in seronegative people, does it follow automatically that it must be HIV-related DNA? A little far-fetched, I think.
So they have sequenced that DNA, and placed it in the gene bank. Fantastic! They sequence everything they can get their hands on. Because that's what they have learned in grad school. Like the butcher's apprentice who learns how to operate the sausage machine.
Hey! Wanna hear a real conspiracy theory? You know why the stores give you those S&H Green Stamps? After you lick them, put them in the boolet, and cash them in, they go to the FBI, so they have your DNA on file.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | June 8, 2006 10:13 PM
Gallo seems to be a sore spot for you and Hank, not Tara or any of the other supporters of the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis.
Umm, did you happen to notice that it was Tara that started this blog about Gallo?
Gallo's good for a laugh (like his research), but I find so many more aspects of this "AIDS" debacle much more interesting.
Posted by: Dan | June 8, 2006 10:14 PM
No, you simply demonstrated that you cannot even understand the paper. Not only that you are actually proud of it.
Eh... do you mean only the true believers can understand a paper like that? Would it help to put on a beanie with a propellor while reading it?
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | June 8, 2006 10:18 PM
Wilhelm, no matter what you want to think those 'sequences' represent, people get them through exposure to people or the blood products of people who already have them, and the people who get them are far more likely to get sick than the people who don't get them. Those 'sequences' behave in every way like an infectious pathogen.
And you can put that in your ultracentrifuge and spin it.
Posted by: Dale | June 8, 2006 10:36 PM
I've noticed one difference between creationists and HIV deniars; the latter have yet to motorize the wheels on their goalposts.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 8, 2006 11:47 PM
For people that get offended when labelled as Denialists you do a lot of denying of evidence. A succesful critique would be to provide an alternative example for the evidence rather than simply denying that it exists.
It must just be wild coincidence that DNA sequences that code for retroviral proteins are found in people that have antibodies for the same proteins.
The same sequences share homology with other retroviruses. they are obviously retroviral. You can take the gene coding for RT and express this enzyme which shows reverse transciptase activity.
You can transfect cells with these sequences and they produce retroviral particles with gp120 knobs and conical cores.
These retroviral particles can be cultured. The keep on replicating.
You can take part of these sequences and generate SIV/HIV chimeras. Infection of macaque monkeys with these hybrids (cell free isolates) reproducibly leads to CD4 cell depletion and simian AIDS. I am yet to hear an even remotely plausible alternative explanation for the easily demonstrable simian AIDS produced by SIVmac or SIV/HIV hybrids.
All wild coincidences for which Denialists have no alternative explanations other than to deny the evidence.
Reasons for denying the evidence can be one of the following: the number of authors, funding from industry or funding from any government agency. These "reasons" can be used to ignore effectively any scientific evidence and are equivalent to putting your fingers in your ears and repeating "Nananananananananananana".
Posted by: Chris Noble | June 9, 2006 12:38 AM
" I've been doing science when you were still in short pants" by Wilhelm Godschalk
hahaha I seriously doubt that and I do agree on the bartender part, as I think you're the bartender trying to pass off like a scientist.
Simply, a person that touts to have so much experience as a scientist would never speak in such an boorish manner, more so belittling your peers
and you clearly have little idea what cell culture is at all
"15 ml of RPMI 1640 medium-20% fetal calf serum-5% interleukin-2-Polybrene,(5 lig/ml)-penicillin, (200 U/ml)-streptomycin (200 ,ug/ml) and cocultured with 5 x 10'phytohemagglutinin-stimulated PBMC from an HIV-1 antibody-negative blood donor."
witches brew you said, hmmm I'm curious, I've never heard of any science referrals to witches before, you aren't a scientist, are you?
look closely at these ingredients, its closely modelled after the very human equivalents you have in yourself, silly, apart from the antimicrobials of course, but you take antibiotics too, does that make you less natural?
Posted by: Viji | June 9, 2006 4:21 AM
Wilhelm, Who is this Dr. Robert Willner? I'm really curious. I'll like to critically appraise his work if you would provide some links, if you may. It would be very interesting to look at his study if he had infected himself with HIV and found no progression to AIDS.
"inoculated their cell cultures with juice squeezed from a teddy bear." you said, enlighten me Wilhelm, is this "teddy bear" an organism I missing out or is it a active ingredient of some sort, I've never come across a teddy bear in scientific literature.
Hmmm, what about those many people who is HIV seropositive , has no access to AZT or HAART yet show remarkably the same symptoms you find with AIDS? Enlighten me with your many years of scientific approaches, Wilhelm.
Posted by: Viji | June 9, 2006 4:34 AM
I guess I should respond to Mr. Godschalk's responses to my statements.
"First of all, Duesberg's funding was cut off abruptly, because he is branded as an infidel."
Duesberg lost his funding because his science was bad...His hypothesis wasn't even that original (see Duesberg's own FAQ). It was proposed by several scientists early in the epidemic. The difference is that they realized that the hypothesis was wrong and moved on. Duesberg didn't.
"He has advanced a hypothesis that is infinitely more plausible than the fairy tales about a retrovirus causing this whole package of diseases."
Exactly how is his hypothesis infinitely more plausible? The HIV hypothesis is very simple. It destroys part of your immune system and therefore you get sick from other bugs and die. That is simple. According to Duesberg's own work retroviruses can cause cancer so why not an immunodeficeincy type disease.
"And about retroviruses Duesberg knows a thing or two. He is the world's major expert on them." The first part is true, although I would give him more credit and say he knows at least 10 or 12 things about retroviruses. Unfortunately, most of what he knows is from the 80s and there are thousands of things to know about retrovirsues. I think few experts consider Duesberg an expert in retrovirology anymore.
"The crap that the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy is peddling to the mass media is so off the wall, virologically speaking, that any undergraduate student can see straight through it. " Explain this to me exactly. I am not familiar with your version of virology. Perhaps it is from the 1980s?
It is very clear and simple. HIV destroys an important part your immune system. You get sick easier and die. For evidence check out the links I gave to Hank in the posts above.
"But shucks if Glaxo-Smith-Kline offers to pay for your graduate studies..." I have never received money from any drug company.
"Now that's a bald-faced lie, plain and simple. You money wasters have been at it for 25 years, and you can't even come up with one unequivocal isolation of the virus you have dreamed up, and a cure for the disease you have invented.
Yes, you have provided treatments, and all the patients are raving... R.I.P."
How did you know that I shave (i.e., Bald Face)? In any case, your statement is clearly wrong. The virus has been unequivocally isolated and grown in culture hundreds of times. We do not have a cure but we do have very effective treatments. Where ever HAART treatment has been started the death rate of AIDs declines. That is a simple fact. (For evidence check out the links I gave to Hank in the posts above.) You might not want to believe it but it is true nonetheless.
You wouldn't happen to be this person?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49180
D
Posted by: DDS | June 9, 2006 8:55 AM
I just read this comment from Godschalk and had to comment.
"Hey! Wanna hear a real conspiracy theory? You know why the stores give you those S&H Green Stamps? After you lick them, put them in the boolet, and cash them in, they go to the FBI, so they have your DNA on file."
Wow, this really dates you. Especially since S&H greenstamps have gone virtual. "http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mgreenstamps.html"
"http://www.greenpoints.com/account/act_default.asp"
I hope you are not still saving them up for that new toaster.
D
Posted by: DDS | June 9, 2006 9:25 AM
Two quick notes:
Wilhelm wrote:
Note that those aren't my words--I'm quoting from the post I linked, authored by "truthseeker."
Next, from Dan:
First, I most certainly didn't start this blog about Gallo. This post, sure. But the reason I did so was because you were the one who brought him up in the previous AIDS thread (link in the main post above). Y'all are the ones who always bring Gallo into this, assuming making an ad hominem argument against one of the discoverers of HIV discredits all research done on the virus over the last 20 years. This is, of course, ridiculous, and akin to creationists who assault Darwin in an attempt to discredit evolutionary theory. That one of you went so far as to construct a whole "religion" and "clergy" of HIV researchers just shows how desperate you are. You can't refute the science, so you try (like evolution-deniers) to reduce it to the level of a religion.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | June 9, 2006 10:29 AM
Tara,
you're right...you started this post about Gallo, not the blog. My mistake.
But the reason I did so was because you were the one who brought him up in the previous AIDS thread
Really, you brought him up because of me?
Well, to start a new post on him, you must think this worthy of more discussion.
Chris, can you answer the questions I asked you? Here they are again, so you don't have to go looking for them.
The first tests were relatively crude. The specificity and sensitivity of these early tests were not high. Why expect the first tests to be perfect?
So, what's the real story then, Chris? If those tests weren't so crude, might Gallo have s