Regular readers may recall me previously discussing Rebecca Culshaw (for reference, threads can be found here and here). She's a PhD mathematician who wrote two articles discussing her departure from her prior research, which focused on mathematical models of HIV infection. I pointed out in one comment that her training is in math, and not biology, and that from her articles, she showed a very poor understanding of not only basic biological techniques (such as the polymerase chain reaction) but infectious disease epidemiology in general. Other HIV deniers responded that, because she did mathematical modelling, of course she had to have training in these areas. I think quotes from her recent interview again show otherwise:
Zenger's: What were the factors that actually decided you that what we have been told about AIDS cannot be true and that HIV cannot be the cause of it, certainly not the way the mainstream says it is?Culshaw: There were a lot of different deciding factors, to be honest with you. It was more an accumulation of information, some of it scientific but some of it political and sociological. I'll start with the scientific evidence first. When I read some of Peter Duesberg's stuff, I had never known what the difference was, really, between a virus and a retrovirus. I didn't realize, for example, that our cells can produce retroviruses but they can't produce real viruses -- well, not "real viruses," I don't mean.
Zenger's: Meaning the difference between an endogenous and an exogenous virus.
Culshaw: Yes, thank you. Good.
Note that, according to Culshaw's own timeline, this is at least well after she was into her Master's research on HIV models, since she says that the first time she found out about the virus myth group was when she picked up a copy of Spin magazine while on her way to a conference to present a talk. So even though she was already well into her own research modelling HIV, she didn't understand the difference between an exogenous and an endogenous retrovirus.
It's things like this that make scientists tear their hair out. Culshaw claims that "it was not the mathematical models themselves that caused [her] to doubt HIV, but rather the scientific literature on which the models are based." So clearly, she must know more than HIV virologists who've spent their careers studying the cell biology, pathogenesis, immunology, epidemiology, etc. of the virus. But even in this current interview, her interviewer is the one who has to set her straight regarding some very basic viral biology. This is the reason why I discussed how arguments from authority should be taken with a great deal of salt. Having knowledge in one area doesn't make you an expert across the board.
The rest of the interview is largely a collection of HIV-denial talking points, but there are a few parts that are interesting. I know mathematicians often get stereotyped as being a bit too uptight and logic-focused, and not having much understanding of how experimental science operates. Culshaw, unfortunately, seems to fit that stereotype:
As mathematicians, we're trained to be very, very skeptical of our own theories. If you come up with some model or some idea that works for basically everything you've observed, you state it as a conjecture and then you try to prove it. But you never, ever, ever say, "Well, I've seen all these examples, and it works for all these examples, therefore it must be true." You can't do that. You would never finish your course, let alone get anything published.Another thing is that if you have a theory, and you come across one counter-example that flies in the face of that theory, then you have to throw it out. You cannot use it again. It seemed to me, like with the HIV theory, not only were they using a bunch of examples but they were throwing away every counter-example that they found. I understand that medicine and biology are not as rigorous as mathematics, and there might be a little bit more room to move when it comes to proving things, but it seemed that they came up with this theory, and when it didn't fit the observations, it wasn't the theory that's wrong, it was the observations. That's counter-natural. That's not the way science should work.
The problem is that there aren't any counter-examples that "fly in the face of the theory," and that biology is simply a lot messier than mathematics. As I've mentioned many times, if Culshaw's objections were applied universally to all infectious disease research, we'd have many more germ theory deniers out there. At least they're consisent.
Comments
Tara,
Are there very many germ theory deniers out there? It's begining to sound like there is this widespread pathology of hostility to science; as if people can no longer deal with things as they are.
GE
Posted by: Guitar Eddie | August 1, 2006 1:41 PM
I don't think there are many germ theory deniers, numbers-wise, but some popular authors certainly are working to spread it. Since it's something most people can see for themselves--watching influenza or a cold spread through their family, for instance--I think it's a tougher sell than something more remote to most people, like evolution, global warming, HIV, or others.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 1, 2006 1:49 PM
The common thread that drives me nuts behind all these denialists (evolution, germ theory, etc. take your pick) is the arrogance... I think you can see it in this quote: "I understand that medicine and biology are not as rigorous as mathematics, and there might be a little bit more room to move when it comes to proving things." I actually think you see this a lot from people that study math.. "I do math. It's hard and complicated. I know more about everything than people that do less hard and complicated things." Espcially biology which having come from a engineering school I know math/physics people don't consider a "hard" science.
Let me put it this way. Just because you can model something doesn't mean you know squat about what's going on. I'm a software developer and have some experience modeling systems, etc. Just because I can model it doesn't or write a program that contains data about a particular subject doesn't mean I acutally understand a friggen thing. It just means I understand the relationships between the data. It's a really abstract and divorced from actually understanding what is going on.
The other thing I always think about is... if these HIV-deniers are so keen on proving that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.. lets get um together and inject them with HIV and refuse treatment.. if they're so absolutely sure of themselves... lets see what happens. I'm sure it's been suggested before... but.. it's always fun to think about. I don't think very many HIV deniers would be getting in line.
Posted by: Ben | August 1, 2006 2:01 PM
Tara,
As a gay man who's pretty new to these AIDS "battles," I actually found Dr.
Culshaw's interview very interesting. This paragraph jumped out at me:
"And also, the fact that there never was any agreed-upon mechanism of how
the T-cells actually died. I thought that was suspicious. I thought, "How
can they possibly spend this many billions of dollars and still not know how
this virus works? It's ridiculous. If we've got great brains working it out
and they cannot figure out this problem, this virus cannot be that
mysterious."
Is it really true that science still don't know how the virus kills T-cells?
Barry Smithson
Posted by: Barry Smithson
| August 1, 2006 2:34 PM
Ooooooooooooooooouch! That hurt my brain! Did she not take introductory biology in college? Did she not learn anything about evolution in introductory biology? Thats when I learned about endogenous retroviruses....
And what is a retrovirus if its not a 'real virus'? What is a 'real virus'? How does she think 'real viruses' reproduce, if not by 'our cells'?
uuuuuuuuugh.
Posted by: futurelegend | August 1, 2006 2:37 PM
I love her response to you in her second article:
"Yes, I am just a mathematician. I've never treated an AIDS patient, nor have I worked with HIV in the lab. But in the course of my work, I have studied both the microbiological and epidemiological aspects of AIDS, and the current HIV theory fails to explain either of these. Ever more convoluted explanations for HIV pathogenesis and epidemiology are not the signs of a mysterious virus, but rather the signs of a theory that is being shaped to fit the facts."
She probably thinks revising a theory to fit the observed facts is an egregious example of scientific misconduct!
What an airhead.
I'm writing something about this interview too. I suspect we'll all be hearing a great deal more from and about Dr. Culshaw. When she fails to get tenure.
Posted by: Pharma Bawd | August 1, 2006 3:41 PM
This is a particularly revealing misunderstanding:
The error here is in treating a theory as a unitary object, when in real science (as opposed to mathematics) one is almost always making use of a complex theory that involves many aspects--the fundamental basis of the phenomenon you are studying, but also the nature of the experimental or observational system that you are using, the assumptions behind the method of statistical analysis you are using, and so on. So when you throw "it" out, you replace it with a new theory that may differ in one or more of those aspects. Generally, what you try first is replacing your original theory with one that shares some features of the earlier theory, but which is modified in a conservative way--usually the relationship of the experimental approach to the phenomenon. In other words, you check to see if you made a mistake in the design or interpretation of your experiment. Only when you feel that you have adequately considered all possible flaws in your approach do you start modifying the "deeper" aspects of the theory.
Posted by: trrll | August 1, 2006 3:42 PM
It's seems remarkable how the level of discussion here degenerates into the
juvenile and infantile. I care about the ISSUE. I've had numerous friends
die from (what I thought) was AIDS --only to learn that some people assert
that the tests are questionable and the drugs highly dangererous.
While Dr. Culshaw seems quite young -- nothing in her interview is
offensive, incoherent or nonsensical. That the moderator here and all others
would offer such content-free snark boggles my mind.
Posted by: Barry Smithson
| August 1, 2006 4:06 PM
Barry,
Her interview, as well as her entire position, deserves this sort of ridicule.
Your question deserves an answer.
"Is it really true that science still don't know how the virus kills T-cells?"
No, of course it isn't true.
There are several known mechanisms:
Infected CD4+ T-cells can be killed directly as new viruses bud-off damaging the cell membrane, or if the immune system does its job by detecting and killing CD4 cells infected with the virus, but the main mechanism of CD4 killing is through the indirect killing of uninfected cells.
One indirect mechanism for CD4 cell killing is by inducing apoptosis (programmed cell death) in uninfected CD4 cells. This occurs when infected CD4 T-cells are forced to express the HIV protein gp 160 (or its derivative gp 120) on their surface, this protein binds to the CD4 receptor of uninfected cells and that binding activates the uninfected CD4 cell and triggers apoptosis.
These things have been known since the early 90's which is but one reason why she deserves such ridicule.
Posted by: Pharma Bawd | August 1, 2006 4:21 PM
Here's a tip Barry... it'll make your life easier... Comments on blogs are loaded down with Content-less snark. This discussion is actually fairly heavy on content compared with most blogs.
Posted by: Ben | August 1, 2006 4:23 PM
What I find curious about Dr. Culshaw is why she is withdrawing from mathematical modeling of HIV/AIDS in quite so public and potentially contentious a fashion. She doesn't seem to have developed an alternative theory of AIDS causation or even be interested in developing an alternative theory from what one reads. She hasn't expressed any new arguments against the current orthodox view. What she does seem intent upon is denigrating the intelligence or thinking abilities of those who support the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS, including one would presume, many of her former colleagues. It's none of my business of course but my curiousity keeps asking why.
Posted by: Dale | August 1, 2006 4:54 PM
PharmaBawd,
"These things have been known since the early 90's which is but one reason why she deserves such ridicule"
WTF???
You are a disgraceful person. In my opinion Dr. Culshaw deserves no ridicule. The people making tons of money selling HIV test kits and AZT to people are the ones deserving of some serious scrutiny, if not ridicule.
The other day, a 19 -year old friend of mine, a Gay kid, called me up about testing positive for HIV. He was sobbing and practically suicidal. He wanted to just talk to a friend. As his friend I spent several hours with him on the web, researching issues that really hadn't concerned me much before. I stumbled upon numerous sites discussing how inaccurate the tests are and how deferring drug treatment -- particularly if you are asymptomatic is the best way to go.
The sad, sinking feeling I'm developing in the pit of my stomache is that gay men are being stigmatized and used as scientific guinea pigs for this AIDS monstrousity. Where once we faced homophobes like Jerry Falwell who viewed us as freaks, now we face drug companies trying to get our money and our dignity.
Unless you, yourself, have tested HIV+ and are taking the drugs, you don't impress me. Frankly, you just sound like a smart-ass college kid.
Barry
Posted by: Barry Smithson | August 1, 2006 5:05 PM
No Barry,
I haven't tested HIV+ but I know people who have. I've also watched people I loved die of other incurable diseases. My reaction was to try to learn as much as I could about the disease to try to help.
It didn't work.
I don't think denying the existence of the disease would have helped either. And I'm absolutely certain that going around and trying to convince others that the disease does not exist, or is not potentially deadly would not help either.
You asked if we really don't know how HIV kills T-cells. I answered. If Culshaw doesn't know the answer she deserves ridicule.
If she does,...
Then she is the disgrace.
Posted by: Pharma Bawd | August 1, 2006 5:32 PM
Pharma Bawd writes If Culshaw doesn't know the answer she deserves ridicule.
I disagree. I don't think she deserves ridicule nor do I think ridiculing her or those who share her views productive. We really don't know how HIV kills T-cells. Or at least we don't know it in the detail that allows doctors to predict with any degree of accuracy who will progress to AIDS quickly and who will progress more slowly. Or who seems to be able to get along quite nicely for long periods of time with very low numbers of CD4+ T cells and who develops opportunistic illnesses when their T cell numbers are still relatively normal.
Besides, she's young, female, good looking and sincere. Ridiculing her will just persuade some people she must be right.
Posted by: Dale | August 1, 2006 6:20 PM
To address Barry's point (and a common denier fallacy), it's not necessarily HIV that's so mysterious, it's the workings of the human immune system. Take a look at how things are going with autoimmune diseases and transplantation immunology (things which scientists have grappled with for much longer), and perhaps the lack of a full understanding of HIV pathogenesis will seem less surprising. Advances in understanding immunology - T cell immunology in particular - are required for progress to occur in all these fields. The complex way that the body accomodates and maintains billions of T cells with various specificities, functional capabilities and lifespans (referred to as T cell homeostasis) is only vaguely grasped at this point.
Unfortunately, Rebecca Culshaw's grasp of human immunology is so inadequate that her views on the difficulties of modeling HIV's effects on the T cell immune system are just irrelevant. In the last of the three papers Culshaw published on the subject, there is a basic error in the abstract. Culshaw et al write:
"Our model is based upon ordinary differential equations that describe the interaction between HIV and the specific immune response as measured by levels of natural killer cells."
Big problem here is that natural killer cells aren't antigen specific. They are considered part of the innate immune system (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_killer_cell). The specific immune response is mounted by the adaptive immune system i.e. T cells and B cells. So the "levels of natural killer cells" tell you nothing about the specific immune response. It reflects very poorly on the journal that this even made it through peer review.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 1, 2006 7:32 PM
Barry,
Here is a good quick read on how HIV kills Tcells. Included is enough info for you to find the article this press release refers to.
Regarding your friend, false positives are very rare, but when anybody looks at any severe health care decision, its ok to get a second opinion. Waiting to start treatment? That's a decision between your friend and his doctor. Be careful about what you find on the web. St.Johns Wort is suggested by some "healers" for the control of side effects of HAART and cancer chemotherapy. Problem is, SJW decreases the concentration of the drugs, and they don't work as well as they should.
Are drug companies making money off of their product? Yes. So are HIV deniers. I'd bet that Dr. Culshaw will be doing the speaking rounds, with books and a newsletter. Sadly, she may end up better paid than if she stayed in legetimate academic science. Is it more likely that the huge majority of scientists are the fraudsters, or the ones hawking the conspiracy theory? Quite simply, when someone puts themselves in the public light with demonstrably incorrect statements, they are going to be mocked. If someone were to come out with a claim that nobody ever proved that the Earth orbits the sun...
Posted by: Robster | August 1, 2006 7:37 PM
(Former) mathematical biologist weighing in here. When my advisor suggested what became my dissertation problem, I didn't know the underlying biology, so I did the only reasonable thing: I hit the library until I knew enough to talk with the biologists in the limited area. I'm shocked she didn't know the endogenous/exogenous thing.
All the biomathematicians I knew realized that things are sometimes a little fuzzy on your side and that what we call "theory" and what you call "theory" were two different things.
Posted by: Jake | August 1, 2006 8:07 PM
Once again, I feel the need to apologize on behalf of mathematicians everywhere. Though arrogance is common, most of us at least have the understanding that proving or disproving mathematical conjectures bears essentially no resemblance to the process of confirming or disconfirming a scientific theory. In fact, I think most of us understand that mathematics is pretty far removed from reality.
Posted by: Davis | August 1, 2006 8:25 PM
The thing that strikes me about the supposed reasons that Rebecca Culshaw gives is that they so obviously come from reading "rethinker" websites like virsumyth and not from a thorough reading of the scientific literature.
It is like trying to understand biology by reading creationist websites. You'd end up with a with a very biassed view of what evolution is. You would also probably believe a lot of factoids that survive in creationist circles.
One HIV "rethinker" factoid is that supposedly the use of a Western Blot for the diagnosis of HIV infection is banned in the UK. Sure enough Culshaw regurgitates this factoid - the "more specific" WB (which has actually been banned from diagnostic use in the UK because it is so unreliable)
Later she posts this query on a "rethinker" webboard. Does anyone have a current reference for the non-use of the Western Blot antibody test in the UK?
The main point is that you do not need a PhD to regurgitate what you read on virusmyth and having a PhD does not make it any more reliable.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 1, 2006 8:26 PM
Now it makes (more) sense to me. According to amazon.com Dr. Culshaw has a book coming out in December.
Posted by: Dale | August 1, 2006 8:48 PM
Are there any sites for HIV Denial rebuttal like the TalkOrigins 'Index to Creationist Claims'? Im not all that familiar with Deniers, but it seems like they all read from the same list. The same claims repeated over and over like what Creationists do with their '2nd Law of Thermodynamics' and 'No Transitional Fossils.' An index would be a helpful resource to provide to people.
Posted by: futurelegend | August 1, 2006 9:13 PM
Dale,
"...Dr. Culshaw has a book coming out in December."
Now I can ridicule her, right? :)
I mean if she's going to be making money off of it then she's no better than the "Eeevil" pharmaceutical companies.
Posted by: Pharma Bawd | August 1, 2006 9:34 PM
Barry,
I urge you not to listen to these dopes. This is like invasion of the body snatchers; they just want you and your friend to take drugs like Sustiva, Combivir and Crixivan. Stay away from these toxic drugs!!!
If you have any questions feel free to contact info@actupsf.com or check out the website at www.actupsf.com.
JB
Posted by: JayBear
| August 1, 2006 9:42 PM
Greetings meine kinder,
It is good to know that after all of the thousands of years of history, one group of research has finally come out without flaws - HIV murder theory!
Congratulations!
Posted by: Lamark | August 1, 2006 10:02 PM
futurelegend writes:
There have been many attempts but I don't think that any of these are as comprehensive or complete as TalkOrigins.
This site is probably the best starting point.
http://www.aidstruth.org/debunking-denialist-myths.php
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 1, 2006 10:56 PM
Tara,
thanks for starting a new "AIDS" thread. The last one was getting stale and beginning to peter out.
My prediction is beginning to come true. Not too long ago at misc.health.aids, I predicted that more scientists would begin to come out of the "AIDS" closet. Dr. Culshaw and now Dr. Margulis (I'm sure you stumbled across that at Hank Barnes' blog) are the trickle that will turn into the flood.
If your were smart, you'd begin to plan your exit strategy. I'm sure Mr. Noble already has his mapped out. He's no dummy.
Posted by: DB | August 2, 2006 12:22 AM
Barry, feel free to listen to anybody you want to. But read up on ACT UP/SF first.
If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is. Don't get sick by not taking the drugs... Too good.
Posted by: Robster | August 2, 2006 12:28 AM
Other HIV deniers responded that, because she did mathematical modelling, of course she had to have training in these areas. I think quotes from her recent interview again show otherwise
I agree with you, Tara.
From reading the interview you get the impression that the more she learned about the "science" used to back up the ever-evolving, changeling "HIV/AIDS" paradigm, the more sceptical she became.
Posted by: DB | August 2, 2006 12:50 AM
This is an interesting recent finding on HIV induced apoptosis of T cells
Gulow, K., Kaminski, M., Darvas, K., Suss, D., Li-Weber, M., Krammer, P. H. (2005). HIV-1 Trans-Activator of Transcription Substitutes for Oxidative Signaling in Activation-Induced T Cell Death. J Immunol 174: 5249-5260
Happy reading
Posted by: viji | August 2, 2006 2:39 AM
Barry, feel free to discount my opinion on this topic because I'm not gay or HIV +ve, but it's worth replying to JayBear's comment:
I can assure you, Barry, that 'they' do not. In fact, unlike JayBear, I haven't assumed that because you're a gay man commenting on a blog post about HIV you must be HIV+. And of course your HIV status is none of our business unless you decide to tell us. All 'they' want HIV+ people to do is to get informed about the science, so they can ask pertinent questions of their physicians and get the best treatment possible.
Of course some of those questions will be about the toxicity of ARVs. Yes, ARVs are toxic. So are nearly all drugs. (I defy you to name five drugs with which you couldn't kill yourself.) That is not in itself a good reason not to take them.
HIV kills, slowly but surely. ARVs dramatically prolong healthy life expectancy: the more modern, the greater the prolongation. The evidence for these two assertions is catalogued on PubMed and freely available in academic libraries around the globe. So while ARVs can have unpleasant side-effects, a worse side-effect profile is generally tolerated than would be in the case of a headache remedy.
And consider that, by the law of averages, most researchers working to produce safer, better-tolerated, more effective ARVs (or simply to better understand HIV) are neither gay nor HIV+. 'They' still care about improving their fellow human beings' quality and quantity of life.
It's worth pointing out that all other ACT UPs except San Francisco are satisfied that HIV causes AIDS. By the logic of JayBear's organisation, that makes them party to Reaganite anti-gay, anti-sex propaganda (if you think that's my hyperbole, click on the 'AIDS' link on ACT UP SF's homepage - scienceblogs didn't like my hyperlink). The organisations that brought you direct action during Catholic masses and explicit guides to safer (gay) sex for high-school students: anti-gay? Anti-sex? Go figure...
Posted by: Peter Barber | August 2, 2006 6:52 AM
Is Lynn Margulis an HIV-AIDS sceptic? I'm not sure if that is a surprise or not.
Posted by: SteveF | August 2, 2006 9:39 AM
I tried searching the ACT UP San Francisco website for mention of two former members who died of AIDS, David Pasquarelli and Ronnie Burke. I can find no mention of them anywhere.
I also tried searching the site for the name of Robert Leppo, the right wing venture capitalist who supports ACT UP San Francisco, but I couldn't find any mention of him either. Leppo also supports Peter Duesberg.
Thanks to Dale for the Amazon search, this is the book in question:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1556436424/ref=sr_11_1/103-0425602-8450263?ie=UTF8
"Science Sold Out: Does HIV Really Cause AIDS? (Paperback)
by Rebecca Culshaw, Harvey Bialy (Foreword)"
It will be, apparently, all of 100 pages long. The publisher, North Atlantic Books (http://www.northatlanticbooks.com/), publishes other titles such as:
"Suicide: What really happens in the afterlife? Channeled Conversations with the Dead"
"Aids & Syphilis: The Hidden Link"
and, surprise, surprise:
"Infectious AIDS: Have We Been Misled? (cloth) $27.50
Peter Duesberg
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 2, 2006 10:03 AM
How completely unsurprising that she has a book, with Bialy writing the foreword. Wonder how similar it will be to Maggiore's.
And to clarify, the intent of this post wasn't to mock or ridicule Culshaw. But because she's being held up as a current darling of the HIV "rethinker" groups and an authority on HIV, I feel it's quite relevant to point out her complete lack of understanding of basic biology and virology.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 2, 2006 11:01 AM
Well well. Looks like I was right. She has a book coming out. When a group publishes a paper in a journal, they have to pay for printing costs. For the book, she gets paid as the book sells.
Peter is right. My degree is in toxicology, and I would have tremendous difficulty finding one drug that wouldn't be toxic at the right dose.
From a Skeptic's Dictionary post on alternative health:
"The harm to the patients comes not from positive intervention but from not getting treatment (drugs or surgery) which would improve their health and increase their life span."
Posted by: Robster | August 2, 2006 11:07 AM
Tara,
You state that the purpose of this thread is not to ridicule or mock Dr. Culshaw, but that's effectively what's happening.
Being that Zenger's is geared towards a very lay-audience, you would do well to understand that Mr. Conlan and Dr. Culshaw are going to make the discussion as accessible as possible to the readers. Picking on Dr. Culshaw from the standpoint of this article is making you look like a scientific bully.
I know mathematicians often get stereotyped as being a bit too uptight and logic-focused, and not having much understanding of how experimental science operates. Culshaw, unfortunately, seems to fit that stereotype
Dr. Culshaw unfortunately(?!) seems to fit the stereotype you describe as being too logic-focused??
Wow. You spoke volumes there, Dr. T. Let's just let that sink in for the critical thinkers out there to ponder.
Posted by: DB | August 2, 2006 11:57 AM
DB, I spend a lot of my time explaining science to a lay audience as well. That doesn't excuse her ignorance. Note she says:
She was doing HIV modeling and didn't even understand the basic organism she was working on. And, based on her "real virus" explanation, it seems she still doesn't. That is huge.
And what I am talking about regarding being too logic-focused is, well, the sterotype of mathematicians being unable to live in the real world where things are, as I mentioned, messy. I'm talking about logic in the mathematical sense. Math has an elegant logic, but I'm sure you're familiar with the story of the mathematician who used logic to disprove his own existence. That's what I'm getting at with Culshaw. As was mentioned, math can sometimes be "far removed from reality," and one simply can't approach biology in the same way one does a proof in math.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 2, 2006 12:11 PM
From the article...
Culshaw won both her Master's degree and her Ph.D. with modeling work aimed at predicting the rate at which HIV would replicate in the human body
If she didn't understand the organism she was working with, how was she able to accomplish the above? Hmmm. Bit of a quandry. Let's see where the spin doctor takes this.
Posted by: DB | August 2, 2006 12:28 PM
DB,
Dr. Culshaw apparently has chosen to reject the HIV causes AIDS theory on the grounds that it doesn't conform to the standards of a proper mathematical theory. I think the point that Tara and others have been making is that biological theories and mathematical theories are very different and that no biological theory will satisfy the standards of proof set by mathematics. They aren't intended to. The point of a biological theory is to make useful and testable predictions and the HIV causes AIDS theory does that extremely well. People who are infected with HIV have a very high probability (90% or more) that they will eventually develop a progressive immunodeficiency characterized by the loss of a class of cells called CD4+ T cells. People who aren't infected with HIV only rarely develop similar immunodeficiencies. There is at present no competing theory that predicts probability of developing an AIDS-like condition to anything near the same degree of certainty. The only prediction that HIV-doesn't-cause-AIDS might make is that HIV positive individuals are no more likely to get sick and die young than HIV negative individuals and both statistics and most people's real life experience tells them that clearly isn't true. The problem comes because knowing what causes a disease doesn't automatically grant insight into how to cure or even effectively treat the disease.
Dr. Culshaw may very well be an extremely capable mathematician but she is apparently uncomfortable with the level of uncertainty that pervades all theories that deal with the real world. I think her views on HIV and AIDS suggest that she will likely be happier as a theoretical mathematician than she was as a biomathematician.
Posted by: Dale | August 2, 2006 2:01 PM
Dr. Culshaw apparently has chosen to reject the HIV causes AIDS theory on the grounds that it doesn't conform to the standards of a proper mathematical theory
Nice attempt at mischaracterization. Here's what was said...
Zenger's: What were the factors that actually decided you that what we have been told about AIDS cannot be true and that HIV cannot be the cause of it, certainly not the way the mainstream says it is?
Culshaw: There were a lot of different deciding factors, to be honest with you. It was more an accumulation of information, some of it scientific but some of it political and sociological
Posted by: DB | August 2, 2006 2:10 PM
I am Mark Gabrish Conlan, editor/publisher of Zenger's Newsmagazine, which has published monthly since 1994 and has frequently featured interviews with scientists who question or reject the belief that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS. I did the interview with Rebecca Culshaw quoted above and I wish people would judge her remarks by reading the entire published interview at http://zengersmag.blogspot.com
In the above quote I was convinced Dr. Culshaw knew what she was talking about and was simply stumbling over the distinction between an exogenous and an endogenous virus. She admitted to being a bit nervous being interviewed by phone (a necessity since I live in San Diego, California and she lives in Texas) but as the interview went on her comments were clear, concise and lucid.
I would also say apropos of some of the other responses that Dr. Culshaw's objections to the HIV/AIDS model had less to do with anything specifically related to her own expertise and more to the fact that she believes (and I concur) that the HIV/AIDS theorists have bent, if not outright broken, the most basic rules of scientific reasoning. When I asked her whether there was anything specifically related to her expertise as a mathematician that had led her to dissent from the HIV/AIDS model she replied as follows:
"It wasn't so much what I did find as what I didn't find. Everybody that would create a model would make all these assumptions. They would assume that HIV was killing T-cells in this way, and that it was happening at all these different rates, and they'd have all these parameter estimates. You'd look at one paper and it'd have these parameter estimates, like this is the rate of T-cell clearance in the body, and they wouldn't agree necessarily from paper to paper. Sometimes I actually came across some models where they just made up some parameters. They didn't actually get these parameters from anything, you know, any real-life people or anything. They just made them up in order to make their model work. That was suspicious in and of itself.
"As mathematicians, we're trained to be very, very skeptical of our own theories. If you come up with some model or some idea that works for basically everything you've observed, you state it as a conjecture and then you try to prove it. But you never, ever, ever say, "Well, I've seen all these examples, and it works for all these examples, therefore it must be true." You can't do that. You would never finish your course, let alone get anything published.
"Another thing is that if you have a theory, and you come across one counter-example that flies in the face of that theory, then you have to throw it out. You cannot use it again. It seemed to me, like with the HIV theory, not only were they using a bunch of examples but they were throwing away every counter-example that they found. I understand that medicine and biology are not as rigorous as mathematics, and there might be a little bit more room to move when it comes to proving things, but it seemed that they came up with this theory, and when it didn't fit the observations, it wasn't the theory that's wrong, it was the observations. That's counter-natural. That's not the way science should work."
If those objections sound similar to those raised by other contributors to virusmyth.net and other alternative AIDS Web sites, it's because Dr. Culshaw is not the only person who has realized what a catastrophic offense against the most basic principles of scientific expertise the HIV/AIDS model really is -- plenty of people with various kinds of scientific expertise, or none at all, can see for themselves the wishful thinking, sweeping assumptions and indefensible leaps of logic on which the idea that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS is based.
Posted by: Mark Gabrish Conlan | August 2, 2006 2:31 PM
"People who are infected with HIV have a very high probability (90% or more) that they will eventually develop a progressive immunodeficiency characterized by the loss of a class of cells called CD4+ T cells"
Now I'm confused. . Are there studies that track desease progression in HIV+, non-medicated people to actually make this assertion? I thought there weren't any. I hear consistantly that it is unethical to withhold HIV medication from people suffering from HIV. If there are, where can I get them? (no, I don't have access to a pay site such as pubmed, which by the way is why websites such as Aidstruth.org are useless propaganda bullhorns because you only get links to pubmed abstracts if any at all!). If one really wanted to get the upperhand, shouldn't these papers be made public free of charge. Many "denialist" sites do but then they are accused of cherry-picking.
Posted by: pat | August 2, 2006 2:43 PM
DB, I read what Dr. Culshaw said and , that was part of my point. Mathematical theories are not influenced by human behaviour while biological theories, particularly of human disease, must take human behaviour into account. What are political and sociological factors other than expressions of human behaviour? They don't change the science but they do complicate the gathering of data.
Posted by: Dale | August 2, 2006 3:09 PM
Here are some results from the first few pages of a PubMed search for "HIV natural history." As you can see, there are many places in the world where ARVs remain inaccessible. If you do the search yourself and have more time, Pat, I'm sure you can find many more. Some of these articles have links to free full text access, there may be more if you look further back into time.
Natl Med J India. 2003 May-Jun;16(3):126-31.
The natural history of human immunodeficiency virus infection among adults in Mumbai.
Hira SK, Shroff HJ, Lanjewar DN, Dholkia YN, Bhatia VP, Dupont HL.
AIDS Research and Control Centre (ARCON), Sir J.J. Hospital, Mumbai 400008, Maharashtra, India.
BACKGROUND: Natural history studies of untreated HIV infection are useful for clinicians, public health experts and policymakers to improve and monitor care, plan services and control, and to model the epidemic. Several natural history studies on homosexual men and intravenous drug users have been published from developed countries. A few studies have emerged on heterosexual populations from Africa. With an emerging epidemic, a similar study was required in India. This study was designed to determine the progression of HIV disease in a prevalent cohort of adult HIV-seropositive patients. METHODS: A prevalent cohort of 1009 patients comprising 488 asymptomatic HIV-seropositive persons, 259 with AIDS-related complex (ARC), and 262 with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) were recruited for the study at Sir J.J. Hospital, Mumbai. A case-control study was conducted to determine the correlation of clinical features and other factors with disease progression. Disease progression was determined from the asymptomatic stage to that of ARC and AIDS using time series analysis. The incubation period from HIV to AIDS was also determined, using Weibull curves. RESULTS: The median incubation periods for progression were: HIV to AIDS-7.9 years and ARC to AIDS--1.9 years. The median survival after developing AIDS was 19.2 months. A comparison of progressors and non-progressors revealed that disease progression correlated with clinical features such as chronic fever (OR 5.6), persistent generalized lymphadenopathy (OR 4.7), persistent cough for >1 month (OR 3.5), chronic diarrhoea (OR 3.3), oral candidiasis (OR 3.2), >10% loss of body weight within 1 month (OR 2.9), incident tuberculosis (OR 2.8) and herpes zoster (OR 2.5). The annual incidence of active clinical tuberculosis was 86/1503 person-years (5.7/ 100 person-years), the median time to occurrence of active tuberculosis was 21.6 months and the annual incidence of mortality was 96/2009 person-years (4.8/100 person-years, 95% CI 3.4, 6.2). CONCLUSION: Progression to AIDS and death was faster among the heterosexual cohort in Mumbai than that reported for homosexual men and haemophiliacs in the USA and Europe. Strategies need to be developed to prevent the occurrence of tuberculosis among HIV-infected patients because that would help to reduce the morbidity and mortality. This is the first large study from the Indian subcontinent of a longitudinal follow up of HIV-infected persons. The findings will be useful for advocacy and assessing the impact of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in India.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v42n9/37598/37598.html
Clin Infect Dis. 2006 May 1;42(9):1333-9. Epub 2006 Mar 27.
Higher set point plasma viral load and more-severe acute HIV type 1 (HIV-1) illness predict mortality among high-risk HIV-1-infected African women.
Lavreys L, Baeten JM, Chohan V, McClelland RS, Hassan WM, Richardson BA, Mandaliya K, Ndinya-Achola JO, Overbaugh J.
Department of Epidemiology, Medicine, and Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98104-2499, USA.
BACKGROUND: There is limited information on the natural history of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection in Africa, especially from individuals with well-defined dates of infection. We used data from a prospective cohort study of female sex workers in Mombasa, Kenya, who were followed up monthly from before the date of HIV-1 infection. METHODS: Antiretroviral-naive women who had a well-defined date of HIV-1 infection were included in this analysis. The effects of set point plasma viral load (measured 4-24 months after infection), early CD4+ cell count, and symptoms of acute HIV-1 infection on mortality were assessed using Cox proportional hazards analysis. RESULTS: Among 218 women, the median duration of follow-up after HIV-1 infection was 4.6 years. Forty women died, and at 8.7 years (the time of the last death), the cumulative survival rate was 51% by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Higher set point viral load, lower early CD4+ cell count, and more-symptomatic acute HIV-1 illness each predicted death. In multivariate analysis, set point viral load (hazard ratio [HR], 2.28 per 1 log10 copies/mL increase; P=.001) and acute HIV-1 illness (HR, 1.14 per each additional symptom; P=.05) were independently associated with higher mortality. CONCLUSION: Among this group of African women, the survival rate was similar to that for HIV-1-infected individuals in industrialized nations before the introduction of combination antiretroviral therapy. Higher set point viral load and more-severe acute HIV-1 illness predicted faster progression to death. Early identification of individuals at risk for rapid disease progression may allow closer clinical monitoring, including timely initiation of antiretroviral treatment.
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2005 May;26(5):311-3.
[A retrospective cohort study on the natural history of human immunodeficiency virus among formal plasma donors in central China][Article in Chinese]
Lu F, Zhang LF, Wang Z, Qiao XC, Li DM.
National Center for Sexually Transmitted Disease and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Prevention and Control, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Beijing 100050, China.
OBJECTIVE: To study the time span from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection to full bloom AIDS and to death. METHODS: Among formal plasma donors (FPD) from 2 counties in central China, 178 HIV cases were confirmed by western blot method but received no ARV treatment under a retrospective cohort study. Data on personal information, history on plasma donation, as well as dates regarding HIV diagnostic confirmation, onset of AIDS and death was collected through reviewing laboratory and medical records thus the course of disease for each case was identified. Incubation and survival time were calculated, using Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The incubation period was 8.31 years on average (95% CI: 8.04 - 8.58 years). The cumulative incidence rate of AIDS was 6.41/100 person-years after HIV infection. The survival time was 9.90 (95% CI: 8.20 - 11.60) months after the onset of AIDS. CONCLUSION: According to the findings from this study, the average incubation was shorter than 9.5 years which was reported by UNAIDS. Comparing with figures that had been reported by UNAIDS, AIDS incidence rate among this population was lower within 6 years but higher since the 7th year on after being infected but the survival time was shorter.
Int J Epidemiol. 2005 Jun;34(3):577-84. Epub 2005 Feb 28.
HIV-1 subtype E progression among northern Thai couples: traditional and non-traditional predictors of survival.
Costello C, Nelson KE, Suriyanon V, Sennun S, Tovanabutra S, Heilig CM, Shiboski S, Jamieson DJ, Robison V, Rungruenthanakit K, Duerr A.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA, USA.
BACKGROUND: In the continuing effort to introduce antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings, there is a need to understand differences between natural history of HIV in different populations and to identify feasible clinical measures predictive of survival. METHODS: We examined predictors of survival among 836 heterosexuals who were infected with HIV subtype CRF01_AE in Thailand. RESULTS: From 1993 to 1999, 269 (49.4%) men and 65 (25.7%) women died. The median time from the estimated seroconversion to death was 7.8 years (95% confidence interval 7.0-9.1). Men and women with enrolment CD4 counts 500, respectively. Measurements available in resource-limited settings, including total lymphocyte count (TLC), anaemia, and low body mass index (BMI), also predicted survival. Men with two or more of these predictors had a median survival of 0.8 (0.5-1.8) years, compared with 2.7 (1.9-3.3) years for one predictor and 4.9 (4.1-5.2) years for no predictors. CONCLUSIONS: The time from HIV infection to death appears shorter among this Thai population than among antiretroviral naive Western populations. CD4 count and viral load (VL) were strong, independent predictors of survival. When CD4 count and VL are unavailable, individuals at high risk for shortened HIV survival may be identified by a combination of low TLC, anaemia, and low BMI. This combination of accessible clinical measures of the disease stage may be useful for medical management in resource-limited settings.
Scand J Infect Dis. 2004;36(6-7):466-73.
The natural course of disease following HIV-1 infection in dar es salaam, Tanzania: a study among hotel workers relating clinical events to CD4 T-lymphocyte counts.
Bakari M, Urassa W, Pallangyo K, Swai A, Mhalu F, Biberfeld G, Sandstrom E.
Department of Internal Medicine and Microbiology/Immunology Muhimbili University College of Health Sciences (MUCHS), Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
Current HIV management guidelines are based on natural history studies from the developed world. Data on the similarity of the natural course of HIV-1 infection conflict with studies in the developing world. A cohort of 1887 hotel workers with no access to antiretroviral therapy was followed between 1990 and 1998 in Dar es Salaam through annual clinical evaluations and CD4+ T-lymphocyte (CD4 cell) count determinations. 196 (10.4%) were HIV-1 sero-prevalents; 133 (7.9%) were HIV-1 sero-incidents; and 1558 (82.6%) remained HIV seronegative. Follow-up duration was 13,719 and 82,742 months for HIV-1 seropositives and HIV seronegatives respectively. Clinical events occurred at median CD4 cell counts similar to those previously reported from the developed world, but death occurred at higher counts. Off-duty last 6 months, chronic diarrhoea and a faster CD4 cell count decline were associated with faster disease progression and death. In Tanzania HIV natural history is similar to that from the developed world and similar management guidelines could be employed.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004 May 1;36(1):622-9.
The natural history of HIV-1 infection in young Thai men after seroconversion.
Rangsin R, Chiu J, Khamboonruang C, Sirisopana N, Eiumtrakul S, Brown AE, Robb M, Beyrer C, Ruangyuttikarn C, Markowitz LE, Nelson KE.
Department of Military and Community Medicine, Phramongkutklao College of Medicine, Bangkok, Thailand.
The natural history and progression of HIV-1 infection in Thailand and other developing countries in Asia and Africa have not been well defined. Nevertheless, valid data are needed to evaluate the effects of interventions, which are designed to delay progression. We evaluated the progression to AIDS and death in 235 men who seroconverted during their 2 years of service in the Royal Thai Army. The men were conscripted at age 21 and seroconverted within a 6-month window during follow-up while in the military. The seroconverters were matched with men who were seronegative when discharged. Of the HIV-positive men, 156 (66.4%) were alive, 77 (32.8%) had died, and 2 (0.8%) could not be located 5-7 years after their seroconversion and discharge from the military. The 5-year survival rate was 82.3%; the median times to clinical AIDS and a CD4 cell count of
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 2, 2006 3:49 PM
pat, the fact that it would be unethical to withhold treatment from patients who request it is one of those real life factors that prevent the testing of biological theories to the degree of rigor that mathematicians would like. In this particular case the observations are historical; ie. what happened to the majority of HIV+ individuals in the early 80s before there were any treatments for AIDS.
Posted by: Dale | August 2, 2006 3:51 PM
Ah, that HTML code gets me every time. Here is the last abstract in it's entirety, I would particularly draw your attention to the mortality data.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2004 May 1;36(1):622-9.
The natural history of HIV-1 infection in young Thai men after seroconversion.
Rangsin R, Chiu J, Khamboonruang C, Sirisopana N, Eiumtrakul S, Brown AE, Robb M, Beyrer C, Ruangyuttikarn C, Markowitz LE, Nelson KE.
Department of Military and Community Medicine, Phramongkutklao College of Medicine, Bangkok, Thailand.
The natural history and progression of HIV-1 infection in Thailand and other developing countries in Asia and Africa have not been well defined. Nevertheless, valid data are needed to evaluate the effects of interventions, which are designed to delay progression. We evaluated the progression to AIDS and death in 235 men who seroconverted during their 2 years of service in the Royal Thai Army. The men were conscripted at age 21 and seroconverted within a 6-month window during follow-up while in the military. The seroconverters were matched with men who were seronegative when discharged. Of the HIV-positive men, 156 (66.4%) were alive, 77 (32.8%) had died, and 2 (0.8%) could not be located 5-7 years after their seroconversion and discharge from the military. The 5-year survival rate was 82.3%; the median times to clinical AIDS and a CD4 cell count of less than 200/microL was 7.4 years and 6.9 years, respectively. The mortality rate was 56.3 deaths per 1000 patient-years for HIV-positive men and 6.1 deaths per 1000 patient-years for HIV-negative men. Our data suggest a more rapid progression to AIDS and death after HIV-1 infection in young men in Thailand than has been reported for similarly aged cohorts in developed countries.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 2, 2006 3:52 PM
Pat, if you can get an abstract from pubmed, you can go to your nearest college or university library, and in some areas, a regular library, and get a copy either through mail, or through email. Mu university doesn't subscribe to some of the journals that I need, and it never takes me more than a few days to get a pdf copy through interlibrary loan. Knowing this, there is no real excuse for not getting a copy.
Posted by: robster | August 2, 2006 4:21 PM
Culshaw says: "Our model is based upon ordinary differential equations that describe the interaction between HIV and the specific immune response as measured by levels of natural killer cells."
Now, this is something I do know about: Culshaw is about 20 years behind the times in immune system modeling, ODEs do not capture the behavior of the system well at all.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 2, 2006 6:13 PM
Thanks for the tip.
Posted by: pat | August 2, 2006 7:03 PM
DB writes:
This is really the whole problem. Duesberg and other "rethinkers" have totally failed in the normal scientific process. They have been allowed to present their views in numerous scientific journals. The scientific community has read their papers and found them to be thoroughly unconvincing.
After failing in the scientific arena Duesberg and other "rethinkers" have written books and magazine articles that are targetted to lay-audiences. This is not the way that science works. You can compare this with Creationists.
If Culshaw a) understood the science and b) wrote a scientific paper explaining the scientific reasons why she doubts that HIV causes AIDS I would give her some respect. Writing yet another book targetted to a lay-audince regurgitating the same tired rhetoric deserves no respect.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 3, 2006 3:13 AM
Another thing is that if you have a theory, and you come across one counter-example that flies in the face of that theory, then you have to throw it out. You cannot use it again.
Just like when we found one counter-example to Newton's laws, they were thrown out the window and never discussed again?
Posted by: windy | August 3, 2006 4:57 AM
The problem is that the so-called paradoxes or anomalies that the "rethinkers" endlessly regurgitate are usually nothing of the sort. The only thing that they demonstrate is the ignorance of the "rethinkers"
The comparable analogy is someone saying "Well if the earth is really round like those silly scientists claim then why don't people fall of the bottom of the world? Huh? Huh?" or "If humans are descended from monkeys like the eevilutionists claim then why are there still monkeys around? Huh? Huh?"
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 3, 2006 6:25 AM
Chris,
Culshaw, Duesberg, and whoever else is writing for and speaking to a lay audience is smarter than you may give them credit for.
The Duesbergs and Culshaws out there are "going over your head". They're taking their arguments and points to the people. This whole fiasco never would have happened had the people not passively consented to it. WE have the power, and you know it. It would seem that Duesberg and Culshaw are aware of this as well.
Why do you spend so much of your precious time online, debating "deniers" on sites like misc.health.aids? Because you know that this thing works on consensus, and that if the general public was to get this information and question the dogma, the game would be over with.
So, more power to Duesberg and Culshaw for going over the heads of those who've betrayed our collective trust, and for taking their information to the people.
Posted by: DB | August 3, 2006 11:19 AM
That should read "taking their misinformation to the people." These books are no more factual than the works of David Icke. I think you'll find, DB, that some people find the lies offensive and that is why they respond with the actual data. People are always asking about controlled natural history studies without ARVs - take a look at the study from Daar Es Salaam posted above (even better yet, get the full text). The mortality during follow up was as follows:
43/196 (21.9%) people that were HIV-infected at the time of entering the study (median CD4 count at last sampling prior to death, 90 cells)
22/133 (16.5%) people that seroconverted during the study (median CD4 count at last sampling prior to death, 186 cells)
20/1558 (1.2%) people that were HIV uninfected (median CD4 count at last sampling prior to death 634 cells)
Perhaps you can read this paper and offer your thoughts on it, DB. One in five HIV infected people died, one in a hundred uninfected people died. HIV infected people experienced CD4 declines, uninfected people didn't. And this, of course, is consistent with hundreds (maybe thousands?) of other studies.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 11:42 AM
Richard,
unlike the rest of the world, I'm not going to roll over and die to help you and your ilk maintain your faulty paradigm.
Every bit of research based on the premise that HIV causes AIDS is fatally-flawed. You can kick and scream all you like, it won't change a thing. HIV causes AIDS simply because some people say it does, that's all.
This should read...I think you'll find, DB, that some people find the information a threat to their careers (which are based on a lie) and that is why they respond with lies.
Posted by: DB | August 3, 2006 12:26 PM
DB wrote:
HIV causes AIDS simply because some people say it does, that's all.
No, the data says it does. Unfortunately you are unable to grapple with the data or explain a 10-20 fold increased risk of death over a relatively short follow up period in these studies. The above-referenced study comprised workers from four hotels in Daar Es Salaam and they didn't lose CD4 T cells and die because of a "premise," they lost CD4 T cells and died as a result of HIV infection and because they had no access to treatment. The activities of you and your erstwhile colleagues have helped consign many HIV-infected South Africans to the same fate.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 12:46 PM
Rather than dealing with a fatally-flawed premise, you and your ilk try to "prove" HIV causes AIDS by "going in through the back door.
So, what you and your friends would try to get us to believe is that: HIV causes AIDS because a study (or thousands) that is based on this unproven assumption somehow confirms the assumption.
The activities of you and your erstwhile colleagues have helped consign many HIV-infected South Africans to the same fate.
That's called projection, Richard. The feelings of guilt must be overwhelming at times. Hopefully, we'll all live long enough for you (and Chris) to experience the feeling of remorse.
Posted by: DB | August 3, 2006 1:10 PM
DB, can you explain how it is that the people in those studies lost CD4 T cells and died because of an "assumption."?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 1:13 PM
DB, How many HIV positive dissidents (who presumably don't believe that HIV causes AIDS) have been 'cured' by their beliefs and how many still take ARVs, at least temporarily, when they develop serious or multiple opportunistic infections? How many are on Medicaid and/or disability and will overthrowing a paradigm change any of that? Will HIV positive individuals stop seeing doctors when they become ill? The way I see it, AIDS inc. will still be in business and the only people who would be hurt by your information would be, as is presently the case, those who believed it.
Posted by: Dale | August 3, 2006 1:35 PM
Richard,
you're still at it.
Rather than show us all the "proof" that HIV causes AIDS, you hold up a study that is based on this faulty premise in an attempt to confirm that faulty premise.
Posted by: DB | August 3, 2006 1:40 PM
DB, the "premise" has nothing to do with it. If you choose to believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, you can still read the paper and offer your thoughts as to why testing positive for antibodies to HIV is so strongly associated with CD4 T cell decline and a 10-20 fold increased risk of death compared to people that test negative.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 1:52 PM
OK, Richard,
I can tell that you see my point. Things can be so simple when we leave open that possibility.
Posted by: DB | August 3, 2006 1:59 PM
So, you're going to read the paper and offer your insights? Excellent.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 2:09 PM
You're desperate, Richard, and it shows.
Now, instead of taking a paper (or several thousand) that is based on the faulty premise that HIV causes AIDS, why don't you just show us the proof that HIV causes AIDS?
Simple, logical. Up to the task?
Posted by: DB | August 3, 2006 2:27 PM
As I have said repeatedly, "premise" as nothing to do with it. If HIV didn't cause AIDS, then the people who conducted these studies would have found that testing positive for antibodies to HIV had no effect on CD4 T cell levels or risk of immunodeficiency and death. And that would have been the data. But that isn't the data, as I have outlined above. Read the paper for yourself. You can offer no critique or alternative explanations, because there aren't any.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 2:32 PM
Richard,
Obviously the problem with the study you mentioned is that it tests a hypothesis. A REAL study would just draw random data from a sample, rather than testing specifics such as CD4+ cell counts and survival curves. Of COURSE the researchers found differences in the two groups; they assumed that statistical methods are valid for biological studies and that their antibody tests actually work!
Posted by: argystokes | August 3, 2006 2:33 PM
So then, please explain how those "assumptions" caused significant proportion of HIV positive people in a random sample of hotel workers to lose CD4 T cells and die. Compared to the HIV negative people in the same sample, far fewer of whom died (1.2%) and who died with CD4 cells in the normal range (median 684 cells).
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 2:40 PM
Richard,
I can see that you're following along with this logic just fine. Don't fight it.
The premise has everything to do with it.
Now, are you going to try one more time to "prove" a faulty premise by holding up a study based on that faulty premise?
Posted by: DB | August 3, 2006 2:43 PM
Oh dear, I think I just fell for sarcasm... sorry!
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 2:45 PM
DB, trying to characterize my feelings isn't helping. It behooves you to explain how a "faulty premise" invalidates the findings of these studies. As I have said over and over, the data is the data, and you do not seem to be able to offer a single word about it. If HIV doesn't cause AIDS, as you argue, then the researchers would have found no association between HIV seropositivity and loss of CD4 T cells and death.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 2:49 PM
You're talking in cirles, Richard. And you end up proving my point. Thank you.
Posted by: DB | August 3, 2006 2:51 PM
What point? If your point is that a "faulty premise" invalidates all these data, please explain how it does so.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 2:53 PM
I must say that "DB" certainly seems to have the resident AIDS dogmatists on the run again.
Perhaps Richard Jeffreys can provide me with a succinct, accurate, evidence-based answer to a very basic question that I have posed here before.
In the U.S., where there is plenty of condom-less heterosexual activity going on, especially among the 14 million or so college students, there never has been and never will be any significant number of AIDS cases among non-IV drug using but sexually active heterosexuals.
1) What explains this situation?
2) And why do so many people who frequent this blogosphere seem to go ballistic whenever I mention this fact rather than citing it as cause for celebration, as I do?
Posted by: Charles | August 3, 2006 2:57 PM
Charles, how many "AIDS cases among non-IV drug using but sexually active heterosexuals" would you consider "significant"?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 3:01 PM
I've explained it several times, Richard.
I'm confident that you're understand what I'm saying.
Posted by: DB | August 3, 2006 3:01 PM
I understand that you're saying nothing, DB, because you have not explained anything. Let me try again: how does the "faulty premise" you keep referring to invalidate the data contained in the above-referenced studies?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 3:04 PM
Just can't keep from hanging yourself on this one, can you, Richard? Maybe you should quit before you look too foolish.
A third-grader can follow the simple logic. Now, care to try again?
Posted by: DB | August 3, 2006 3:07 PM
DB wrote:
A third-grader can follow the simple logic.
Can you please point me to the logic you're referring to? You seem to be hoping that just saying "faulty premise" will make the data go away. You have yet to make a single comment about the data in all your many posts thus far.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 3:15 PM
argystokes writes Obviously the problem with the study you mentioned is that it tests a hypothesis. A REAL study would just draw random data from a sample, rather than testing specifics such as CD4+ cell counts and survival curves. Of COURSE the researchers found differences in the two groups; they assumed that statistical methods are valid for biological studies and that their antibody tests actually work!
The problem with the study is that IT TESTS A HYPOTHESIS?? Um... sorry but that is what a study is supposed to do. I think you are confusing a premise with a hypothesis. In this case you can ignore CD4+ cell counts (because they were part of testing a second hypothesis; that CD4+ cell counts would be predictive of chances of dying) and look at the study as asking a very basic question - is there any correlation between HIV positivity and a person's chances of dying? If the antibody tests don't work or if they do work and HIV is harmless then there should be no correlation. That's not what this study found. 1,887 people were randomly entered into the study. During the course of the study 85 died. 65 of those who died were HIVpositive and 20 were HIVnegative. Of the 1887 people who entered the study 329 were HIVpositive and 1558 were HIV negative. So even though only 17.4% of the people who entered the study were HIV positive, 76% of those who died were HIV positive. That's not a premise, that's a correlation.
Posted by: Dale | August 3, 2006 3:18 PM
Richard,
that noose you're hanging yourself with must be getting pretty tight at this point.
Why don't you stop before you start to drag all your friends down with you? Because I've got to say, it's looking really bad for you here, right now.
I'm sure you've noticed, I've got you over a barrel.
Posted by: DB | August 3, 2006 3:22 PM
If I may interject, DB, you make no sense. Jeffrey is asking a reasonable question, and I'm curious about your response as well. Why was HIV seroprevalence correlated with such a higher death rate, if not because it causes AIDS? This is a question one can ask whether they believe HIV causes AIDS or not. If the HIV antibody test was nonspecific and useless as has been suggested, then it should show up in people regardless of risk factors, and death should be equally distributed in both groups. I'm very interested in your explanation of why it isn't.
Posted by: rad | August 3, 2006 3:29 PM
And so begins the process of Richard's "friends" going down with him.
Read the thread, boys and girls. It's a doozie!
Who else wants to go down with Richard Jefferys?
Posted by: DB | August 3, 2006 3:32 PM
DB, the only thing we're going down here is the page, and your contributions - at least so far - are only notable for your studious avoidance of the data that's in front of you.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 3:38 PM
DB, you really look dim. You aren't getting anywhere with this. You are the one running in circles here, not Richard. To paraphrase Dr. Culshaw, the observations don't fit the denialist concept, so the observations must be wrong.
Posted by: Robster | August 3, 2006 3:40 PM
I see DB has graduated cum laude from the Harvey Bialy School of Debate that teaches an individual that debates are won not by rational argument but by 'claiming victory'.
Posted by: Dale | August 3, 2006 3:44 PM
Richard,
I do hope that there are people here versed in logic that will do the math and see that you've come up with zero. It's all right here in our exchanges. It's a keeper.
Posted by: DB | August 3, 2006 3:46 PM
Zero what?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 3:51 PM
OK, kids, here's the kicker:
What point? If your point is that a "faulty premise" invalidates all these data, please explain how it does so.
Now, how dumb are you, Richard? Or, how dumb are you willing to look?
Posted by: DB | August 3, 2006 3:51 PM
So, once again, to echo the other commenters, what is your explanation of the data then?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 3:52 PM
I'm going to let that last post stand. People can make up their minds at this point whether you're not too smart, or just pretending to be. Thanks for playing along, Richard.
Posted by: DB | August 3, 2006 3:57 PM
Ah another tactic of that aforementioned school of debate - imply that your opponent's argument is silly or dumb but ignore all attempts to explain.
Posted by: Dale | August 3, 2006 3:57 PM
Charles writes In the U.S., where there is plenty of condom-less heterosexual activity going on, especially among the 14 million or so college students, there never has been and never will be any significant number of AIDS cases among non-IV drug using but sexually active heterosexuals.
1) What explains this situation?
2) And why do so many people who frequent this blogosphere seem to go ballistic whenever I mention this fact rather than citing it as cause for celebration, as I do?
I think it's a cause for celebration as well. But it doesn't negate the evidence that HIV is sexually transmissible. All it says (if it's true) is that within the population of sexual partners of the college students in question the prevalence of HIV infection is currently low and therefore the incidence of new infections is still low. As I have posted before - it's not heterosexual or even homosexual activity that spreads HIV, it's engaging in those activities with an HIV positive individual.
Posted by: Dale | August 3, 2006 4:05 PM
So I guess that's the culmination of DB's (non) attempts to explain the massively increased risk of CD4 T cell loss and death that accompanies untreated HIV infection. You'd think someone making these arguments might be willing to actually read the papers but...apparently not.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 4:10 PM
Oh dear, I really should try to make my snark a bit more obvious in threads where people (e.g. DB) are making about as much sense as a pastrami sunbeam. My apologies to Richard and Dale who have turned down the sensitivity of their sarcasm meters.
Posted by: argystokes | August 3, 2006 4:24 PM
Oh, and DB:
What is your explanation of the data (another nagging voice never seems to hurt)?
Posted by: argystokes | August 3, 2006 4:27 PM
Oh yes, please argy and jeffries,
Keep the questions coming, as long as you ignore all of your visibly recorded failures, that is sure to win DB over. On the other hand, I think he has trounced you all well-enough, and has no more desire to play with the HIV murder squad any longer today.
I see that Dale is charging others with improper others debate tactics. This is funny! Dale, you wriggle like a worm always. One never knows where the earth is when you, Tara and the rest of the murder squad speak. But none of the squad seem to be bothered by their own unbearable inconsistencies! It is a wonderful lesson in hypocricy.
The good news is, I see Hatchet Day coming closer!
Posted by: Lamark | August 3, 2006 5:14 PM
Richard Jefferys asks, "Charles, how many "AIDS cases among non-IV drug using but sexually active heterosexuals" would you consider "significant"?"
Richard - I should have said statistically significant.......because for the city of San Francisco (one of the so-called "epicenters" of AIDS) with a population of 700,000 (over 85% of whom are heterosexuals) there is a considerable amount of condomless sex among heterosexuals, yet after 25 years there have been only 367 male and female cases of AIDS among non-drug using heterosexuals!
That represents less than 1.5% of ALL AIDS cases and that fact is what makes AIDS so statistically insignificant among heterosexuals who are, in turn, surely 93-95% of the entire U.S. population.
So put aside your culture of fear moralizing, forget all the absurd and utterly erroneous predictions from non-scientists like Bono, Liz Taylor, Angelina Jolie, and Oprah, and see the epidemiological pattern of AIDS cases in the USA for what it is - an absolutely minimalist risk or threat to heterosexuals.........
Only the doomsdayers and sky-is-falling scaremongers will fail to break open the champagne at this wonderful news! And 14 million college students can't be wrong either..........so Dale it's time to reconsider this whole subject, as DB has so eloquently urged many to do.
Posted by: Charles | August 3, 2006 5:19 PM
argystokes writes Oh dear, I really should try to make my snark a bit more obvious in threads where people (e.g. DB) are making about as much sense as a pastrami sunbeam.
No argystokes, your snark was perfectly obvious. It was my sarcasm detector that was obviously malfunctioning. Next time I'll pay closer attention.
And Lamark... it seems like your debating school is having a class reunion here today. Welcome.
Posted by: Dale | August 3, 2006 5:24 PM
Charles writes I should have said statistically significant.......because for the city of San Francisco (one of the so-called "epicenters" of AIDS) with a population of 700,000 (over 85% of whom are heterosexuals) there is a considerable amount of condomless sex among heterosexuals, yet after 25 years there have been only 367 male and female cases of AIDS among non-drug using heterosexuals!
That represents less than 1.5% of ALL AIDS cases and that fact is what makes AIDS so statistically insignificant among heterosexuals who are, in turn, surely 93-95% of the entire U.S. population.
That's very interesting Charles but if we turn to NYC, aother of the so-called epicenters of AIDS and with a somewhat larger population; in 2004 there were almost 5000 people living with HIV/AIDS of whom about a third of those with a known risk factor were non drug using heterosexuals.
Posted by: Dale | August 3, 2006 5:47 PM
my apolgies Charles, the above stats should read almost 5000 people diagnosed with AIDS of whom about a third of those with a known risk factor were non drug using heterosexuals.
Posted by: Dale | August 3, 2006 5:53 PM
Lamark, perhaps instead of empty rhetoric you could offer us your take on the above-referenced natural history studies?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 6:08 PM
"so Dale it's time to reconsider this whole subject, as DB has so eloquently urged many to do."
Eloquently? Eloquently? ELOQUENTLY?
Dude, you are high on crack. All DB has done is sit there and spit back a meaningless phrase over and over, and ignoring all requests for him to clarify his point by claiming that other people are looking stupid. If that is eloquence to you, my posts must read like a Shakespeare sonnet wrapped in a Jonathon Swift essay.
DB:
From a laymans perspective, the study cited has some pretty clear data. Some people were HIV positive. Other people weren't. The people who were HIV positive had a higher mortality rate than people who weren't, with a corresponding symtom of depressed immune systems even among the living. There is a strong statistical correlation between dying young and immuno-compromised and being HIV positive. I can think of at least two explanations for this.
(1) HIV is opportunistic and infects people who are on the brink of death or severely immuno-compromised.
(2) HIV kills people.
If (1) we would not expect HIV in otherwise healthy people with strong immune systems. But we do see HIV in otherwise healthy people, so (1) is not supported by the data.
Notice, I don't need to have the premise that (2) is true in order to discount (1). I do have to assume that HIV exists, but since this has been proven in other papers I'm okay with that.
Now, if (2) is true, I would expect that, compared to the general population, HIV positive individuals who are otherwise healthy do not stay healthy, they should get sick more often and die younger, regardless of lifestyle. And this also turns out to be true. So (2) is supported, and it appears that HIV kills people. I mean, I'm simplifying here, but that is the gist of it.
Perhaps you have an alternate hypothesis that explains these facts, but so far, you have not presented it at all.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 3, 2006 6:17 PM
Excellent, Seth.
Posted by: Robster | August 3, 2006 8:14 PM
Alright, I'll give this one more shot.
Let's take this...real...slow...
Richard is attempting to "prove" HIV causes AIDS by citing a study (like thousands of others) that's based on the premise that HIV causes AIDS.
The data "confirms" the premise, because it's entirely based on that premise. This is nothing but circular logic.
Now, we've been hearing since 1984 that HIV causes AIDS, correct?
So, it must have been proven in 1984 that HIV causes AIDS, right?
Why does Richard need to "prove" via this study (or any study, for that matter) that HIV causes AIDS? Hasn't it already been proven?
When asked to show the proof that HIV causes AIDS (which should no doubt bring us all back to 1984), Richard is silent.
You folks (paradigm promoters) have gotten yourselves into a mess. When you need to cite studies to "prove", that HIV causes AIDS, when every single one of those studies is based on that very premise, the circular logic ends up speaking for itself.
For the record, I noticed that Richard never denied or attempted to refute my assertion that HIV causes AIDS is a faulty premise. All he did was try to pull me into the trap of circular logic.
Posted by: DB | August 3, 2006 8:31 PM
DB wrote:
The data "confirms" the premise, because it's entirely based on that premise. This is nothing but circular logic.
No, it isn't. In order to make this argument, you need to explain how the "premise" affects the outcome of the study. Are you arguing that the researchers somehow depleted the HIV positive participants of CD4 T cells and killed them, because that's what they believed was going to happen? If that's not what you're arguing, then what are you arguing?
You talk about "proof" when what we're dealing with is the accumulated evidence, and natural history studies are part of that evidence. Or perhaps I am not understanding your concept of proof, so help me out: how did scientists "prove" that herpes zoster causes chickenpox and shingles? Did they do so to your satisfaction? The context would be helpful.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 8:42 PM
Richard is attempting to "prove" HIV causes AIDS by citing a study (like thousands of others) that's based on the premise that HIV causes AIDS.
The data "confirms" the premise, because it's entirely based on that premise. This is nothing but circular logic.
Damn that hypothesis-based science!
Posted by: argystokes | August 3, 2006 8:46 PM
Dale writes: "That's very interesting Charles but if we turn to NYC, aother of the so-called epicenters of AIDS and with a somewhat larger population; in 2004 there were almost 5000 people living with HIV/AIDS of whom about a third of those with a known risk factor were non drug using heterosexuals."
Dale, I must say thanks so much for those statistics for New York heterosexual AIDS cases which show actually a much lower rate than those for SF!! Shazaam!
Let's do the math. SF has 700,000 people and New York has around 8 million - over ten times more.
And 1/3 of 5000 people in NYC is around 1650, and that is of course a cumulative number amassed OVER a 25 year period. It's around 65 a year. SIXTY-FIVE a year, Zounds!
If there were 367 such heterosexual cases in SF over 25 years, so for New York a comparable number would be around 3670.
But look here - the actual number and rate for NYC is actually smaller or lower than for San Francisco!
Break out even bigger bottles of Champagne in the Big Apple!
Once again there never has been and there never will be anything approaching a statistically significant number of AIDS cases among non-drug using heterosexuals.
No further questions Your Honor. I rest my case.
Posted by: Charles | August 3, 2006 8:57 PM
Over the past 20 or so years, there are at least 130,000 papers in the peer-reviewed literature on HIV and AIDS.
Roughly, 129,950 or so, simply presuppose that HIV causes AIDS.
DB is absolutely correct on this one. There should be a study, somewhere that actually attempts to determine -- without presupposition or confirmation bias -- whether HIV (previously named HTLV-III and LAV) is a pathogenic virus or a passenger virus.
That would be a proper test of the hypothesis.
Posted by: Bob T. | August 3, 2006 8:59 PM
"It's things like this that make scientists tear their hair out. Culshaw claims that "it was not the mathematical models themselves that caused [her] to doubt HIV, but rather the scientific literature on which the models are based." So clearly, she must know more than HIV virologists who've spent their careers studying the cell biology, pathogenesis, immunology, epidemiology, etc. of the virus."
Tara (those are your words, right?), you're whining. You remind me of Viji here, who's also incessantly crying about those poor, poor HIV virologists who are working so hard for so little pay, and who are so misunderstood by us dissident barbarians.
Well, all I can say to that is: Those pisspoor scientists who have spent their career studying the cell biology, pathogenesis, immunology, epidemiology, etc. of "the virus", are fools; they can look back on a completely wasted life.
I realize that this may be a little hard to swallow, once the paradigm is definitvely junked, but that's their problem. Those who cannot deal with the feeling of total failure, can always shoot themselves.
Why do biologists think their science is such as big deal that others, outside that field, cannot possibly understand any of it? It is not too terribly long ago that biology was taught in the schools as "Natural History". It's not that a mathematician can't understand biological problems; on the contrary, most biologists don't understand mathematics. And if you really want to have a good cry, read some of the papers written by "HIV-scientists", containing a mathematical model (David Ho $%&%%#!!!), or simple statistics. It's natural that scientists from other disciplines level criticism at the methods used. After all, biological knowledge must be gathered by exercises in physics, chemistry, and mathematics. All the hypotheses and fairytales that are published must be examined for flaws, especially violations of the laws of math, physics and chemistry. And, trust me, there are many of those violations; even of the laws of virology itself. Small wonder even complete lay persons can spot them.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 3, 2006 9:04 PM
Charles writes:
"Once again there never has been and there never will be anything approaching a statistically significant number of AIDS cases among non-drug using heterosexuals."
What do you mean by "statistically significant."? What's the comparator? When I asked earlier what you meant by "significant" I was just asking how many heterosexual AIDS cases would cause you concern (367 cases in San Francisco is clearly something you can live with). The majority of AIDS cases worldwide are among "non-drug using heterosexuals."
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 9:06 PM
Richard jeffreys says: "I was just asking how many heterosexual AIDS cases would cause you concern (367 cases in San Francisco is clearly something you can live with). The majority of AIDS cases worldwide are among "non-drug using heterosexuals."
367 cases over a 25 year period in San Francisco equals 15 (Fifteen, XV) per year. 15 per year!!! Can you possibly grasp the extraordinary meaninglessness of that number when compared to the endless hysteria and absurd predictions that have been made? Or to the billions of dollars of taxpayer monies that are being devoted to this non-epidemic among non drug-using heterosexuals, i.e. the vast majority of Americans.
I was and still am talking about the United States. The USofA.
You can shift around the world all you like, have fun on your safaris, but as I have said several times, and Dale's numbers for New York amply confirmed it, there never has been and never will be an AIDS epidemic or anything remotely like that in the USA among non drug-using heterosexuals. Period.
That is the reality you must come to terms with, but alas seem unable to do so. Why is that the case?
Posted by: Charles | August 3, 2006 9:20 PM
Seth Manapio writes:
"Now, this is something I do know about: Culshaw is about 20 years behind the times in immune system modeling, ODEs do not capture the behavior of the system well at all."
Twenty years, eh? Exactly the 20 years where HIV con men have spun their tales. One day, we'll have to re-write not only the last 25 years of virology, but also two decades of immunology and molecular genetics.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 3, 2006 9:20 PM
Charles ? what are trying to say from your Posted by: Charles | August 3, 2006 09:20 PM post,
what does those numbers really mean to you, that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, or that you mean heterosexual sex without any protections would not spread HIV?
In my opinion, it shows neither, as many responses have pointed that it is also plausible that the low incidences of HIV-positivity and AIDS in major cities of The United States can be attributed to successful HIV awareness campaigns (people are less likely to have unprotected sex, or people who have unprotected sex would be smart enough to avoid having sex with people who are at high risk of being HIV positive, e.g. IV drug users, and the majority of HIV positive people have been controlled and lmited to the initial population that HIV was first exposed to HIV), and improved treatment of AIDS with HAART
The same low incidences and observations cannot be said fro countries outside the USA like China, South East Asia, Africa, and South America, where both awareness is low and in some cases perverted by "HIV dissidents" (South Africa), and access to HAART is extremely difficult
Charles you seem to disregard anything that is non US. Why? Because you think that HIV USA strain doesn't spread via heterosexual sex and a HIV World strain does? What is your rationale? What are you trying to say?
Posted by: viji | August 3, 2006 9:42 PM
Charles wrote:
That is the reality you must come to terms with, but alas seem unable to do so. Why is that the case?
Um, can you cite some evidence that I am unable to "come to terms with" the epidemiology of AIDS in the USA?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 9:43 PM
Godschalk writes:
The problem is that Culshaw displays zero evidence that she has any understanding of biological science. Her blabber about "real viruses" is ample evidence.
It is also possible that you could understand physics. However, your denial of gravity is ample evidence that you do not.
The point is that if you are going to stand up and say that 100% of the scientists working in a field are completely wrong then it is necessary to a) read the science and b) understand it.
You are not going to convince physicists that they are wrong with your crackpot pseudoscience about your arm getting tired when you hold a weight. The same is true for Culshaw. Her regurgitation of virusmyth nonsense is easily recognised as nonsense by 99.999999% of scientists.
What she can do is write a pseudoscientific book aimed at a lay-audience and convince a few more people to not seek appropriate medical care or to think that it is OK to have unsafe sex or risk mother to child transmission of HIV.
One indication of pseudoscience is that there is an inverse relation between the belief in the idea and the level of relevant education.
Pseudosciences like "Creation Science" and HIV "rethinking" fulfil this criteria.
Science does not progress by an appeal to the masses. If this were the case then "Creation Science" would be the winner in the US and possibly in Australia.
Real scientists attempt to convince other scientists. Pseudoscientists write books and newspaper articles targetted at lay-audiences.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 3, 2006 9:46 PM
...we'll have to re-write not only the last 25 years of virology, but also two decades of immunology and molecular genetics.
Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater :) Let me guess - PCR was when it all started going downhill?
Posted by: windy | August 3, 2006 9:47 PM
Wilheim,
Simply put it this way, mathematics can reasonably predict/estimate a natural phenomenon or model a biological function when complete data is available from empirical research observed after testing these biological phenomenon. We should as expect the mathematical model to be wrong if the incorrect input has been applied to formulate the mathematical model
I'm sure you've seen "Numbers" on TV.
So, Wilheim, since you are an avid supporter of using statistics and mathematical models to explain the HIV AIDS pehnomenon, (like so many have asked before) what say you the observation of
(1) The people who were HIV positive had a higher mortality rate than people who weren't, with a corresponding symtom of depressed immune systems even among the living. There is a strong statistical correlation between dying young and immuno-compromised and being HIV positive.
and
(2) The idea of activated endogenous viruses being activated by drug abuse leads to AIDS are not statistically plausible (http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/06/wrong_again.php#c185504)
Posted by: viji | August 3, 2006 9:54 PM
Bad math. To get that number, you're assuming (a) a constant rate of infection/diagnosis, (b) zero mortality, since those were 5000 living people, and (c) an equal number of afflicted people moving into and out of the city. Of those, (c) is probably the only one that is even close to correct.
Posted by: Davis | August 3, 2006 9:56 PM
A former HIV "rethinker" has written an excellent article on the moral responsibility of scientists in public discourse.
Professional Responsibilities of Biomedical Scientists in Public Discourse"
This article states much more clearly than I could ever do the problems with scientists bypassing normal scientific discourse and targetting lay-audiences.
It should be required reading for every "rethinker".
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 3, 2006 10:02 PM
I really think you all are making a big deal about nothing over Miss Culshaw's nervousness at the start of her interview. Gosh, I don't think there has been this much intolerance since before the civil war over a couple of words. Should all be ashamed of yourselves. Don't worry yourselves any. She certainly would have corrected herself if the interviewer from Zenger's would not have interjected as he did.
She is a very bright woman, as anyone that has gotten through mathematics classes to obtain a PHd certainly must be. And everyone is entitled to a bit of nervousness at the beginning of an on camera interview.
Why, I'd sure as heck pay a buck to watch how much any of you complainers squirm a might at the start of any interview. Any takers? Maybe your all just a bit jealous that the woman is in the spotlight, and you all are stuck here slinging mean words around.
Considering she did the interview in front of some very bright lights in a non air conditioned location on the hottest day on record for the location she was at, I think the woman did a mighty fine job.
How bout any of you getting an interview under similar circumstance and we will all count how many times you say something a bit off kilter.
Don't you all worry about whether or not Miss Culshaw is bright. She is plenty bright. Even bright enough to see through the HIV dogma. Certainly brighter and substantially more kind and respectful than many of the posts I see here that would want to lynch her for a bit of nervousness.
Posted by: lincoln | August 3, 2006 10:09 PM
Goldshalk wrote:
"Exactly the 20 years where HIV con men have spun their tales."
----------
Ummmm... no. Simulationists don't really give a damn whether HIV causes AIDS or not.
In modeling and simulation, the question is simply whether the simulation captures the behavior of the system being simulated. The immune system is not captured well by ODEs because it is not a homogenous system, factors like cell history and distribution pay too large a role. That is, the content of the neighborhood and the history of a particular cell effect its behavior. This alteration in a single cells behavior can have large scale effects throughout the entire body. ODEs do not capture this kind of behavior well, although other mathematical tools such as cellular automata do.
Because of this, discrete event simulation is considered to be a more appropriate tool for the task of IS simulation and modeling. Over the last 20 or so years (maybe closer to 18) a number of good simulations and models have been created, although the complexity of the immune system continues to pose barriers to the modeler.
This has nothing at all to do with whether AIDS is caused by HIV. It is simply a question of whether the model can predict the behavior of the system under certain circumstances. The same could be said for any complex system with extreme heterogenity.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 3, 2006 10:33 PM
lincoln, there are plenty of examples of "off kilter" stuff in Culshaw's published papers. Presumably, she had a bit of time to work on those. Here are some quotes from one of her published papers that I previously missed because it isn't listed in PubMed (it's from the Journal of Biological Systems).
"When an infectious agent enters the body, memory cells recognize this infection as non-self."
The first time an infectious agent enters the body, the response is mounted by naive cells, which then have to proliferate and differentiate into memory cells. Memory cells respond to infections that have been encountered before.
"The CD4+ "helper" T cells can be considered as immune messengers--they signal other immune cells that an invader is to be fought, and these other cells subsequently proliferate and do their jobs. These other cells include, but are not limited to, CD8+ "killer" cells, which differentiate into pathogen-specific immune response cells and B cells, which produce antibodies against the invader should it chance later to reappear following successful clearance."
This bit is OKish, although CD4 T cells also have to proliferate in order to make all this stuff happen (which could, say, be a bit of a problem in the case of viruses that infect them and cause cell cycle arrest). CD4 T cells can also exert direct effector functions. B cells are not the only actors in the memory response, as is implied here, and not all infections are subject to "clearance" (a rather important point when it comes to AIDS).
"In an optimally functioning immune system, all these components, together with organs such as the tonsils and the liver, work together to efficiently eliminate infection. However, there are many ways in which the immune system can malfunction. In the case of HIV, the CD4+ cells are targeted by HIV, which contains a receptor
for the CD4+ protein expressed by the cells, enabling it to bind to CD4+-bearing cells and infect them. Over time, the infection and destruction of these host cells causes the population of CD4+ cells to drop to dangerously low levels. This is problematic, because without the immune messengers, other lymphocytes remain unaware when pathogens invade, and the body becomes helpless to otherwise easily cleared infections."
This last part is the real doozie. Despite all her supposed work in HIV research, Culshaw clearly does not realize that opportunistic infections are not caused by "easily cleared infections" that "invade." They are caused by lifelong persistent pathogens that most people are infected with, and they only cause disease when there is a catastrophic failure of cellular immunity (which allows them to escape immune surveillance and cause disease). It's kind of hard to imagine that someone could get a PhD in "Immune Response Models of HIV Infection and Treatment" without knowing this, but there you go.
Ironically, despite such elementary flaws, I actually agree with the overall thrust of the paper, which is that strategies for enhancing the HIV-specific immune response should be pursued as a means to reduce (or, even better, eliminate) the need for drug therapy. If it weren't for her new career, perhaps Culshaw would be interested in the results of ACTG 5068, a structured treatment interruption study that's just been published in the "online first" section of the Journal of Infectious Diseases. The results rather suggest that enhancing the immune response to HIV is indeed feasible, as do the results of a couple of recent therapeutic vaccination studies (and several more, using potentially better vaccines, are ongoing).
Anyway, the cite for Culshaw's paper is:
Journal of Biological Systems, Vol. 12, No. 2 (2004) 123-135
REVIEW OF HIV MODELS: THE ROLE OF THE NATURAL IMMUNE RESPONSE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR TREATMENT
REBECCA V. CULSHAW
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 10:53 PM
Chris Noble wrote:
Real scientists attempt to convince other scientists. Pseudoscientists write books and newspaper articles targetted at lay-audiences.
Sir, did you mean like the OP Editorial in the New York Times railing about denialists done by Professor John Moore?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/04/opinion/04moore.html?ex=1307073600en=05ff84719adc117bei=5088partner=rssnytemc=rss
Or did you mean the book Robert Gallo wrote:
Virus Hunting: AIDS, Cancer, and the Human Retrovirus : A Story of Scientific Discovery by Robert C. Gallo
Gallo's book is the only book about science that I have ever seen that did not have even one citation to a scientific paper listed in it.
Every book that I have read by the re-thinkers community is chock full of science citations to back up what they say. Duesberg is a stickler for everything to be backed up by cites. Perhaps sir, you had a difficult time reading it, and should stick with books by Robert Gallo.
The following AIDS dissent books are so full of citations, you'd need a library to keep all of the papers:
Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS by Celia Farber
Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg by Harvey Bialy
Infectious AIDS : Have We Been Misled? by Peter H. Duesberg
Positively False: Exposing the Myths Around HIV and AIDS by Joan Shenton
Inventing the AIDS Virus by Peter H. Duesberg
Mr. Noble, sir, you may eat your words at your own pleasure. Thank you sir, for pointing out that the originator of AIDS is not a scientist by any means of the word. And Mr. Noble, I thank you for pointing out the difference between the pseudoscientists and the AIDS Re-Thinkers sir. You have convinced me which should be ignored and which should be heeded. But perhaps you are trying to convince yourself and not the rest of us.
Posted by: lincoln | August 3, 2006 10:56 PM
Mr. Noble, Just in case you are interested in reading books by real scientists, here are the details for you on what they are, who prints them and how to get them:
Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and Aids: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg
by Harvey Bialy (North Atlantic Books, 2004)
Inventing the AIDS Virus
by Peter H. Duesberg
Foreword by Nobel Prize winner Kary Mullis
(Regnery USA, 1996)
AIDS: Virus or Drug Induced?
A collection of 27 articles by scientists, independent scholars, and investigative journalists from Australia, Europe and the US, (Kluwer Academics Publishers, 1996)
Infectious AIDS: Have We Been Misled?
A collection of 13 articles by Duesberg, published in scientific journals between 1987
and 1996, (North Atlantic Books, 1995)
AIDS: The good news is...
by Duesberg and John Yiamouyiannis, (Health Action Press, 1995)
Contact your local bookstores, or books may be ordered online at
http://www.amazon.com or http://www.barnesandnoble.com
To obtain a copy of 'AIDS: The good news is...' in German, order online at http://www.amazon.de
If you are interested in purchasing "Infectious AIDS: Have We Been Misled?",
please order directly from North Atlantic Books at https://market.lmi.net:8891/ecology.html
Posted by: lincoln | August 3, 2006 11:05 PM
DB wrote:
"Richard is attempting to "prove" HIV causes AIDS by citing a study (like thousands of others) that's based on the premise that HIV causes AIDS.
The data "confirms" the premise, because it's entirely based on that premise. This is nothing but circular logic."
----------------
DB:
I'm not sure you understand what a hypothesis is, or what data is, or what a result is. I'm not an expert myself, but maybe this will help.
Lets say I believe that being hit by cars does not cause injuries. That is a HYPOTHESIS.
Now, in the real world, a sample of 10,000 people will contain some who have suffered a physical injury in the last year, and some who have not. Some will have been hit by cars, and others not hit by cars. This information is DATA.
If I examine the data, I can determine whether or not there is a correllation between being hit by one or more cars and suffering physical injuries. This will either support my hypothesis or it will not support my hypothesis. This is a RESULT.
Now, to say that the result is based on the premise is simply not true, the result is based on the data. And the data is independent of the hypothesis as well. There is no circular reasoning here, merely the test of a hypothesis by gathering data.
In the study being cited by Richard, there is data that supports the hypothesis. But the data wouldn't be any different if a different hypothesis were the basis for the study... for example, if you thought that HIV was not related to AIDS, the data would not support that hypothesis. If you thought AIDS was caused by living in a particular town, the data would not support that hypothesis either.
A result can either confirm or not confirm the hypothesis, depending on the nature of the data. Data gathered must be justified by the researchers, they have to show WHY they are gathering this data, and justify whether the data will provide an adequate test of the hypothesis.
To some, your argument might seem willfully mendacious. After all, what I have said here is common knowledge. However, I hypothesize that you are merely ignorant on this topic (which is nothing to be ashamed of or upset about) and that once you understand how completely wrong you are, you will cease and desist with your pointless repetition of the "the study is based on a premise" mantra. I predict that after reading this post, you will come to the conclusion that you are making an ass of yourself, and apologize.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 3, 2006 11:17 PM
lincoln,
I believe the critisms have focused on Dr. Culshaw's unfamiliarity with the fundamentals of HIV/virus biology throughout the whole interview, and this despite her stating 10 years experience mathematically modelling HIV infection. I did not see any responses being unreasonably critical of a nervous stutter. And your substantiation/promotion of her being a bright person obtaining a PhD through impossible mathematical classes does seem quite bizarre, since the issue discussed here is that she is using her "credentials" to weigh in on subjects she does't even seem to have full understanding of. Therein the accusations of the whole episode being a PR stunt to promote her new book
And after reading her 3 publications regarding HIV (I have access to all 3 publications, if anyone need the fuill text, I can post it to them), I'll like to point out that she wasn't at all modelling HIV natural history, or HIV-AIDS epidemiology, or HIV infection in any clinical sense. The observations she based her models were based on the currently proposed mechanism of infection to describe latent infections, of the CD4 T-cell (cell to cell spread in tissue cultures and with set limits, and of the significance of predictions (activation of latent virus) from the previous mathematical model that can be used to maximise the effects of HIV treatment (i.e. ARVs). In no way whatever does the studies that she completed proove or disproove HIV causes AIDS. In fact, these studies does put HIV as a factor in the depletion of CD4 T cells.
More importantly, I think the second point of the responses is that the people are critical of her "Why I Quit HIV" statements, as these statements are nothing new, just the rehashing of the same rhetoric espoused by Anti-HIV "dissidents", and she has contributed nothing new, she has not linked any of her research to substantiate her views, nor has she come up with new research findings that substantiate her views. If her intentions (as a scientist) are to highlight the "dissenting" views, she should at least have come up with new data to support her views or at least based her views on observations in her previous work by referencing and explaining to us why she thinks so. She has done neither. Rather, her only original statement was
"My work as a mathematical biologist has been built in large part on the paradigm that HIV causes AIDS, and I have since come to realize that there is good evidence that the entire basis for this theory is wrong."
But what is she intending to communicate? There were no references whatsover to explain her views from her experiences, just the same "statements" made by "HIV-dissidents" that have already been found to be groundless in the scientific community and also thoroughly discussed and found wanting in this blog.
In light of the interview and her apparent unfamiliarity with the subject, to a lot of people, this seems to be Dr Culshaw exploiting her PhD credentials just to promote her new book.
Posted by: viji | August 3, 2006 11:26 PM
lincoln writes:
Have you looked at the number of papers that John Moore and Robert Gallo have written on their own primary research on HIV?
Both scientists concentrate on doing science and presenting this in scientific journals. They work within the normal scientific procedure.
"Rethinkers" on the other hand concentrate primarily on material targetting lay-audiences.
You can find a handful of scientific-like articles from Creationists and you can also find popular science books written by "orthodox" biologists. That doesn't change the fact that biologists are primarily concerned with doing science and getting it published in scientific journals and Creationists are primarily concerned with getting popular support from lay-audiences.
I say again. If Rebecca Culshaw has any moral integrity she should write a scientific paper outlining scientific reasons why she doubts the connection between HIV and AIDS and attempt to convince scientists. Writing books targetting lay-audiences instead is ethically bankrupt. It doesn't matter how many references are in the book it is still a book targetting lay-audiences that in most cases do not have the inclination or education to read and understand the primary literarure.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 3, 2006 11:28 PM
Charles, 5000 was the number of AIDS diagnoses for the year 2004, one third of them (that is new AIDS diagnoses) were in heterosexuals with no other reported risk factor. There are 10,000 heterosexual females currently living with HIV or AIDS in NYC. That is not cumulative, that is only those who are still alive.
Posted by: Dale | August 3, 2006 11:38 PM
Publishing popular books offers far more leeway to misrepresent the content of your cites. Duesberg does this frequently. To pick one example, he counts up "HIV negative AIDS cases" from papers that describe no such thing. These numbers (over 4,000!) then enter denialist lore, and no one bothers to actually trace back to the cites and verify them.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 3, 2006 11:53 PM
Hello viji. The woman, Miss Culshaw, is entitled to her opinions, be they what you believe or not, and even be they correct or not. For your information, the Zenger's interviewer contacted her for the interview, as they have also requested interviews for all of the AIDS rethinkers of any importance to them, such as Duesberg himself, Rasnick, Christine Maggiore and many others. I would doubt Miss Culshaw is quite so deluded as to think her book is going to sell more than a few thousand copies, as that is all that any other AIDS dissent book has ever sold. This low of sales barely covers the distribution and warehousing. The general heterosexual population has no need nor interest in it, as they are not at risk of the disease, and particulary as AIDS is a disease quite primarily of gay men and blacks, and drug users. And the gays and blacks will probably continue to ignore the dissent community as they have done for 20 years. I am sure she is not holding her breath for it to be on the New York Bestsellers list.
Mr. Noble sir. Could you please show some manners and chew on your words slowly with your mouth closed. If you had read the book by Pulitzer prize winner John Crewdson, "Science Fictions", in which many whom worked with or knew Gallo were interviewed, you would know that Gallo does not write his own papers, but merely claims the papers and work of his lab workers as his own. He used to be quite well known for only having foreigners work under them, as he could threaten them with deportation if they did not do as he wished, according to those who worked under him. I would not see quite where Mr. Moore gets time to write anything at all, as he seems more consumed with his rantings against those whom threaten HIV/AIDS beliefs and his income from such, than he does with actual science. And again, I really do not know that Mr. Moore actually does any of his own original work either. His primary job since arriving in the US seems to have been to guard the HIV paradigm, perhaps as ordered by Tony Fauci, as the first paper of note that Mr. Moore wrote was a slanderous article ranting against Peter Duesberg.
Posted by: lincoln | August 3, 2006 11:55 PM
DB writes:
The data "confirms" the premise, because it's entirely based on that premise. This is nothing but circular logic.
It should come as no surprise to people reading this thread that there exists people that deny the "germ theory of disease".
Amongst other things they claim that Louis Pasteur was a fraud who falsified data and that Antoine Bechamp has been wrongly written out of history. Since this time all experiments have simply assumed that germs cause disease.
The data "confirms" the premise, because it's entirely based on that premise. This is nothing but circular logic!
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 3, 2006 11:57 PM
lincoln writes:
Don't confuse your ignorance with reality. The first time that you heard of John Moore might well have been the opinion piece that you refer to but if you bothered to do a pubmed search you would have a better idea of the amount of primary research he has done during the last two decades.
You are beginning to sound suspiciously like a conspiracy theorist.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 4, 2006 12:08 AM
Someone upthread writes:
Writing books targetting lay-audiences instead is ethically bankrupt.
Here's Gallo's book.
Here's Montagnier's book.
Would someone explain by AIDS proponents can write books, while Dr. Culshaw may not?
Posted by: Bob T. | August 4, 2006 12:10 AM
Mr. Jefferys sir. Are you suggesting Duesbergs works in PNAS, Science, and Nature, and the latest one from 2003 in India were not verified by the multitude of peer reviewers? Sir, these were the most peer reviewed papers in history as many were looking to undo his claims and could not. Sir, the majority of people reading these posts are far brighter than that. Please refrain from insulting our intelligence. Mr. Jefferys, really now, anyone that would believe what you have to say from here on, would really have to be quite simple minded or a bit feeble in the gullibility index, but then, I suppose that is what you are paid to do, to promote your AIDS drugs to the simple minded nonquestioners that would actually take them in New York and Africa.
Posted by: lincoln | August 4, 2006 12:15 AM
lincoln wrote:
Sir, the majority of people reading these posts are far brighter than that. Please refrain from insulting our intelligence.
I'm not. People can read Duesberg's papers and check the cites themselves (if they have the patience). If I recall correctly, if you read the 2003 paper, you'll find the claim about "HIV negative AIDS" cases, cited to a prior Duesberg paper. I think the relevant one was in something called "Biotechnology" in 1993. In it, there's a table adding up numbers of "HIV negative AIDS" cases citing ~70 papers. I freely confess I have not gone through all of them. After reading the first few and realizing they were not reporting "HIV negative AIDS" cases at all, I couldn't see the point.
As for your statement:
many were looking to undo his claims and could not
It is totally false. His claims have been disproven, repeatedly. Or perhaps you feel otherwise, and could offer some immunology literature showing that malnutrition causes the serious opportunistic infections seen in AIDS? Since Duesberg argues that the vast majority of AIDS cases in the world are caused by malnutrition, surely there must be immunology literature that supports that argument?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 4, 2006 12:27 AM
Mr. Jefferys.
Thank you for your honest confession of having not read Duesberg's citations.
Do you believe that malnutrition is a means of staying healthy perhaps?
Even your great great grandmother said to feed a cold and starve a fever.
Again Mr. Jefferys, please do not insult the intelligence of the readers of this blog.
Posted by: lincoln | August 4, 2006 12:48 AM
Another content-free response, with some misrepresentation added in. I have read many of Duesberg's citations, and if you disagree with my interpretation of the cites in support of his "HIV negative AIDS" claim, please read the papers and point out the "HIV negative AIDS" cases. You could start with the first two cites, which I think are a Kaslow JAMA paper, and a Kevin DeCock paper. The Duesberg Biotechnology paper which contains these cites is online (on his website, probably).
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 4, 2006 12:59 AM
Bob T. writes:
I will proceed slowly.
Neith Gallo's nor Montagnier's books are designed to convince people that HIV exists and causes AIDS. They have performed experimental research and published the results in several journals. It is this research and subsequent research by hundreds of other groups that confirmed these results that has convinced virtually 100% of scientists that HIV exists and causes AIDS.
Duesberg and other "rethinkers" have presented their ideas to the scientific community in papers published in numerous jornals. They have completely failed in convincing the scientific community that HIV cannot cause AIDS. Failed. Completely.
After failing in the scientific process they have largely turned to writing books and articles targetted at lay-audiences. Dr Culshaw has not even attempted to write a scientific paper outlining her alleged scientific reasons for doubting the connection between HIV and AIDS. She goes straight to the public.
Please read the article I have linked for reasons why this is ethically bankrupt.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 4, 2006 1:14 AM
Hey Richard, can I get paid, too? heh heh
I think one of the biggest problems in the denier group is that they seem to expect HIV to be spread like the common cold. Through simple casual contact, as is still feared by some germaphobes who fear hugging an HIV infected patient. If it was, then you would expect high rates of transmission. A small number of AIDS cases in a large city wouldn't make sense.
But it isn't spread by casual contact. It is spread via sex with or sharing needles with an infected user, and by tainted blood. Even if you beat the odds in a large city by finding an infected individual, the exposure must be above a certain number of virus particles, or the body can overcome the exposure. Then, since HAART can delay the onset of AIDSa lesser number of patients show up with AIDS. Add on top of this a small portion of the population carrying a mutation for the CCR5 cell surface protein appear to be resistant to HIV infection.
As an aside, the CCR5 mutation (called delta 32) is another nail in the coffin for HIV deniers. HIV binds the CCR5 protein in order to enter a cell. Individuals with two copies of the CCR5 delta 32 are highly resistant to HIV infection. One copy of the delta 32 mutant is thought to provide som partial resistance.
So we know how HIV is spread, how HIV infects a cell, how it kills T cells, how it makes the person more susceptible to opportunistic infections, and how HIV's effects on the immune system can be delayed. HIV deniers can only claim conspiracy and claim that none of our experiments have been done. The most amusing claim I have seen is that going in with a hypothesis and knowledge of previous work makes the findings null and void. This shows a complete ignorance of the scientific method.
Posted by: Robster | August 4, 2006 1:15 AM
Mr. Jefferys.
I apologise if you perceive that I was ignoring you, but I am in the midst of making calls to many in the HIV diagnosed community warning them of the warning label update on the recently approved Aptivus (tipranavir), made by Boehringer Ingelhiem, which is now found to be causing fatal bleeding within the brain or skull tissue, as well as the risk of severe liver disease. Eight have died so far in a recent trial. God knows what the future effects will be for the thousands that have taken this drug. The drug now at least comes with the FDA's strictest "black box" warning.
Sir, I hope you will understand that this might take priority for me over squabbling with your seeming inability to read or understand Duesberg's papers.
Mr. Jefferys, as you are a promoter of drugs such as this, and as the organisation you are working for is funded in part by the manufacturer of this drug, I would only hope that you will spend less time blogging blasphemy and more time warning those many unquestioning gays in New York that you have convinced of the safety and effectiveness of these drugs.
Posted by: lincoln | August 4, 2006 1:16 AM
Hmmmmm interesting
lincoln, could kindly provide me a link to the article/report about tipranavir that you mentioned in the above post.
It'll be interesting to chase it up
cheers
Posted by: viji | August 4, 2006 1:56 AM
You can't argue that I can neither read or understand Duesberg's papers if you cannot demonstrate that my interpretation is incorrect. I think that is fairly straightforward. My work and who funds it has been discussed before on this blog, under similar circumstances (the person couldn't actually respond to any substantive points).
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 4, 2006 1:59 AM
lincoln,
You bemoan when critisms are made about your heroine Dr Culshaw, and demand respect, and accuse scientist of defamation of persons like Duesberg. If you have followed the posts clearly, you'll see none of that, rather it was fair criticisms of his interpretation of his work and publications, and almost everytime, references or explanations were given to explain these criticisms to allow readers to follow up on the issue, if they wish, to better understand the arguments.
However, the same cannot be said of you and your friends. Rather, you and your bunch are the ones doing the baseless accusations, defamations, and posting very rude remarks
A simple example would be your posts
Posted by: lincoln | August 3, 2006 11:55 PM
Posted by: lincoln | August 4, 2006 01:16 AM
You blatantly shower accusations and many assertions on the character of Dr Gallo, yet you provided none for us to substantiate these wild claims of yours.
Second you maliciously proclaimed that Dr Moore has done no research, while it is clear that these are just blind accusations.
Third, you demand us to respect the intelligence of readers , when clearly you are the one that has shown the least respect, whats worse, you are the one throwing wild accusations and defamations
look at your own response
"Mr. Jefferys, as you are a promoter of drugs such as this, and as the organisation you are working for is funded in part by the manufacturer of this drug, I would only hope that you will spend less time blogging blasphemy and more time warning those many unquestioning gays in New York that you have convinced of the safety and effectiveness of these drugs"
Do you have any evidence to substaintiate this statement? If not, I could only conclude that your intentions are to prevert and defame. That at least tells us of your character. Totally irresponsible and a hypocrite.
Posted by: viji | August 4, 2006 2:19 AM
My dear viji, me thinks ye doth protest too much. Do you have your own hidden agenda that you fear I may discover as well?
You wrote the following:
You blatantly shower accusations and many assertions on the character of Dr Gallo, yet you provided none for us to substantiate these wild claims of yours.
I certainly did substantiate, but only if you care to read the very book by Pulitzer prize winner John Crewdson that substantiates my claims. Where do you see in the following of what I had written, where my claim is not substantiated?
"If you had read the book by Pulitzer prize winner John Crewdson, "Science Fictions", in which many whom worked with or knew Gallo were interviewed, you would know that Gallo does not write his own papers, but merely claims the papers and work of his lab workers as his own".
You also claimed:
Second you maliciously proclaimed that Dr Moore has done no research, while it is clear that these are just blind accusations.
When all I had written was:
"I really do not know that Mr. Moore actually does any of his own original work either".
There is no malicicious proclamation in what I wrote. I simply stated a fact that I do not know if Mr Moore does any of his own original work, now didn't I?
What I had written as regards Mr. Moore, certainly is not as malicious as what you just wrote about me. Your own maliciousness fools no-one but yourself. Furthermore, your own maliciousness betrays to me and probably to most others reading this as well, that more than likely you yourself most likely also have some conflicts of interest involving HIV AIDS to hide and protect! If so, would you like to share them with us now, or will you continue to rant and rave toward those of us that see quite clearly through your own thin veil of angry protest?
As far as Mr. Jefferys employer receiving direct funding from Ingelheim, even he will not dispute, as it is common knowledge and can be found in the public financials that his organisation must claim. Or perhaps you would all prefer that I publicly post the full list of all of the drug companies whom contribute to Mr. Jefferys well being right here and now? I would certainly be glad to do so! Or would you all prefer that perhaps I should save that posting for another time when I am in need of correcting Mr. Jefferys in the future? Well that might be better after all.
My dear viji, do you really wish to join your friends Mr. Noble and Mr. Jefferys in eating their words now? Or do you prefer to wait till morning for breakfast? You may all eat your own words at your own pleasure as well, although I do thank you for bringing all of these points up again, as I certainly want them to be very clear and remembered by all who may read this in the future.
Posted by: lincoln | August 4, 2006 3:21 AM
Ah playing with words are we,
I see, so you're saying that you've not known about Moore's work. But certainly when we re-read your earlier post, your statement "I really do not know that Mr. Moore actually does any of his own original work either", seems to be implying that Moore is not doing/or has not done any research work and was profiteering from his "rantings"?
Mincing words eh?.well, if that was not what you meant, apologies.
So its John Crewdson's assertions against Gallo. Apologies, I had missed your reference. Frankly, I have not read the book, and even if what you said is true, that "Gallo does not write his own papers, but merely claims the papers and work of his lab workers as his own." What significance is that to the issue. Gallo's papers was based on the observations made by his lab group. How does that invalidate Gallo's findings, and more importantly, how in any way whatsover does Galli's authoritarian lab management style invalidate the cumulative empirical research findings made to date? I cannot comprehend your rationale.
Thirdly, you're implying that because Mr Jefferys work is funded by a Pharmaceutical company, you accuse him of having vested interest. Well, I have to admit, I did not know of Mr Jefferey's funding sources before your post (as I am a rather fresh reader of this blog), but again I could only say its wild speculation. For if any reader who have followed Jefferey's responses closely, they would have npticed that Jefferey's responses are based on honest facts based on numerous studies that he have cited (and importantly, none of these studies were conducted by his group), the references that are availble for all to read and determine for themselves.
Whereas you and your friend's responses have most of the time little content (for rehashed content) and are full of accusations and defamations.
Therefore I stick to my conclusion, your intentions of bringing up Jefferery's supposed link to Ingelheim or any other pharmaceutical is just your dishonest attempt to pervert the facts (influencing the jury, if you wish).
On the record, I find that your responses are full of rhetoric and little of substance. IN addition, you and your friends have this dishonourable habit of throwing accusations and speculations. Well, apparently, in your last response, you are attempting to use the similar tactic on me too. Suit yourself. I'll play along.
I work at a University facility with none whatsover funding from pharmaceuticals. Whats more, my research interests are based on improving dose regimens of antibiotics against MDR bacteria in intensive care unit, therefore, to your satisfaction, I have no "vested interest" in selling ARVs or HAART or whatever you accuse us of selling.
Why am I sore with you and your friend's responses? Thats fairly simple. In my opinion, you're being insincere and irresponsible.
At first take, the "HIV dissenters" seem to be highligthing differing views, by engaging in discussion, and exercising the right to dissent (that's exactly how science progresses, presenting different views and submitting evidence to back up these views in order to forward science).
However, it is apparent to me that this is not the case. The "dissenting" views have been brought up before and have been thoroughly discussed and found to be unsubstantiated. Yet to my digust, after clear explantions and references have been patiently given, these "dissenters" did not make any effort to understand the science, and worse, they choose to run away, and regurgitate the same statements all over again elsewhere. THIS IS INSINCERE. I question their motives at this practice. To the very least, they should have at least critique/respond to the explantions/analysis presented to them. And even more devious, many times over, they resort to smear campaigns and consipracy theories, and little of hard evidence.
I believe I have make clear why I think your actions are IRRESPONSIBLE in earlier posts.
My observations of these responses show me that rather than "dissenting" to prod researchers to reevaluate the science by presenting credible evidence, their intentions looks like a concerted effort to influence the general public unfamiliar to science (akin propaganda).
I do not need to remiond you of the repurcussions of allowing misinformation to undermine public health (a good example would be in South Africa)
If you think this is not so, pls highlight some of your concerns or dissenting views that in your view have not been discussed already.
Quit playing politics and playing with words. This is not a charade or political roadshow. If you are really sincere at dissenting, present us the evidence, not some rehash.
Posted by: viji | August 4, 2006 4:49 AM
In should add that
***(and importantly, none of these studies were conducted by his group (Jeffery's group) but rather conducted by independant labs, observed by physicians, observed by independant charities and missionaries)
Posted by: viji | August 4, 2006 4:53 AM
"lincoln" wrote:
As far as Mr. Jefferys employer receiving direct funding from Ingelheim, even he will not dispute, as it is common knowledge and can be found in the public financials that his organisation must claim. Or perhaps you would all prefer that I publicly post the full list of all of the drug companies whom contribute to Mr. Jefferys well being right here and now? I would certainly be glad to do so! Or would you all prefer that perhaps I should save that posting for another time when I am in need of correcting Mr. Jefferys in the future?
You can't "correct" published data (like, say, the natural history studies posted above, which precisely none of the people posting in support of denialism here have addressed) by posting a list of TAG's funders (which you can get from the TAG website here: http://www.aidsinfonyc.org/tag/annual2005.pdf). Here is the list (restricted, for the sake of brevity, to people that have given >$1,000) from the 2005 annual report:
$ 100,000 or more
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
$ 50,000 - $ 99,000
Paul L. Newman
$ 25,000 - $ 49,999
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
The Irene Diamond Fund
GlaxoSmithKline
Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc.
$ 10,000 - $ 24,999
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Broadway Cares / Equity Fights AIDS
Gesso Foundation
Gilead Sciences
John M. Lloyd Foundation
JPMorgan Private Bank
Merck & Co.
The Rainbow Endowment
Terry K. Watanabe Charitable Trust
$ 5,000 - $ 9,999
David Corkery
Marcus Edward
Richard M. Lynn & Joseph Evall
Robert J. McLain
Mark O'Donnell
Open Society Institute
The Mary Wohlford Foundation
$ 2,500 - $ 4,999
Tim Casey & Mary C. Rieth Casey
Nicholas A.R. Debs
Richard A. & Barbara Knowles Debs
M. Lee Garrison
Karl J. Jepsen & James M. Goldrick
Alby P. Maccarone, Jr.
Stephen Mack & Robert E. Monteleone
J. Michael McCune, MD, &
Karen Kaye Smith-McCune
$ 1,000 - $ 2,499
Katherine C. & Thomas M. Ash
Michael A. Becker & Tee Scatuorchio
Concerned Parents for AIDS Research
Courtroom Television Networks
Constance D'Aurizio
Edward J. Davis & Thomas D. Phillips
Paul A. Dierkes
Paul L. Dietz
Randall G. Drain
William French & Gayle Funk French,
In memory of Jay Kevin Funk
Guido Goldman
Richard & Judith Harrington
David Hollander & Robert Shaw
Lawrence H. Hoskins
Mathilde Krim, PhD
Carey C. Maloney & Hermes Mallea
Mobley & Company,
The Family of Lawrence H. Cave III, PhD
Jason I. Osher & Richard R. Schubel
Mario Roirselli
Bruce R. Schackman, PhD, &
Edward K. Sikov
Nina Schwalbe Fund of Tides Foundation
Evan Schwartz & Robert Fitterman
Monte Steinman
W. Kirk Wallace & Mark M. Sexton,
Wallace-Sexton Fund of Stonewall
Community Foundation
The Zacks Family Foundation
In 2006 the Michael J. Palm Foundation has been added to the >$100,000 category, and that four year grant fully funds my position at TAG to work on basic science, vaccines and other biomedical prevention technologies. Anyone that reads my posts can do a Google search and get all this information (and plenty more) from the TAG website (because I post using my real name). They could also read the last thing TAG wrote about Boehringer Ingelheim here:
http://www.aidsinfonyc.org/tag/tx/aidsActivism.html
As for who you are, "lincoln," I guess that will remain a mystery, unless you are willing to actually disclose that information.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 4, 2006 9:39 AM
Lincoln has certainly scored major points and rattled the cages of the AIDS dogmatists who dwell herein.
It doesn't take too many such criticisms to bring out the trembling religious zealotry of the AIDS true believers, gnashing their teeth, fulminating and frothing like mad dogs.
'Tis quite a sight to behold, and lots o' fun to watch as their pot gets roiled and they lash out with venom.
So it turns out that Richard Jeffreys is a paid employee of TAG!!!! That explains it all.
No wonder he has so much time on his hands to squander at a blogosphere site like this one.
Posted by: Charles | August 4, 2006 11:05 AM
Charles wrote:
So it turns out that Richard Jeffreys is a paid employee of TAG!!!! That explains it all.
Can you outline for us how this explains the data on the natural history of HIV infection? I could be the CEO of GSK and it wouldn't change the data being cited here.
If you could also provide examples where people "lash out with venom" that would be great, too. It is interesting that you consider someone responding to denialist misinformation to be "squandering" their time; obviously you would prefer the misinformation to go unchallenged.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 4, 2006 11:14 AM
Richard Jeffreys - you and your ilk have provided about 120 or so separate examples of venom, rage, bitterness and nervousness on this single thread alone! For solid evidence, merely scroll back up and read what you have posted all by your li'l ole self.
I am solely interested in the epidemiology of AIDS cases in the USA and understanding why there never has been and never will be any so-called "AIDS epidemic" among non-injection drug using heterosexuals despite the obvious and widely documented fact that still engage in huge amounts of condom-less sex.
The pathetically weak and inept attempts to explain that epidemiology in the USA must, by definition, vigorously ignore and congenitally deny the past 25 years of semi-hysteria amongst the AIDS industry with its sky-is-falling mentality to suggest otherwise.
Posted by: Charles | August 4, 2006 11:41 AM
Charles wrote:
Richard Jeffreys - you and your ilk have provided about 120 or so separate examples of venom, rage, bitterness and nervousness on this single thread alone! For solid evidence, merely scroll back up and read what you have posted all by your li'l ole self.
Please cite the examples you are referring to.
It would also be helpful if you could cite specific examples of "pathetically weak and inept attempts to explain that epidemiology in the USA."
What's your take on the epidemiology of hepatitis B?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 4, 2006 11:48 AM
They have performed experimental research and published the results in several journals. It is this research and subsequent research by hundreds of other groups that confirmed these results that has convinced virtually 100% of scientists that HIV exists and causes AIDS.
Chris,
you're a smart guy. You're very careful to NOT say that Gallo or Montagnier proved that HIV causes AIDS. Always thinking, that Chris guy!
Strange thing though. In 1984, late April, the whole world was told that HIV causes AIDS. That would of course lead any reasonable human being to understand that this was a proven fact. Was it not?
Now, at some point, you and your buddies are going to have to come clean. Either it was proven in April, 1984 that HIV causes AIDS, or...sometime...after "hundreds of other groups" confirmed the results it was then proven that HIV causes AIDS. If it was sometime, we should really know when exactly that sometime was. When did HIV causes AIDS become a fact, Chris?
Posted by: DB | August 4, 2006 12:05 PM
Richard Jeffreys - the thread on this very topic here, on this website, provides oodles of such examples. Once again, merely re-read it from the top and see for yourself.
You ask - "What's your take on the epidemiology of hepatitis B?"
I answer - I am only concerned here with understanding why there never has been and never will be a so-called "epidemic" of AIDS cases among non iv-drug using heterosexuals in the USA.
Or as Hannah Arendt put it, "When I say 'A,' I don't mean 'B'."
Got it?
It's been lots of fun as always visiting here but I must now go do my real work elsewhere....... Ta ta....
Posted by: Charles | August 4, 2006 12:06 PM
As I said before, DB, some context to your question would be helpful. Can you provide an example of when that sometime was for other viruses? Herpes zoster? Herpes simplex? Cytomegalovirus? Human Papilloma Virus? Presumimg, of course, you accept that these viruses (or at least some of them) can cause disease.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 4, 2006 12:12 PM
Charles Wrote:
" there never has been and never will be any so-called "AIDS epidemic"
-------
Charles, two things: first, you can't say that there "never will be" an AIDS epidemic based on the fact that there hasn't been in the past. This is a fallacy. If you are basing that prediction on a belief that AIDS is not a disease caused by HIV, you need to support that belief by some other argument.
What you don't seem to understand is that the fact that a disease is uncommon does not mean that it doesn't exist. Very few people get bubonic plague these days, especially in America. Does that mean that the bubonic plague doesn't exist?
You might make the argument that AIDS is not a disease at all, but then you have to explain why this set of otherwise healthy people without the risk factors you are citing (drug use and homosexual sex) are dying with the same symptoms as those with the risk factors. So if 1/3 of all AIDS patients in NY are non-drug using heterosexuals, you have some explaining to do.
Please, understand that I am not a "believer" in the orthodox AIDS theory. But so far in this thread, you and the others on your side of the issue haven't answered any questions or presented any arguments. I still haven't seen your alternate hypothesis, or how it explains the facts better than the HIV hypothesis.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 4, 2006 12:13 PM
Richard,
two things: first, I'm asking Chris a question.
second, I'm asking about "HIV"
If you read my posts on Tara's previous "AIDS" thread, I stated that I don't discount the germ theory of disease. Go back, take a look.
Posted by: DB | August 4, 2006 12:18 PM
DB wrote:
If you read my posts on Tara's previous "AIDS" thread, I stated that I don't discount the germ theory of disease. Go back, take a look.
That's great. That means that your apparent requirement for a sometime has been met for some other germs. So, to help answer your question as it pertains to HIV, you could provide some examples of what that sometime looks like for you.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 4, 2006 12:28 PM
Richard,
thanks for "trying" to answer my question. As you can see though, I asked Chris this question.
I'll be interested to see if he takes the same, or similar evasive maneuver as yourself.
Posted by: DB | August 4, 2006 12:35 PM
DB wrote:"Now, at some point, you and your buddies are going to have to come clean. Either it was proven in April, 1984 that HIV causes AIDS, or...sometime..."
-----------
DB:
Again, I just see a basic failure on your part to understand history or science. The way it works is, in 1984, it was hypothesized that HIV caused AIDS. The evidence at the time supported that hypothesis. Then, other scientists attempted to verify that hypothesis by conducting other studies, perhaps controlling for other factors, and using different methods. These studies also have supported the HIV hypothesis. All kinds of different scientists in all kinds of fields continue to study the pathology, epidemiolgy, and biology of HIV, and in some sense, each of them will verify the HIV hypothesis or not, because the results will either be consistent with the HIVh or not.
At this time there is very strong support for the theory that HIV causes AIDS. It hasn't been "proven" in the same sense that we know the lower bound for sorting an unordered list in place, or that a-squared plus b-squared equals c-squared, but that is true of practically everything outside of math anyway. By math standards, it hasn't been "proven" that sperm+egg equals organism, either.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 4, 2006 12:40 PM
It's not "evasive" DB. It gets to the heart of whether you are asking a meaningful question. How can anyone know what you're looking for if you can't provide an example based on the other germs that you do believe cause disease? Based on what criteria do you hold those beliefs? Where was the point at which everyone accepted the evidence that herpes zoster caused chickenpox and shingles?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 4, 2006 12:40 PM
Seth,
thanks for your attempt at answering the question as well. But I didn't ask you.
I'm waiting for Chris.
Posted by: DB | August 4, 2006 12:42 PM
DB wrote:
I'm waiting for Chris.
If Chris cuts and pastes Seth's perfectly excellent response to your question into his own post, DB, will you respond to it then?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 4, 2006 12:45 PM
Richard,
we'll cross that bridge, should we come to it.
Posted by: DB | August 4, 2006 12:50 PM
DB wrote:
we'll cross that bridge, should we come to it.
And, just to clarify, in the meantime you're not prepared to disclose what evidence convinced you that other germs cause disease?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 4, 2006 12:55 PM
"I'm waiting for Chris."
-----------
DB: I'm not trying to answer your question, I'm trying to help you grasp some basic concepts that you are clearly unfamiliar with. Your question is simply misguided.
I think Richard is trying to do the same thing: put your question in context so that you can see the problem with your question. Perhaps you should try to understand what he is saying, and take the opportunity to explain yourself?
Comments like this make it seem like you are engaged in some kind of weird coup counting game, rather than in honest discussion on an important topic.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 4, 2006 1:09 PM
viji
In your last post above. You now admit that you did not bother to carefully read my words before you accused me, and you now apologise for impolitely skipping over my reference to John Crewdson's book.
You continue to imply that I falsly accused Mr. Jefferys of being backed by pharmaceutical companies. As you can now verify for yourself in Mr. Jefferys own post, I was quite honest with you.
One thing is for certain, viji, and that is the frailty of the human mind. It is very easy to take a position on any given issue, and refuse, either consciously or subconsciously to give due consideration to those whose opinions differ. This refusal also extends to an unwillingness to even look at evidence, or give it due consideration if one did look upon it, which may cause one to re-examine their positions and beliefs.
As such viji, I do understand your reluctance to carefully and accurately read my posts before attacking what I have written. I also understand that you will also, more than likely fail to read any of the multitude of literature that differs from your now defended position of belief, even if it was presented to you on a golden platter. It is not my job nor my duty to change your mind or your beliefs, nor anyone elses, whom has already decided that the issue is settled and whom has already decided that nothing that anyone else could say or present will change their minds. It would be quite fruitless of me to attempt to do so, as long as you have no desire to be open minded to receiving opposing information. You have already proven yourself to be emotionally incapable, and certainly unwilling, of reading my posts with any degree of open mindedness or receptivity.
If, in the future, viji, you find yourself sincerely interested in finding out what the dissent community believes or why they believe these things, you will, of your own volition, investigate many of the books and websites that discuss the issues. Until then, you are not to be considered ignorant or evil, but you are to be considered as simply uninformed and currently unwilling to be informed. The same goes for Mr. Noble, and Mr. Jefferys.
Furthermore, I am quite certain that all of you are bright enough to understand that the dissident community can NOT prove HIV does not cause AIDS. It is a well known fact that a negative can not ever be proven to be a fact. Even the "Dilbert" comic strip writer knows this, and not too long ago did a strip on it.
The following was posted by somebody at one of the HIV dissent blogsites, New AIDS Review, which quite succinctly sums up the issue.
The only question in the HIV-AIDS issue at all, is whether two issues have been sufficiently proved by science. The first is whether HIV actually causes AIDS. The second is whether HIV is actually sexually transmissable.
We all know that you are asking a question (where is the proof that HIV causes AIDS?) that we well know there is no research to sufficiently back up and insufficient proof for claiming. It is almost as silly as asking where is the proof that HIV is spread sexually.
There is no research or evidence to back these claims up with any reaonable degree of probability, only a smidgeon of possibility in an unlimited realm of possibility.
What is a better question to ask, is why do so many human beings believe that there is proof of HIV causing AIDS OR being sexually transmitted?
Another most fascinating behavior is that of the believers in these unproven theories, to ask or demand that the dissent community either prove or show proof of these statements to be wrong, when they were never proved to be right to begin with. One cannot "prove" a negative, because the negative is the originating foundation in and of itself, UNTIL proved differently.
If I were to claim that the sun is lit up so bright because there are 10 bazillion invisible angels all balled together holding very bright hydrogen candles that I detected with my self proclaimed angel detector, which doubles as a light meter, it is not up to those who disagree with me to prove there are no angels holding these eternal candles, or prove that my light meter can not detect angels, it is on me to prove there actually are said angels, and prove that my light meter actually does find them.
Until then, you can either believe my claims if you so choose. You can also confidently reject my claim outright as based in falsehood and unproven. However, my belief in angels lighting up the sun, can always be kept alive as a possibility, that we just can't quite prove it. Perhaps I could even get the church to fund my angel research.
Those whom are holding out for proof that HIV does NOT cause AIDS or wanting proof that HIV is NOT sexually transmitted, are going to be waiting eternally, as the statement of "Not Proven" is the starting foundation of reality as well as science.
It will always be the foundation until this foundation is proven to be incorrect.
Those who want or wait for this "proof of not" are simply not standing on a foundation of reality to begin with. They are merely standing on an increasingly shaky foundation of possibility.
As such, viji, the dissent community will only ever, time and again, punch holes through whatever arguments are presented from current science and literature that are making the claims that HIV causes AIDS, and HIV is sexully transmitted. And if you can stomach it, you are more than welcome to read back through the many hours of blogs on this subject on Aetiology, and you will see that every time anyone attempted to substantiate HIV or sexual transmission, it was shot down time and time again. You can claim truth to be whatever you wish, but you better supply proof that is real, and not circular logic, and based in religious like faith, instead of reality.
Perhaps viji, if you are so convinced that HIV causes AIDS, and is indeed sexually transmitted, perhaps you are the one that needs to supply us with the proof and overwhelming evidence that your beliefs are backed up by solid and proven science.
Especially if we are to stand behind the likes of Mr. Jefferys in his mission to continue to treat people with highly toxic drugs, some of which are proven to cause the very symptoms of the disease such as AZT, and especially as the studies of Amy Justice whom presented her findings at the 2003 Barcelona Aids Conference, whom looked at 5700 HIV positive American deaths, and found the leading cause of death of HIV positive Americans to be LIVER FAILURE, which is not due to any virus, but to toxic overload of the liver.
Mr. Jefferys loves to show us his circular reasoning that the AIDS deaths which began to diminish in number only after the high doses of 1500 mg per day were cut back to 600mg per day. Mr. Jefferys would have us believe that the AIDS death rate came down not from the cutback of AZT but due to the newer miracle drugs of protease inhibitors etc, that came to market post 1995. The majority of the 600,000 HIV American deaths, the vast majority of whom were given high dosage AZT, are crying out from their graves, begging us all to rectify this with truth. The future deaths, of which the majority will be due to liver failure, with many disfigured from lipodystrophy and neuropathy and intracranial bleeding, and other extreme side effects, will yet be crying out for truth until we all acknowledge it for what it is.
viji, I do not fault you or others for turning away and not seeing this for what it is. It is far too ugly for most humans to even look upon it.
It is the genocide of primarily Gays and Blacks, and a few other undesirables such as the addicted, and poor and starved. Mr. Jefferys loves to show us the studies from Asia, where only one test, the highly flawed Elisa test, is given to those whom are being diagnosed as HIV postive. If a doctor would do this in America or to heterosexual westerners, he would lose his license to practice medicine. But it is done with the blessings of our CDC in third world countries every day.
Posted by: lincoln | August 4, 2006 1:14 PM
Wow! The thread got much better for a while -- some insightful discussions. But, then it descended into acrimony. I'm new to these AIDS wars, but I did read it all. In fact, I had my friend -- the 19 year old, recently diagnosed HIV+ also read it all.
Bottom line: Mentally, he is feeling much better. He rejects the stigma of HIV. Initially the doctors advised him that it was a fatal disease, that could be controlled by the medication, but then they started pressuring him
a bit too hard to take the meds. His view is that his health is real good -- irrespective of the HIV. So, he wants to hold off taking the meds, and try to square away a few other problem areas of his life. I totally support his decision.
I would like to return to this site, but I'm not real interested in these esoteric discussions among scientists. Real people are dealing with real homophobia, real stigmas associated with HIV, and real pressure from doctors
to take real potent (from the little I've read) drugs. I spoke with a few HIV+ friends who admitted to me that they often flush their drugs down the toilet, because they make them feel like shit.
It's very difficult to sort this stuff out.
Barry S
Posted by: Barry Smithson
| August 4, 2006 1:14 PM
Seth and Richard,
the context in which I placed my question is just the way I wanted it.
"Thanks" for trying to "help", though.
Posted by: DB | August 4, 2006 1:14 PM
I don't expect a speedy answer from Mr. Noble. I don't know where he lives (i.e. is it nighttime?), how busy he is, or how important it may be for him to answer.
I've got to get to work. Talk to you guys later.
Posted by: DB | August 4, 2006 1:27 PM
"Seth and Richard,
the context in which I placed my question is just the way I wanted it.
---------------
DB: I know that. Its just that you are very wrong about a lot of things that aren't directly related to the HIV/AIDS question, but severely impair your ability to discuss it.
If you want to thank me for the effort I have made for you, make a similar effort to understand the content of people's posts.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 4, 2006 1:42 PM
viji,
You asked last night for the information on the new FDA black labeling of Tipranavir. It is all over the internet and found with a simple google search. One such report from Kaiser is the following link:
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/Daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=38274
Posted by: lincoln | August 4, 2006 1:48 PM
lincoln wrote:
Mr. Jefferys loves to show us the studies from Asia, where only one test, the highly flawed Elisa test, is given to those whom are being diagnosed as HIV postive.
The Thai study cited above has this to say about the methodologies employed:
"Laboratory tests included HIV antibody testing by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Organon Teknika, Durham, NC) with Western blot confirmation of positive sera (Diagnostics Biotechnology, Singapore, for Research Institute for Health Sciences; New LAV-Blot1, Sanofi Diagnostics Pasteur, France, for Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences), determination of complete blood count with an automated count of 10,000 white blood cells, and determination of CD4+ cell count by flow cytometry."
And let me remind you of the study finding:
"In this study of 235 young Thai men whose HIV-1 seroconversion was documented within a 6-month interval, we found a mortality rate of 56.3 deaths per 1000 person-years, which was >9-fold higher than that for men who were HIV-1 seronegative."
Perhaps you could also offer us your insights into the Daar Es Salaam study?
In terms of your remarkably false claim that the sexual transmission of HIV has not been proven, there has been a truly overwhelming amount of data posted here, including molecularly confirmed transmission clusters like the one in upstate New York and discordant couple cohort data like that from Rakai in Uganda and the European study from NEJM. I can post cites if that would be of interest, but I think you can find them all in prior threads.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 4, 2006 2:22 PM
Dale writes: "Charles, 5000 was the number of AIDS diagnoses for the year 2004, one third of them (that is new AIDS diagnoses) were in heterosexuals with no other reported risk factor. There are 10,000 heterosexual females currently living with HIV or AIDS in NYC. That is not cumulative, that is only those who are still alive."
Well which is it - living with HIV or living with AIDS? And let's see the citation for the NYC Department of Public Health too.
Sounds like you consider New York a more fertile host environment for AIDS cases among non-iv drug using heterosexual women than San Francisco.
Is it something about the New York zip code or the East River that accounts for that?
I have often wondered why so very few AIDS cases have ever been recorded in the other northern California counties aside from San Francisco. Perhaps bay bridges can provide protection against AIDS?
Quick - get the TAG zealots on the phone and see if they can help. Or better yet, leave them alone to do the bidding of Big Pharma.
Posted by: Charles | August 4, 2006 3:55 PM
Charles, can you offer any evidence that TAG does "the bidding of Big Pharma"?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 4, 2006 4:20 PM
Richard Jeffreys wonders - "Charles, can you offer any evidence that TAG does "the bidding of Big Pharma"?
Earth to Richard: tell everyone exactly what the initials "TAG" stand for, tell us exactly what it is that the TAGGERS aggressively and single-mindedly advocate within the purview of their initials, and then we will make up our own minds about the TAGGERS and Big Pharma.......
Deal?
BTW - it still sounds like New York is a much more fertile host environment for AIDS cases among non-iv drug using heterosexual women than San Francisco. Is it something about the New York zip code or the East River that accounts for that?
I have often wondered why so few AIDS cases have ever been recorded in the other northern California counties aside from San Francisco. Perhaps bay bridges can provide protection against AIDS? What would a TAG man suggest?
Posted by: Charles | August 4, 2006 6:28 PM
Charles, you stated, as fact, that TAG does "the bidding of Big Pharma." I was asking if you could offer any evidence in support of that assertion.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 4, 2006 6:55 PM
Chris Noble writes:
"It is also possible that you could understand physics. However, your denial of gravity is ample evidence that you do not."
I have no trouble understanding that you cannot imagine there are people who understand biology, as well as physics and chemistry. But you are a believer, not a thinker.
Of course I don't deny that, when you drop an object, it falls to the ground. I do deny, though, there's such a thing as a "gravitational force". But as Newton's hypothesis has held forth without criticism for 300 years (while it violates the laws of physics), maybe it's not surprising that the HIV nonsense has lasted already for 22 years. Perhaps physicists are as lamebrained as virologists of today. Anyhow, the gravity discussion has been moved to Wheatdogg's blog, where I've started out on a series of lectures on the subject.
"Pseudoscience about an arm getting tired?" I thought I was doing you a favor by putting it in simple terms. I could formulate it mathematically (as I will do later on), but then I'm sure I'll lose you.
"One indication of pseudoscience is that there is an inverse relation between the belief in the idea and the level of relevant education."
Hey! That's my line! You're the believer; I'm the one with an education, remember?
"Pseudosciences like "Creation Science" and HIV "rethinking" fulfil this criteria."
Get your "Creation Science" strawman outta my face, will ya?
There are no creationists among HIV rethinkers. At least we're 2 steps ahead of the HIV-worshippers. We are already rethinking, while the HIV-faithful have not even begun to think.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 4, 2006 9:23 PM
Viji wrote:
"(1) The people who were HIV positive had a higher mortality rate than people who weren't, with a corresponding symtom of depressed immune systems even among the living. There is a strong statistical correlation between dying young and immuno-compromised and being HIV positive."
Sounds pretty convincing, if you put it that way. Unfortunately, that's not the way the data were obtained.
If done the correct way, you would have to take 2 cohorts, one group of HIV-positives , and a control group of negatives. Both groups should be followed for a number of years (without treatment!), and morbidity and mortality compared. But of course that's not the way they did it. They count the number of people who get sick and die. Then they check how many of them are seropositive.
That's the wrong way to do statistics.
"(2) The idea of activated endogenous viruses being activated by drug abuse leads to AIDS are not statistically plausible"
I'm not surprised. Is anybody propagating this? It doesn't make any sense either. Let's leave viruses (endo- or exogenous) out of the equation altogether. We don't need any kind of virus to explain the damage drugs do the body.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 4, 2006 9:39 PM
Wilhelm wrote:
Sounds pretty convincing, if you put it that way.
Unfortunately, that's not the way the data were obtained.
If done the correct way, you would have to take 2 cohorts, one group of HIV-positives , and a control group of negatives. Both groups should be followed for a number of years (without treatment!), and morbidity and mortality compared.
Um, that's exactly the way the natural history studies being discussed were done (although, in the case of the Daar Es Salaam study, people also seroconverted during the study and these individuals were compared to the people that were HIV positive at study entry and those that remained seronegative throughout follow up). Perhaps the data from the Daar Es Salaam hotel worker study is worth repeating:
43/196 (21.9%) people that were HIV-positive at the time of entering the study died (median CD4 count at last sampling prior to death, 90 cells)
22/133 (16.5%) people that seroconverted during the study died (median CD4 count at last sampling prior to death, 186 cells)
20/1558 (1.2%) people that remained seronegative died (median CD4 count at last sampling prior to death 634 cells)
The only people in the studies under discussion that received treatment were two men in the Thai army study, who received AZT (there were a total of 77 deaths among the HIV positive individuals in that study).
Wilhem, you should perhaps obtain the full text of the Thai and Daar Es Salaam studies and take a look for yourself.
Wilhem also wrote:
But of course that's not the way they did it. They count the number of people who get sick and die. Then they check how many of them are seropositive.
No, this is completely wrong. Read the papers and see for yourself.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 4, 2006 10:09 PM
I almost never participate in these blog wars, but I feel compelled to post a few words of clarification on a few of the major points that have been hammered at by people here and elsewhere. I'm not here to get into a pissing contest (and quite candidly do not have the time), so if anyone really feels compelled to pick a bone with me after this, there's always email.
First of all, for those of you who feel compelled to pick apart every paper I ever published on hiv, please realise two things: (1) these papers were refereed by both mathematicians and biologists, and passed peer review. Of course, this doesn't mean they were necessarily the last word in modeling of immune dynamics, but it does say that at the time, qualified peer reviewers in the relevant fields in biology found no major errors, and minor errors were corrected. That's how the peer review system works - live with it. (2) ALL of my papers except for one review paper were co-authored, so please realise that when you criticize the papers, in your haste to criticize me you are also criticizing my advisor and every collaborator I've written with.
Also, these papers appeared in journals that were primarily oriented toward mathematicians, and so were written in mathematical language. This means that when you criticize my use of words like "optimal", "specific", etc., you are interpreting these words in ways they were not necessarily intended. I'm not proud of the fact that we (by "we" I mean mathematicians and scientists) don't always speak the same language, in fact I think that's a real problem - I'm just pointing out that this is so.
I also want to thank Mark Conlan for defending me. It was my first real interview, it was a phone interview, and I was nervous. Sometimes, when you're nervous, you trip over your words a little bit. (Or at least we humans do.) I appreciate that Mark understood that what may have come across as uncertainty was in plain fact, merely nerves.
Finally, I never claimed to have ever been some world expert on hiv - NEVER. At no point was I trying to win authority points for the dissident side. What I posted on Lew Rockwell's site was only ever intended to be a simple, plain language explanation of the major reasons I had serious moral problems with continuing to make my living off a hypothesis that has consistently failed to explain and predict, and which I truly believe is terrorizing and abusing people. And I continue to stand by that.
Posted by: Rebecca Culshaw | August 4, 2006 10:19 PM
Rebecca Culshaw wrote:
I had serious moral problems with continuing to make my living off a hypothesis that has consistently failed to explain and predict, and which I truly believe is terrorizing and abusing people. And I continue to stand by that.
Could you perhaps offer your thoughts as to why, in the above-referenced natural history studies, HIV seropositivity predicts such a hugely increased risk of CD4 T cell decline, immunodeficiency, and death? Do you have an alternative hypothesis to explain the data?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 4, 2006 10:41 PM
Wilheim,
(1) In what way are the many studies that showed such strong correlations incorrect? What is your rationale? Please elaborate.
Since I am not American, I am unfamiliar with the legal and healthcare system of the country, If I recall properly, this proposal of yours have been discussed many times before
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/06/wrong_again.php
and from my reading of the posts, such a proposal is not possible, not because it is technically impossible, but one can easily expect a public outcry and ethical implications of denying treatment to persons already confirmed to be HIV positive. I do not know if a HIV positive person can legally refuse to receive treatment (ARVs, HAART). I am not in the position to comment on this, but perhaps you could shed some light on the legal, moral and ethical restrictions of your proposal, since you've prob given it some thought.
In my opinion, why do we actually need to have such a study (especially recognising the fact it stirs ethical controversy) when such strong correlations have already been reported/shown by the numerous clinical observations and records (such studies have been cited before in the above thread I linked to).
As for "(2) The idea of activated endogenous viruses being activated by drug abuse leads to AIDS are not statistically plausible"
I am under the impression that some of your buddies have proposed activated endogenous viruses being activated by drug abuse leads to AIDS. And I was under the impression that your were supportive of this line of thought (I have to reread the posts). Perhaps I read wrong. Such discussions are ongoing, and you may read the exchanges for yourself here
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/06/wrong_again.php
Posted by: viji | August 4, 2006 10:49 PM
Kudos to Rebecca Culshaw for her civility. And if she truly believes that the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS "has failed to explain and predict" [these two verbs are transitive - where are their objects?], then she is of course entitled to that belief.
However, if she truly believes that the HIV model of AIDS is terrorising and abusing people, then it seems to me that she is fighting a global conspiracy that involves not only big pharma, but HIV researchers, journal editors, scientific librarians, clinicians, patients, advocacy groups, the foreign aid community and the UN. I simply do not see how that could work. If this is an argument from incredulity, I would welcome a reasoned correction...
Posted by: Peter Barber | August 4, 2006 11:02 PM
Since I was doing much of the criticizing of Rebecca Culshaw's papers, I should note that the paper that confused natural killer cells and cytotoxic T-lymphocytes was co-authored. The remaining quotes, including the erroneous commentary about opportunistic infections, were taken from the review on which Culshaw was the sole author.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 4, 2006 11:19 PM
Bravo to Dr. Culshaw!
1. Criticsms of her peer-reviewed papers, if any, ought to be sent to the journals where they were published. Have they?
2. There should be a seminal peer-reviewed paper in 1984, that sought to determine whether or not HIV was a pathogenic virus or a passenger virus. Is there? (Gallo's fraudulent work doesn't count)
I very much enjoyed your interview, Dr. Culshaw, and hope to read more of your provocative views on the subject of AIDS.
Posted by: Bob T. | August 4, 2006 11:40 PM
"Bob T." wrote:
1.Criticsms of her peer-reviewed papers, if any, ought to be sent to the journals where they were published. Have they?
Possibly. I don't think the papers were widely read. And the mistakes are still Culshaw's responsibility.
2. There should be a seminal peer-reviewed paper in 1984, that sought to determine whether or not HIV was a pathogenic virus or a passenger virus. Is there?
Is there a seminal peer reviewed paper that sought to determine whether herpes zoster is a pathogenic or a passenger virus? Should there be? What year should it have come out?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 4, 2006 11:52 PM
DB: I know that. Its just that you are very wrong about a lot of things that aren't directly related to the HIV/AIDS question, but severely impair your ability to discuss it.
Actually, I'm quite well-spoken. And I'm not wrong about the "things that...". I phrased my question to Chris extremely well, and I look forward to his answer.
Posted by: DB | August 5, 2006 12:24 AM
DB wrote:
I phrased my question to Chris extremely well, and I look forward to his answer.
But you were looking for that sometime. If that sometime exists, shouldn't anyone be able to point it out to you? And if the idea that such a sometime exists is completely incompatible with the way science proceeds, shouldn't anyone be able to point that out to you? (they already have, in fact).
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 12:35 AM
Richard, Richard, Richard...
how many times do I have to say that I'm waiting for Chris to answer my question?
Posted by: DB | August 5, 2006 12:39 AM
DB wrote:
how many times do I have to say that I'm waiting for Chris to answer my question?
Is Chris allowed to ask what convinced you that other germs cause disease?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 12:44 AM
Dr. Culshaw,
As a gay man new to some of these bizarre AIDS wars, I wanted to thank you for your good interview. Laymen like me, who have to deal with the HIV stigma among friends and colleagues very much appreciate your sober, reflective observations. I intend to disseminate your interview within the gay community where I live. It provides a fresh perspective on a challenging, emotional issue.
Barry Smithson
Posted by: Barry Smithson
| August 5, 2006 12:56 AM
Richard Jefferys asked:
Charles, you stated, as fact, that TAG does "the bidding of Big Pharma." I was asking if you could offer any evidence in support of that assertion.
The following is taken verbatim right off the TAG Site:
About Treatment Action Group:
TAG closely monitors HIV antiretroviral drugs in all stages of development, including post-marketing. We advocate for the expeditious development, proper clinical research and regulation, ease of access and optimal use of these drugs. We work with other treatment activists and researchers, FDA, NIH, and the pharmaceutical industry to achieve these objectives. TAG also helps educate members of the HIV community about antiretrovirals.
For shame Richard, trying to cover up who your group is and what you do! I am quite sure you do promote the "optimal use of these drugs" as your website proudly proclaims.
What does this statement really mean? Lets also remember that the original founder of TAG was also a cofounder of ACTUP and learned from Larry Kramer and Martin Delaney how to work over the pharmaceutical companies and to play them off each other to increase the amounts of donations they would give to Martin Delaney's Project Deform, Kramer's ACTUP, and Peter Staley's TAG. I well remember February 24, 1992, when ACT Up had a huge blowout over finding that Peter Staley was colluding with the drug companies by taking money from them for community based drug trials.
The most common behavior of these three groups was that if the drug company did not want to pony up with funds, these groups would bad mouth whatever drugs the company had to the hiv diagnosed community, to push the pharma companies to fork over the bucks. Hence the kissing ass by the drug companies to bend over backwards to finance these 3 groups and their directors with fat paychecks, as long as the groups continued to push the gay community into taking the drugs and volunteering for drug studies so that the pharma-studies would have enough bodies to get the drugs approved, and Rah Rah the drugs of the companies that forked over the most. For shame Richard Jefferys, that you signed on in 93 says much about your lack of integrity. It is unfortunate that Gay men such as this led their own communities to be poisoned and deformed while they profited from it. And they still do. We know you better than you think Mr. Jefferys.
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 1:29 AM
For anyone that has the great good fortune to be unfamiliar with these HIV threads, it's maybe worth pointing out that both "Bob T." and DB are working from a playbook provided by Harvey Bialy in a post to Lew Rockwell called "Fast Food Etiology." It's a variation of the "show me the paper" argument ("show me the paper that proves HIV causes AIDS, show me the sometime when HIV was proven to cause AIDS, show me when the evidence reached critical mass" etc., etc.).
Bialy is also writing the foreword to Rebecca Culshaw's book. Anyone that's interested in witnessing Bialy in action should wade through this long thread on Dean's World: http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1105628771.shtml
Bialy's ideas are challenged by a trained virologist named Nick Bennett, people can perhaps evaluate for themselves how well Bialy responds.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 1:31 AM
"lincoln," can you offer any actual evidence for the claims you are making? I notice you are still unwilling to disclose who you actually are, although your florid writing style makes disguise rather difficult.
I'd also be interested to know what I "signed on" to in 1993.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 1:37 AM
"lincoln" wrote:
For shame Richard, trying to cover up who your group is and what you do!
I only just caught this - coming from an anonymous poster, after I posted the link to the TAG website and invited people to read it. For shame, indeed.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 1:46 AM
One other thing, "lincoln." Did you perhaps have a chance to review the antibody testing methodology used in the Thai army study? Can you offer a comment on the study, or any of the other natural history studies?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 1:56 AM
Mr. Jefferys, none of the studies you claim to show HIV positive results and AIDS deaths did not take into account any of the following, and therefore are quite invalid and conclusive of nothing:
Factors Known to Cause False-Positive HIV Antibody Test Results
Anti-carbohydrate antibodies (52, 19, 13)
Naturally-occurring antibodies (5, 19)
Passive immunization: receipt of gamma globulin or immune globulin (as prophylaxis against infection which contains antibodies)(18, 26, 60, 4, 22, 42, 43, 13)
Leprosy (2, 25)
Tuberculosis (25)
Mycobacterium avium (25)
Systemic lupus erythematosus (15, 23)
Renal (kidney) failure (48, 23, 13)
Hemodialysis/renal failure (56, 16, 41, 10, 49)
Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients (54)
Flu (36)
Flu vaccination (30, 11, 3, 20, 13, 43)
Herpes simplex I (27)
Herpes simplex II (11)
Upper respiratory tract infection (cold or flu)(11)
Recent viral infection or exposure to viral vaccines (11)
Pregnancy in multiparous women (58, 53, 13, 43, 36)
Malaria (6, 12)
High levels of circulating immune complexes (6, 33)
Hypergammaglobulinemia (high levels of antibodies) (40, 33)
False positives on other tests, including RPR (rapid plasma reagent) test for syphilis (17, 48, 33, 10, 49)
Rheumatoid arthritis (36)
Hepatitis B vaccination (28, 21, 40, 43)
Tetanus vaccination (40)
Organ transplantation (1, 36)
Renal transplantation (35, 9, 48, 13, 56)
Anti-lymphocyte antibodies (56, 31)
Anti-collagen antibodies (found in gay men, haemophiliacs, Africans of both sexes and people with leprosy)(31)
Serum-positive for rheumatoid factor, antinuclear antibody (both found in rheumatoid arthritis and other autoantibodies)(14, 62, 53)
Autoimmune diseases (44, 29, 10, 40, 49, 43): Systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, connective tissue disease, dermatomyositis
Acute viral infections, DNA viral infections (59, 48, 43, 53, 40, 13)
Malignant neoplasms (cancers)(40)
Alcoholic hepatitis/alcoholic liver disease (32, 48, 40,10,13, 49, 43, 53)
Primary sclerosing cholangitis (48, 53)
Hepatitis (54)
"Sticky" blood (in Africans) (38, 34, 40)
Antibodies with a high affinity for polystyrene (used in the test kits)(62, 40, 3)
Blood transfusions, multiple blood transfusions (63, 36,13, 49, 43, 41)
Multiple myeloma (10, 43, 53)
HLA antibodies (to Class I and II leukocyte antigens)(7, 46, 63, 48, 10, 13, 49, 43, 53)
Anti-smooth muscle antibody (48)
Anti-parietal cell antibody (48)
Anti-hepatitis A IgM (antibody)(48)
Anti-Hbc IgM (48)
Administration of human immunoglobulin preparations pooled before 1985 (10)
Haemophilia (10, 49)
Haematologic malignant disorders/lymphoma (43, 53, 9, 48, 13)
Primary biliary cirrhosis (43, 53, 13, 48)
Stevens-Johnson syndrome9, (48, 13)
Q-fever with associated hepatitis (61)
Heat-treated specimens (51, 57, 24, 49, 48)
Lipemic serum (blood with high levels of fat or lipids)(49)
Haemolyzed serum (blood where haemoglobin is separated from the red cells)(49)
Hyperbilirubinemia (10, 13)
Globulins produced during polyclonal gammopathies (which are seen in AIDS risk groups)(10, 13, 48)
Healthy individuals as a result of poorly-understood cross-reactions (10)
Normal human ribonucleoproteins (48,13)
Other retroviruses (8, 55, 14, 48, 13)
Anti-mitochondrial antibodies (48, 13)
Anti-nuclear antibodies (48, 13, 53)
Anti-microsomal antibodies (34)
T-cell leukocyte antigen antibodies (48, 13)
Proteins on the filter paper (13)
Epstein-Barr virus (37)
Visceral leishmaniasis (45)
Receptive anal sex (39, 64)
References
1. Agbalika F, Ferchal F, Garnier J-P, et al. 1992. False-positive antigens related to emergence of a 25-30 kD protein detected in organ recipients. AIDS. 6:959-962.
2. Andrade V, Avelleira JC, Marques A, et al. 1991. Leprosy as a cause of false-positive results in serological assays for the detection of antibodies to HIV-1. Intl. J. Leprosy. 59:125.
3. Arnold NL, Slade RA, Jones MM, et al. 1994. Donor follow up of influenza vaccine-related multiple viral enzyme immunoassay reactivity. Vox Sanguinis. 67:191.
4. Ascher D, Roberts C. 1993. Determination of the etiology of seroreversals in HIV testing by antibody fingerprinting. AIDS. 6:241.
5. Barbacid M, Bolgnesi D, Aaronson S. 1980. Humans have antibodies capable of recognizing oncoviral glycoproteins: Demonstration that these antibodies are formed in response to cellular modification of glycoproteins rather than as consequence of exposure to virus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 77:1617-1621.
6. Biggar R, Melbye M, Sarin P, et al. 1985. ELISA HTLV retrovirus antibody reactivity associated with malaria and immune complexes in healthy Africans. Lancet. ii:520-543.
7. Blanton M, Balakrishnan K, Dumaswala U, et al. 1987. HLA antibodies in blood donors with reactive screening tests for antibody to the immunodeficiency virus. Transfusion. 27(1):118.
8. Blomberg J, Vincic E, Jonsson C, et al. 1990. Identification of regions of HIV-1 p24 reactive with sera which give "indeterminate" results in electrophoretic immunoblots with the help of long synthetic peptides. AIDS Res. Hum. Retro. 6:1363.
9. Burkhardt U, Mertens T, Eggers H. 1987. Comparison of two commercially available anti-HIV ELISA's: Abbott HTLV-III ELA and DuPont HTLV-III ELISA. J. Med. Vir. 23:217.
10. Bylund D, Ziegner U, Hooper D. 1992 Review of testing for human immunodeficiency virus. Clin. Lab. Med. 12:305-333.
11. Challakere K, Rapaport M. 1993. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 ELISA results in low-risk subjects. West. J. Med. 159(2):214-215.
12. Charmot G, Simon F. 1990. HIV infection and malaria. Revue du practicien. 40:2141.
13. Cordes R, Ryan M. 1995. Pitfalls in HIV testing. Postgraduate Medicine. 98:177.
14. Dock N, Lamberson H, O'Brien T, et al. 1988. Evaluation of atypical human immunodeficiency virus immunoblot reactivity in blood donors. Transfusion. 28:142.
15. Esteva M, Blasini A, Ogly D, et al. 1992. False positive results for antibody to HIV in two men with systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 51:1071-1073.
16. Fassbinder W, Kuhni P, Neumayer H. et al. 1986. Prevalence of antibodies against LAV/HTLV-III [HIV] in patients with terminal renal insufficiency treated with hemodialysis and following renal transplantation. Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift. 111:1087.
17. Fleming D, Cochi S, Steece R. et al. 1987. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in low-incidence areas. JAMA. 258(6):785.
18. Gill MJ, Rachlis A, Anand C. 1991. Five cases of erroneously diagnosed HIV infection. Can. Med. Asso. J. 145(12):1593.
19. Healey D, Bolton W. 1993. Apparent HIV-1 glycoprotein reactivity on Western blot in uninfected blood donors. AIDS. 7:655-658.
20. Hisa J. 1993. False-positive ELISA for human immunodeficiency virus after influenza vaccination. JID. 167:989.
21. Isaacman S. 1989. Positive HIV antibody test results after treatment with hepatitis B immune globulin. JAMA. 262:209.
22. Jackson G, Rubenis M, Knigge M, et al. 1988. Passive immunoneutralisation of human immunodeficiency virus in patients with advanced AIDS. Lancet, Sept. 17:647.
23. Jindal R, Solomon M, Burrows L. 1993. False positive tests for HIV in a woman with lupus and renal failure. NEJM. 328:1281-1282.
24. Jungkind D, DiRenzo S, Young S. 1986. Effect of using heat-inactivated serum with the Abbott human T-cell lymphotropic virus type III [HIV] antibody test. J. Clin. Micro. 23:381.
25. Kashala O, Marlink R, Ilunga M. et al. 1994. Infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and human T-cell lymphotropic viruses among leprosy patients and contacts: correlation between HIV-1 cross-reactivity and antibodies to lipoarabionomanna. J. Infect. Dis. 169:296-304.
26. Lai-Goldman M, McBride J, Howanitz P, et al. 1987. Presence of HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies in immune serum globulin preparations. Am. J. Clin. Path. 87:635.
27. Langedijk J, Vos W, Doornum G, et al. 1992. Identification of cross-reactive epitopes recognized by HIV-1 false-positive sera. AIDS. 6:1547-1548.
28. Lee D, Eby W, Molinaro G. 1992. HIV false positivity after hepatitis B vaccination. Lancet. 339:1060.
29. Leo-Amador G, Ramirez-Rodriguez J, Galvan-Villegas F, et al. 1990. Antibodies against human immunodeficiency virus in generalized lupus erythematosus. Salud Publica de Mexico. 32:15.
30. Mackenzie W, Davis J, Peterson D. et al. 1992. Multiple false-positive serologic tests for HIV, HTLV-1 and hepatitis C following influenza vaccination, 1991. JAMA. 268:1015-1017.
31. Mathe G. 1992. Is the AIDS virus responsible for the disease? Biomed & Pharmacother. 46:1-2.
32. Mendenhall C, Roselle G, Grossman C, et al. 1986. False-positive tests for HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies in alcoholic patients with hepatitis. NEJM. 314:921.
33. Moore J, Cone E, Alexander S. 1986. HTLV-III [HIV] seropositivity in 1971-1972 parenteral drug abusers - a case of false-positives or evidence of viral exposure? NEJM. 314:1387-1388.
34. Mortimer P, Mortimer J, Parry J. 1985. Which anti-HTLV-III/LAV [HIV] assays for screening and comfirmatory testing? Lancet. Oct. 19, p873.
35. Neale T, Dagger J, Fong R, et al. 1985. False-positive anti-HTLV-III [HIV] serology. New Zealand Med. J. October 23.
36. Ng V. 1991. Serological diagnosis with recombinant peptides/proteins. Clin. Chem. 37:1667-1668.
37. Ozanne G, Fauvel M. 1988. Perfomance and reliability of five commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits in screening for anti-human immunodeficiency virus antibody in high-risk subjects. J. Clin. Micro. 26:1496.
38. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E. 1988. Reappraisal of AIDS - Is the oxidation induced by the risk factors the primary cause? Med. Hypo. 25:151.
39. Papadopulos-Eleopulos E, Turner V, and Papadimitriou J. 1993. Is a positive Western blot proof of HIV infection? Bio/Technology. June 11:696-707.
40. Pearlman ES, Ballas SK. 1994. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus screening test related to rabies vaccination. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 118-805.
41. Peternan T, Lang G, Mikos N, et al. Hemodialysis/renal failure. 1986. JAMA. 255:2324.
42. Piszkewicz D. 1987. HTLV-III [HIV] antibodies after immune globulin. JAMA. 257:316.
43. Profitt MR, Yen-Lieberman B. 1993. Laboratory diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Inf. Dis. Clin. North Am. 7:203.
44. Ranki A, Kurki P, Reipponen S, et al. 1992. Antibodies to retroviral proteins in autoimmune connective tissue disease. Arthritis and Rheumatism. 35:1483.
45. Ribeiro T, Brites C, Moreira E, et al. 1993. Serologic validation of HIV infection in a tropical area. JAIDS. 6:319.
46. Sayers M, Beatty P, Hansen J. 1986. HLA antibodies as a cause of false-positive reactions in screening enzyme immunoassays for antibodies to human T-lymphotropic virus type III [HIV]. Transfusion. 26(1):114.
47. Sayre KR, Dodd RY, Tegtmeier G, et al. 1996. False-positive human immunodeficiency virus type 1 Western blot tests in non-infected blood donors. Transfusion. 36:45.
48. Schleupner CJ. Detection of HIV-1 infection. In: (Mandell GI, Douglas RG, Bennett JE, eds.) Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases, 3rd ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1990:1092.
49. Schochetman G, George J. 1992. Serologic tests for the detection of human immunodeficiency virus infection. In AIDS Testing Methodology and Management Issues, Springer-Verlag, New York.
50. Simonsen L, Buffington J, Shapiro C, et al. 1995. Multiple false reactions in viral antibody screening assays after influenza vaccination. Am. J. Epidem. 141-1089.
51. Smith D, Dewhurst S, Shepherd S, et al. 1987. False-positive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reactions for antibody to human immunodeficiency virus in a population of midwestern patients with congenital bleeding disorders. Transfusion. 127:112.
52. Snyder H, Fleissner E. 1980. Specificity of human antibodies to oncovirus glycoproteins; Recognition of antigen by natural antibodies directed against carbohydrate structures. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 77:1622-1626.
53. Steckelberg JM, Cockerill F. 1988. Serologic testing for human immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Mayo Clin. Proc. 63:373.
54. Sungar C, Akpolat T, Ozkuyumcu C, et al. Alpha interferon therapy in hemodialysis patients. Nephron. 67:251.
55. Tribe D, Reed D, Lindell P, et al. 1988. Antibodies reactive with human immunodeficiency virus gag-coated antigens (gag reactive only) are a major cause of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay reactivity in a bood donor population. J. Clin. Micro. April:641.
56. Ujhelyi E, Fust G, Illei G, et al. 1989. Different types of false positive anti-HIV reactions in patients on hemodialysis. Immun. Let. 22:35-40.
57. Van Beers D, Duys M, Maes M, et al. Heat inactivation of serum may interfere with tests for antibodies to LAV/HTLV-III [HIV]. J. Vir. Meth. 12:329.
58. Voevodin A. 1992. HIV screening in Russia. Lancet. 339:1548.
59. Weber B, Moshtaghi-Borojeni M, Brunner M, et al. 1995. Evaluation of the reliability of six current anti-HIV-1/HIV-2 enzyme immunoassays. J. Vir. Meth. 55:97.
60. Wood C, Williams A, McNamara J, et al. 1986. Antibody against the human immunodeficiency virus in commercial intravenous gammaglobulin preparations. Ann. Int. Med. 105:536.
61. Yale S, Degroen P, Tooson J, et al. 1994. Unusual aspects of acute Q fever-associated hepatitis. Mayo Clin. Proc. 69:769.
62. Yoshida T, Matsui T, Kobayashi M, et al. 1987. Evaluation of passive particle agglutination test for antibody to human immunodeficiency virus. J. Clin. Micro. Aug:1433.
63. Yu S, Fong C, Landry M, et al. 1989. A false positive HIV antibody reaction due to transfusion-induced HLA-DR4 sensitization. NEJM.320:1495.
64. National Institue of Justice, AIDS Bulletin. Oct. 1988.
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 2:03 AM
"lincoln":
Did you write that?
Posted by: Peter Barber | August 5, 2006 2:46 AM
Well, "lincoln," I think we can rule a few things out.
The studies did not involve organ recipients, people with leprosy, influenza vaccine recipients, people with lupus, people with treated with hepatitis B (or any other) immune globulin, people with renal failure, hepatitis B vaccine recipients, rabies vaccine recipients, people with autoimmune connective tissue disease, people with congenital bleeding disorders or people with Q Fever associated hepatitis.
And you're still left to explain why HIV seropositivity so hugely increases the risk of CD4 T cell decline, immunodeficiency and death.
If you're arguing it's cross-reactions, what could the tests be cross-reacting with that causes CD4 T cell decline, immunodeficency and death?
Or are you arguing that the tests cross-reacted with a bunch of different things in these studies, which all, coincidentally, happen to be associated with CD4 T cell decline, immunodeficiency and death?
I think it's possible to work out high likely it is that such a reproducible association would occur by chance.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 2:52 AM
Mr. Barber,
I did indeed post the partial list of factors listed and referenced in journals that are known to cause false positive elisa and western blot results.
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 2:55 AM
"lincoln" wrote:
I did indeed post the partial list of factors listed and referenced in journals that are known to cause false positive elisa and western blot results.
And how might this have impacted the study outcomes? Given the sample sizes, potential frequency of false positives, etc.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 3:03 AM
Well, well, no you didn't. To avoid charges of plagiarism, here's the citation you should have included:
Johnson C. Factors known to cause false positive HIV antibody test results. Continuum, 1996 Sep/Oct; Available from: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/cjtestfp.htm
Posted by: Peter Barber | August 5, 2006 3:09 AM
Well, Mr. Jefferys, you still have about 60 more factors to rule out now, don't you. Seeing as you are such an expert in Asia, perhaps you will be so kind as to post the remarkably high tuberculosis death rates for the countries that these studies were done in, as we both know that TB is quite rampant and deadly in Asia. I think you put far too much weight on CD4 counts which are known to fluctuate greatly in any immunocompromised individual, and differ greatly from person to person, even differing throughout the course of a day. It was not so very long ago that HIV positives were diagnosed as AIDS if they had any less than 500 t cells, but when many healthy doctors turned up with counts of well under 500, the count was lowered to 200 t cells. How do you account for the large number of healthy HIV negatives in the general population with regular t cell counts that are under 200 by nature?
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 3:11 AM
Mr. Barber, I thank you greatly for putting up the link so that it is accessable to all. Have no fear sir, Ms. Johnson is quite pleased to have the list posted prominently in as many places as possible. I did not claim to write or investigate them, I simply claimed to have posted them, which is what I assumed you were asking sir. Strangely asking, I might add, since my name was listed at the bottom of the post. But then, I never overestimate the intelligence of those AIDS advocates who believe that HIV causes AIDS to read things thoroughly, in light of the fact that many are so knowledgeable of where to find the literature, but will stand in the face of it and deny what it obviously concludes. Again, I thank you sir for posting the link, and I am sure Ms. Johnson thanks you as well.
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 3:20 AM
Mr. Jefferys wrote:
And how might this have impacted the study outcomes? Given the sample sizes, potential frequency of false positives, etc.
Mr. Jefferys, I already told you how it impacts the study outcomes. It completely invalidates them and renders them useless. I know it is late, but are you always this slow on the uptake sir?
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 3:27 AM
"lincoln" wrote:
you still have about 60 more factors to rule out now, don't you
No. The frequency of false positives is too low to impact the study outcomes, given the sample sizes. And at the very simplest level, HIV seropositivity provided powerful prognostic information about the greatly elevated risk these individuals had for CD4 T cell decline, immunodeficiency and death. Why is that?
To address your CD4 issue, look at the median CD4 count of the 20 seronegative people who died in the Daar Es Salaam study. It was 684 cells. For the people that entered the study HIV positive: 90 cells.
And yes, some uninfected people have normally "low" CD4 counts (some labs give ~300 as the lower end of the range). What they don't have (compared to most people with HIV) is reduced CD4%, a reduced proportion of naive CD4 and CD8 T cells compared to memory cells, an inverted CD4:CD8 ratio and elevated levels of immune activation.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 3:28 AM
Mr. Jefferys,
I notice we also do not have information on the illicit drug use and std rates of the cohorts you cite, as this is also known to be rampant in young Thai's and the Daar Es Salaam hotel group. Is there some strange reason that you believe the massive illicit drug use and the rampant std rates combined with repetitive treatments of antibiotics of these cohorts is unimportant?
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 3:52 AM
"lincoln" wrote:
I notice we also do not have information on the illicit drug use and std rates of the cohorts you cite, as this is also known to be rampant in young Thai's and the Daar Es Salaam hotel group. Is there some strange reason that you believe the massive illicit drug use and the rampant std rates combined with repetitive treatments of antibiotics of these cohorts is unimportant?
Have you read the papers? Based on your false claim about the antibody tests employed and your statements here, clearly not.
Your question is loaded with false assumptions that aren't even consistent with each other. You're suggesting that your assumptions about illicit drug use, STDs and antibiotic use in the cohorts may somehow affect the study outcomes. How? You would have to think these things are associated with testing HIV positive on an ELISA and confirmatory Western Blot and an increased risk of CD4 T cell decline and death (any cites? I can't see any of these factors on that list you just posted). And yet you're also claiming that these factors are "rampant" among the cohorts. Which would leave you to explain howcome the vast majority of the participants in the Dar Es Salaam cohort (1,558) remained seronegative and had a relatively low risk of death (1.2% of these participants died during follow up).
FYI, the Dar Es Salaam study states: "During the study period, none of the subjects was on antiretroviral therapy. Chemoprophylaxis against TB and other bacterial infections were not offered to the study subjects, as this was not the recommended practice at the time." Although the study does not report individual STDs, there was a low incidence of genital health problems and they were evenly distributed between the seropositive and seronegative participants.
The Thai army study states: "The medical records indicated that only 2 of the seroconverters had been treated with antiretroviral drugs; both had received zidovudine alone. Only 2 men had received isoniazid prophylaxis for tuberculosis, and 12 men had received trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis."
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 11:13 AM
Mr. Jefferys.
You are an HIV advocate. You advocate disease. That is your job. To use studies based on false premises to advocate your disease. To mislead the public into believing your studies are based fact. To gain increased funding. You rely on using studies that were also performed by other disease advocates to further your ends. That is who you are and that is what you do. There is nothing and no study that you will provide that is not based in falsehood. You deftly ignore the mountains of information that expose your pitiful attempts to mislead the public.
The Washington Post recently showed this quite clearly in the following:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502517.html
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 12:11 PM
"lincoln" wrote:
There is nothing and no study that you will provide that is not based in falsehood.
The studies are in the scientific literature. I'm not "providing" them, I'm citing them. And to reiterate, these studies were just from the first few pages of a PubMed search for natural history studies of untreated HIV infection, there are many more from prior years. The data are the data, and you cannot offer a single explanation for them. In tribute to a regular poster who is (at least in name) absent from this thread, let's review the data from the Dar Es Salaam study again:
43/196 (21.9%) people that were HIV-positive at the time of entering the study died (median CD4 count at last sampling prior to death, 90 cells)
22/133 (16.5%) people that seroconverted during the study died (median CD4 count at last sampling prior to death, 186 cells)
20/1558 (1.2%) people that remained seronegative died (median CD4 count at last sampling prior to death 634 cells)
you...ignore the mountains of information that expose your pitiful attempts to mislead the public
And you are ignoring studies that represent just a sliver of the mountain of scientific literature that exposes your pitiful attempts to mislead the public (I had to take out the "deftly").
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 12:31 PM
viji
My friend, you displayed some interest in familiarizing yourself with the dark side of Dr. Robert (I found HIV in the mail) Gallo. The following are excerpts from the new book by Stephen Davis, author of "Wrongful Death, The AIDS Trial". You can find the book at www.theaidstrial.com
"In 1974 an investigative panel of university scientists found Dr. Gallo's lab to be one of the worst offenders in the scandalous abuse of federal funds for cancer research. Two of his cohorts were later found guilty of embezzlement and taking secret gratuities....
""In the midst of all this, Gallo needed a miracle, and just one year later he announced the discovery of the first identified human retrovirus, which he called Hl23V, and said it caused leukemia. When other scientists requested samples of his virus to test his claims, he at least on one occasion ordered his subordinates to damage the infected cells before sending them out, to make them useless for research....
"Finally, despite all the obstacles, it was discovered that Hl23V was a mistake, a contamination in Gallo's lab, a mixture of different retroviruses from various monkeys. The virus didn't actually exist. The joke going around was that Gallo's 'human tumor virus' was actually a 'human rumor virus.' Gallo initially tried to save his reputation, suggesting that human leukemia must be caused by one of these monkey viruses, but later retracted his claims, to his shame and dismay....
"But five years later Dr. Gallo is at it again, claiming the discovery of another human retrovirus he called HTLV-1, which he blamed for causing leukemia in blacks from the Caribbean. Unfortunately, he couldn't find the virus in American leukemia patients. And prior to Dr. Gallo's discovery of HTLV-1, a Japanese research team had also found a retrovirus in some Japanese leukemia patients, and they had sent their virus to Dr. Gallo for peer review. When Gallo published the genetic sequence of his own HTLV-1, it turned out to be identical to the Japanese virus, including a deliberate error intentionally planted by the Japanese research team, just in case someone tried to steal their discovery. Although it was clear that Dr. Gallo had indeed stolen the Japanese virus and claimed it as his own, no formal charges were ever brought. Instead, Dr. Gallo was awarded the prestigious Lasker Prize as the discoverer of HTLV-1....
"But as a scientist who worked in Gallo's lab once put it, quote, Gallo was known for this sort of unscrupulous behavior years before the AIDS virus ever came along, unquote. Perhaps the Japanese never pressed the issue because it turns out that this HTLV virus, pronounced by Gallo to be the cause of leukemia, is currently estimated to cause cancer in humans only once in every 2000 years."
To sum up Dr. Gallo and his wonderful accomplishments which Mr. Noble is so proud of:
1. 1976: Hl23v -- Claimed to be a human retrovirus, later deemed lab contamination.
2. 1980: HTLV -- claimed to be first human cancer virus -- rarely if ever associated with cancer. But patents test to screen virus from blood. Receives royalties for this useless but mandatory test.
3. 1982: HTLV-II -- Same as above. Gallo again receives his royalties, to sell even more test kits to screen harmless virus from blood supply.
4. 1984: HTLV-III -- the "probable" cause of AIDS. Yet finds "it" whatever "it" is in only 26 of 72 AIDS patients. Later renamed HIV after various patent priority fights with Montagnier.
And this is the wonderful, truthfull, and integrous man whose science we are all arguing over 20 plus years later!
"There are none so blind as those who will not see and none so deaf as those who will not hear"
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 12:39 PM
So, I guess when you can't address the contents of the scientiic literature, try citing a newspaper or a book by a lawyer! "lincoln," in order for your critique of Bob Gallo to have any meaning, you have to demonstrate how it invalidates the findings of other independent researchers. Which, in a prolonged and painful manner in this thread, you have demonstrably failed to do. Your arguments progressed as follows:
They only used ELISA
Maybe the antibody test results were false positives
Maybe it was TB (the TB data is in the papers, by the way)
Maybe CD4 T cell counts don't mean much
Maybe it was illicit drug use, STDs and "repetitive treatments of antibiotics"
Then, in the end: "There is nothing and no study that you will provide that is not based in falsehood."
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 12:55 PM
Dear viji
You may also find this article from the New York Times to be a fascinating glimpse of Mr. Richards and Mr. Nobles hero, Robert C. Gallo.
After three years of investigations, the Federal Office of Research Integrity today found that Dr. Robert C. Gallo, the American co-discoverer of the cause of AIDS, had committed scientific misconduct. The investigators said he had "falsely reported" a critical fact in the scientific paper of 1984 in which he described isolating the virus that causes AIDS.
You can find the entire Times article at the following:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F0CEFDA103DF932A05751C1A964958260
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 1:03 PM
"lincoln," can you cite any evidence that Bob Gallo is my "hero"? Misrepresenting yet again.
Also, given that "lincoln" wrote "there is nothing and no study that you will provide that is not based in falsehood," perhaps someone that doesn't work in the field of HIV/AIDS could re-cite the studies in the hopes that he will take another run at them.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 1:08 PM
viji,
Have you ever wondered why there was no Nobel prize for the discovery of HIV? Perhaps the Nobel committee has a few people on it who realize that the "science" behind HIV is not so overwhelming or trustworthy as the layman and general public might believe.
The first book that I had recommended to you, by Pulitzer prize winner John Crewdson:
"SCIENCE FICTIONS: A SCIENTIFIC MYSTERY, a MASSIVE COVER-UP, and the DARK LEGACY of ROBERT GALLO",
was also reviewed quite well by the New England Journal of Medicine. If you are a subscriber, you can find the review at the following link:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/347/10/771
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 1:24 PM
"lincoln," if the scientific literature on HIV infection is off limits, what is it you're hoping to achieve? You argue that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, but since the scientific literature provides conclusive evidence to the contrary (which you clearly cannot address even a smidgeon of), how would you imagine that you might demonstrate that your argument is correct? (cue another post about Bob Gallo...)
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 2:05 PM
Mr. Jefferys. pseudo scientific literature, that does not take in all of the obvious factors such as the multitude of factors known to eliminate the original HIV testing as valid, as well as the influence of known factors such as a multitude of other undiagnosed diseases and contributing factors, is conclusive evidence of the complete failure of the studies you presented. Yet, you carry on and on and on in ignoring these. What part of invalid, based on conjectures, founded in ignorance, and completely useless studies, do YOU not understand? Perhaps you just enjoy being made a fool of, as why else would you continue in your position of defending such nonsense, as you do.
Perhaps you are a masochist sir? Perhaps you need to strap on some leather undies and find someone to love you with their whips and chains? Unfortunately, sir, I am not the least bit titilated or excited, by what I must at this point in our conversations, assume to be your need to be beaten either physically or beaten down verbally. Unresolved childhood issues on your part, I must assume. Seriously sir, have you ever considered therapy?
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 2:36 PM
Huh? Nobel prizes
my, my you can't be serious... from what I am getting from your ( Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 01:24 PM )you're saying as if the Nobel prize is awarded for any scientific discovery that comes along...
And your description of the Nobel commitee is even more outlandish... my gosh, are you struggling to justify your disillusions about HIV science? I mean, where are you basing your statement from, or is this another of your wild speculations or are you just mine quoting a speculation by John Crewdson?
Do you know what is the criteria for the Nobel honour? If we follow your reasoning, every discovery deserves a Nobel prize, yet I see none for the discovery of Mycobacterium ulcerans, Staphylococcus aureus, Mycobacterium leprae, or more recently the Nipah virus, Ebola virus etc. Certainly, I see plenty of Nobel nomimations for public health contributions in the control of HIV-AIDS
========================================
Well , if you have followed the NEJM more closely, you would have read some of the following comments
"Crewdson has put Gallo under the microscope. The picture is not flattering. To what extent is Crewdson's harsh judgment correct? The issue is not the facts in this exhaustively researched account but rather that many of Crewdson's conclusions are open to other interpretations, some of which are more nuanced and sympathetic to Gallo. In the early 1980s, before the ultimate answers about HIV were known, Gallo was working under intense pressure. Although he could have acted much differently over the years, his legacy is unlikely to be as mendacious and dark as Crewdson has portrayed it."
Which I would consider fairly
But importantly, whether Gallo exhibited failings with his early crude HIV test kit or his dodgy claims of isolating the HIV virus does not in any way invalidate the cumulative empirical findings in HIV research and observation in many borader areas of science (in other words not restricted to scientific techniques involved in Gallo's early work) that is in no way limited and affected by Gallo's fallacy and disrepute.
Simply put it this way, the science in diagnosing HIV has progressed a long way since the crude mechanics of Gallo's test kit with near perfect accuracy
And apart from test kits, there are plenty of other tests, have been discussed in the earlier thread
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/06/wrong_again.php
including ELISAs, Western blots, HIV-Reverse transcriptase assays, PCR detection of HIV specific sequences, tissue culture virus titers etc. Each of these target different aspects of HIV, from chemistry, to enzyme activity, to nucleic acids, to HIV proteins, and cell culture.
And I have to stress that clinical and laboratory detection of HIV-positivity takes into account positive results from all or a combination of these tests, and on top of that surrogate markers of HIV infection such as reduced CD4 counts. With such a stringent testing protocol, I can't see how someone can doubt the results that are based on so many proven techniques applied in diagnosis of many diseases, even more ridiculous is the misconception of Gallo's fallacy can somehow dispute or flasify the science behind the multitudes of techniques.
As already explained to readers countless times before in the ealier thread, to isolate a virus "mechanically", especially a retrovirus that is obligatory blood borne is not child's play. Certainly, HIV have been isolated and purified using tissue cultures, including primary cells (white blood cells harvested from donor blood, not tumour cells). Whats more, microscopic monographs of HIV are also available.
If you want indepth descriptions and cites just browse
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/06/wrong_again.php
I do not wish to be redundant and repost every single link I find.
In fact, I'll encourage readers to look through that thread as, first, you are be able to see the two sides of the argument and decide for yourself based on the information, and second, as the responses have provided a clear analysis of the concerns brought up by "HIV-dissenters" you can better understand some of the misconceptions that are endemic in their statements.
In addition, if the whole thread is followed, I am sure readers will see the endless (mindless) regurgitation of "dissenting points" I have mentioned before.
P.S. lincoln, I have yet finish digesting your earlier lenghty post, will get to it as soon as possible.
Posted by: viji | August 5, 2006 2:37 PM
"lincoln," the studies show that testing positive for HIV infection on an ELISA with confirmatory Western Blot is associated with a ~10-20 fold increased risk of CD4 T cell decline, immunodeficiency and death during follow up compared to people that remain seronegative. On what basis are you arguing that this isn't meaningful? Are you suggesting that the results occurred by chance?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 2:49 PM
What, exactly, does Dr. Gallo have to do with the other researchers working in this field? Gallo's previous work, when incorrect, was shown to be incorrect. Gallo's connections to the discovery of HIV are a non-issue, as his group was the second to claim discovery.
The list of factors that can cause a positive HIV test is interesting to me.
My father is a survivor of TB, has both had the flu and recieves yearly vaccinations, suffers from rheumatoid arthritis, has been exposed to EBV if not infected, has occaisional outbreacks of shingles, and has survived both skin and prostate cancer.
Yet, when tested for HIV for life insurance, he tests negative for HIV. This list obviously does not contain items that always cause false positives, but rather, possible causes for false positives. Otherwise the number of false positves would be far higher, and the links between survival, Tcell numbers and HIV status would not be so closely linked by statistics. And carriers of the CCR5 Delta 32 mutation wouldn't be resistant to HIV infections or developing AIDS.
Posted by: Robster | August 5, 2006 2:55 PM
viji,
forgive me for assuming you were able to see the big picture for what it is. I did not realize that you were as gullible to all of the circular logic filled baffling bull as you seem to be. Perhaps you will share with us your evidence of any cohort of patients whatsoever, whose virus was found in sufficient quantity to actually be the cause of death? And I am sure you are bright enough to know that presenting a cohort of AZT drugged individuals, where the AZT itself, caused immune dysfunction and death, will not suffice. And I am also sure you will avoid cohorts whose tuberculosis or malaria or other known pathogen was what the patients actually died from. And perhaps you will show us the in vivo chemical isolation to back up the virologists claims of supposed hiv isolation. Unless the isolation is backed up chemically, the viral isolation is as yet unproven, and merely another in the long list of supposed truths. Perhaps you will share with us even one HIV test that is specific for HIV? I didn't think so.
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 3:07 PM
lincoln,
as I see it , you're full of wild speculations and unfounded accusations, and I see tinge of this in every post of yours.
You demand respect, you give none.
As for the burden of proof, I think the conclusions reached by the cumulative empirical findings in many disciplines of science have agreed with or even predicted the HIV model of disease. It may not be perfect, but it is the most accurate model to date when applied in health care, prevention, and treatment of disease
If I understand you correctly, you dispute the HIV model of AIDS, and even deny that sexual activity transmit HIV, both serious allegations, as both have implications to public health, if these allegations are found to be untrue. You yourself concede that you do not have an alternative hypothesis and do not have an explanation or research data to support your "concerns"
What you fail to see is how your actions are dangerous. Since you do not fully comprehend and cannot show proof of your contentions, your idea of AIDS can be true or false. Whats dangerous is that even when you cannot be certain of your ideas of the disease, yet you wholeheartedly embrace, diosseminate, and encourage your ideas to as many people as you wish, and especially at most risks are lay-people who have little undestanding of the science and blindly follow your unproven ideas neglecting some of the tried and tested methods.
Take this scenario, if it is true that increased HIV awareness, current public health care initiatives, and the general understanding that unprotected sex has a huge risk of acquiring AIDS, have kept HIV transmittance low and averted an HIV AIDS epidemic in San Francisco or in the USA; then comes along some one who disputes HIV causes AIDS and encourages people to disregard these safeguards, and indulge in whatever they believe, even if there is no scientific evidence, who will then be to blame if everything goes south.
We should not encourage the general public to believe in unproven ideas or dissenting ideas, until something concrete is presented. That is why many of us abhor the way Duensberg or Culshaw or HIV dissidents are "reaching out to the masses". They think they are doing the masses a favour, but in fact, such a move is utterly irresponsible, because so much is uncertain with their ideas.
The correct way to dissent and change minds of the scientific community is to show preliminary evidence that supports the dissenting ideas. Not some half baked reviews that can be widely interpreted. Show hard evidence, not just seemingly intelligent retorts for the sake of argument.
One good example is the recent finding that showed that Helicobacter pylori is the cause of peptic ulcer. Robin Warren and Barry Marshall showed hard evidence, they did not go around urging the general public to reject presribed treatments with half baked ideas. They did the right thing, unlike HIV dissidents.
Because the current HIV model of disease formulated using our understanding garnered by many years of HIV research have worked well to (1) prevent the spread of HIV (the same cannot be said in third world nations where both HIV awareness and public health initiatives are low), (2)helped improve/prolong the life of HIV positive patients (HAART has gone a long way from the early crude AZT regimens that are undeniably toxic and the pioneering dosage regimens were not optimal, and many posts before has already mentioned the efficacy and relative safety of HAART); scientist will continue to work and improve this model and iron out any outstanding holes and loops in our understanding of HIV AIDS
Posted by: viji | August 5, 2006 3:12 PM
"lincoln" wrote:
avoid cohorts whose tuberculosis or malaria or other known pathogen was what the patients actually died from.
Tuberculosis caused 32.3% of the deaths in the HIV positive participants in the Dar Es Salaam cohort. There are 12 cases of pulmonary TB and one case of lymph node TB reported in the Thai army study. No cases of malaria are reported in either study.
And you still need to explain why testing positive for HIV inceased people's risk of death from these diseases compared to their seronegative counterparts.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 3:24 PM
Hello Robster. I like that handle. Lots of energy and easy to say! Your father quite fortunately, is in the category of "Low Risk". What this means, is that being white and heterosexual, his test results are put into a completely different category than Gays, Black Heterosexuals, or Drug users. If he had 3 or 4 bands go off on the western blot, he would be declared as false positive. If a gay or black or drug user had the same identical results, he/she would be told the result is definitely HIV! Subjective testing now, isn't it? Seems a little homophobic and racist to ole lincoln here, and I am quite familiar with how those issues still affect the world, how about you?
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 3:30 PM
lincoln,
you're getting on my nerves, have you read anything at all?
(1) WE can positively culture HIV from HIV positive patients onto tissue culture is that is what you are asking.
(2) I have already told you (and I guess others as well) that the early pioneering AZT dosage regimens are not perfect, toxic and unsafe, and science have learned from that and formulated new AZT dosages which are nowhere near as toxic as the early AZT regimens. Whats more, from these early lessons and later HIV research, we have to date the HAART which is to date shows efficacy and a good safety profile.) What do you not understand about this simple fact? Always regurgitating the same old misconceptions of AZT.
(3) As Robert have already given you the example of his father, and as evident from cases AROUND THE WORLD, any doctor can tell you that a person who has tuberculosis or malaria or other known pathogen does not necessary are HIV positive and most certainly will not progress to AIDS. DO YOU KNOW WHY WE CALL THE DISEASE HIV and AIDS. its Human Immunodeficiency Virus, and Acquired Immunodeficeincy Disease. Basically, HIV don;t kill a patient because of some toxin of some lethal effect, HIV lays waste to our immune systems, and without our immune systems, anything will have a free pass to attack the patient, may it be tuberculosis or malaria or some rare oppurtunistic infections that even the sickiest patient having a intact immune system can fend of. You can survive or die from tuberculosis or malaria. But with HIV infection and AIDS, tuberculosis or malaria infections are most lethal especially without the HAART (you very much detest) to dleay the progression to AIDS.
(4) In vivo chemical ??? huh? you are not making sense
ELISA can be said to be chemistry, even Western Blot involves a fair deal of chemistry, RT assays detects the presence of a HIV enzyme (is this chemistry enough), you infect primary cells harvested from humans with HIV aliquots(titers) purified from HIV positive humans you detect HIv using all above methods, of course you won't propose me to infect a person with the aliquot (you are invited to try, but I strongly advice against it, even if you don;t believe in HIV, for one I can be accused of murder), PCR involved quite a fair bit of expensive chemicals..... And I stress, such methods if applied to healthy individual, or any one who are malnourished or has tuberculosis or malaria or some other fancy bacterial disease but HIV negative, invariably would give a negative result. Yeah all the aboev tests are specific for HIV, particularly the PCR, the RT assay tests.
All these issues have been discuused before in the
"wrong again" thread. start reading.
I mine this quote from you for you
"One thing is for certain, lincoln, and that is the frailty of the human mind. It is very easy to take a position on any given issue, and refuse, either consciously or subconsciously to give due consideration to those whose opinions differ. This refusal also extends to an unwillingness to even look at evidence, or give it due consideration if one did look upon it, which may cause one to re-examine their positions and beliefs. "
Posted by: viji | August 5, 2006 3:40 PM
viji, my new friend, I absolutely agree with your statement:
What you fail to see is how your actions are dangerous.
This is exactly my point when I discuss how crucial it is to be certain that science and medicine knows what it is doing before handing out AZT, ddc, ddl, ddt, or any other drug that is known to be a deadly poison. 300,000 gay men are now dead due to the 1500mg per day of AZT that was given out en masse for 10 years. For the last 10 years, it has been death due to liver failure directly related to those taking haart as well as disfigurement by lipodystrophy for many thousands of people, that have been the leading factors in my efforts to educate the population. I now point directly to you, viji, and j'accuse you of your own words:
What you fail to see is how your actions are dangerous. Since you do not fully comprehend and cannot show proof of your contentions, your idea of AIDS can be true or false. Whats dangerous is that even when you cannot be certain of your ideas of the disease, yet you wholeheartedly embrace, disseminate, and encourage your ideas to as many people as you wish, and especially at most risks are lay-people who have little undestanding of the science and blindly follow your unproven ideas neglecting some of the tried and tested methods.
We should not encourage the general public to believe in unproven ideas or dissenting ideas, until something concrete is presented. That is why many of us abhor the way Gallo or Fauci or HIV advocates are "reaching out to the masses". They think they are doing the masses a favour, but in fact, such a move is utterly irresponsible, because so much is uncertain with their ideas.
I accuse you, viji, as well as are the three fingers from your own hand, pointing back at you as you point your finger at me, of exactly what you are accusing me of.
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 3:45 PM
viji, chemical isolation means that the supposed virus would need to be broken down into its chemical components, and reliably, repeatedly, and replicated, by more than one chemist. You obviously fail to understand the differences between claims of viral isolation and actual chemical isolation which would be needed to prove the viral isolation, since kochs postulates have not been fulfilled and neither has any vaccine ever demonstrated the lack of need for either viral plus chemical isolation. Please do not pretend to us all to understand science and scientific processes.
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 4:02 PM
"lincoln," you're not in a position to accuse anyone of anything. You cannot defend your many false statements and unsupported arguments and you're not even willing to disclose who you are. If you really think all natural history studies are falsehoods, maybe you should have said that before trying - and failing - to explain the data.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 4:04 PM
Richard Jefferys, you wish to know who I am? You don't recognize me Richie? I am your own conscience and your spirit, attempting to gently wake you from the deep egoic sleep that you are presently in. You are simply dreaming that you are awake, but in reality, you are snoozing away.
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 4:15 PM
"lincoln" wrote:
Richard Jefferys, you wish to know who I am?
Not particularly. But it's certainly relevant to the discussion since you're hardly a disinterested party.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 4:23 PM
Richie. As your spirit and your conscience, I am quite aware that you are not particularly interested in knowing your true self, me! You have avoided getting to know me for your entire life. Which fully explains why you are sitting here at your computer, bumbling through meaningless studies day after day, arguing on the internet, and ignoring the overwhelming feelings of emptiness and loneliness that at times have consumed you. At least you get some attention here, even if it is negative. Do as you will, and ignore me, your inner being at your own peril.
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 4:44 PM
Maybe I should clarify what I'm saying. There was recently a meeting of the main protagonists of "Rethinking AIDS" (including Peter Duesberg) in New York City. If you, "lincoln," were a member of this group, I think that would be important to disclose. Given the accusations you have leveled here, anything less would be hypocritical.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 5, 2006 5:04 PM
Richie, perhaps I should clarify what I am saying.
I am you and you are me. Where you go, I go with you. Look in your mirror. There I am, staring back at you until you remember that you are me.
Accusations, smackusations! Those are mere feeble attempts to wake you up to the reality of who you are!
Lincoln is just a name to use, as he was a man that was awake in spirit, and sought to wake others, in order to free mankind of its egoic bondage to fear, suffering, false beliefs, and egoic division. He understood this could only happen by crushing the egos of those whom were still asleep, and then picking them up gently with love and total absolution and forgiveness, and recognizing them for the brothers and sisters of all mankind, as all of our true selves are one in the body and spirit of man.
He understood that this would not be easy, and was willing to surrender even his own life, to raise mankind above its fears and into a brighter future.
Will I need to die for you to awaken from your own egoic sleep? The choice is yours Richie, for if I die, you, my ego will be long turned to dust, but I am still eternal spirit and truth which shall grow even louder as others awaken to herald the truth.
Your choice Richie. You decide.
Your spirit and conscience as always,
lincoln
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 6:08 PM
Lincoln, how do you even know if my father is black or gay (incidentaly, he is neither)? The issue with my father's HIV test is that the testing lab didn't know anything about him, so your accusation of racism and homophobia is bunk.
Also, the chemical isolation of envelope viruses is probably not possible. Would sequencing and reconstitution count? If so, then this has been completed. Could this be cleared up? And with nMR imaging of individual proteins, is it even needed? Is whole virus chemical isolation even regularly performed, or is it an outdated technique?
Posted by: Robster | August 5, 2006 8:08 PM
Robster, is your father in a high risk category? If the answer is no, then you have have the answer as to why his HIV test is deemed negative. Were you standing in his doctors office when the lab called with the results to ask if he was high or low risk?
Again, you seem to be another pretender of scientific process if you are unaware of isolating viruses chemically to verify the isolation when not proven with kochs. Are you another pretender whom wishes to throw out the obviously necessary proof to embrace pseudoscientific proclamations of isolation?
Posted by: lincoln | August 5, 2006 8:27 PM
lincoln, j'en ai par dessus la tete, do you really read and understand what you are saying , or are you just blindly replaying what others have told you
Your statment
"300,000 gay men are now dead due to the 1500mg per day of AZT that was given out en masse for 10 years. For the last 10 years, it has been death due to liver failure directly related to those taking haart as well as disfigurement by lipodystrophy for many thousands of people, that have been the leading factors in my efforts to educate the population. I now point directly to you, viji, and j'accuse you of your own words:"
Where are you basing these statements, especially your accusations on HAART? do you have a study that state these data, or issit again your wild speculations?
As I have told you before, pioneering treaments are not perfect, and are most certain to have adverse side effects, AZT is no different at any other drug, it was the only known treatment that seemed to be effective during the first years of HIV AIDS appearance in the human population and it was used by weighing in that it was the only drug then for treatment for an otherwise untreatable disease. If you have bothered to even look at clinical practice today, the most toxic drugs are reserved for last line treatment wehn everything else fails, may it be antibiotics, cancer therapeutics, or even painkillers like morphine. Whats more, even new therapeutics with incomplete safety profiles are sometime authorised at dire cases with the patients consent. I could easily envison that that was the case with AZT at that time. Surely you have read that AIDS predates the use of AZT. If not track back to the thread I have linked to in my above response.
Slowly but surely, both doctors and scientist had a better grasp of the safety profiles of these drugs and they improve the drug regimens with each finding. Tell me this? Can you name one drug that has no side effect whatsover when not taken properly? even the noble vitamin C has toxic effects when taken inappropriately. It was the decisions of the physicians at hat time to treat AIDS with AZT by weighing in on the factors at that time.
Why are you so stuck on the AZT issue? and stuck your head in history, when medicine have already moved forward to address these problems and develop drugs with better efficacy and better safety profiles.
I merely pointed out the fact that you are spouting dieas or dissenting ideas that clearly have no basis and no supporting data at all. That is irresponsible and dangerous. For example, you are telling people that sexual transmission of HIV is not possible when you are not absolutely certain that this is the case. So if one HIV positive hill billy decides to heed your "advice" and spread his "love", who is to blame if his partner contracts HIV, we'll find that it was you who feed him information that is unproven?
And the irony is, you accuse me of supporting treatment with HAART, treatments that have already been well studied and found to be effective and that the safety profiles are documented. Sure, there will be a risk toxic side effects, and I stress that this is a known risk, doctors have sufficient safety information to promote safe use of these drugs.
Otherwise what else is out there that have a proven track record that reduce HIV loads, and improve the lifespan and quality of life for an individual afflicted with HIV, an individual who without treatment would otherwise progress to AIDS and die?
Posted by: viji | August 5, 2006 11:05 PM
huh?
Lincoln " I am still eternal spirit and truth "
my foot, any reader can track back to his comments and see absolutely how "truthful" or "sincere" he/she is at the debate. Decide for yourselves
His responses to Richard is bordering that of crazy disillusionised persons, when Richard's simple question was to ask for his/her identity
Posted by: viji | August 5, 2006 11:13 PM
While Im sure its irritating, thanks for your alls responses to the HIV Deniers! Newbie here is learning a lot :)
Posted by: futurelegend | August 5, 2006 11:35 PM
Viji, you can find copious (and I do mean copious) amounts of falsehood and misinformation in a very similar vein on this blog:
http://www.newaidsreview.com
"lincoln" cites it himself in one of his posts in this thread. The blog is run by Anthony Liversidge, a longtime AIDS denialist and friend of Peter Duesberg. Liversidge's bio is on the virusmyth site here:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/aliversidge.htm
For some light relief, here is a New AIDS Review post about Peter Duesberg (it comes with a close up photo!).
http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1141939414.shtml
"Peter Duesberg: the eyes of a powerful mind
Evidence worth a thousand words
For the benefit of all those who wonder what Peter Duesberg looks like, that is, the scientist who has expertly analyzed the HIV?AIDS paradigm from the first moment it was launched, and in the minds of all we know who have carefully read and understood his papers, including (according to the record which shows that he was unable to answer Duesberg's challenge even though he contracted to so do) Luc Montagnier, the discoverer of HIV in the blood of AIDS patients, as well as Robert Gallo, the discoverer of HIV in the Federal Express delivery from Montagnier (unable to answer as he promised the Duesberg article in the Proceedings of the National Academy), shot it down, we append a portrait of this distinguished scientific intellect taken a few months ago when he visited New York City with his family (click photo twice to enlarge fully).
Establishment denialists (those who deny that HIV?AIDS is the broken paradigm that Duesberg has demonstrated in the literature it is, with the reluctant endorsement of a score of nervous and hostile referees who would have dearly loved to found fault with his statements) please note the quality of intellect visible in the eyes of this distinguished critic of what he says is their favorite fantasy."
Another great post title is:
"Duesberg's papers are neglected science classics"
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 6, 2006 1:11 AM
Since the issue of TB/HIV co-infection has come up, it seems legitimate to wonder if treating HIV has any impact on the outcome of TB in HIV-infected individuals. In the study cited below, the three-year survival rate for people that received ARVs was 87.7%. For those that did not: 9.3%.
Survival Rate and Risk Factors of Mortality Among HIV/Tuberculosis-Coinfected Patients With and Without Antiretroviral Therapy.
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes.
POST ACCEPTANCE, 31 July 2006
Manosuthi, Weerawat MD; Chottanapand, Suthat MD; Thongyen, Supeda BSc.N; Chaovavanich, Achara MD; Sungkanuparph, Somnuek MD
Abstract:
Background: The impact of antiretroviral therapy (ART) on survival among patients coinfected with HIV and tuberculosis (TB) has not been well established.
Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among HIV-infected patients with TB between January 2000 and December 2004. Patients were categorized into ART+ group (received ART) and ART- group (did not receive ART) and were followed until April 2005.
Results: A total of 1003 patients were identified; 411 in ART+ group and 592 in ART- group. Median (interquartile range) CD4 count was 53 (20-129) cells/mm3. Survival rates at 1, 2, and 3 years after TB diagnosis were 96.1%, 94.0%, and 87.7% for ART+ group and 44.4%, 19.2%, and 9.3% for ART- group (log-rank test, P less than 0.001). Cox proportional hazard model showed that ART was associated with lower mortality rate; gastrointestinal TB and multidrug resistant TB were associated with higher mortality rate(P less than 0.05). Among patients in ART+ group, the patients who delayed ART for more than 6 months after TB diagnosis had a higher mortality rate than those who initiated ART less than 6 months after TB diagnosis (P 0.018, hazard ratio = 2.651, 95% confidence interval = 1.152-6.102).
Conclusions: Antiretroviral therapy substantially reduces mortality rate among HIV/TB-coinfected patients. Initiation of ART within 6 months of TB diagnosis is associated with greater survival.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 6, 2006 12:08 PM
viji, mon ami, ferme ton bouche, ca va? Mon Dieux!!!
You can show no study of extended life on haart because no such study does exist, except in your petit tete-head.
viji, there are far too many people in the world that have been diagosed as HIV and either never took the drugs or threw them away after having taken them. Half of the American HIV positives do NOT take drugs! Many for more than 20 years! You can meet many of these people at dissident websites such as www.aliveandwell.org or at many of the HEAL groups and other dissident meetings around the world. Just because you have failed to investigate this, does not mean it is not tried and true and proven by thousands of people worldwide. However, these people are intelligent enough to want to stay a good distance away from someone such as yourself and any medical doctor who would condemn their choice not to take HIV medications. Who of these would want to be around someone such as you as you as you push your death beliefs on them and your known to be deadly toxic medications? Come now viji, you are not that ignorant, are you? I personally know dozens and dozens of them including some who are under my direct employment.
And how bizarre you are viji, to ask about the proof of liver failure and HAART:
Where are you basing these statements, especially your accusations on HAART? do you have a study that state these data, or issit again your wild speculations?
Your lack of knowledge betrays your vast ignorance:
Wake up viji, you too are sleepwalking. Please have another cafe. I can show case after case of thousands who died from liver failure. American researcher Amy Justice, of the University of Pittsburg Medical Center, looked at 5700 HIV American HIV positive deaths to find out the leading cause of death, and found LIVER FAILURE directly related to those taking HAART, to be the leading cause of death. She presented these findings at the 2003 Barcelona AIDS conference, where they were promptly ignored by the drug pushers such as yourself. You can find a paper by her with the very key statement of "Liver failure is the most common cause of death in people with AIDS" at the following:
http://www.healtoronto.com/justice_liver.html
You viji, you have shown no proof of sexual transmission, I can show the study done on heterosexual transmission by Nancy Padian that shows 0 transmission, absolutely none, NO SEXUAL TRANSMISSION between 360 discordant couples in a ten year study with over 3,000 couple-months of actual study in California. You can find the study at the following:
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/146/4/350
Mon ami, you are intelligent enough to know how to google lipodystrophy.
When you do, you will find 660,000 things posted on the internet on the subject, such as the following:
http://www.aac.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5314
which will tell you more than you want to know about lipo and haart, such as the following statements:
"Doctors report that between 5% and 75% of patients taking antiretroviral medications (ARVs) have some signs of lipo. Most researchers think the true rate is about 50%."
"These changes were first called "Crix belly", because they were noticed in people taking the protease inhibitor Crixivan (indinavir). However, lipo can develop in people taking almost any type of antiretroviral therapy (ART)."
Now, personally, between you and me, viji, I do not believe whatsoever in reckless unsafe sex, nor have I ever promoted any such thing. My own personal opinion is that the only time that sex is life enhancing is when it is between two people that have gotten to know each other well enough to be bonded in friendship, and when it is a giving, loving, caring, and sharing thing among these two individuals. I do not believe in wild sex with anyone anytime anywhere, willy nilly to use them for my own pleasure and lose them after sex, and never have I promoted such a thing other than in your imagination. I also believe that anyone dealing with sexual addiction or drug addiction should seek treatment for it. The greater damage in these behaviors is to one's own emotions and spirit. Now I grant you, that this is not the real world, as many of us, especially the young are more driven to do whatever their very strong sexual nature drives them to do sexually. No amount of preaching will ever change this. No amount of your attempts to scare the young to death will change this. I do believe it is very important for all to be aware of the many diseases that one can get sexually, including many which can even cause one to test as HIV positive. Not because I believe testing positive is a threat, but because of the emotional damage and tendency to self destruct emotionally after such a diagnosis, and be talked into being destroyed by the medications that testing positive so often results in, in our ignorant world of today. I also do not encourage spreading the many sexual diseases around indiscriminately, as this will result in the need for doses of high potency antibiotics, which again, are unhealthy for one's body, and upset the equilibrium in the digestive system, leaving one open to candida yeast infections taking over the body, and other problems such as creating antibiotic resistant super strains of existing pathogens, such as has already happened with certain strains of flesh eating staph.
viji, do not tell me what I do and do not promote and what you accuse me of is quite untrue. If you wish to know what I do promote and what I believe, you may simply ask me as a civilized person instead of the emotionally crazed and tormented person that you seem to be, and I will simply tell you.
viji, YOU are the one making statement after statement, such as how HAART is extending lives and HIV is sexually transmitted, and individuals without treatment will all progress to disease and die, and offering no proof whatsoever of what you say!
viji, I see so much fear in you. Life itself is always fatal, do you have some neurotic fear of your own mortality that you are now projecting at the rest of us?
Again viji, I point back directly at you to send your very own words back into ton bouche: you are spouting ideas that clearly have no basis and no supporting data at all. That IS irresponsible and dangerous.
Posted by: lincoln | August 6, 2006 12:48 PM
You can show no study of extended life on haart because no such study does exist, except in your petit tete-head.
viji, there are far too many people in the world that have been diagosed as HIV and either never took the drugs or threw them away after having taken them. Half of the American HIV positives do NOT take drugs! Many for more than 20 years! You can meet many of these people at dissident websites such as www.aliveandwell.org or at many of the HEAL groups and other dissident meetings around the world. Just because you have failed to investigate this, does not mean it is not tried and true and proven by thousands of people worldwide. However, these people are intelligent enough to want to stay a good distance away from someone such as yourself and any medical doctor who would condemn their choice not to take HIV medications. Who of these would want to be around someone such as you as you as you push your death beliefs on them and your known to be deadly toxic medications? Come now viji, you are not that ignorant, are you? I personally know dozens and dozens of them including some who are under my direct employment.
And how bizarre you are viji, to ask about the proof of liver failure and HAART:
Where are you basing these statements, especially your accusations on HAART? do you have a study that state these data, or issit again your wild speculations?
Your lack of knowledge betrays your vast ignorance:
Wake up viji, you too are sleepwalking. Please have another cafe. I can show case after case of thousands who died from liver failure. American researcher Amy Justice, of the University of Pittsburg Medical Center, looked at 5700 HIV American HIV positive deaths to find out the leading cause of death, and found LIVER FAILURE directly related to those taking HAART, to be the leading cause of death. She presented these findings at the 2003 Barcelona AIDS conference, where they were promptly ignored by the drug pushers such as yourself. You can find a paper by her with the very key statement of "Liver failure is the most common cause of death in people with AIDS" at the following:
http://www.healtoronto.com/justice_liver.html
You viji, you have shown no proof of sexual transmission, I can show the study done on heterosexual transmission by Nancy Padian that shows 0 transmission, absolutely none, NO SEXUAL TRANSMISSION between 360 discordant couples in a ten year study with over 3,000 couple-months of actual study in California. You can find the study at the following:
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/146/4/350
Mon ami, you are intelligent enough to know how to google lipodystrophy.
When you do, you will find 660,000 things posted on the internet on the subject, such as the following:
http://www.aac.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5314
which will tell you more than you want to know about lipo and haart, such as the following statements:
"Doctors report that between 5% and 75% of patients taking antiretroviral medications (ARVs) have some signs of lipo. Most researchers think the true rate is about 50%."
"These changes were first called "Crix belly", because they were noticed in people taking the protease inhibitor Crixivan (indinavir). However, lipo can develop in people taking almost any type of antiretroviral therapy (ART)."
Now, personally, between you and me, viji, I do not believe whatsoever in reckless unsafe sex, nor have I ever promoted any such thing. My own personal opinion is that the only time that sex is life enhancing is when it is between two people that have gotten to know each other well enough to be bonded in friendship, and when it is a giving, loving, caring, and sharing thing among these two individuals. I do not believe in wild sex with anyone anytime anywhere, willy nilly to use them for my own pleasure and lose them after sex, and never have I promoted such a thing other than in your imagination. I also believe that anyone dealing with sexual addiction or drug addiction should seek treatment for it. The greater damage in these behaviors is to one's own emotions and spirit. Now I grant you, that this is not the real world, as many of us, especially the young are more driven to do whatever their very strong sexual nature drives them to do sexually. No amount of preaching will ever change this. No amount of your attempts to scare the young to death will change this. I do believe it is very important for all to be aware of the many diseases that one can get sexually, including many which can even cause one to test as HIV positive. Not because I believe testing positive is a threat, but because of the emotional damage and tendency to self destruct emotionally after such a diagnosis, and be talked into being destroyed by the medications that testing positive so often results in, in our ignorant world of today. I also do not encourage spreading the many sexual diseases around indiscriminately, as this will result in the need for doses of high potency antibiotics, which again, are unhealthy for one's body, and upset the equilibrium in the digestive system, leaving one open to candida yeast infections taking over the body, and other problems such as creating antibiotic resistant super strains of existing pathogens, such as has already happened with certain strains of flesh eating staph.
viji, do not tell me what I do and do not promote and what you accuse me of is quite untrue. If you wish to know what I do promote and what I believe, you may simply ask me as a civilized person instead of the emotionally crazed and tormented person that you seem to be, and I will simply tell you.
viji, YOU are the one making statement after statement, such as how HAART is extending lives and HIV is sexually transmitted, and individuals without treatment will all progress to disease and die, and offering no proof whatsoever of what you say!
viji, I see so much fear in you. Life itself is always fatal, do you have some neurotic fear of your own mortality that you are now projecting at the rest of us?
Again viji, I point back directly at you to send your very own words back into ton bouche: you are spouting ideas that clearly have no basis and no supporting data at all. That IS irresponsible and dangerous.
Posted by: lincoln | August 6, 2006 12:51 PM
What really settles this for me is the behavior of the participants. DB, for example, consistently refuses to address simple criticism, and lincoln blathers about being Richard's "conscience". All of them claim vicotory and speak in stupidly vague theatrical ways about people being slaves to big pharma and so forth.
Just to let you know, DB, lincoln, and any other HIV deniers: it was precisely this kind of behavior on the part of your community that convinced me that you were all full of it. After reading "Dancing Naked in the mind Field", I was convinced that there must be something to the theory that HIV was not related to AIDS.
After examining the evidence, and reading many boards like this, I have noticed a real difference in the way the two sides approach the issue. The biologists use studies, research, and reason, and guys like lincoln cut and paste information that they don't understand and claim to be someone's conscience. Most, if not all, of the issues brought up by guys like Mullis have been addressed.
If you have data, or some kind of answer to the scientific questions, you should post it. But claiming victory when you haven't expressed any cogent thoughts is just stupid.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 6, 2006 7:35 PM
By the way, for readers interested in this topic:
Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries Selecting Interventions: HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment
An online book is available for free access, complete with direct links to the research papers cited in the texts
Find the book here
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=dcp2.section.2137
Posted by: viji | August 6, 2006 10:06 PM
DB.
Richard Jefferys and Seth Manapio have both given several excellent answers to your "question". If you had any moral integrity and if you were really interested in looking at the evidence you would not care who answered your "questions".
Your "question" reveals your complete ignorance of science. There is no absolute "proof" in science. However, when so much supporting evidence accumulates there reaches a stage where close to 100% of scientists accept this theory as being a good representation of reality. The theory remains conditional and can still be disproven by new evidence. Normally, as in the case of Newton's laws of gravity the science is not discarded but extended. Newton's laws are still a good description of reality but things get more complicated in conditions far from what we experience on Earth.
Before 1984 there was considerable evidence that the cause of AIDS was a) infectious and b) retroviral. The series of papers that Gallo co-authored in 1984 are regarded as seminal because they presented the first really convincing evidence that a specific retrovirus was involved in AIDS. Montagnier's 1983 paper is also seen to be of critical importance in the history but as Montagnier himself states they did not establish a cell-line that supports HIV culture wihich Gallo's group did. If that was the extent of the evidence for the role of HIV in AIDS then there would indeed be room for doubt. However, other groups have also independently isolated HIV from people with AIDS and confirmed all of Gallo's and Montagnier's results and more.
Today in 2006 the evidence is so overwhelming that it is nonsensical to doubt the connection between HIV and AIDS. It is also nonsensical to claim that Newton's laws of gravity defy the laws of physics but that doesn't stop crackpots like Godschalk from making these claims. It is nonsense to look for a critical point in time when it was "proven" that HIV causes AIDS.
I like most other people view Gallo's and Montagnier's early HIV papers as critical points that have earned these scientists a place in history. People that go on about HIV/AIDS is just an unproved theory are exactly the same as creationists saying that evolution is just a theory.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 6, 2006 10:58 PM
Seth writes:
This is essentially my experience. At first I thought that maybe the most vocal HIV "rethinkers" were not representative and that perhaps there might be rational scientific reasons for doubting the connection between HIV and AIDS. Perhaps Duesberg, the Perth Group etc were more honest. Perhaps they really had good arguments.
But, no, if you follow the information up the heirarchy it's stupidity all the way up. If you follow Duesberg's arguments then syphilis, herpes and gonorrhea are not sexually transmitted. If you follow the Perth Groups' arguments then no virus has been isolated and therefore cannot cause disease in humans.
Duesberg accuses all other scientists that disagree with him of being corrupt. Bialy has bizarre ideas about the apartheid pharmaceutical cartel freeing Mandela on the condition that he tow the party line on HIV/AIDS. Rasnick believes that SARS was a massive conspiracy by the US government to destroy the Chinese economy
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 6, 2006 11:11 PM
lincoln cut and pasted some text from virusmyth.
How many of the 64 references did he read? With 99.99% confidence I can say 0.
Some of the references are false. Many of the others describe problems with test kits that are no longer used. Some references describe possible problems that later papers find are not significant. It is always a good idea to check the science citation index to see which later papers cite these references.
For instance this paper is cited by Johnson.
Kashala O, Marlink R, Ilunga M. et al.J. Infect. Dis. 169:296-304
But two later papers finding no significant problem with false positives are not given
SB Lucas, PE Fine and JA Sterne et al. J Infect Dis 171 (1995), pp. 502-504.
JA Sterne, AC Turner and PE Fine et al., J Infect Dis 172 (1995), pp. 543-546
Surely some "rethinkers" would have noticed that two of the references are from 1980 which is before HIV was identified. How can these references demonstrate that HIV antibody tests show significant problems with false positives?
But, of course, "rethinkers" don't actually think they just cut and paste arguments from virusmyth.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 6, 2006 11:40 PM
Chris,
you realize of course, that you didn't answer such a simple question. Anyone can read your reply and see that you went to considerable lengths to avoid an actual answer.
Let's strip it down to the bare essentials.
The world was told in April, 1984 that HIV causes AIDS. So, when did HIV causes AIDS become a fact?
Oh, so simple.
The world deserves a decent, straightforward answer.
Posted by: DB | August 7, 2006 1:14 AM
DB wrote:
The world deserves a decent, straightforward answer
Can you demonstrate that the world has such an answer for any other pathogen you believe causes disease?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 7, 2006 1:33 AM
And, DB, can you offer us your explanation for the impact of antiretrovirals on survival in people with TB & HIV? What about the natural history of untreated HIV infection?
Given the implications of your bold claims about HIV & AIDS, I think we deserve a decent, straightforward answer.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 7, 2006 1:40 AM
I have to say, I agree completely with Seth's analysis of the behavior of the participants of this discussion. I mostly just lurk in HIV discussions, as they lie far outside my field of knowledge; I had never even heard HIV-denial arguments before reading this blog.
If anything, I feel that posters such as Chris and Richard have demonstrated remarkable patience, and offer quite reasonable responses based on scientific reasoning.
DB and lincoln, on the other hand, seem to offer up nothing but vitriol, fuzzy arguments, and ad hominems; lincoln's statements about being someone's conscience are borderline crazy. These folks remind me of the Lyndon Larouche nutters who hang around my university's campus.
Posted by: Davis | August 7, 2006 2:06 AM
And also, re: Christine Johnson's list that "lincoln" copied without attribution:
Such a list of sources of interference in the test result can be useful when further tests do not back up the initial result, and the medic is left considering differential diagnoses. However, it says nothing about the frequency of false positive results, unless the other condition always produces a false positive result.
The fact remains that current HIV testing is very accurate. Enzyme immunoassay alone achieved 98.5% specificity 16 years ago (see MMWR 1990; 39: 380-3), and a positive result also depends on meeting FDA-defined criteria on a Western blot against HIV antigens. More recently, the risk of a blood donor being given a false-positive HIV test result was estimated at 1 in 250,000 (JAMA 1998; 280: 1080-5), mainly due to the increasing availability of RT-PCR for HIV RNA.
In other words, false positives after standard confirmatory tests are very, very rare, and Johnson's list is therefore only of academic interest - or would be, had it been published in a peer-reviewed journal, not an HIV-"rethinker" magazine...
Posted by: Peter Barber | August 7, 2006 3:13 AM
Davis:
Ah, but LaRouche supports the so-called 'Verdi' musical tuning based on C = 256 Hz (i.e. 2^8) rather than A = 440 Hz. As a bit of a geek, I've always liked that idea! ;-)
Having said that, listening to and playing music would be confusing for a while as I have absolute pitch :-/
Posted by: Peter Barber | August 7, 2006 3:33 AM
DB, the word 'fact' although common in popular descriptions of science is not a very useful term. In reality things are not that simple. Nothing is ever "proven" in science. Everything is capable of being refuted if new evidence that contradicts the hypothesis is found.
There are some parts of science where there is such overwhelming evidence that they are often labelled 'facts' in school book descriptions. Here 'fact' is really a short hand for overwhelming evidence.
Science is also incremental. Evidence is added piece by piece. There are often seminal papers that make major contributions but there are rarely if ever single papers that "prove" something beyond all possible doubt. It may be easier for high school teachers to portray science this way but it isn't the way that science works
I am not going to play silly games with you to find the exact year,month,day,hour,minute,second that the evidence that HIV causes AIDS became so convincing that claiming otherwise became nonsensical. What I will say is that today in 2006 the evidence that HIV causes AIDS is so overwhelming that anybody that claims otherwise needs to produce some new counter-evidence. Empty rhetoric and conspiracy theories is not sufficient.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 7, 2006 4:08 AM
Although I will no doubt be accused of being heartless it should be pointed out that not only is Continuum Magazine not a peer-reviewed journal it has also ceased to exist because two former editors both died from AIDS.
Christine Johnson's list did not save them. They tested positive for HIV antibodies. They suffered progressive CD4+ cell depletion. They both got AIDS related illnesses (PCP and KS). They both died.
Surely this really is a cause to rethink!
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 7, 2006 4:29 AM
Viji writes:
Can you imagine it?
What if everything you know about peptic ulcers were wrong?
Debating Antacids.
Antacids cause Autism!
It is also worth pointing out that Marshall himself drank a petri dish of Helicobacter pylori to provide evidence for his assertions.
There is a tradition of this in Australia. Frank Fenner, Frank Macfarlane Burnet, and Ian Clunies Ross infected themselves with myxoma virus, in this case to prove that it was not dangerous to humans.
Duesberg still won't do the same. He obviously does not have the confidence that Fenner, Macfarlane Burnet and Clunies Ross did.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 7, 2006 6:15 AM
DB, the word 'fact' although common in popular descriptions of science is not a very useful term.
So, HIV causes AIDS is not a fact?
It's treated as though it is a fact. Not only is it treated as though it is a fact, but an extremely serious one at that. When we read the words "HIV, the virus that causes AIDS" in a newspaper article, how should we interpret those words, Chris?
In reality things are not that simple. Nothing is ever "proven" in science.
HIV causes AIDS is not "proven"?
Maybe you can explain that to all the laypeople out there, especially the ones who are choking down all those lovely "AIDS drugs", and who are scared to death over this thing. I'm sure they'd be interested to know that HIV causes AIDS is not "proven".
I am not going to play silly games with you to find the exact year,month,day,hour,minute,second that the evidence that HIV causes AIDS became so convincing that claiming otherwise became nonsensical.
The world was told in April, 1984 that HIV causes AIDS. Are you saying you can't even whittle it down to this timeframe?
Posted by: DB | August 7, 2006 11:37 AM
DB, the answer to your question:
when did HIV causes AIDS become a fact?
Is: the first time it happened.
You can see from the above-referenced study what happens to people with HIV and TB that do not have access to AIDS drugs: >90% die within three years of follow up. For people that received ARVs, the survival rate was 87%.
You can also see from the natural history studies what happens to people with HIV in the absence of treatment.
The fact that HIV causes AIDS is indeed an extremely serious fact; the data demonstrates it. You, throughout this thread, have been unable to deal with the data. All you can offer instead is empty, meaningless rhetorical devices.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 7, 2006 12:05 PM
Lincoln wrote:
No. I am a Toxicologist (PhD) specializing in cancer research and cell/molecular biology. I would appreciate it if a virologist could tell me more about the current standards and procedures in viral isolation.
Furthermore, is the chemical isolation of envelope viruses possible, assuming lincoln's description is correct: "chemical isolation means that the supposed virus would need to be broken down into its chemical components, and reliably, repeatedly, and replicated, by more than one chemist. "
Lincoln, sequencing and nMR imaging are not psuedoscience. Such claims don't make you look good.
Posted by: Robster | August 7, 2006 1:42 PM
DB--your sophistry depends upon the level of scepticism you would apply to science and imprecise use of terminology, but I don't think your overall conceptualization is amenable to Hume's critique. Blurring the distinction between science and philosophy might win a debate when all are stoned and college sophomores, but these shabby appeals to emotion won't sway many.
Working within the confines of scientific theory and practice (rather than philosophy)--a fact is a shared empirical observation--stictly this is limited to that which can be immediately sensed, or inferred by immediate sensation (e.g. Einstein's paper on Brownian Motion); and confirmed by other observers. The fact of evolution is the fossils that slightly vary in morphology through layers of sedimentary rock; the fact is that there is a disease called AIDS.
Any statement about causality is a theory (HIV causes AIDS), if testable, it should be considered a hypothesis. The germ theory, which hypothesises the causality of AIDS by HIV, infers that communicable diseases are likely the result of the presense of micro-organisms. The prediction is that unique micro-organisms that predate the onset of symptoms are the cause of the symptoms. In the case of AIDS, the micro-organism is HIV; and is understood to have fulfilled Koch.
However, I can infer how this hypothesis can be falsified--all that is needed is an individual with AIDS without HIV. Because I can make this inference and because it is plausible, the hypothesis is not proven.
HIV causes AIDs may also be the most parsimonious of explanations-heliocentrism vs. the Ptolomy's spheres and calculations--it may be something else causes AIDS, but treatment targeting HIV appears to alleviate the disease's progression and onset, suggesting that the hypothesis is 'fruitful' and apt.
It is the outcome that matters most when making scientific predictions, and that is what your attempt at critique lacks. You provide no alternative mechanism of causality, or a better treatment, both (italic--emphasis) of which need to be forthcoming for your criticism to have merit.
To argue do nothing is to return to San Francisco in the early 1980's--may be that is your point, the quicker they die the less they suffer, since death is inevitable? I am not quite so pessimistic. Treatment that extends life, allows for more of the potential of life to be fulfilled, despite any extended pain or suffering.
Sean M.'s posts upthread are probably the most consise application of scientific reasoning to this issue that I have seen in quite a while. It would do you good to reflect upon what he says (as well as Rebecca Culshaw).
Mike
Posted by: mgr | August 7, 2006 3:03 PM
DB,
you are using the Continuum fallacy
Science is accumulative. Evidence is added piece by piece. In many cases, like HIV, the amount of evidence for a hypothesis eventually becomes so strong that virtually 100% of scientists consider the hypothesis to be an accurate description of reality. It is a logical fallacy to insist on either the one single paper that "proves" a hypothesis or to insist that someone describes the exact point in time where a hypothesis becomes a "fact".
Different scientists will become convinced by the evidence at different times. There will always remain a few crusty old renegades that refuse to accept the evidence decades after a consensus has been formed.
When Duesberg published his first AIDS article in 1987 the evidence was already thoroughly convincing that HIV causes AIDS. Since that time the evidence has only gotten stronger.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 8, 2006 3:31 AM
Chris,
It is a logical fallacy to insist on either the one single paper that "proves" a hypothesis or to insist that someone describes the exact point in time where a hypothesis becomes a "fact".
You're really going out of your way to avoid a straightforward answer to a simple question.
The world was told in April, 1984 that HIV causes AIDS. This would lead any reasonable human being to understand that this was a scientific "fact", even under the definition of the word "fact" that you described earlier.
So, was HIV causes AIDS a fact in April, 1984?
It's a yes or no answer, Chris.
Posted by: DB | August 8, 2006 10:34 AM
Quote:
What was claimed in the April 1984 press conference by
Secretary of Health Margaret Heckler was (1) that we knew
the cause of AIDS and had the data to convince the
scientific community for the first time (this is more than a
virus isolate or a few isolates), and (2) we had a life-
saving, sensitive, and accurate blood test, which would,
first of all, protect the blood supply and, secondly, allow
the epidemic to be properly monitored for the first time. In
her press release, Heckler noted the earlier isolation of
what would probably turn out to be the same virus type by
the French group. I said the same in my statements to the
press. Let us not forget that the 1983 paper by Montagnier
and coworkers did not claim their isolate caused AIDS, nor
were their data available at that time to make the claim.
There are many instances in scientific history of an early
identification and even isolation of a microbe that later is
shown to be the cause of a disease --for example, polio and
anthrax.
Source: THE SCIENTIST VOLUME 8, No:6 MARCH 21, 1994
Letter to the Editors from Robert Gallo MD.
Posted by: McKiernan | August 8, 2006 11:04 AM
It's a real hoot to revisit this thread every so often to watch DB and a handful of others make a mockery out of the AIDS dogmatists who so eerily resemble a religious cult it's no wonder they lash out with such venom at anyone who dares sully or question their catechism.
Meanwhile, as Tara Smith flits around the midwest, she manages to post all sorts of interesting science news, none of which ever attracts more than 5-6 comments, while the slightest dissent from the AIDS orthodox dogmatism can be counted on to unleash a barrage of scornful, trembling animus from the "Church's" true believers.
'Tis quite a sight to behold.......
Posted by: Charles | August 8, 2006 12:54 PM
well the exchange is indeed lop-sided as it seems the admins are very happy to leave replyies in the "junk mail" folder (queue jokes about junk mail)
Posted by: pat | August 8, 2006 1:07 PM
short, pointless and snippy ones get through.
check
Posted by: pat | August 8, 2006 2:46 PM
It's not the exchanges that are lop sided, it's the data. It offers no support for the arguments being offered by the likes of DB, leaving the Harvey Bialy-approved rhetorical devices as the only recourse. I don't think it's particularly difficult to look at the data and figure out what the implications are of people buying into the rhetoric. For the people in the Thai study of TB/HIV cited above, believing the likes of DB or "lincoln" would have increased their risk of death by ~80%. Or, to put it another way, for every 100 people that listened to them, there would have been 80 avoidable deaths over the three years of follow up.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 8, 2006 2:50 PM
"AIDS dogmatists who so eerily resemble a religious cult it's no wonder they lash out with such venom at anyone who dares sully or question their catechism."
------------------------
Charles,
I'm very interested in this comment. What catechism am I repeating, and in what way do I resemble a cultist to you?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 8, 2006 3:44 PM
ah, the manslaughter argument disguised as a study and the endless ping pong with religion...who's cult is it anyway?........*sigh
Posted by: pat | August 8, 2006 4:03 PM
Pat wrote:
ah, the manslaughter argument disguised as a study and the endless ping pong with religion...who's cult is it anyway?........*sigh
So, read the paper and show how it doesn't support the argument. You could point out that it's a retrospective study, and you can't rule out all the potential biasing factors e.g. recipients of ARVs could have been receiving better healthcare generally (although the study is all from one institute in Nonthaburi, Thailand, which might argue against this).
If you read the paper you could see that there's an average of a 4kg weight difference between the two groups, and this is significant (in favor of the ARV recipients). But there was also significantly more isoniazid-resistant and MDR TB in the group that received ARVs.
After looking at all this, you then have to account for the huge difference in outcomes between people with HIV & TB that recieved ARVs compared to those that didn't. If you can offer a convincing explanation, perhaps you can then argue for the wisdom of DB's and "lincoln"'s views.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 8, 2006 4:51 PM
Pat, real people are affected by this. Scoffing at their deaths because you know in your gut, without any evidence, that you are right, doesn't save lives. Evidence based medicine is the way of things, and all the evidence and data supports that HIV as the cause of AIDS.
This is the biggest problem with alternative medicine. Most illnesses, it doesn't affect anything, because the person would have gotten better anyway. But when it keeps someone from seeking or following medical advice that can improve their quality of life, medical status, or length of life, it is an ethical and moral crime.
And linking scientific progress to religion is pointless. Religion is based on faith, which is an absence of evidence or reason. As there is solid, repeated evidence from multiple aspects of the relationship between HIV and AIDS, this is a non-cult, non-religion concept.
Posted by: Robster | August 8, 2006 5:15 PM
DB writes:
The logical fallacy for today is the False Dichotomy
It would be nice and simple if we could neatly divide everything cleanly into "facts" and "non-facts".
The balance of the evidence before 1984 was that AIDS was caused by an infectious agent that was probably retroviral. The papers published by Gallo's group in 1984 presented strong evidence that convinced peer-reviewers that they had indeed isolated the retrovirus that causes AIDS. If other groups failed to repeat the isolation of this virus from people with AIDS and failed to establish the causal connection between this virus and AIDS then we would have to rethink. But that isn't what happened. Get over it.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 8, 2006 9:23 PM
"Pat, real people are affected by this. Scoffing at their deaths because you know in your gut, without any evidence, that you are right, doesn't save lives. Evidence based medicine is the way of things, and all the evidence and data supports that HIV as the cause of AIDS."
Indeed real people are suffering from this but you somehow manage to believe that others are capable of scoffing at it and then you accuse these others of commiting manslaughter by voicing their concerns. Sorry, but such basic non-sense will always belong in my weapons of mass distraction Hall of Fame.
"And linking scientific progress to religion is pointless". I wholeheartedly agree with you and may I bring it a step further: linking ANYTHING to religion is pointless. Leave the damn thing in the fiction aisle
Posted by: pat | August 8, 2006 9:44 PM
Hello Chris, thank you for the word for today, but I think you chose the wrong word. The word for today is actually:
IRRATIONAL ESCALATION, found at wikipaedia at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment
Now Chris, what you are saying is that:
The balance of the evidence before 1984 was that AIDS was caused by an infectious agent that was probably retroviral. The papers published by Gallo's group in 1984 presented strong evidence that convinced peer-reviewers that they had indeed isolated the retrovirus that causes AIDS.
but this again, like much of what you claim, is patently untrue. Many at the CDC were even shocked by the claim of a virus being the cause, as they were preparing a statement that it was due to illicit drug overuse and lifestyle factors, the very day that Gallo made his claim wherein he found ONLY 36 percent of his "AIDS" patients even tested positive for HIV. This 36 percent was 28 out of 72 AIDS patients. However, Gallo was committed, if nothing else, financially as well as time-wise, and that brings us to the word for today of IRRATIONAL ESCALATION!
And once he had the audacity to declare this at a press conference on the steps of the White House, just who do you suppose was going to go against that, considering that the NIH is a uniformed service branch, directly under the president! I am truely grateful that one man did publically speak out against it. And unlike the hiding and scared Mr. Gallo, Academy of Science Member Duesberg can be found and contacted at http://www.duesberg.com/ for any serious questions.
PS: A thank you note to Tara, for the obvious computer glitch, that kept me from posting for several days.
Posted by: lincoln | August 8, 2006 10:13 PM
Hello Richard Jefferys,
long time no hear! Did you see the paper to be published in the Journal of AIDS this week (Vol 42, Number 5, August 15 2006:
Micronutrient Supplementation Increases CD4 Count in HIV-Infected Individuals on Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy: A Prospective, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial by Jon D. Kaiser, Adriana M. Campa, Joseph P. Ondercin, Gifford S. Leoung, Richard F. Pless, and Marinanna K. Baum, from the UCSF, Florida International University, Miami, Jonathan Lax Treatment Center, Philadelphia, Saint Francis Memorial Hospital, SF, and Ovation Research Group, Highland Park, Il.,
In the article we find the following: Restoring AIDS patients' immune systems with nutrient supplements works wonders, compared with dosing them with HAART, which may do them no good whatsoever, by your favorite measure of HIV, the CD4 count.
In the study, a bunch of patients on HAART (Highly Active AntiRetroviral Therapy) were given micronutrients to see what happened. "The absolute CD4 count increased by an average of 24 per cent in the micronutrient group versus a 0% change in the placebo group." (The latter placebo group were on HAART alone.)
Looks to me like perhaps HAART by itself doesn't do a thing except cause liver failure!
Why do you suppose they didn't bother to try the vitamins out on people who did not even take HAART at all? Was it because they were afraid they would find that people on vitamins alone did even better than ALL of the patients on HAART?
If I was you, I would consider packing my bags soon and finding a new job while you can still find one, buddy!
Posted by: lincoln | August 8, 2006 10:38 PM
Well, that's another "keeper".
Chris couldn't answer the simplest of questions with a straight answer.
Strange. We've been told for 22 years that HIV causes AIDS, but nobody wants to say when that became a fact (even using Chris's definition of "fact"). One would think the answer to that would be very simple. But as we all can see, it's an answer to be avoided.
Posted by: DB | August 8, 2006 11:05 PM
Lincoln you have bizarre ideas about science.
The groups that have confirmed the both the existence of HIV and its causal role in AIDS have been in countries other than the US. The idea that since that press conference every scientist in every country have been blindly following Gallo's lead is so ludicrous that it is hard to believe that anybody would put it forward.
You want us to believe that all the scientists around the world just blindly follow press conferences like a mob of sheep. Have you ever been to a scientific conference? The complete opposite is true. Most scientists would like to be the one who revolutionises a field. Nobody wants to just follow the mob. Most people want to be a Galileo or an Einstein.
If as the "rethinkers" have been claiming for the past 20 years the "whole HIV/AIDS paradigm" is full of holes and about to come tumbling down then there would be numerous groups all vying against each other to be the first ones to bring it down. Think of it. You do 20 years of work and get your name on several papers and if you're lucky you might get some recognition. On the other hand if you are the one that brings down the "HIV/AIDS paradigm" and changes scientific history you'll become famous overnight.
The idea that NIH is somehow suppressing all "rethinking" in labs all over the world is just conspiracy theory nonsense.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 8, 2006 11:08 PM
Think of it. You do 20 years of work and get your name on several papers and if you're lucky you might get some recognition. On the other hand if you are the one that brings down the "HIV/AIDS paradigm" and changes scientific history you'll become famous overnight.
I've had the wrong impression of scientists, then.
I didn't realize that fame and glory were such motivating factors for scientists. You make them sound like rock stars or wannabe rock stars. Is this how science works? Interesting.
Posted by: DB | August 8, 2006 11:17 PM
DB writes:
That is indeed the reason why dishonest people demand yes/no answers to questions that require more complicated responses.
Ein">http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/hebel/hausfreu/lehren09.htm">Ein Narr fragt viel, worauf kein Weiser antwortet
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 8, 2006 11:21 PM
"So, was HIV causes AIDS a fact in April, 1984?"
----------------
I think the answer to this question is yes. In fact, "HIV causes AIDS" was a fact in March, February, and January of 1984, as well as the entirety of 1983 and an unknown period of time before that. "HIV causes AIDS" is a fact of nature, and whether it is true is not affected by publication dates or the state of human knowledge about the existence of HIV or our awareness of AIDS.
It is true that this is a reflection of our current knowledge, rather than an abstract proof based on formal rules. So our certainty about this fact of nature is not absolute, and there is no magic moment at which suddenly that fact was manifest and incontestable. Such moments are the stuff of revelation, not research.
Scientific research can be viewed as the process of discovering facts about nature, and so the state of knowledge concerning these facts is not static. Richard and Chris have attempted to communicate to you something about this process of discovery as it relates to HIV and AIDS.
What it is important for YOU to understand, DB, is that you are not asking a question about HIV. You are asking a question about scientific knowledge. In essence, you are asking about a specific point in the discovery process. So it is not dodging the question in any way for Chris or Richard to point this out.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 8, 2006 11:22 PM
Lincoln Wrote:
"Was it because they were afraid they would find that people on vitamins alone did even better than ALL of the patients on HAART?"
-----------
No. It isn't... nutrition alone has already been shown not to reduce plasma viral load and plasma viral load is already known to be related to increased mortality. Perhaps they were more interested in having living patients than proving--again--that the HIV-AIDS hypothesis is well supported.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 8, 2006 11:47 PM
Seth writes:
Next you'll be saying that Mycobacterium tuberculosis causes tuberculosis was a fact before Robert Koch isolated it in 1882!
Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, Karl Popper, Bertrand Russell, David Stove and others have written hundreds of books on the philosophy of science. The problem is anything but simple.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 8, 2006 11:51 PM
Since Lincoln brought this up
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/08/interview_with_hiv_rethinker_r.php#comment-188910
The paper:
Accession Number 00126334-200608150-00001.
Author Kaiser, Jon D. MD *; Campa, Adriana M. PhD +; Ondercin, Joseph P. PA-C ++; Leoung, Gifford S. MD [S]; Pless, Richard F. PhD [//]; Baum, Marianna K. PhD dagger;
Institution From the *Department of Medicine, University of California at San Francisco Medical School, SF, CA; +Florida International University, Miami, FL; ++The Jonathan Lax Treatment Center, Philadelphia, PA; [S]HIVCare, Saint Francis Memorial Hospital, SF, CA; and [//]Ovation Research Group, Highland Park, IL.
Title Micronutrient Supplementation Increases CD4 Count in HIV-Infected Individuals on Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy: A Prospective, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial.[Miscellaneous]
Source JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes. 42(5):523-528, August 15, 2006.
Abstract Objective: To examine the immunologic, metabolic, and clinical effects of broad spectrum micronutrient supplementation in HIV-infected patients taking highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).
Design: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial.
Methods: Forty HIV-infected patients taking a stavudine and/or didanosine-based HAART regimen were prospectively randomized to receive micronutrients or placebo twice daily for 12 weeks. Data were collected at 4-week intervals including immunologic, metabolic, and clinical measurements. The study examined the effect of micronutrient supplementation on immunologic parameters as the primary end point. The secondary end points were metabolic and clinical effects and distal symmetrical polyneuropathy.
Results: The mean absolute CD4 count increased by an average of 65 cells in the micronutrient group versus a 6-cell decline in the placebo group at 12 weeks (P = 0.029). The absolute CD4 count increased by an average of 24% in the micronutrient group versus a 0% change in the placebo group (P = 0.01). The mean HIV-1 RNA decreased in the micronutrient supplementation group, although not significantly. Neuropathy scores improved in the micronutrient group by 42% compared with a 33% improvement in the placebo arm. This difference did not reach statistical significance. Fasting serum glucose, insulin, and lipids were not adversely affected in the patients taking the micronutrients.
Conclusions: Micronutrient supplementation can significantly improve CD4 cell count reconstitution in HIV-infected patients taking HAART. The micronutrient supplement tested was well tolerated and may hold promise as an adjuvant therapy in the treatment of HIV. Further investigation is warranted.
(C) 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.
Well, the outcome of the study is expected, as previously observed, since HAART suppresses HIV replication and reduces HIV load, minimising the depletion of CD4 T-cells, boosting the immune system with micronutrients would definitely boost the CD counts (akin feeding a starved person would restore the body mass gradually)
I thought studies have already compared the CD4 counts of HIV infected persons on HAART (ARVs) and those not receiving treatment
And I think its silly to compare feeding micronutrients to a healthy individual without HIV induced CD4 depletion to feeding micronutrient to an HIV infected individual with CD4 depletion. The underlying CD4 counts scales would be too different to make any meaningful comparison.
What do you think?
Posted by: viji | August 8, 2006 11:54 PM
DB writes:
Peoples motivation for becoming scientists is fairly variable. Most are curious about the world and want to discover new things. They want to add to science and the world in the same way that people like Einstein did. Self-glorification and personal gain are rarely strong motives although some scientists do revel in their public roles. Duesberg himself seems to enjoy playing the iconoclast.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 8, 2006 11:57 PM
To avoid any confusion I should clarify that my response to Seth Manapio was meant to be ironical and the second comment regarding the philosophy of science was directed to DB.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 9, 2006 12:02 AM
viji.
1)Why would you think it would be silly to include a group that was not on ARV medications?
2)Is it because giving a CD4 depleted, but otherwise healthy HIV positive individual anything nutritious would show that ARV's are perhaps themselves causing CD4 depletion if the CD4 count increased?
3)Or would it be because it would make your claims of the benefits of ARV treatment obsolete?
It would have been quite easy to do a 3rd Nutrients only low CD4 but otherwise healthy group, but this would have brought down the entire curtain on AIDS Incorporated. Aids Inc. would not allow such a study to be done and published in their JAIDS journal to begin with (JAIDS Journal is run after all, by David Ho, originator of the AIDS Cocktails and "HIT HARD and HIT EARLY treatments). They also would not allow Jon Kaiser in their party if he did try such an act of mutiny. Actually, it is quite phenomenal that Kaiser even got to do what he has done.
For some of the ethically bankrupt, they were probably afraid they were losing too many cash cow ARV takers if they did not do something that was beneficial to actually keep the patients alive. For others, whom I consider especially bankrupt of spirit and conscience, it becomes a way to keep the otherwise slowly poisoned and expectedly dying patient alive another day as proof of ARVs keeping them alive.
And here again, Not that I think that Lucille Ball's, I mean Jon Kaiser's vitameatavegamins are so special and terrific, as I consider them to simply be ridiculously overpriced standard supplements that can be had for a fraction of what he peddles them for ($125.00 for a bottle of vitamins). And, he gets the taxpayers to foot the bill for all of his medicine sideshow as well as the taxpayers footing the bill for the purchase of his outrageously overpriced vitamin sales.
This shows me a bit of who he really is, and what he is in the game for. I obviously consider him to be bit morally bankrupt, although at least he is promoting something that is beneficial and healthy instead of deadly toxic.
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 12:37 AM
viji:
Vitamin E also inhibits HIV production to such an extent that it can substitute for HAART, according to a study from the Institute of Virology of the University of Maryland directed by Robert Gallo.
I also think it is a terrible shame that no follow through was ever performed on the following study:
In Vitro suppression of latent HIV-1 activation by vitamin E: potential clinical implications (Reearch Letters) Heredia, Alonso; Davis, Charles; Amorose, Anthony; Taylor, Greg; Le, Nhut; Bamba, Douty; Redfield, Robert R. Division of Clinical Research, Institute of Human Virology, University of Martyland Biotechnology Institute, Baltimor, MD, JAIDS Vol 19(8), 20 May 2005, p836-837.
"The addition of Vitamin E to patents' cultures resulted in significantly reduced levels of p24 virus production. These results suggest that vitamin E supplementaion may interfere with the emergence of drug resistant HIV-1 variants archived in the resting cell reservoir and delay or limit virus rebound uponm treatment interruptions."
What do you think viji?
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 12:58 AM
lincoln,
the paper you referred to cites other papers that show CD4+ counts increasing and viral load decreasing after iniation of HAART.
I find it hard to understand how you can accept the results of this study and ignore results of previous studies that demonstrate the benefits of HAART using exactly the same parameters.
My guess is that you would deny the relevance of CD4+ counts and viral load measurements.
Improvements in CD4+ counts with HAART tend to level off with time. All the participants in this study were on stable HAART. I don't think that is any wonder that CD4+ counts in the HAART only arm were stable over a period of 12 weeks.
If further trials with larger cohorts (>40) for longer time periods (> 12 weeks) then I personally would think this was great news.
However, people that misinterpret this study to further then own agendas are simply being dishonest. Why don't you write to the authors and ask whether they think your interpretation is valid?
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 9, 2006 1:00 AM
Hi Seth! Nice to hear from your peanut gallery again as well!
Seth, what the heck did you mean by No. It isn't... nutrition alone has already been shown not to reduce plasma viral load and plasma viral load is already known to be related to increased mortality.
You think HIV in your system is a bad thing???? That is not what Dr. Tony Fauci, head of the NIADS at the NIH says:
Maybe, Seth, you can share with us your best take on the following words of DR. Fauci, (as I said, he is the head of NIADS for the last 20 some years, if you can keep your eyes open enough to follow the discussions and try to shake off a meme or two)
Dr Fauci has amazingly suggested that the best antidote to AIDS may be HIV itself. He also shares with us that HIV is a good thing that increases CD4 cells as well!
But, you better read Dr. Fauci's very own words for your very own self:
Here is his review paper in 2003 in the definitive textbook "Fundamental Immunology" which was edited by William E. Paul MD (REMEMBER THAT NAME!) and published by Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins (p. 1295):
"Several investigators have demonstrated that there is an increase in CD4+ T cell proliferation in both HIV and SIV infection. In certain studies, the enhanced T cell proliferation that was observed during active disease was significantly decreased following the initiation of anti-retroviral therapy, and proliferation increased again in parallel with plasma viremia following the cessation of treatment in these individuals."
In other words, my dear sleepy headed friend that can not keep his eyes open:
Simply adding HIV to the bloodstream increases T cell count, ARV drug therapy decreases it, and the removal of ARVs increases it again.
Think about that Seth! Dr. Fauci's amazing implication is a suggestion to replace antiretroviral drugs with a dose of HIV, and this alone will restore 61% of AIDS patients in this country right back to health overnight. No longer on the low CD4 count diagnosis of AIDS! Wow Seth, Just think about that!
For ever since the 1993 editing of the list of AIDS symptoms to cover more people, a low T-cell count has been one of the AIDS defining conditions just by itself. Well, here now 61% of AIDS patients are in that category, and have no other symptom at all, other than supposed HIV antibodies, when diagnosed.
And all this time, Seth, you thought HIV was a bad thing?
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 1:17 AM
Hey Seth, still with me buddy or are your eyes still shut? Remember in my last post where I told you to remember the name Dr. William Paul MD?
I think it needs to be said for your fully rounded education, that David Willman, ace Pulitzer Prize winning Washington DC reporter of the Los Angeles Times, did an amazing series last year that ended up causing quite a ruckus in congress and the National Institute of Health, and exposed 530 top scientists and directors at the National Institute of Health, whom were accepting stock and cash from pharmaceutical companies, and were not even bothering to report it as required. Even the former Director of the Office of Aids Research, Dr. William E. Paul, was found to be accepting $930,000.00 in stock and cash. I would love to get my hands on the full list, which even included Tony Fauci, and see how many other snakes in NIAID were involved. From what I understand, the worst of the worst offenses happened in Tony Fauci's NIADS departments.
LA Times article starring Dr. Paul William: http://www.newsdesk.org/archives/000154.php
LA Times article on 530 scientists taking payola: http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/04/22.php
For even more juicy morsels on our boys at the NIH from Pulitzer prize winner David Willman just do a google search of the words: David Willman LA Times NIH
What enlightening information can you share back with me there Seth?
PS: By the way Seth, I loved that picture of you on your about me site. Are you really a closed eyed rockhead, was that just a joke?
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 1:32 AM
Hello Chris.
You posted the following regarding scientists?
Peoples motivation for becoming scientists is fairly variable. Most are curious about the world and want to discover new things. They want to add to science and the world in the same way that people like Einstein did. Self-glorification and personal gain are rarely strong motives although some scientists do revel in their public roles. Duesberg himself seems to enjoy playing the iconoclast.
and you posted this:
You want us to believe that all the scientists around the world just blindly follow press conferences like a mob of sheep. Have you ever been to a scientific conference? The complete opposite is true. Most scientists would like to be the one who revolutionises a field. Nobody wants to just follow the mob. Most people want to be a Galileo or an Einstein.
Then perhaps you will explain to us how it is that Dr. Duesberg, the iconoclast has never been in any scandal such as the 530 yoyos at the NIH, has never been found guilty of scientific misconduct, such as your hero Dr. Gallo, and is the only one that behaves like a Galileo in the face of all of the massive opposition to him? Please do explain sir?
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 1:40 AM
lincoln writes:
Dr Fauci does no such thing.
Here is the relevant text with references:
289. Lempicki RA, Kovacs JA, Baseler MW, et al. Impact of HIV-1 infection and highly active antiretroviral therapy on the kinetics of CD4+ and CD8+ T cell turnover in HIV-infected patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000; 97: 13778 - 13783
290. Mohri H, Bonhoeffer S, Monard S, et al. Rapid Turnover of T Lymphocytes in SIV-Infected Rhesus Macaques. Science 1998; 279: 1223 - 1227
291. Zhang ZQ, Notermans DW, Sedgewick G, et al. Kinetics of CD4+ T cell repopulation of lymphoid tissues after treatment of HIV-1 infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1998; 95: 1154 - 1159
292. Sachsenberg N, Perelson AS, Yerly S, et al. Turnover of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes in HIV-1 infection as measured by Ki-67 antigen. J Exp Med 1998; 187: 1295 - 1303
293. Rosenzweig M, DeMaria MA, Harper DM, et al. Increased rates of CD4(+) and CD8(+) T lymphocyte turnover in simian immunodeficiency virus-infected macaques. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1998; 95: 6388 - 6393
294. Hellerstein M, Hanley MB, Cesar D, et al. Directly measured kinetics of circulating T lymphocytes in normal and HIV-1-infected humans. Nat Med 1999; 5: 83 - 89
295. Hazenberg MD, Stuart JW, Otto SA, et al. T-cell division in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 infection is mainly due to immune activation: a longitudinal analysis in patients before and during highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Blood 2000; 95: 249 - 255
296. McCune JM, Hanley MB, Cesar D, et al. Factors influencing T-cell turnover in HIV-1-seropositive patients. J Clin Invest 2000; 105: R1 - R8
297. Fleury S, Rizzardi GP, Chapuis A, et al. Long-term kinetics of T cell production in HIV-infected subjects treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000; 97: 5393 - 5398
298. Fleury S, de Boer RJ, Rizzardi GP, et al. Limited CD4+ T-cell renewal in early HIV-1 infection: effect of highly active antiretroviral therapy. Nat Med 1998; 4: 794 - 801
299. Folks TM, Kessler SW, Orenstein JM, et al. Infection and replication of HIV-1 in purified progenitor cells of normal human bone marrow. Science 1988; 242: 919 - 922
If "rethinkers" have good arguments to doubt that HIV causes AIDS why do they consistently and transparently misrepresent the scientific literature?
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 9, 2006 1:56 AM
Now Mr. Noble, sir, please, you are changing the subject again. I just asked you in my last post, how do you explain HIV Rethinker, Dr. Peter Duesberg, and HIV Rethinker Dr. Karri Mullis as well, when you have quite clearly listed your list of what a "real scientist" is, and how a "real scientist" behaves, and Dr. Duesberg and Dr. Mullis seems to fit this quite perfectly while none of the other bozos whose studies you pull up to avoid me, can remotely come close to! Especially the politicians and spotlight loving, white house steps drama queens such as Drs. Gallo and Fauci!
Now one more time Mr. Noble. You said the following about real scientists:
Curious about the world and want to discover new things.
Gallo doesn't fit that, as he is simply known for thievery and appropriating viruses or inventing them and calling them his own! He was caught doing that with Luc Montagniers LAV, and the Japanese virus snatching incident. Fauci, pretty much has done nothing but politics for the last 20 plus years.
BUT!!!! Perhaps this "curious about the world" thing explains why Dr. Duesberg has been working pretty much only in cancer for the last 10 years. AND doing it without any government funding! Perhaps it explains why Dr. Mullis discovered PCR and broke free to do his own research on his own money. I take it you quite agree that these two leading HIV rethinkers fit that one to a T!
They want to add to science and the world in the same way that people like Einstein did.
Do you mean the way Dr. Mullis did with his invention of PCR, or the way Dr. Duesberg did with his astounding and world changing findings regarding HIV, Aneuploidy and Oncogenes? Seems both Duesberg and Mullis fit this one to a T as well, wouldn't you agree Mr. Noble?
Self-glorification and personal gain are rarely strong motives
Kind of the way that Dr. Duesberg shucked off his banishment by the NIH and continued to do groundbreaking science even without their funding, wouldn't you agree Mr. Noble? Kind of the way Dr. Mullis started his own company and stayed far away from the government garbage as well. Perfect fit for real scientist qualifications here as well, Right?
Most people want to be a Galileo or an Einstein.
I think you are absolutely correct in this. Most wannabees do want to be a Galileo type of a guy, kind of just like Dr. Duesberg and Dr. Mullis standing on their own against a sea of slings and arrows, shot by the mediocre wannabees, yet they move forward and stand their ground, even in the face of official banishment, JUST LIKE GALILEO! Wouldn't you agree Mr. Noble?
although some scientists do revel in their public roles. I'll grant you that Dr. Mullis has been known to get a bit carried away publicly, so he seems to fill this shoe. Does Dr. Duesbergs roller skating with his kids around Berkely count for this as well? Perhaps.
I am glad that you and I both agree that both Dr. Duesberg and Dr. Mullis, both fit your bill EXACTLY of what a REAL SCIENTIST IS!
And what was that you were saying about Fauci who? and Gallo who?
Go on Mr. Noble, babble on about something else to change the subject. I am sure someone will eventually share your escape hatch and babble back to you!
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 2:50 AM
lincoln,
you are really starting to rant.
I have no doubt that Duesberg and Mullis are motivated by good intentions. I don't think they are motivated by greed. I also think they are both excellent scientists.
I also think that most other scientists are also honest and not motivated by greed. I find your ad hominem slurs against other scientists to be a poor excuse for an argument.
I believe that Duesberg has managed to delude himself and has invested too much emotionally into his campaign that HIV cannot cause AIDS to ever admit that he was wrong. It seems strange that you can believe this about tens of thousands of other scientists but not about Duesberg.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 9, 2006 3:35 AM
Lincoln, I believe Chris was right to say you're delusional
you said in your response
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/08/interview_with_hiv_rethinker_r.php#comment-188971
"It would have been quite easy to do a micronutrients only, and low CD4, but otherwise healthy group"
You're colluding/confusing the two important aspects of the study, they are studying the beneficial effects of micronutrient supplement on HIV-infected patients on HAART, which I believe is with the intention of boosting the immune system once HIV replication has been controlled with HAART treatment - which effectively negates the damage/depletion done my rampant HIV replication to CD4 T-cells
As I have mentioned before, many others already have pointed you to many studies that compared the CD4 counts, HIV-associated motality, and progression to AIDS difference between HIV-positive patients receiving HAART (ARVs) and those that do not receive HAART. And all these studies have affirmed the efficacy of HAART at improving survival and halting the progression to AIDS.
Similarly many studies have already shown that healthy individuals - even ndividuals affected by malnutrition BUT NOT infected with HIV or any rare genetic disorders would not have the drastic depletion of CD4 T cells that characterise individuals with rampant HIV replication. Let this be clear to you.
That is why "It would have been quite easy to do a micronutrients only, and low CD4, but otherwise healthy group" is silly, as (low CD4 but otherwise healthy T cell counts) DOES NOT EQUATE TO (CD4 counts with rampant HIV replications), they are on different scales. Any comparison would be meaningless
Simply,
HAART controls HIV replication = without HAART HIV replication rampant
Rampant HIV replication ravages the immune system, drastically depletes CD4 T cells
Vitamins shown to be a good adjuvant therapy to help boost the immune system if patients with HAART controlled HIV replication, in fact taking vitamins will boost your immune system and general health of any individual healthy or otherwise.
AND LINCOLN the rest of your response are just another of your rants and baseless accusations, warrants no attention
BTW, I thought a certain group in South Africa that totally rejects the HIV model of disease are studying an vitamins only approach to treat AIDS, strange, they've been at it for years already, how come there's not a stitch of news or positive findings on their "alternative vitamin only therapy" I wonder..
Posted by: viji | August 9, 2006 5:05 AM
I should add the efficacy of HAART at controlling/halting rampant HIV replication and the associated damage/depletion of CD4 Tcells by rampant viral replication. HAART does not directly restore CD4 T cells as the regimen is designed to target the HIV virus NOT as a nutritional supplement, Don't you collude the two.
Posted by: viji | August 9, 2006 5:08 AM
So allegations and revelations of another of those messy bits that occurs every facet and aspect in the united states of america, from politicians to your everyday cop on the street.
What's new? And what has that got to do with HIV research, much less the cumulative research findings from experiments conducted from so many groups all over the world, may it be NIH funded, or pharmaceutical funded, or the majority of varsity groups with no connections to industry whatsover but having research funds acquired from university pools, goverment initiatives, and public appeals.
The source of funding doesn;t change the findings of these experiments, as experiments conducted by so many different groups on different aspects of science/medicine have given us the HIV model of disease. If you think there is foul play or pervertion of data, people will find out, just like the Korean stem cell fiasco. At the same time if anyone strongly rejects the HIV model, they can always choose to present solid data that prooves otherwise. Therefore I can;t really see if how any entity that can possibly manipulate the whole research community of the world, especially with a disease that arguably the best documented human disease to date, moreover, many of our observations on HIV AIDS are reported by doctors and health workers volunteering on humanitarian ideals in countries around the world.
Posted by: viji | August 9, 2006 5:40 AM
I was wondering, has anyone here heard of the "Paranoid Style" of politics? I ask because DB and Lincoln seem to be exhibiting the symptoms.
GE
Posted by: Guitar Eddier | August 9, 2006 8:36 AM
lincoln wrote:
"And all this time, Seth, you thought HIV was a bad thing? "
-------------
I must reach the conclusion that HIV is bad if I place any value in the bulk of the articles contained in the Journal of AIDS, the publication that you originally cited.
You cannot have your cake and eat it too, lincoln. You cannot point to the literature and gloat, while ignoring the hundreds of thousands of articles in that same journal that you disagree with.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 9, 2006 9:22 AM
The "paranoid style" was identified over 40 years ago by American historian Richard Hofstader who acknowledged his debt to Chicken Little and other fairy tale characters.
Since 1981, the mantle of the "paranoid style" has been adopted by AIDS dogmatists as part of its culture of fear and quasi-hysteria in the USA. It predictably oozes from many of the ranting, rambling postings here.
AIDS cases, especially among the overwhelming majority of Americans who are neither iv-drug users or homosexuals, continue to dwindle down down down down to the vanishing point.
This 20-year trend is very very bad news for the "sky-is-falling" Church of AIDS dogmatists across the USA. It rankles and offends its catechists and true believers.
The next international AIDS conference (yawn!) gets underway in Canada on Sunday.
The newspapers will be full of more hysteria and garbage that have absolutely no bearing or meaning to non-iv drug using, heterosexual Americans but mean everything to the squalid clique of Big Pharma, safe sex evangelicals, condom missionaries, rock stars, activists, and researchers who've staked their entire lives on this charade.
Let the fun begin.........
Posted by: Charles | August 9, 2006 9:29 AM
The next international AIDS conference (yawn!) gets underway in Canada on Sunday.
Is there a purpose to these conferences, other than promoting "AIDS"?
Posted by: DB | August 9, 2006 10:37 AM
People confuse conspiracy theories for what is essentially capitalism at work. There is no conspiracy of evil lurking behind any pharmaceutical doors but merely pure and simple business. Capitalism promotes positive cash flow and positive cash flow only, all else is simply "fallout". Whoever believes in free market forces as the cure-all is simply surrendering to mediocrity. "Big Pharma" is no conspiracy merely good business with mediocre output, like everywhere else market forces reign. HIV/AIDS research is no different...
...foolish, naive world.
And sorry viji. To think those studies are worth anything without a med-free control group is simple poor, narrow minded research, period.
"HIV replication rampant" how can something that is barely detectable be "rampant"? Only in a world that has the nasty habit of misusing the english language.
"BTW, I thought a certain group in South Africa that totally rejects the HIV model of disease are studying an vitamins only approach to treat AIDS, strange, they've been at it for years already, how come there's not a stitch of news or positive findings on their "alternative vitamin only therapy" I wonder.."
Why you naively ask? Because you and your ilk don't care and more to the point: you and your ilk have just as little to show for it. Check this pathetic slogan:
"Latest AIDS statitics 0,000,000 cured. Support a cure, support AMFAR". To claim that HAART somehow is "life-saving" is a cruel joke. You're as pathetic as those you try to denigrate.
Posted by: pat | August 9, 2006 10:43 AM
Yes, the purpose of these meetings is to agree that another round of talk is needed in the future and also to show the world that "we" care, oh yes, and also to beg for more cash.
Posted by: pat | August 9, 2006 10:47 AM
viji, viji, viji, mon amis.
You wrote:
BTW, I thought a certain group in South Africa that totally rejects the HIV model of disease are studying an vitamins only approach to treat AIDS, strange, they've been at it for years already, how come there's not a stitch of news or positive findings on their "alternative vitamin only therapy" I wonder..
No need to wonder any more viji, You will find Bill Gates sweet smiling face on the following webpage to help explain it to you!
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 11:25 AM
I wrote: "ignoring the hundreds of thousands of articles"
while of course I meant "ignoring the hundreds OR thousands of articles."
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 9, 2006 11:34 AM
Charles Wrote:
"This 20-year trend is very very bad news for the "sky-is-falling" Church of AIDS dogmatists across the USA. It rankles and offends its catechists and true believers."
--------
Charles,
I'm not being fascetious, I actually am really interested in why you say this. What is this "catechism" of which you speak? Can you quote examples, specific ones, in this thread, that demonstrate the "catechism"? What makes it a "catechism"? Do these statements have a meaning to you that you can pin down and state in your own words?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 9, 2006 11:40 AM
viji, by exploring the South African Health departments, you will also find that the leading cause of death, supposedly attributed to HIV is not HIV at all, but is Tuberculosis at 80 percent, followed by Malaria, and Hepatitis. You will also find that the vast majority of Gates money, is going to medications for TB and Malaria. We will have to wait to see what the future holds as far as whether he will continue this trend, or fall into the HIV meme by wasting funds on an HIV vaccination or ARV's. He is a fairly bright man, whom expects results when he invests, and I do not think it will take him too long to sort out the best use of his funds, if he has not done so already. He has made token investments toward HIV vaccinations and arv's, but he has already made massive investments toward TB and Malaria, both of which are on the list of factors known to cause false positive, and both of which are at the lead of South Africa's supposed AIDS epidemic.
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 11:40 AM
Good Morning Seth. Hopefully you are bright eyed and awake today. Your questions to Charles give me hope! You wrote:
I'm not being fascetious, I actually am really interested in why you say this. What is this "catechism" of which you speak? Can you quote examples, specific ones, in this thread, that demonstrate the "catechism"? What makes it a "catechism"? Do these statements have a meaning to you that you can pin down and state in your own words?
Seth. When is the first time in your life that you heard the phrase "HIV, The Virus That Causes Aids"?
How many times in your life have you heard that phrase?
How many times did you need to hear it before you believed it was true?
How deeply has it been planted into your subconscious?
How much would it pain you to disbelieve it?
How difficult is it to break free of deeply held beliefs?
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 11:53 AM
Substitute "influenza, the virus that causes the flu." Why isn't that a catechism, "lincoln"?
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 9, 2006 12:00 PM
"To think those studies are worth anything without a med-free control group is simple poor, narrow minded research, period."
Pat, from study after study, we know what happens to untreated HIV individuals. They progress to AIDS. We know what happens to untreated AIDS patients. They die. HAART delays the inevitable, and allows the body to fight back against opportunistic infections. All this has been demonstrated in study after study.
Because of this, in HIV and AIDS studies, cancer research, and a host of other serious diseases, including a no treatment control in this kind of study is considered highly unethical. Simply put, it is against the rules and laws governing research with human subjects. For terminal and serious diseases, you always compare the best currently available treatment to the experimental group. Such a study would never be approved by any university, hospital or other group. You would be able to get such an experiment approved for most lab animals, but not for humans.
"AIDS cases, especially among the overwhelming majority of Americans who are neither iv-drug users or homosexuals, continue to dwindle down down down down to the vanishing point."
Charles, First, education and prevention programs have helped decrease the spread of HIV. Politics and a poor understanding of how to design successful public health campaigns for the GLBT community have made it difficult to slow the spread of HIV. Politics, again, make it difficult (if not impossible) to develop programs to limit the spread of HIV in IV drug abusers, such as needle exchange programs. All in the name of "morals."
Also, this again confuses being HIV+ and having AIDS. HAART delays the onset of AIDS. These patients live longer than if they had recieved no treatment. If they die of something else instead of AIDS, including side effects of treatment, they still live longer than they would have with no treatment at all. The statistics of such a death do not count as AIDS because they never progressed to having AIDS.
Second, what alternative hypothesis do you have for why gay men and IV drug users develop AIDS? You seem to be dismissive of the concerns of these high risk subpopulations.
Posted by: Robster | August 9, 2006 12:01 PM
More info on Dr. Rath.
Posted by: Robster | August 9, 2006 12:05 PM
Good Morning Chris P Nodle.
Thank you for your glowing praise of Peter Duesberg and Karri Mullis, and for sharing with all that these two men, are among the finest scientific minds and assets of American science. And thank you for admitting that these two distinguished Aids Rethinkers are a far cry from the greedy little peas in a pod of NIADS, like fauci, gallo, john peamoore, david yoyohoho, and the other sycophants whom have been sucking the nipples of the public coffers dry for the last 20 years.
I think too that Duesberg was quite deluded about HIV/AIDS. He was deluded that those little peas whom were irrationally escalating the paradigm would come to their senses any time soon. Perhaps this is why he has spent 95% of his lab time for the last 10 years on more important issues such as Cancer research.
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 12:09 PM
Robster the mobster.
You wrote:
from study after study, we know what happens to untreated HIV individuals. They progress to AIDS. We know what happens to untreated AIDS patients. They die.
Luc Montagnier, the original discoverer of HIV, says YOU Mr. Mobster, ARE A LIAR! The following is a direct quote from Dr. Montagnier (you can find it on wikepaedia as well):
"AIDS does not inevitably lead to death, especially if you suppress the co-factors that support the disease. It is very important to tell this to people who are infected. I think we should put the same weight now on the co-factors as we have on HIV. Psychological factors are critical in supporting immune function. If you suppress this psychological support by telling someone he's condemned to die, your words alone will have condemned him." - Luc Montagnier
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier
Not only are you a liar, according to Dr. Luc, but you are a murderer whom is committing psychological murder on any HIV positives whom listen to your ranting HIVmmeemmeemmeemmeemememmemmemmmmmeee!
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 12:21 PM
Lincoln mentioned an article on Vitamin E and its effects on cultured samples of cells from HIV+ patients. I pulled the article, and found some interesting omissions from what he was stating about the article.
First, vitamins do delay disease progression, but there is no claim that they can replace HAART as an effective therapy. If I have time, I'll look up these references to see if they make any comparisons to HAART.
Second, vitamin supplements were examined as a possible secondary therapy for patients who, for one reason or another, have an interuption of treatment.
Third, the observed effects of vitamin E are entirely consistent with what we know about the molecular biology of HIV. This is not simply an unexplainable phenomenon, but one that can be explained by current knowledge.
The authors conclude,
Their work is intended to help prevent the formation of strains resistant to therapy. From this work, I can say that adding vitamins to HAART therapy is a good idea, worthy of further study.
Posted by: Robster | August 9, 2006 12:58 PM
GOOD MORNING TARA!!!!
Nice to chat with you on your site. Very good question that you bring up.
Substitute "influenza, the virus that causes the flu." Why isn't that a catechism, "lincoln"?
Here are some more questions that you know the answer to that will point you in the direction of the elusive answer to your original question:
Does Influenza fulfill Koch's Postulates? Overwhelming YES.
Does HIV fulfil said postulates? Underwhelming not in 20 years.
Is influenza easily cultured directly from patients: Absolutely!
Is HIV easily cultured from patients: Not at all.
Can Influenza be easily seen via microscopes from patient cultures? Absolutely!
Can HIV be easily seen from patient cultures? Not in 20 years has HIV been cultured from any patient cultures and seen by even electronmicroscopes!
Can influenza be isolated and cause the very same disease in other hosts? Absolutely.
Can hiv be isolated and cause the very same disease? Only if both host and target are given the same high dosage of AZT!
From this comparison, it is very important to realize that influenza is a virus, and HIV is a retrovirus. Perhaps we could compare retroviruses that are known to cause disease in their hosts? Well that would be wonderful, but there ARE NO RETROVIRUSES THAT CAUSE DISEASE IN THEIR HOSTS!
Glad to help you understand.
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 1:07 PM
Dr. Montagnier is quoted as having said...
"AIDS does not inevitably lead to death, especially if you suppress the co-factors that support the disease."
I wrote, "We know what happens to untreated AIDS patients. They die."
These statements are not in opposition. The key word is untreated.
And that's Dr. Mobster to you. :)
Posted by: Robster | August 9, 2006 1:08 PM
"lincoln" - in all of the immunology literature, can you find any papers showing that psychological stress can lead to the complete loss of recall responses and resultant serious opportunistic infections seen in AIDS? If you're going to accuse someone of "murder," you'd need that evidence.
The story of Montagnier's "co factor," mycoplasmas, was told on the Dean's World thread mentioned before by Nick Bennett:
"Montagnier (he of HIV discovery fame) published a report suggesting that a mycoplasma contaminant appeared to be a cofactor in HIV-mediated cell death. (Lemaitre et al Res Virol. 1990 Jan-Feb;141(1):5-16. and Lemaitre et al Infect Immun. 1992 Mar;60(3):742-8). When he added simple antibiotics to the cultures cell death disappeared. This was a finding replicated elsewhere. However in vivo there appeared to be no effect of mycoplasmal infection on AIDS (Montagnier and Blanchard Clin Infect Dis. 1993 Aug;17 Suppl 1:S309-15.)
The answer came a year later from Canada, when a group working on the exact same cell line (but using appropriate antibiotics) discovered the following:
After long-term cultivation of the three cultures, no antigen-positive cells were detected and no trace of virus expression could be observed. The remaining cells consisted entirely of CD4-negative cells. PCR analyses indicated that cells harboring a provirus were progressively eliminated from the cultures, leaving only virus-free cells. In this system, cells carrying a latent provirus survive for a limited period of time before virus activation induces cell lysis. These results suggest that at least three types of cells exist in the CEM cell line: CD4-positive cells which are rapidly killed by the virus, a second type harboring a latent viral genome after the infection and which grow normally until activation of the resident genome by external or internal signal(s), and a third type which represents rare CD4-negative cells present in the initial CEM population and which are selected for by the NSI isolates. This is the first study documenting specific interactions between NSI strains of HIV-1 and distinct subpopulations of CEM cells grown as a single cell culture.
(Yelle et al Arch Virol 1994;139(1-2):155-72)
So in one fell swoop this paper shows (A) HIV infects and kills CD4+ T cells and (B) explains the mycoplasma data. HIV plus mycoplasma results in non-selective cell death. HIV alone only kills CD4+ cells, and in a mixed cell line the CD4- cells grow to replace. Montagnier did not stain the cells to detect this change - but then he had no reason to suspect it was a mixed lineage line. Mycoplasma is also famous throughout tissue culture labs for doing "weird sh*t" with experiments - this kind of finding underlines that. Mycoplasma is very hard to detect without specialist kits - most bacterial contamination is really blindly obvious to see, because the culture flasks start getting cloudy :o) Mycoplasma are also resistant to the usual antibiotics used to prevent contamination (penicillin and streptomicin)."
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1105628771.shtml
This thread also features contributions from one "AnthonyL" (he apparently doesn't like using "Anthony Liversidge" because then if someone Googles his name, these threads appear; he's obviously very proud of his contributions).
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 9, 2006 1:16 PM
lincoln,
So the entire "catechism" is "HIV causes AIDS"? Why is this a catechism? What does the word "catechism" mean to you, and in what way does the statement that HIV causes AIDS fulfill that definition?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 9, 2006 1:23 PM
Robomobster:
You said:
what alternative hypothesis do you have for why gay men and IV drug users develop AIDS? You seem to be dismissive of the concerns of these high risk subpopulations.
Perhaps, you would enjoy volunteering to live in a shooting gallery spending all of your money on shooting up 'junk', instead of eating, and we will see how long you can do this and remain healthy!
Perhaps you should do a lot of crystal meth and sniff poppers and stay in a gay bath house having sex with dozens of men for hours, and eat a diet of diet cokes and candy bars, and then be coming down with syphillus, gonorrhea, chlamydia, fungal, and bacterial and staph infections, week after week, with high potency shots of high potency antibiotics with each exposure. And we will give all of your sex partners HIV tests to be sure they are free of HIV. And then we will see how long and how much of this your body can take before succumbing to illness.
RoboMobster, you seem to be unwilling to consider an overwhelming realm of co-factors as to why these specific groups of gays and HIV drug users are immune deficient.
You really don't have to be a rocket scientist to simply look at the obvious, now do you?
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 1:33 PM
So, "lincoln," can you explain how those factors explain the outcomes in the Dar Es Salaam hotel workers? The Thai army recruits?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 9, 2006 1:36 PM
I absolutely agree, you are certainly Dr. Mobster. You don't by any chance work with Dr. Jerk and Dr. Spector, and Dr. Luna, do you?
You can go to any 12 step meeting and they will be more than glad to tell you what happens to "untreated" drug addicts and alcoholics: THEY DIE! or end up incarcerated or institutionalized.
Someone taking care of their sex or drug addiction can be called "treated".
Someone on a vitamin regimen after taking antifungals to clear out the candida yeast infections can be called "treated".
But not to you, Dr. Mobster. To you, the only definition of "treated", is to be put on known to be deadly and carcinogenic ARV's or YOU will tell the patient that they are going to die! Dr. Mobster, I quite agree with Dr. Montagnier, that you are perhaps a liar and a murderer!
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 1:43 PM
In fact, if it was "obvious" that the factors so floridly described by "lincoln" could cause a catastrophic loss of cellular immunity and resultant opportunistic infections, then there would be very "obvious" evidence in the immunology literature. I wonder if he can cite any?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 9, 2006 1:44 PM
Lincoln,
There are retroviruses that cause disease in their hosts. Feline Leukemia and FIV are just two of them. They have also delveloped vaccines that are effective against these retrovirues so they can cause disease. This suggests that ethical restraints on testing humans probably prevent scientists from developing a vaccine as quickly as in animals.
As to your co-factor theory that does not explain all AIDS cases. For example a friend of mine is HIV postitive from a blood transfusion. Thankfully due to HAART he is still alive. He has had some serious infections and his cocktail has been adjusted as needed. He is not gay nor a drug user he is also upper class. If only AIDS meds, IV drug use, gay sex, and poverty cause AIDS why was he diagnosed and why is he still alive? He has been on the meds for over 10 years.
Posted by: Laura | August 9, 2006 1:47 PM
Hello Richard. I will be more than glad to explain to you every single one of the Daar Es Salam and Thai Army cases. You will need to provide me all of the following.
Each individual in the studies must be presented as a separate unique individual case, with a full report as to individual drug use, individual std infection history, individual health history, individual medication use of all medications, individual antibiotic use, individual exact cause of death in those who died, as AIDS is a catagory, not a disease.
I understand how you like to lump everyone into a pile and extrapolate your assumptions from this pile, but extrapolations based on assumptions are not facts. Give me the true facts sir and only the facts! Save your irrational assumptions for someone that is ignorant of the facts and more gullible than myself.
I don't know if anyone has ever told you this Mr. Jefferys, but people are human beings. They are meant to be cared about, and they are not meant to be used by those who seek to profit off of using them. Things are meant to be used Mr. Jefferys, and people are meant to be cared about. IMHO, To me sir, you seem to have this inverted, and you seem to me to be a person who uses people and cares about things.
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 2:02 PM
Sadly, the lesson of these threads is that you really can't address self-delusion with the scientific literature. Put even a few studies in front of them, and people like "lincoln," pat, Charles, DB, etc. just engage in the internet equivalent of placing their hands over their ears and going "la, la, la, I can't hear you!"
I think perhaps the logical denouement is that, much like the "rethinkers" have set up their own "Rethinking AIDS Wiki," they will have to set up their own "Rethinking AIDS PubMed" to which any papers offering even the slimmest support for their delusions will be enthusiastically added, while rest of the scientific literature is excluded.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 9, 2006 2:05 PM
Thanks, "lincoln," for buttressing the last point by so clearly demonstrating your grasp of the importance of large, prospective cohort studies.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 9, 2006 2:19 PM
If only AIDS meds, IV drug use, gay sex, and poverty cause AIDS why was he diagnosed and why is he still alive? He has been on the meds for over 10 years.
Wow, Laura. That's a real thinker. Looks like your anecdotal experience will make the rethinkers rethink yet again!
I've got my own anectdotal experiences that run counter to the grain of the dogma...so it works both ways.
Truth is, you didn't say your friend was diagnosed with "AIDS". You only stated that he was "HIV-positive". Then you go on to say he was taking HAART. Which you assume is what's keeping him alive.
It looks like the "AIDS drug" as cause of "AIDS" is gaining credibility in the case of your friend. No doubt your story will now take on some necessary embellishments.
Posted by: DB | August 9, 2006 2:27 PM
If you don't like anecdotes, DB, then deal with the above-cited studies with over >1,000 participants. You haven't so far.
One way of illustrating the cognitive dissonance involved here is to look at the predictive power of the tests being discussed. Perhaps if DB, "lincoln" or someone making the same arguments would be willing to cite a medical test that they have received that they believe to be of value, we could then compare the literature about those tests with the literature on HIV tests and surrogate markers of disease progression in people with HIV.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 9, 2006 2:32 PM
Hello Laura, perhaps what you said in the following statement is true, I don't know much about FIV or the reality of it, or how much this is proven.
They have also delveloped vaccines that are effective against these retrovirues so they can cause disease.
Was that statement a freudian slip, or an absolute truth, or your subconscious telling you something? perhaps.
But perhaps you are right, the vaccines may very well cause the disease!
Not all believe in FIV either, Laura, as being the retroviral contagious cause of disease in cats, but we can always save that for another thread. From what little I have read, it seems to me to be perhaps another false claim.
You also wrote:
As to your co-factor theory that does not explain all AIDS cases.
In my opinion, nothing can explain all AIDS cases, as they are all unique.
For example a friend of mine is HIV postitive from a blood transfusion.
Factors from blood transfusions are known to cause HIV positive antibody test results, see the list posted way up on the link.
Thankfully due to HAART he is still alive.
Can we rule out that his health is not mere placebo effect of believing in the treatment? No.
Can we rule out that the HAART is not operating on something other than HIV? No.
He has had some serious infections and his cocktail has been adjusted as needed.
Can we rule out the possibility that the cocktails were also lowering his immunity? No.
He is not gay nor a drug user he is also upper class.
Certainly helps to explain why he can tolerate the drugs.
If only AIDS meds, IV drug use, gay sex, and poverty cause AIDS why was he diagnosed
Well first of all, I don't recall anyone saying that ONLY these factors cause AIDS, as personally I believe that even emotional factors such as fear, apathy, stress, anger, shame, and guilt, can play quite nicely into destroying ones immune system. There are probably many other factors as well, that experienced toxicologists would share with us, such as artificial sweeteners, and many other toxins, and who knows what all.
There can be a multitude of reasons why he was diagnosed HIV, as has been explained by the tests being nonspecific to supposed HIV antibodies, and also the overwhelming number of factors that have been proven to cause the tests to at times show positive, and we can not even rule out the stress of an HIV diagnosis itself as contributing to any illness he did experience.
And then, are you asking why he was diagnosed as HIV positive or diagnosed as AIDS? They are two very different diagnoses that are not even always related.
and why is he still alive? He has been on the meds for over 10 years.
Maybe it is just not quite his time to go yet! You will have to take that question to a higher authority than myself. And no-one has said that a person can not live on ARV's for years and years and stay alive, however, the risk to his liver, as he ages, is increasing every day. Even Larry Kramer, spokesperson and founder of ACT-UP New York, who for a long time said he didn't do AIDS drugs, and then admitted he did do them and billed the government I think $19,000 per year for them, personally talked Dr. Tony Fauci recently, into getting him a liver transplant!
Laura, the most interesting and unprovable aspect of HIV/AIDS, is the belief factor in and of itself. Just like the placebo factor in drug trials, it is inexpliccable. You will find that most rethinkers also put a lot of emphasis on the belief factor, and the subsequent effect on health of the stress and fear and apathy, that usually accompany a diagnosis of HIV. How big is the effect? It is not something that science can see or measure. We will probably never know, although many of the individuals dealing personally with the issues, relay to us these overwhelming emotional states, over and over and over again.
You are also correct regarding your friend, as I too know many individuals on HAART that are alive and well for years.
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 2:46 PM
lincoln, if you intend to annoy me with plays on my nomme de bloggeur, you are going to have to work much harder.
Your alternative hypothesis appears to be that drug abuse, STDs and gay sex (homophobia anybody?) cause AIDS. The null hypothesis is that they don't. Are there spontaneous cases of AIDS (no traceable series of HIV infected individuals)? No. HIV is present in the AIDS cases you describe, and the series of infections can be traced. Do individuals at the periphery of this population develop AIDS? Yes. Sexual partners of those who follow the darker side of the circuit parties do develop AIDS, again with a traceable series of infections with HIV. The null hypothesis is supported, and your hypothesis fails.
Posted by: Robster | August 9, 2006 2:50 PM
Richard, sweet-muffin,
we're back to playing the game you enjoyed from earlier in this thread. You know, the one where you try to "prove" HIV causes AIDS by "going in through the back door".
Rather than showing us the actual "evidence" that HIV causes AIDS, Richard cites studies that work under the assumption that HIV causes AIDS...it's the unquestioned foundation. So, no matter what the study "reveals", it will ALWAYS support the assumption that HIV causes AIDS...it's built into it. But somehow...that..."proves" HIV causes AIDS (in lieu of the actual evidence, of course).
Posted by: DB | August 9, 2006 2:52 PM
Well, well Dr. Mobster, I never realized you were so fond of drug use and sexual promiscuity. Here is the recommendation and words of wisdom from the good and honest Dr. Mobster:
"We should all just go shoot up all the heroin we want, cause I think it is another very healthy drug. Crystal meth too, no problem there. Sure, go do the drugs and do the bath house thing, just make sure you use a condom. Promiscuity, not a problem. You'll never get ill, enjoy yourself."
There is a seat available at the twelve step meetings for you as well sir.
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 3:06 PM
DB, I'm not trying to "prove" anything. I'm just citing a sliver of the scientific literature, which contains the evidence that HIV causes AIDS (in the same way it contains the evidence that herpes zoster causes chickenpox). To defend your claims, you need to explain the study results. Let's run that Dar Es Salaam data yet again:
43/196 (21.9%) people that were HIV-positive at the time of entering the study died (median CD4 count at last sampling prior to death, 90 cells)
22/133 (16.5%) people that seroconverted during the study died (median CD4 count at last sampling prior to death, 186 cells)
20/1558 (1.2%) people that remained seronegative died (median CD4 count at last sampling prior to death 634 cells)
The researchers could not make this happen just because they might have hypothesized that HIV infection would be associated with immunodefiency and death. The data shows that it is.
Ultimately, it's really a travesty to use science to rebut these delusional arguments. It's like citing the herpetology literature to rebut David Icke's claim that the world is run by giant green reptiles.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 9, 2006 3:13 PM
Lincoln
I now see I mistyped. The vaccines prevent the viruses not cause the disease. As far as people denying the existance of FIV that does not surprise me. However I have yet to see someone deny the existance of FeLV feline leukemia. I was just pointing out that your statment that retroviruses do not cause disease is false. The retrovirus FeLV most certainly causes disease and is preventable with vaccines.
As for emotional factors I do believe they play a role in progression of disease however I have never heard of a case of someone thinking themselves into developing AIDS.
As far as side effects even seemingly benign drugs have them. Tylenol causes liver failure too.
Posted by: Laura | August 9, 2006 3:17 PM
I'm just citing a sliver of the scientific literature, which contains the evidence that HIV causes AIDS
This does not contain the evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Like thousands of other studies based on the assumption that HIV causes AIDS, the data derived from it will always support that unquestioned foundation.
We can argue about this all day, Richard. Your "studies" are fatally-flawed as they ALL assume that HIV causes AIDS.
Posted by: DB | August 9, 2006 3:25 PM
DB wrote:
We can argue about this all day, Richard. Your "studies" are fatally-flawed as they ALL assume that HIV causes AIDS.
It's not an argument DB, it's just data versus hand-waving.
A Dar Es Salaam hotel worker entering that study who tested positive on an HIV ELISA and confirmatory Western Blot faced a ~20 fold increased risk of CD4 T cell decline, immunodeficiency and death compared to their persistently seronegative colleagues.
Here are the risk factors for mortality in the Thai TB/HIV study:
TABLE 2. Cox Regression of Possible Risk Factors for Mortality in HIV/TB-Coinfected Patients
Risk Factors
Not receiving ART
Hazard ratio: 20.00
95% confidence interval: 8.62-45.45
p value: less than 0.001
MDR-TB
Hazard ratio: 2.00
95% confidence interval: 1.04-3.78
p value: 0.038
Gastrointestinal TB
Hazard ratio: 9.22
95% confidence interval: 1.10-78.02
p value: 0.042
Weight
Hazard ratio: 0.99
95% confidence interval: 0.96-1.01
p value: 0.349
Pulmonary TB
Hazard ratio: 0.86
95% confidence interval: 0.55-1.35
p value: 0.513
CNS TB
Hazard ratio: 0.75
95% confidence interval: 0.18-3.11
p value: 0.691
Perhaps an actual biological scientist can comment, but I don't think you see a hazard ratio of 20.00 very often.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 9, 2006 3:49 PM
DB wrote:
"We can argue about this all day, Richard. Your "studies" are fatally-flawed as they ALL assume that HIV causes AIDS."
------------
DB: Why do you believe that a study based on a hypothesis must validate that hypothesis? Do you apply this to all areas of research?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 9, 2006 4:32 PM
re: Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 03:06 PM
Now that, Richard and Chris, is putting words in somebody's mouth. I suppose that I should be honored.
The above are risk factors for being infected with HIV, they are not causal factors for AIDS. And while opiates and amphetamines have worthwile medical uses, the abuse or overdose of any drug is dangerous, and promiscuity can expose one to many other STDs.
The dispassionate statement that they do not cause AIDS is not, in any way, an endorsement.
In regards to the claim that retroviruses (scan to SSSV) don't cause diseases, beyond FeLV and FIV, is simply false.
Posted by: Robster | August 9, 2006 4:46 PM
Laura,
You wrote:
As far as people denying the existance of FIV that does not surprise me.
I did not say anything about denying the existence of FIV, I discussed whether or not it caused immunodeficiency, as it certainly does not do it in every cat that tests positive for it, only in a far lesser percentage. Do you have some proof for the claims of causation? If so, I am wondering if they are about as good as gallo's poor showing of only 28 out of 72 AIDS patients testing positive for HIV, unless you can show me differently as regards FIV and backed up by more than one reputable lab. More than half of the FIV positives resulting in serious immune deficiencies would be much more convincing. As I said, I am not overly familiar with it, but what I did read was not overwhelming in evidence, especially as lots of cats also get the same diseases that again test negative for FIV.
You wrote:
As for emotional factors I do believe they play a role in progression of disease.
Now you yourself are claiming to believe emotional factors play a roll. How much of a roll? How would you go about proving this belief scientifically. It sounds quite unprovable to me, although I agree with you wholeheartedly.
You say:
however I have never heard of a case of someone thinking themselves into developing AIDS
How do we know they did not ALL fit into this category, considering it is unprovable and yet we both agree that we both believe in its effects?
I don't know about you, Laura, but I hear alarm bells in all of this obvious belief in belief playing a role in illness, but then I think I have better hearing skills than most.
Just how much of a role does belief play?
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 7:40 PM
HOT OFF THE PRESS!
HAART USERS MORE LIKELY TO PROGRESS TO AIDS according to just released Lancet study!
For all of you self proclaiming safe and effective HIV AntiRetroviral drug lovers, study just out shows a steady decline in AIDS deaths, EXCEPT among HAART users, which has INCREASED!
One-year mortality after starting HAART has not improved
Last Updated: 2006-08-03 18:30:35 -0400 (Reuters Health)
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Although the risk of Progression to AIDS and death in HIV-infected patients has greatly declined since the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), the short-term mortality risk after starting HAART, despite a reduction in viral load, has not changed from 1995 to 2003.
Moreover, patients who began HAART in 2002-2003 were actually more likely to progress to AIDS than those who started therapy in 1998, according to a report in the August 5th issue of The Lancet.
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 8:16 PM
Lincoln
I am not going to argue about the percentage of cats that test positive for FIV develop immune suppression because I don't know I am not a vet I worked at a shelter. As far as retroviruses go FeLV is also a retrovirus and it leads to feline leukemia. I am guessing since you didn't question it you didn't look into it. From my experience it is not questioned even the most die hard anti vax homeopathic vets that believe all drugs are evil don't dispute how serious it is. So my point is that your broad statment that retro viruses don't harm their hosts is false. I would try to post links but I am new to blogs and don't know html.
As for emotions yes I believe that they can effect disease progression. Therefore I believe a person diagnosed with HIV whom believes it is the end of the world may progress to AIDS faster. I do not believe emotions can lead to that severe of a decline in immune function alone. The virus comes first.
Just so you don't misunderstand me I believe HIV infection leads to AIDS. Cofactors along with HIV may hasten a patients decline but do not cause it. THere are a lot of unhealthy poor meth users that don't die of AIDS. While I know anecdotes don't mean a whole lot my friend does suffer a great deal of depression and despair however he is still ok. I believe it is due to the meds you obviously disagree. However I am still confused as to what you think causes it. Does HIV play any role? Like I said yes cofactors can speed progression in people with HIV not in people who test negative for HIV. What are your thoughts on that?
As for you post about the Lancet I read about a study and it indicated that the reason there wasn't a decline in deaths of HAART users because majority of infected did not seek treatment until they were in advanced stages of the disease. I would post a link to the article but I am not familar with HTML and it never seems to work. Can anybody recommend a link to a site that explains it?
Posted by: Laura | August 9, 2006 8:50 PM
Hello Laura.
I realize you are a believer in the faith of retroviral diseases in animals. It is difficult to discuss this issue with you as you are simply uninformed of the larger picture. I can understand how this would absolutely carry over to your beliefs in human retroviral illness, but, I would only encourage you to be a bit more sophisticated, and break free of your naivity on the subject of retrovirus illnesses. I would steer you to page 137, of Dr. Harvey Bialy's book, Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg. It also offers a startling insider's view of some of the procedures and politics of modern science, with special attention devoted to the political efforts to maintain both the virus-cancer and virus-AIDS programs, including the animal retroviral models as well.
http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/Oncogenes,_Aneuploidy,_and_AIDS
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 8:50 PM
I've read this thread up to the point where I couldn't take any more. Until the dumbest and most deceitful statement from Robster:
"Pat, from study after study, we know what happens to untreated HIV individuals. They progress to AIDS. We know what happens to untreated AIDS patients. They die."
In your dreams, Robster. That's exactly the mantra that is being repeated over and over again. And there has never been and will never be any evidence for it.
The Concorde study already showed in 1994 that "treatment" with AZT was totally ineffective. Since then there have not been any controlled studies. What we invariably see is that the study is begun and then terminated early, because (according to the hypocrites who conduct it) "it would be unethical to withhold those life-saving HAART drugs from half the test population". Note that the drugs are called "life-saving", while the very purpose of the study was to prove that! (#$&^%#*%^%$%!!!!)
Do "untreated" "HIV-infected" patients die? Sure. Of old age, like everybody else. The only patients who die early are those who never stopped the behavior that made them sick in the first place (= taking intravenous drugs, or cocaine or crystal meth. Or using antibiotics as prophylaxis).
Those who do take HAART, don't die of AIDS, I must admit. They die of liver and/or kidney failure.
Of course I know that anecdotal evidence does not mean much, but I know too many seropositive individuals who have been doing well without ARV's for many years, not to sit up and take notice. One person I know very well did take the meds for 2 years, and always felt miserable. She abruptly quit them, but still had her CD4 count and Viral Load checked. I consider both these tests without merit, but to the chagrin of the orthodoxy, these values are now (again 2 years later) better than ever.
And Tine van der Maas, who runs an alternative health clinic in South Africa, reports that she had a woman patient on HAART who was so sick she could not walk anymore. After quitting the toxic HAART drugs, and a short regimen of lemons, garlic and olive oil, she was back on her feet (in high heels even). Then she went back to the "official" medical care. Shortly after resuming HAART, she collapsed again. Now she's back on lemons/garlic/olive oil.
Of course these are just two success stories. But they mean more than repeating the same old baldfaced lie that "untreated" patients progress to AIDS and die.
Balderdash, Robster! Horsefeathers! Bullshit! You're just trying to scare people. What's your motive?
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 9, 2006 9:11 PM
lincoln,
Your commentary on this thread alone has now exceeded 15,050 words. We're starting to get the drift. Could you please tell us, if you are in fact Harvey Bialy or one of his pseudonyms ? And could you summarize in 3 sentences or less exactly what your point is ?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 9, 2006 9:12 PM
Laura, as for your friend, whom is HIV positive, I understand your genuine concern, but my own personal opinion, is that you are doing him absolutely no good, by projecting your beliefs at him, that he has a deadly virus, that this virus is going to cause AIDS, and that he will die of it. I am quite certain that he has quite more than enough people in his life projecting these destructive beliefs at him, including probably his family and his doctor, and as we both agree on the power of beliefs affecting illness, I believe that our own negative beliefs projected upon others whom we think we are being loving, caring, and kind to, can help lead them to even greater levels of depression, shame, guilt, apathy, and even assist in creating their illnesses and deaths!
In other words, I question whether you are even doing your friend a bit of good by being around him with your own beliefs in his death and disease and powerlessness over it to do anything but take known to be toxic and deadly medications. Maybe you would even do him a favor by staying away from him, until you fix your own self and your own negative and destructive beliefs. I really don't know. How strong is the power of belief? What do you think?
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 9:18 PM
Lincoln
Thanks for your concern for my friend however I don't project my beliefs on him. I don't tell him to take the drugs he chose that on his own. If he wants to complain about how unfair it is to have the disease I listen but as far as treatment that is between him and his doctor. I only brought him up because I see him as a success of HAART. So no I don't agree that I have a negative affect on him.
Posted by: Laura | August 9, 2006 9:34 PM
lincoln wrote:
"I realize you are a believer in the faith of retroviral diseases in animals"
------------------
lincoln: this is another time you have used the terminology of faith or religion to describe someone else's beliefs. You seem to have an implicit belief that everyone but you or others who agree with you is brainwashed. Can you justify that belief, or clarify if that is not your thinking?
Also, how do the medical studies that you agree with differ from those that you do not agree with: is there a basis (other than the conclusions) that you can explain to show how these studies that you accept are different from those you do not accept? That is, you seem to the untutored eye to simply be cherry picking one or two studies that can be spun in a certain way, but ignoring a whole orchard of methodologically similar studies that draw different conclusions. But perhaps I am simply unaware of some kind of methodological difference?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 9, 2006 9:38 PM
"Because of this, in HIV and AIDS studies, cancer research, and a host of other serious diseases, including a no treatment control in this kind of study is considered highly unethical. Simply put, it is against the rules and laws governing research with human subjects"
Robster, maybe here's a good point. For my benefit, please describe how you understand the word "unethical".
Posted by: pat | August 9, 2006 9:42 PM
Hello Anonymous.
I too, am amazed at my commentary, now that you have counted the words. I did not realize that I had that much to say on the subject myself.
I am certainly not Dr. Harvey Bialy. You can find earlier threads where he was blogging on a regular basis, and, not to brag, but I think I am a far better writer, far more tolerant, accepting, loving, and forgiving, and more well spoken, than he. At least I certainly try to be.
I am not sure what your point is in asking me to summarize my own point, although you are than welcome to offer me your 3 sentence or less summary of my posts if you wish.
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 9:52 PM
Laura, I personally believe that how you are dealing with your friend is the most ideal way to approach the issues with him. I think that for someone whom believes in the drugs, and believes they will get sick without them, they should certainly take all of the ARVs or HAART that they wish. I think it would be disastrous to withhold the drugs from someone who believes they will die without them. If someone believes the drugs are healthy to take, then they certainly should.
But again, here we are dealing with the power of beliefs as being at the very root of health and well being. It is unprovable, but obviously so potent that you would not even encourage or promote your beliefs on your own friend, but simply respect him as he is, with his own beliefs. And that, Laura, is to me, a true friend. And I thank and respect you for being his friend.
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 10:02 PM
Lincoln wrote: " not to brag, but I think I am a far better writer, far more tolerant, accepting, loving, and forgiving, and more well spoken,"
"And I thank and respect you for being his friend." "
------------
Dude, narcissistic self-aggrandizement is a little creepy. Just thought I'd let you know.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 9, 2006 10:18 PM
Hello Seth.
I wish you too, would consider reading some of the many books on the re-thinker side of the issue. Until you do, it is more than likely going to be very difficult for you to understand my views or why I am sceptical of many of the studies. Obviously, I am somewhat well rounded and educated on both sides of the issue, and find myself to have weighed and balanced the information, both experientially and through study, and I lean completely toward the re-thinkers side at this point in my life. This is not where I started from, and it was a 25 year long process composed of many events, that brought me to my current belief system and level of understanding of the world, myself, and others. My own beliefs differ from most, in that they are comprised of elements of monality, instead of simply the realm of duality, as experienced only on levels of you/me here/there up/down black/white right/wrong good/bad, and embrace both what you might call spiritual or quantum realms, as well as the realm of the physical that the majority of those in the world, are only and strictly capable of viewing life from. I don't know that you can understand or comprehend what I am saying, as it is usually only understood experientially to those whom have the shared experience, as much of it transcends physical dimension. If you do not understand, that is fine, for that is where you are at in lifes journey. But I share with you only my own experience, that there is more to reality than what one can see, smell, hear, touch, taste, or sense with any scientific instruments, as these instruments are also only capable of examining a small part of the physical realm of what reality seems to most of us humans, to be. We are also only capable of interpreting these instruments within the seemingly fixed and stable realm of physicality and duality.
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 10:24 PM
Actually Seth,
My comments: Lincoln wrote: " not to brag, but I think I am a far better writer, far more tolerant, accepting, loving, and forgiving, and more well spoken,"
were more of a comedic poke at my dear friend, Dr. Harvey Bialy, whom I also consider to be among the great minds alive on this planet today. And trust me, only true friends would say such as this about another dear friend.
Posted by: lincoln | August 9, 2006 10:40 PM
Lincoln, since in this post
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/08/interview_with_hiv_rethinker_r.php#comment-189754
you had not provided a link to the article by Reuters Health, I'll work with the text you've pasted from the original article
Reuters Health: One-year mortality after starting HAART has not improved
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Although the risk of Progression to AIDS and death in HIV-infected patients has greatly declined since the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), the short-term mortality risk after starting HAART, despite a reduction in viral load, has not changed from 1995 to 2003.
Moreover, patients who began HAART in 2002-2003 were actually more likely to progress to AIDS than those who started therapy in 1998, according to a report in the August 5th issue of The Lancet.
===============================
The News by Reuters certainly state that HAART reduces the risk of (a) progression to AIDS and (b) death
It is rather expected to see little impact of HAART on mortality in the short term as it is fair to think that different persons could have been diagnosed as HIV-positive at different times after primary infection with HIV and thus would have initiated HAART at different times in the short term. Therefore it is reasonable to say that the underlying viral loads, degree of immunodeficiency, severity of disease at time of HAART initiation, would be different with each HIV-postitive individual mentioned in the report.
As HAART is only responsible at controlling the replication of the HIV virus, and not treatment for any undelying co-infections, nor is HAART a holistic treatment for the health condition of the body, any short term observation of mortality can be complicated by these various risk factors that can lead to death. But certainly the article agreed that in the long term HAART reduces the risk of (a) progression to AIDS and (b) death. Probably the article was commenting that the proper adjuvant therapies to treat co-infections or manage the general health of the individual already on HAART therapy for HIV has not been addressed and improved in the many years.
Moreover, patients who began HAART in 2002-2003 were actually more likely to progress to AIDS than those who started therapy in 1998 Certainly this is expected, as although HAART have been successful from its inception there are already growing reports of HIV resistance to the many components that make up HAART. Suffice to say, it is expected that people who are tested HIV positive more recently may be exposed to more resistant HIV or even the highly AIDS progressing strain of HIV than those who contracted HIV earlier. But to be sure, I'll have to wait for the comments by persons who are actively involved in HIV research, although I had been involved in an aspect of HIV research before, my current research directions are too far removed from the forefront of HIV research to give the best reference pertaining to my comments above
At the same time it is also logical to say that since a person has been taking HAART from 1998, wouldn't such long term use of HAART promote the selection of HAART resistant strains? which would implicably lead to failure of HAART and progression to AIDS? Well, in my opinion, the resistance of HIV to HAART in such a case would depend on the replication/population dynamics of HIV in the infected individual on long term HAART, which perhaps because the viral loads have already been controlled by HAART and are at near undetectable levels, selection of a resistance mutation may not be favourable. But again, thats my two cents, I'll await for persons more knowledgable in these aspects of HIV research to give you a better explanation.
Indeed they is still much we need research and to learn from this terrible etiologic agent
Posted by: viji | August 9, 2006 10:58 PM
LINCOLN
For all that you said, you yourself have spent little time reading anything else that does not agree with your ideas (not even a fraction of the research publications methinks, by your apparent lack of understanding of the subject, track back and look at the comments and you'll know what I mean). While I can surely say Tara, Chris, Richards, and some others would have already read the "rethinker's" books you have touted, since it was Tara who have first bright to light the HIV denialism, and also judging by the familiarity of Richards and Chris to the arguments the HIV dissent arguments.
Judging by the quality of your responses you have posted so far, and assuming that you have read all these books cover to cover without fail, summise to say, I think the books that you are promoting is going to be full of the same baseless speculations and conspiracies, cherry picking and misinterpretation of a few selected studies that you've spouted and little of hard scientific content.
If you so wish to lecture us about reading materials, you yourself shoudl reflect and spend some time reading at least some of the scientific findings many have pointed you to, rather than spending all your time on books that are catered for popular/commercial read.
Posted by: viji | August 9, 2006 11:15 PM
lincoln rants:
If you had actually read the study you wouldn't make such a stupid and inaccurate statement.
The article that Reuters refer to is this one HIV treatment response and prognosis in Europe and North America in the first decade of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis.
Why don't you read the actual article? While you are at it read the rest of the August 5th issue of The Lancet. It is full of articles on HIV and AIDS. You might actually learn something.
How do you tell the difference between a reliable scientific article and an unreliable article? Whether you can pull a sentence out of context to make it appear to support your personal views?
The real question is why do you persist. It is blatantly obvious to someone who has read the article in question that you have not.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 10, 2006 1:53 AM
Well hello viji and chrispnodle.
I think that as fond of ARV's and HAART as the two of you seem to be, perhaps the two of you should probably go stock up on some arv's and enjoy yourselves. Maybe you could even design a menu or a cookbook, and sprinkle it into all of your meals. Perhaps Dr. Mobster could join in and find a way to inject or snort it. Just make sure you use a condom for sex and I am sure you will be fine. Enjoy!
viji, your open minded scientific mind that is constantly in search of ultimate truth, never ceases to amaze me. It is amazing how well you have completely and accurately interpreted all dissident books, including those written by Nobel Laureates, and academy of science members, and those written by people with more credentials than you could even dream of attaining, and all without ever having even seen or read them. Is this how you learned all of your science? By guessing at what was in your books? By determining that the book was right or wrong before you even opened it. Well, I suppose that is an accurate statement. C'est la vie!
Oh mon Dieux, viji, what a brilliant and inquisitive mind you have. I am now reassured that science is in very good hands such as yours investigating it.
Queste que le viji? Le viji est une assinousse! (not sure I spelled that last one correctly, but it was a favorite term of my seventh grade French teacher for the class clown)
Posted by: lincoln | August 10, 2006 4:16 AM
Well Lincoln,
You are entitled to your sarcasms, if you wish not to involve yourself in any healthy debate based on observable facts, its your choice, I am not going to be drawn into your mud-slinging match
That said, at least I speak my opinions by clearly indicating the basis of my opinions, in most cases, I base my opinions on my reading of the exchanges between the two differing voices on the HIV model of disease. You on the other hand has little courtesy in really trying to seek out the truth, evidently as you continously indulge in baseless accusations, defamations, and speculations. It amazes me that you do not see the very faults you accuse other people of in yourself. Go reflect and figure why I say this.
I do not have that much time to really do a total coverage of all references presented, since I do not have the luxury of time to do just that, therefore I have to depend on key statements made by the different parties, and pick up key references that has been cited to make a point if necessary. This meaning that I read the cited key scientific findings and perspectives, even opinion pieces/findings by Duensberg, Pandian, and the Sydney group. I cannot afford to indulge time on popular books catered for the commercial/entertainment, and as I said before, judging by your responses (since you have styled yourself as a person who has wide experiences in the HIV reappraisal movement, and may as well be one of the "leading authority" on this thread), I assume that the books you quote will have similar conspiracy theory themes and little content.
What I am seeking are hard facts and scientific findings not an essay on speculation and conspiracy theories. If indeed most of the HIV dissenting points have been brought up and discussed at this blog, then I find little interest or justification of extra time spent in pursuing the books you're promoting, since its not a science paper that I can critically analyse on the fly.
Don;t get me wrong, I have enjoyed and read most of the science references provided by Gene (who thinks that AIDS is caused by endogenous retroelements activated by enternal factors like drug use) in a related tread. At least those discussions are intellectually stimulating, unlike the majority of your responses which seem more like a political roadshow (with little regard on scientific evidence).
Like some respondants have mentioned, I am more of an observer of the discussions rather than active ly participating in the exchanges. I have clearly indicated I am not best positioned to comment on forefront areas of HIV research. The comments I do make, and make in confidence are based on the outcome of exchanges already made throughout the blog plus my reading of key references cited. And in any event I am presenting my perspectives, I clearly indicate that I am making assumptions/educated guess. That, in my opinion, differs totally from your discourteous remarks, speculative falsehoods and ill-researched responses.
Posted by: viji | August 10, 2006 5:56 AM
Lincoln,
C'est la barbe, do you really have anything constructive to add?
As for your rude sarcasms, ca ne fait rien. De mon cote, I have tried to understand the science, you clearly have not.
A vrai dire, I no longer think you'll do much harm, since any reader sincerely following the threads could easily see your misdirections. You may go on talking if you wish. Tant mieux.
A bientot
Viji
Posted by: viji | August 10, 2006 6:05 AM
Laura, here is a good HTML tutorial.
To post a link, replace [ with http://.
[a href="http://address here"]text that will be the link[/a]
Posted by: Robster | August 10, 2006 9:43 AM
Lincoln, give us primary sources. Research articles. Even review articles. Not secondary source, non-peer reviewed books.
Wilhelm, Your claims are simply wrong. The literature already cited and discussed in this thread shows this. Careful, or Lincoln will have to lecture you on stress and destructive feelings. :D But by all means, write up a case study of the individuals you mentioned, and send them to a clinical AIDS journal.
And since nutrition and vitamins can have an effect on NF-kappaB activity (detailed in article discussed above), it is possible that the van der Maas diet may have some effect on disease progression, but even she has said that it is not a substiture for ARVs, and that she would use ARVs if she needed to. Her reputation has taken a bit of a hit, though, as her records were destroyed by incontinent burglars and if she doesn't hear from a patient, then they must be OK. Not good epidemiology, if you ask me. She is also in trouble for her indirect involvement in some patients that did die while on her therapy. I don't know the current status of any cases she may be in, but this doesn't help her rep.
Speaking of... Why doesn't someone on your side go to the Scientologists for research money? Don't they believe that diseases are caused by emotions and drugs, and they can be treated with happy thoughts and vitamins? I could be wrong about that, but they could be a cash cow for the AIDS deniers. That would be something to jump on a sofa about.
Sorry if someone hits these points before me. This post will probably be delayed for the number of links in it.
R
Posted by: Robster | August 10, 2006 10:22 AM
Lincoln:
I'm sorry, but there was no information in your last post. Can you address how the medical studies that you agree with differ methodologically from those that you do not agree with?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 10, 2006 10:37 AM
Robster,
Thanks for the link!
Posted by: Laura | August 10, 2006 10:43 AM
Happy to help, Laura.
Wilhelm, before you out me any further as a HAART huffer, I want to come clean about my kitten snorting habit. Some think it may be more dangerous than snorting coke.
Thought it might be nice to bring some levity to the discussion.
Posted by: Robster | August 10, 2006 10:53 AM
viji! Viva La France!
If not for the French assistance more than 200 years ago, America might very well still be a colony! Still a colony with many rebels, independent thinkers, and men and women demanding truth and freedom, but a colony, none the less. Therefore, I have much affection and appreciation for almost all that is French!
However, there is one thing that you French can take back and keep, and that is Luc Montagnier's LAV, which the world now knows of as HIV, and you may keep for yourself Luc's false original belief that HIV was the cause of AIDS. Were it not for the American traitor and thievery of the greedy and corrupt Robert Gallo, and his deceit filled proclamation that HIV were the probable cause of AIDS, that was given on the very steps of the Whitehouse on April 20th, 1984, there would be no AIDS. The world would know all of the 30 common diseases and infections that are lumped together and called AIDS by their original names only. These 30 treatable diseases and infections would then be treated individually instead of being treated with witchcraft like spells of condemning a patient to death, and with patients being fed toxic and lifelong chemotherapy drugs. The patients would have Hope To Live, instead of a death sentence to die.
This fight, this now global and united effort, of the re-thinkers to expose the truth and expose the corruption and the ignorance and the hatred, that are the very foundation of the belief in HIV/AIDS, shall continue to march forward, and shall continue to grow, until mankind has been rid of the hatred, and homophobia, and racism, and fear filled paranoia that that supports the belief, and keeps gays and blacks and other suppressed populations bonded in slavery to the pharmaceutical companies and corrupt scientists and politicians that keep it in place!
And in a common struggle, True Science shall also be set free.
Science is not done by declarations on the white house steps.
Science is not done by destroying or threatening to destroy the careers of those whom have demonstrated the failures of pseudoscientific decarations, such as has been done to Dr. Peter Duesberg and others whom rose up against popular and political concensus.
True science does not shut down debate between scientists, as had been done in this case of HIV/AIDS.
True science does not enslave mankind to our fears and hatreds and phobias.
True Science uplifts all of mankind, and it frees us of our fears and phobias.
There is a saying that you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time,
But you can not fool All of the People All of the Time!
The majority of Those reading the words on this thread are certainly capable of determining whose words are founded in truth, and whose words are founded in ignorance, fear, and hatred.
Viva True Science. Viva all Peoples. Viva the World.
Posted by: lincoln | August 10, 2006 12:36 PM
lincoln,
Great post! Well said!
Posted by: DB | August 10, 2006 12:49 PM
If a press conference could create a virus then the New York City multi-drug resistant, rapid-progression-causing "supervirus" would still be with us. It is not (see MMWR).
If Bob Gallo could create a disease-causing virus by weaving a magic spell on the rest of the scientific community then HL23 would still be with us. It is not.
If opportunistic infections were "common diseases" (and not rare manifestations of catastrophically compromised cellular immunity) there would be plenty of references to them in the literature prior to 1981. There are not (how many references to disseminated MAI can you find? CMV retinitis?).
If opportunistic infections were "treatable" without ARVs, then they wouldn't cause things like blindness and inevitably be fatal, with specific treatments only slowing the course of the infection.
While extraordinarily long run-on sentences may be a good way of avoiding the science, they cannot rebut it.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 10, 2006 1:18 PM
lincoln,
So I take it that you are unable to explain how the studies you agree with differ in methodology from those that you disagree with?
DB,
I take it you are unable to explain why you believe that a study based on a hypothesis must confirm that hypothesis?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 10, 2006 1:19 PM
Mr. Jefferys, tory, and redcoat that you may be, don't you think your time would be more productively spent in packing your bags, before you are bagged by the very community that you have betrayed, misled, and profited from doing so for the last 13 years?
And while you are packing, please remember to take with you all of your own witchcraft, demonic spells, semi, and half truth studies with which you have assisted in poisoning the minds and bodies of the oppressed of New York and the world.
Posted by: lincoln | August 10, 2006 2:00 PM
While extraordinarily long run-on sentences may be a good way of avoiding the science, they cannot rebut it.
You forgot to put "science" (at least what is called "science" in regards to "HIV/AIDS") in quotation marks, Richard.
Posted by: DB | August 10, 2006 2:05 PM
DB wrote: You forgot to put "science" (at least what is called "science" in regards to "HIV/AIDS") in quotation marks, Richard.
--------------
DB, on what do you base your claim that HIV research is not real science? I understand that you think that a study that is based on a premise must validate that premise, but I don't understand WHY you believe this. You seem to think its obvious, but it is contrary to my experience.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 10, 2006 2:47 PM
Seriously, your response to requests for a hypothesis that better explains the data is to call us witches and devil worshippers?
I do have a section from one of Kary Mullis's books, Dancing through the mind field. It's about how he is a strong supporter of astrology as a legitimate field of study, perhaps even a science. A pity he didn't look at the issue through the lense of science and reason instead of superstition.
Posted by: Robster | August 10, 2006 3:29 PM
I'm removing the last 3 comments from this thread...if it continues with accusations and more Nazi analogies directed against fellow commenters, it's getting closed.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 10, 2006 3:32 PM
Seth, I understand your frustration at the majority of your recent questions being unanswered. It is not my duty nor necessity to educate you. You are a grown man, and quite capable of researching the information on your own and forming your own more educated opinions. You are quite capable of researching the books that have been written by Dr. Duesberg, Dr. Harvey Bialy, Dr. Kary Mullis, and many others. There are now about 27 or so books in print on the dissident opinions and beliefs, all fully explaining their foundations for these beliefs. There are several documentary films, and there are many websites and dissident blogsites. You are fully capable of googling "AIDS DISSENT" of and on your own, should you so wish to be informed. Until such time as you have further educated yourself, and sought to answer your own questions and form your own beliefs and opinions, I consider it time poorly spent, in sharing my own beliefs and opinions upon you. You would simply regurgitate them back up, as until you are desirous, and willing to educate yourself, and until you choose to seek the highest truths of and for your own self, you will most likely remain uneducated and uninformed until you choose otherwise.
Posted by: lincoln | August 10, 2006 3:40 PM
You're projecting, Seth.
I want the "AIDS" nightmare to end. That means I want people to stop being terrorized, stigmatized, shamed and drugged.
It's obvious to see that there are powers in place that keep the "AIDS" nightmare from ending. Those powers keep views and questions brought forth by Duesberg, Perth and others from going mainstream, and keep pharmaceutical profits from "AIDS drugs" high.
I'm glad to know a handful of "positive" gay men that have seen through this bullshite. They can see that they've been duped on a grand scale. They need to be our leaders in this. Not the pharmaceutical-beholden.
Posted by: DB | August 10, 2006 3:43 PM
DB, who exactly do you think "profited" from the ARVs used in the Thai TB/HIV study?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 10, 2006 3:48 PM
Tara: Sorry. My goat got gotten.
--------------
Lincoln wrote:
"Seth, I understand your frustration at the majority of your recent questions being unanswered. It is not my duty nor necessity to educate you."
----------
I only have one question, and you have never addressed it. Moreover, My question is about you. The question is not "what does Bialy think" or "what does Mullis think" but rather, how do YOU, lincoln, choose what studies are valid and which are not. I believe that you have no standard other than whether the conclusions can be spun to support your preconcieved notions, but I am open to the possibility that you have some other criteria.
If you do not see it as your duty to educate people on this topic, what are you doing here?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 10, 2006 3:57 PM
DB wrote:
"You're projecting, Seth."
--------------
DB, I've asked you the same question six times. You have never even acknowledged that the question was asked, much less actually addressed it. You continuously insist that all AIDS studies are flawed, but you are unable to express WHY you believe they are flawed. You have a mantra (based on premise, must validate premise) but you can't explain to me why this is true. This position of yours is contrary to my experience and the practice of science in general, so this is a statement that must be validated by some kind of support. Do you have any support to offer or are you just repeating a phrase that has no real meaning even to you?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 10, 2006 4:03 PM
Robster. I thank you immensely for the inspiring video clip of the only drug that should ever be snorted for the treatment of HIV. The levity involved may turn out to be the very real and true cure for AIDS.
In case anyone let it slip by:
http://www.kontraband.com/show/show.asp?ID=1791&NEXTID=0&PREVID=0&DISPLAYORDER=20050105131108&CAT=movies&NSFW=2&page=23&genre=4&rating=sfw
Posted by: lincoln | August 10, 2006 4:58 PM
Seth,
please take three snorts of the above post, and share with me afterwards, how do you choose which studies are accurate and which are flawed.
Furthermore, if you do not see it as your duty to educate people, or be educated by people on this topic, what are you doing here?
Posted by: lincoln | August 10, 2006 5:04 PM
lincoln,
I am here to learn, share and discuss. I have made every effort to educate and inform about those topics where I feel I can make a contribution. I have asked you repeatedly to clarify or explain your points, making every effort to educate myself as to your point of view. You have responded with insults, requests that I read material I've already read, and flowery prose with no information content.
Unlike you, I have not presented studies from JAIDS as supporting my point, while rejecting the remainder of the studies in that same journal that do not support my point. The question isn't really relevant to my posts, but it is to yours.
I am willing to accept peer review in this area, you are not. Do you have a criteria for rejecting all but 1 study from JAIDS over the last six months, besides your prior agreement or disagreement with the conclusions?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 10, 2006 6:03 PM
It must have gotten lost in the eclipse, but I did some looking for excerpts of Kary Mullis's book. He believes in astrology.
Smart people can believe stupid things, and be very convincing, regardless of the evidence.
Posted by: Robster | August 10, 2006 7:08 PM
"But to be sure, I'll have to wait for the comments by persons who are actively involved in HIV research"
Poor Viji, persons who are actually involved in HIV research must be crazy. What real scientist would want to destroy his career by working in a field that has been a fraud from the beginning?
And - (groann!)
"At the same time it is also logical to say that since a person has been taking HAART from 1998, wouldn't such long term use of HAART promote the selection of HAART resistant strains?"
No (exasperated sigh), that's not logical at all. You mix up viruses again with bacteria. Viruses DON'T develop resistance against drugs (although bacteria do). These HAART drugs work on the host's cell metabolism, not on the virus itself. Or could you show me even one of the HAART drugs that interact directly with any virus?
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 10, 2006 8:43 PM
"Tara who have first bright to light the HIV denialism, and also judging by the familiarity of Richards and Chris to the arguments the HIV dissent arguments."
Viji, the "HIV denialism" was already brought to light some 22 years ago by Peter Duesberg, whom the orthodoxy first tried to bribe, and then to destroy.
I don't want to speculate on Tara's motives, but Chris and Richard are paid activists from the unsavory organization TAG.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I suspect that your studies were paid by a scholarship from the pharma industry. If that is true, how does it feel to have sold your soul to the devil, and never to be free again?
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 10, 2006 8:53 PM
Totally false. For a very recent example, the CDC recommended just this winter against using the antiviral drugs amantadine and rimantadine for influenza viruses, because so many had developed resistance:
And for the record, Wilhelm, I've not received a dime from pharmaceutical companies at any point in my training. My only motivation for discussing HIV denial is because it's bad science, period.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 10, 2006 8:59 PM
Tara,
Your statement:
My only motivation for discussing HIV denial is because it's bad science, period.
betrays your complete BIAS, and your inability to be at all neutral as regards HIV/AIDS.
Actually, my own opinion, is that bad science comes about when scientists are BIASED, inflexible and close minded, and unwilling to allow for any possibility whatsoever that alternative viewpoints could possibly be correct. This is the very definition of BIAS. Science is not the place for bias, as true science has always been and will always be fluid, flexible, and willing to allow for alternatives. IMHO, you have not as of yet, been capable of doing so.
Definition of BIAS from:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bias
bi·as (bs)
n.
1a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
2. A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.
Tara, I accuse you, and many others here of BIAS as regards the issue of causality and sexual transmission of HIV being the cause of AIDS.
I believe this accusation is only appropriate, and is somewhat amusing, as this is what you and many others seem so intent on accusing the "Rethinkers" of.
Posted by: lincoln | August 10, 2006 9:45 PM
"lincoln,"
Indeed, I have a bias in favor of theories that fit the data. I agree that science is "fluid, flexible, and willing to allow for alternatives." I've said before that I'm quite willing to re-appraise HIV causation of AIDS, should some *credible* evidence be put forth that suggests the theory is incorrect. But the mischaracterizations of infectious disease epidemiology, arguments from incredulity, and outright falsehoods that are presented by the "rethinkers" don't meet this threshold. When I first heard about "alternative" theories such as intelligent design and Duesberg's ideas, I approached them with an open mind, looking for the science that went against the mainstream. All I found was, well, garbage and logical fallacies (such as those I've mentioned to you previously). My mind remains open, but don't expect such arguments as those you and others have presented to convince scientists who are knowledgeable in these areas.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 10, 2006 9:53 PM
Wilhelm wrote:
they mean more than repeating the same old baldfaced lie that "untreated" patients progress to AIDS and die.
Balderdash, Robster! Horsefeathers! Bullshit! You're just trying to scare people. What's your motive?
Wilhelm, you seem to have forgotten that you're still in the thread where this exchange occurred between you and viji:
Viji wrote:
"The people who were HIV positive had a higher mortality rate than people who weren't, with a corresponding symtom of depressed immune systems even among the living. There is a strong statistical correlation between dying young and immuno-compromised and being HIV positive."
Wilhelm wrote:
Sounds pretty convincing, if you put it that way. Unfortunately, that's not the way the data were obtained.
And, if you look back up the thread (or better yet, read the paper that viji was referring to), you'll see that this is exactly how the data were obtained. So, on what basis are you saying that Robster's statement that most untreated people with HIV progress is a "baldfaced lie."? Look at the data from the natural history studies cited above, read the papers, give us your interpretation of the data. You'll be way ahead of Anthony Liversidge and Darin Brown if you do.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 10, 2006 9:58 PM
lincoln,
We seem to be approaching critical mass.
As pointed out in a prior post: Your commentary on this thread alone has now exceeded 15,050 + words. We're starting to get the drift. ... And could you summarize in 3 sentences or less exactly what your point is ?
Can we now assume that point (sentence) one is:
"Tara, I accuse you, and many others here of BIAS, ...blah, blah, blah..." ?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 10, 2006 10:00 PM
Tara,
I absolutely agree with your confession:
Indeed, I have a bias in favor of theories that fit the data.
Your following statement reaffirms thay you are keeping your doorway to continue your bias wide open:
I'm quite willing to re-appraise HIV causation of AIDS, should some *credible* evidence be put forth that suggests the theory is incorrect.
as this assumes that there is some worldly way to put forth such evidence, that you first of all would be even remotely willing to accept as being "credible". The personal stories and dissident web sites filled with one person after another whom has let go of their belief in HIV and people living without HIV drugs and remaining healthy for 20 years, has not been credible enough for you. You also fail to share with us exactly what this credible enough evidence would be, thereby allowing you to constantly raise the bar of your bias, and be completely indifferent to whatever evidence is presented.
The only bar that you have said you would allow, presented us all with your circularly biased logic:
It was in response to Hank, when he asked you what you would accept as evidence that HIV did not cause AIDS, and was something to the effect of the following:
I would believe that HIV did not cause AIDS as soon as they develop a vaccine that cures AIDS by vaccinating for a different virus
Well this type of required "credible evidence" shows your pure and unadalterated bias in restricting the 30 common and usually treatable diseases to being caused by another virus to substitute for HIV. Bias, and nothing but more bias.
As far as your last statement:
but don't expect such arguments as those you and others have presented to convince scientists who are knowledgeable in these areas.
I certainly am not so naive nor gullible, nor unsophisticated, as to expect biased scientists from perceiving reality to be any thing other than what they wish to declare it to be.
Posted by: lincoln | August 10, 2006 10:18 PM
Anonymous. I thank you for driving home the point to me. I will indeed summarise at this point. My summary and my point in only four words:
SET MY PEOPLE FREE.
Posted by: lincoln | August 10, 2006 10:21 PM
"lincoln,"
That wasn't what I said, and what has been presented by yourself and other "rethinkers" hasn't been data. As you note, it's been personal anecdotes and incredulity--I don't find that convincing or credible. Give me some actual studies showing something other than HIV that fits the epidemiology of AIDS--all of it--better than HIV, and I'm happy to consider it.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 10, 2006 10:30 PM
Hello Tara.
I appreciate that you would want studies, although, unfortunately, there has been practically no funding for any alternatives, and little willingness to print such. There unfortunately are not so many scientists whom are willing to risk funding and position to explore the issues freely.
First, I would recommend that you start with Peter Duesberg's original 2003 paper found at the following:
http://www.ias.ac.in/jbiosci/jun2003/383.pdf
If there is any question for you, or anything unclear, or anything that you are not able to understand, the actual writers are at your disposal, and Peter's email and contact information can be found on his website at www.duesberg.com
As he is very busy on the forefront of cancer research and currently overseas, or if you do not wish to bother him, although I am sure he would not mind at all, you are also able to bring any questionable points from his piece up on your blogs, and we lesser informed can all attempt to have a poke at it.
Posted by: lincoln@simplyweb.net | August 10, 2006 10:57 PM
lincoln wrote:
"The personal stories and dissident web sites filled with one person after another whom has let go of their belief in HIV and people living without HIV drugs and remaining healthy for 20 years, has not been credible enough for you."
-----------------
Well, lincoln, thats because there are at least as many web sites dedicated to people who gave up their meds and died, or never got meds and died. Anecdotes aren't very convincing, obviously, because those don't convince you.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 10, 2006 11:06 PM
"lincoln," I've read that Duesberg paper and many others; that's exactly where I get my characterization that I described earlier.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 10, 2006 11:22 PM
Tara, thank you for clarifying what exactly it was you found to be wrong in this or any other works.
I have read most of your posts regarding this issue, and that is where I get my characterization of you from.
1a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
Bias.
Posted by: lincoln | August 11, 2006 12:07 AM
"lincoln," I've laid out my objections to many of the typical "rethinker" arguments in many posts and comments, while you've mainly called names and quote-mined. You can certainly write me off as just biased if it makes you feel better, but at least I've laid out the data that support my view.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 11, 2006 12:13 AM
"lincoln," Duesberg repeats his claim about 4,000+ "HIV negative AIDS" cases in that paper (a claim repeated by Celia Farber in her Harper's article). Why not start small and try and defend that, based on the primary papers that Duesberg cites in support of this claim (you have to go back to the Biotechnology paper from 1993 to find those cites).
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 11, 2006 12:30 AM
Licoln, DB. Wilhiem,
Tirez le rideau, la farce est jouee. Et tout le reste est litterature.
Posted by: viji | August 11, 2006 1:00 AM
少废话, 多做事....
Posted by: viji | August 11, 2006 1:05 AM
Tara
"When I first heard about "alternative" theories such as intelligent design and Duesberg's ideas, I approached them with an open mind, looking for the science that went against the mainstream"
Your ridiculous habit of trying to associate ID with HIV-rethinkers is pathological. At every turn these very weak non-arguments are brought up as if they had anything to do with one another.
I believe this form of argumentation to be totally dishonest.
Posted by: pat | August 11, 2006 8:50 AM
I'm sorry you see it as dishonest. I simply call it as I see it, and I find their methods of argumentation to be incredibly similar. And certainly you must be aware that the creationists also paint scientists as closed-minded and biased in just the way that "lincoln" has, and give that for the reason their idea hasn't thrived in the mainstream scientific community. Perhaps you can point out the difference between their claim of that and yours.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 11, 2006 11:39 AM
"And certainly you must be aware that the creationists also paint scientists as closed-minded and biased in just the way that "lincoln" has, and give that for the reason their idea hasn't thrived in the mainstream scientific community"
You just can't let it go. Stick to the argument about HIV/AIDS. Don't be childish and try to divert the argument to creationism; no one gains anything from it. It has the same effect as bringing up comparisons to the evil "H". I for one have trouble with HIV/AIDS but am no way sympathetic to creationists. Does that make sense to you? Some think scientists are just as flawed as human kind at large. There is nothing irrational about it. You rattle off studies that support your position and shoot down those that would oppose it. I think you call that "cherry picking". Based on what facet of human nature can you claim that the studies you covet are not biased or flawed? You grossely accuse "rethinkers" of distorting the facts and of outright lies and seem content that the ones you cite are "facts". Are you so sure that the halls of science are so immune to corruption when the rest of the world seems to have a HUGE problem with it? Personnally I have no faith in your blind faith in science. I believe, as it seems to be substantiated in the WORLD press, that medical reseach suffers greatly under the influence of coorporate interference. Surely you have heard the news too about the scandalous relationship between doctors, scientists and the pharma industry. How many scandals are you going to need before you wonder about the accuracy and honesty of medical research. When are you going to wake up to the fact that none of that is actually a conspiracy but merely "good" money sense? Do you know about the workings of the capitalist system or are you only aware of the popular view that "competition" engenders quality? Trust me, under that thin veneer lives a much more perverted reality, namely that capitalism can only take money into account and that people are reduced to liabilities.
I am saying HIV probably has very little to do with AIDS and that the world is not only wasting enormous effort but also a ridiculous amount of money on a very narrow field of research (the virus) to deal with what OBVIOUSLY is a very complex desease but one that has yet to kill more people than traffic accidents, war, malaria, cancer, heart desease, malnutrition, drugs (alcohol, tobacco, heroin, cocain, amphetamines...) and many, many more individually.
Yes, I did say that: AIDS is a fringe desease that is one of the weakest killers out there even in Africa where your stats are simply too unreliable and so prone to error that even a fifth grader can point out why. Trust me, Africa and the world in general will never be threatened by AIDS. AIDS as a threat to national security and stability is the biggest pile of alarmist dung I've ever heard of.
I really don't give a flying f..k what the creationists are saying about evolution so stop bringing it up; it is unrelated and I therefore consider it a dishonest argument. Actually no, it is an insult.
Posted by: pat | August 11, 2006 1:16 PM
But Pat, even after all that you still didn't answer my question and point out the difference between the two groups, each calling scientists biased. Additionally, I've already pointed out that it's a strawman to counter my argument about methods of science deniers by saying you're not a creationist. I never accused you of being one. I'm simply talking about the *tactics* employed by both, as I've mentioned repeatedly.
You mention "cherry picking." The difference between me or others bringing up studies is that for us, the vast, vast, vast majority of the literature supports the position I hold. It's not "cherry picking" to pick out a few studies that are *representative* of the literature to focus on. It becomes cherry-picking when one chooses the few studies that come to diffent conclusions, and hold them up as the standard.
As far as "scandals" and "pharma," the problem is that I know far too many people doing biomedical research and who've never received any money from any pharmaceutical companies--and their results are the same as scientists who have received some funding from industry. That's where your "bias" issue falls apart.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 11, 2006 1:29 PM
Jefferys:
You said:
"lincoln," Duesberg repeats his claim about 4,000+ "HIV negative AIDS" cases in that paper (a claim repeated by Celia Farber in her Harper's article). Why not start small and try and defend that, based on the primary papers that Duesberg cites in support of this claim
You know full well that this information came directly from the CDC. You also have the contact information to Dr. Duesberg, and certainly seem to have more than enough time on your hands to send him an email to ask him personally for a copy of the report.
Your refusal to do so, shows us all quite clearly that you are absolutely unwilling to even look at any information that disproves your dishonest and biased positions on HIV/AIDS.
Posted by: lincoln | August 11, 2006 1:40 PM
Tara:
You stated:
I know far too many people doing biomedical research and who've never received any money from any pharmaceutical company--and their results are the same as scientists who have received some funding from industry.
Please do enlighten us further, these people you know who who have done biomedical research on HIV/AIDS, and came up with the same results, who never received any pharma bucks, where did their funding come from instead? the un-biased NIH NIADS department of Big Bucks and Playing Pretend, as another brilliant rethinker has stated? Get Real!
Please do share with us now, an unbiased HIV/AIDS study supporting your arguments from any researcher whatsoever that is not vested in the "good old boys" HIV, the virus that causes AIDS club, or from any of the companion international government and big pharma HIV/AIDS nipple sucking clubs anywhere internationally.
Just one impartial, non-biased, non-nipple sucking and trustworthy study to justify HIV as the cause of AIDS, or just one to prove HIV is transmissable sexually?
I can show you several impartial unbiased studies on the other side of the fence, by Duesberg, et al, but you don't care for the resultant conclusions, now do you?
Posted by: lincoln | August 11, 2006 2:04 PM
"lincoln" wrote:
You know full well that this information came directly from the CDC.
No, it did not. It comes from this Duesberg paper in Bio/Technology in 1993: http://www.duesberg.com/about/pdbiotech93.html
It contains a table that totals up 4,521 "HIV-free AIDS cases," citing 70+ papers that supposedly describe such cases. Duesberg writes stuff like: "Only 37 (30%) of a group of 122 African tuberculosis patients were HIV-positive, according to a study published in 1993 (Table 1, ref. 73)."
Duesberg calls the 85 HIV-negative people with TB in this study "HIV-free AIDS cases."
Another example:
"For example, 2215 out of 4383 (50.0%) African AIDS patients from Abidjan, Ivory Coast, Lusaka, Zambia, and Kinshasa, Zaire, were HIV-antibody negative (Table 1, ref. 70, 71)." These are the refs:
70. BMJ. 1991 Nov 9;303(6811):1185-8.
Comment in:
BMJ. 1992 Jan 4;304(6818):54.
For debate. AIDS surveillance in Africa: a reappraisal of case definitions.
De Cock KM, Selik RM, Soro B, Gayle H, Colebunders RL.
Division of HIV-AIDS, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia 30333.
71. BMJ. 1991 May 18;302(6786):1206.
Comment on:
BMJ. 1990 Sep 1;301(6749):412-5.
BMJ. 1991 Mar 2;302(6775):496-9.
Tuberculosis and HIV infection.
Taelman H, Batungwanayo J, Clerinx J, Kagame A, Bogaerts J, Allen S, van de Perre P.
Neither paper (well, they are an opinion piece and a comment) reports "HIV free AIDS cases."
Duesberg's paper contains fully 75 cites worth of such nonsense. I've posted before on his inclusion of drug-using HIV negative gay men from a Kaslow study (cite #14 in this paper) with CD4s in the normal range, he includes these as "HIV free AIDS cases" based on this own theory that drug use will cause their CD4s to decline to less than 200. If you look at the para directly below the table in this paper, you'll notice that the number "600" (in reference to the CD4 counts of these individuals) has been replaced by an "X." Now, why would Duesberg do that?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 11, 2006 2:06 PM
Since DB ignored the question about the ARVs in the Thai TB/HIV study, the majority (>80%) of participants were receiving GPO-vir which is manufactured by Thailand's state-run Government Pharmaceutical Organization (GPO). It contains generic versions of d4T, 3TC and nevirapine and costs $27 a month.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 11, 2006 2:09 PM
Tara:
Seeing as you "know" "far too many people" that are unbiased and independent researchers, this simple request should be verrrrry easy for you to do. We anxiously await your evidence.
Posted by: lincoln | August 11, 2006 2:13 PM
"lincoln" wrote:
I can show you several impartial unbiased studies on the other side of the fence, by Duesberg, et al,
Really? Duesberg has conducted a study? Can you cite it? I thought all he did was misrepresent other people's studies.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 11, 2006 2:20 PM
Jefferys:
You said:
No, it did not. It comes from this Duesberg paper in Bio/Technology in 1993: http://www.duesberg.com/about/pdbiotech93.html. It contains a table that totals up 4,521 "HIV-free AIDS cases," citing 70+ papers
Are you completely ignorant. Nevermind, don't answer that. If you know where the 70 plus references are, than that answers you questions and why in hell are you asking for the references. You are certainly welcome to go look at them yourself, or contact Duesberg himself for clarification. Must you always play the fool?
Posted by: lincoln | August 11, 2006 2:25 PM
"lincoln" wrote:
why in hell are you asking for the references. You are certainly welcome to go look at them yourself
I wasn't asking for the references, I was asking if you could defend Duesberg's interpretation of them (e.g. are all African people with TB "HIV free AIDS cases"?).
I mentioned four of the cites in the post above, perhaps you can read them and explain how they contain "HIV free AIDS cases."
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 11, 2006 2:30 PM
"lincoln," of course, now you've already included NIH-funded researchers (or researchers funded by other governments), and anyone else who accepts that HIV causes AIDS, into your conspiracy. The circle widens...
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 11, 2006 2:35 PM
Jefferys, I have more entertaining things to occupy myself with than reading your biased and ridiculous claims and arguing points that to me are moot. If you have a problem with Academy of Science member Peter Duesberg, take it up with him directly. Perhaps you can convince him to rethink his position. If you are afraid of doing this, then read the studies yourself, and entertain yourself as to explaining why his findings are incorrect. You obviously pretend to be more knowledgeable than the man whom Gallo himself had declared to be "the greatest retrovirologist in the world". Prove yourself away sir. Enjoy.
Posted by: lincoln | August 11, 2006 2:39 PM
Tara,
You said:
"lincoln," of course, now you've already included NIH-funded researchers (or researchers funded by other governments), and anyone else who accepts that HIV causes AIDS, into your conspiracy.
Not a conspiracy at all Tara.
I take your answer as a tacit and complete admission that you are absolutely unable to supply us with even one independent unbiased study.
Nipple suckers, the whole bunch of them. Kind of like the pigs on the farms near your own university, all feeding out of the same trough. Not a conspiracy at all, Tara, just a sad statement on the state of HIV/AIDS, science, and mankind.
Posted by: lincoln | August 11, 2006 2:51 PM
Lincoln Wrote:
"Jefferys, I have more entertaining things to occupy myself with than reading your biased and ridiculous claims and arguing points that to me are moot."
----------------
lincoln, why are you so set against presenting a rational argument for your position? Jeffreys made a very specific claim, and your response is that it is ridiculous and biased. I already know that you don't like Jeffreys and disagree with his conclusions. What I don't know is why.
WHY is this claim ridiculous? Can you present any evidence that Jeffrey's claim is factually incorrect? I know that you believe he is a shill for big pharma (and worse things) but even if I accept that as a fact, it doesn't automatically make his claim ridiculous. That doesn't logically follow.
I haven't seen any evidence that you have read any of Deusberg's work yourself, since you consistently misrepresent its content and are unable to defend yourself when this is brought to your attention.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 11, 2006 3:01 PM
"lincoln," in response to a similar challenge on a different blog, I already had a dismal email exchange with Duesberg back in April, he didn't answer any of the scientific questions I posed in my first email to him. He did respond to a follow up, in which I asked whether he was going to respond to my first email and inquired whether the Raphael Lombardo whose letter he quoted in his book "Inventing the AIDS Virus" (as an example of an HIV positive gay man who is healthy because he avoided recreational drugs) was the same Raphael Lombardo who died of AIDS about a year later. Duesberg thought that they were indeed the same person, and offered his explanation that Lombardo must have lied, used poppers, and died of KS. He volunteered the same explanation (punctuated by an exclamation mark) for the death of his "friend" Huw Christie (whose name he misspelt). Christie was an English gay man who edited the now-defunct denialist newsletter Continuum.
There were a couple more emails where he digressed into KS (still not answering my original questions), then he got upset that I posted the "private" comment about Lombardo & Huw Christie on the blog where the original challenge had occurred and asked me to ask the blog owner to remove it, which I did. That was the end of our correspondence.
Shortly afterwards Duesberg demonstrated his utter hypocrisy by fowarding private emails he received from Larry Kramer to Anthony Liversidge so that Liversidge could publish them on his blog, "New AIDS Review."
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 11, 2006 3:18 PM
Seth, Perhaps you will share with us, what, other than this blog, have you read regarding AIDS or HIV dissenters/rethinkers, besides Kary Mullis' book? Is there some strange reason you have not yet read any of Duesberg's books, or Harvey Bialy's, or Joan Shenton's, or Celia Farber's, or John Lauritsen's, or any of the 27 or so books that are available for you to educate yourself?
Perhaps you would like to read through Jefferys continuous ramblings and the 70 cites of Duesberg and figure it out for yourself, and share your own now more educated conclusions with us.
You have claimed to be in search of open minded education, but you seem to be doing nothing to further this search other than demanding others to do it for you. Get off your own F**king ass and educate yourself.
You come across to me Seth, as a smart-ass punky student know-it-all, and an agitator with a shit attitude, with no intelligent or informed opinions that you have yet developed on your own, and I really do not care to further conversations with you on the subject. Is that clear enough for you?
Posted by: lincoln | August 11, 2006 3:25 PM
FYI, you can see the letter from Raphael Lombardo to Duesberg in it's original context here:
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pdazt.htm
(about half way down the page). The letter is dated May 30, 1995. Lombardo died of AIDS on June 11, 1996.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 11, 2006 3:25 PM
Hello Richard.
So it sounds to me as if you have a personal problem with Duesberg. Gee, I wonder why. Did you bother to give him the actual cause of death of either Raphael Lombardo or Huw Christie? AIDS is not a cause of death, as you well know. Which of the 30 AIDS defining common illnesses did they supposedly scare themselves to death with? Or was it heart attack, liver failure, kidney failure? What was the exact cause of death? Do share with us the truth there Richard. These guys died of very specific things. Perhaps you will share with us what they really died from, and please include any other lifestyle factors or drug, illicit or pharma, and other relevant details surrounding this mystery, as I doubt it will turn out to be so mysterious after all.
Posted by: lincoln | August 11, 2006 3:36 PM
It was Duesberg that volunteered explanations for their causes of death. He stated Christie had an "addiction to poppers." I just checked and he actually didn't specifically mention poppers in regards to Raphael Lombardo, this is what he said:
"Hi Richard,
I think you are right - the Raphael Lombardo, who wrote to me, and the one on the "quilt" are the same.
In hindsight, I thing his letter was almost too good to be true. I am afraid now, he described the man he wanted to be and his Italian family expected him to be, but not the one he really was. I think he died from Kaposi's.
Did you know Hugh Christie? Also a gay friend of mine from London, filmmaker and editor of the very popular British gay-interested journal, Continuum. Christie campaigned actively against the health and AIDS hazards of poppers in Continuum. Like me, he was invited by Mbeki, to discuss the causes of AIDS in Africa in 2000. And a year or two later he passed away with Kaposi's, from long-term over-use/addiction to poppers!
Regards,
Peter D."
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 11, 2006 3:45 PM
"You come across to me Seth, as a smart-ass punky student know-it-all, and an agitator with a shit attitude, with no intelligent or informed opinions that you have yet developed on your own, and I really do not care to further conversations with you on the subject. Is that clear enough for you?"
-----------------------
Well, lincoln, as much as I appreciate your passion, it doesn't really adress my question. Nor would my reading the material you recommend (assuming I haven't). My question is about what information you possess that backs up your claim that Richard made a ridiculous comment. It isn't about any of the authors of the 27 books, or however many articles, its about whether you are just spewing catch phrases and insults, or whether you can back these claims up.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 11, 2006 3:54 PM
Richard.
I did not ask you for Peter's opinion. I asked you for the exact cause of death of these men YOU claim died of "AIDS".
No-one has ever died of AIDS. AIDS is a category not a disease. These two men died of very explicit causes of death.
Even Kaposis Sarcoma is now defined by the National Institute of Health as being caused by Herpesvirus 8, as in "HHV-8, the virus that causes Kaposis Sarcoma".
What this means is that for 20 years, we have all been misled into believing the number one aids defining factor, now almost rare, as few men do much poppers, was never caused by HIV. But almost only in gay men whom had hhv-8 infections, and did poppers.
So come again Richard, what were the exact causes of death these men died from?
What were the exact contributing lifestyle and drug factors?
And this time Richard, for GODS sake, tell the truth.
Posted by: lincoln | August 11, 2006 4:04 PM
Lincoln--you do have a reading comprehension problem. Read the letter that Richard referenced to--
1.) Duesberg has consistently argued that it is not homosexual transmission of a retrovirus, but drug use that underlies the AIDS complex in gay men.
2.) Raphael Lombardo specifically points out that he was an active gay man, knew other gay men who died of AIDS, and specifically points out that he has a history of no drug use as the reason why he is asymptomatic.
3.) Raphael dies a year later of complications related to AIDS.
4.) Duesberg, rather than accept that this challenges his hypothsis, further hypothesizes that Raphael must have lied about his past use of poppers (special pleading). The fact is implied that this also applies to Christie, thus suggesting the Duesberg is not applying scientific reasoning to his claim. It would be your responsibility to show that both died of something other than AIDS, not Richard's.
Additionally, believing that although HIV positive, his lack of recreation drug use made him unlikely to succumb to AIDS, how in the world did this condition result in Raphael scaring himself to death, which seems to be your argument that having the HIV diagnosis leads to AIDS via stress?
Mike
Posted by: mgr | August 11, 2006 4:10 PM
MGR. You do not know what you are talking about.
Again, AIDS IS A CATEGORY, NOT A DISEASE.
People die of specific death causes.
What was the exact causes of death?
What was the drug use and co-factors?
Posted by: lincoln | August 11, 2006 4:15 PM
"Complications of AIDS" is usually a code word for LIVER FAILURE or KIDNEY FAILURE or some other iatrogenic cause.
Neither is caused by a retrovirus.
What is so f**king difficult about you supplying me the true information as to cause of DEATH?
Posted by: lincoln | August 11, 2006 4:22 PM
"lincoln," you keep demanding answers to questions but you've offered no substantive answers to any questions yourself. You haven't even attempted to defend Duesberg's claims about "HIV free AIDS cases" and your suggestion about contacting Duesberg was a non-starter for the reasons I've just explained.
What lifestyle or drug factors can cause a catastrophic loss of cellular immunity (more specifically, memory T cell responses) resulting in opportunistic infections? I can't find any references in the literature, unless you're referring to immunosuppressive transplantation drugs or certain specific cancer chemotherapies. HHV-8, like CMV, causes a very different spectrum of diseases when memory T cell responses fail. Prior to the advent of HIV, failure of memory T cell responses resulting in opportunistic infections was rarely ever seen. I can only find four references to disseminated KS in the literature prior to 1980. CMV retinitis was equally rare. Disseminated MAI was even rarer. Yet you persist in calling these "common illnesses." Why is that?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 11, 2006 4:22 PM
Jefferys. You are changing the subject again like a weasel trying to sneak out of the henhouse.
Again, AIDS IS A CATEGORY, NOT A DISEASE.
People die of specific death causes.
What was the exact causes of death?
What was the drug use and co-factors?
Posted by: lincoln | August 11, 2006 4:25 PM
AIDS is immunodeficiency of a magnitude that allows otherwise relatively benign pathogens (like HHV-8 and CMV) to cause severe, fatal disease. A surrogate marker for immunodefiency is the number of CD4 T cells in a peripheral blood sample. That's why the HIV positive people in the Dar Es Salaam cohort died with a median of
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 11, 2006 4:28 PM
Jefferys. You make claims that people died of HIV causing causing AIDS. You refuse to tell us what they actually died from, or what the extenuating co-factors are. You seem to me to be a biased weasel, and I see no point whatsoever in furthering a discussion with a biased weasel unless you answer the above questions first?
Posted by: lincoln | August 11, 2006 4:29 PM
...less than 90 CD4 cells while the HIV negative people that died had a median of 684 cells.
Isn't it time someone attacked me for being incompetent with HTML code?
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 11, 2006 4:30 PM
What's an "extenuating co-factor"? Christie reportedly died from a manifestation of Kaposi sarcoma that is only seen in people with severely compromised cellular immunity. I've already delineated the factors (other than HIV) that can compromise cellular immunity that severely (although I left out some very rare congential immunodeficiencies). You know of some other causes? Then cite them.
And anyway, these are just anecdotes, painful as they are for the people involved and those that loved them. The natural history studies of untreated HIV infection provide actual data.
Posted by: Richard Jefferys | August 11, 2006 4:38 PM
No need to play ignorant jefferys,
What the F was the exact cause of death?
What Drugs legal and illegal were they using?
Is it so f-ing difficult for you to either answer my questions or simply say "i don't know"?
Posted by: lincoln | August 11, 2006 4:50 PM
lincoln wrote:
"What is so f**king difficult about you supplying me the true information as to cause of DEATH?"
----------
And I, being a bit of a jerk, can't resist writing: look it up yourself, lincoln. The questions YOU are asking (unlike the ones I've asked you) can be answered in the literature.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 11, 2006 4:52 PM
Lincoln, excuse me, but I think you do not understand.
I specifically avoided referring to the AIDS disease connection. Most here recognize that AIDS itself does not bring about death, but its impact to the immune system, allows for other advantageous infections.
By the way, have you ever seen a police accident report? There is language about the immediate cause of death, and the proximate cause of death--he crashed into the guardrail, but had been driving the truck for 28 hours--that type of thing. You seem to want to make proximate cause a category. It would seem from your reasoning that we should eliminate the guardrail rather than require truck drivers not work in excess of 12 hours.
The case of Raphael Lombardo appears to me to indicate that the saint of denialism, Dr. Duesberg is being unscientific in his appraisal of what brings about AIDS. Your position, as near as I can tell is just as ascientific. Now that your mechanism is shown to be threadbare, we switch to issues of semantics....
Mike
Posted by: mgr | August 11, 2006 4:52 PM
Lincoln:
"What Drugs legal and illegal were they using?"
According to Raphael Leonardo's account, none at all. You just have Duesberg's ad hoc speculation.
Cheers
Mike
Posted by: mgr | August 11, 2006 4:59 PM
Not to interrupt the current conversation, but I just wanted to point out regarding "lincoln"'s last post to me that he's committed another logical fallacy, by moving the goalposts. Initially he claimed scientists were biased due to money they'd received from drug companies, then when I pointed out that others who'd not received money came to the same conclusion, he asked for not only scientists who didn't receive "drug money," but essentially eliminated almost every working scientist by demanding they not only be unfunded by pharmaceutical companies, but that they also couldn't be funded by government, and that they be "unbiased" regarding the cause of AIDS (in other words, from lincoln's other comments, it would seem that they need to be AIDS "rethinkers," since he claims that every scientist who accepts that HIV causes AIDS is "biased.")
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 11, 2006 6:29 PM
lincoln,
To clarify a point and answer a question you asked a couple of days ago, as of about two years ago I actually did not believe that HIV led to AIDS. I thought that it was (as I had been told by many sources) just a "rider" that may even have never been observed, and that there were no petri dish studies to support the HIV hypothesis, and other virus myth type stuff.
Then someone with a clinical background asked me, "Have you ever really looked this stuff UP? Are you sure these claims are really true?" And I really wasn't able to say that I had, not fairly, so I did some literature searching outside of the denier camp, and discovered that in fact, I was wrong about pretty much everything. Every point in the denial camp was answered multiple times. And more than that, I started to think about the foundational statements of the denial camp...
Like "No one dies of AIDS." Well, no one dies of the flu, either. They die of heart failure or respiratory failure. No one drowns... they die of organ failure. It's like Tom Cruise says in "Collateral" "No, I shot him. The bullets and the fall killed him." Another is "All studies since 1984 are based on HIV causing AIDS." Well, sure. But if I based a study on the idea that wood wasn't combustible, I would get surprising results because my predictions would be wrong. So, it really doesn't matter what the premise is. When you take it apart, that's a nonsense argument.
What I've noticed about you, lincoln, is that when you are pressed on some of your core assumptions, instead of having rational explanations or making a logical argument, you get very defensive. You start insulting people, and you throw out appeals to authority (like Duesberg's NAS creds) and just generally... well... bluff.
Asking me to read 27 books is a bluff. You are trying to draw attention to my supposed ignorance in order to draw attention away from the fact that you don't have a response to anyone's questions. You've tried that with me, Tara, and Richard, and at least two of these people clearly are better read on this topic than you are. So I may seem like a smart ass student to you, and I'm sorry if I ignored any of your questions. But this isn't a classroom, and you aren't an authority figure to me, so, frankly, I think you should be willing to back your shit up, or be honest enough to admit that you don't know what you are talking about.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 11, 2006 7:10 PM
OK, let's start with Tara:
"Totally false. For a very recent example, the CDC recommended just this winter against using the antiviral drugs amantadine and rimantadine for influenza viruses, because so many had developed resistance:"
So, instead of showing me a regular research paper, you bring out two Manifesto's from the CDC. (sarcasm)Very convincing!(/sarcasm)
I'll believe it if I see a paper with a controlled study where they have inoculated one cohort with influenza virus that has been pre-treated with an antiviral drug, and the control group with untreated virus. In vivo treatment with adamantanes and observing that the drug doesn't have the desired effect, just doesn't do it for me.
No drug works in 100% of all cases. Some patients react to a certain drug, others don't. That is a general observation in every medical practice. There is absolutely no reason to ascribe this effect to a "resistant virus".
Influenza, like almost all viral diseases, is cured spontaneously, without treatment. But there could be complications, brought about by opportunistic bacteria or fungi. The "antiviral" drugs seem to help in such cases, just because they are active against these micro-organisms. And, as I pointed out, bacteria can develop resistance against a drug. Viruses don't.
"My only motivation for discussing HIV denial is because it's bad science, period."
It is? Is questioning a flawed (and in many respects ridiculous) theory bad science? My impression has always been that just stubbornly sitting on a hypothesis that defies all logic and violates all the know principles of its field without validating any of its predictions, is bad science.
But I guess any astronomer in Galileo's time would have had a hard time too, if he had denied the geocentric model. That was just "not done".
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 11, 2006 9:09 PM
Hey everybody, here is Seth's self chosen picture for his whiskeyb4breakfast blog site, quite says all we need to know about Mr. Seth the closed eyed unthinking blockhead:
http://www.whiskeyb4breakfast.org/podcast/myPic.
Seth the alcoholic blockhead, go get yourself another drink of whiskey and be gone!
Mr. MGR Mike:
You said:
AIDS itself does not bring about death,
You are correct that AIDS does not bring about death, because it is a category defining a syndrome, NOT A DISEASE F-wad! For the 10th time wadboy, NOBODY HAS EVER DIED OF A CATEGORY DEFINITION! That is like saying someone was murdered without saying HOW, and WHODUNIT!
but its impact to the immune system, allows for other advantageous infections.
is the very core of the failure of your argument, as this statement is considered by re-thinkers to be pure propaganda that has never in 20 years been demonstrated to be true. THE DIRECT METHOD OF IMPACT OF HIV ON THE BODY HAS NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED! ANYWHERE bongoboy! There is no proven method by which HIV supposedly kills Tcells or destroys the immune system F-wad! If there were any such proven evidence, there would be no "AIDS denialists" fool!
Have you eaten so many bowls of Stoopid Flakes for breakfast that you have become one?
You also typed:
You seem to want to make proximate cause a category.
You have it exactly bass-ackwards Mr. flakes for brains, I am asking for the exact cause of death and you are wanting to make it proximate by saying these two died of CATEGORY DEFINITIONS OF AIDS or Complications of AIDS, which says ALL OF NOTHING!
Is there no-one here of obvious unbiased intelligence left accept the rethinkers?
Mr. Jefferys, Do you know or not know the exact cause of death of these people whom were so important to you before, that you felt it necessary to confront National Academy of Science member, Dr. Peter Duesberg, PERSONALLY regarding them?
Very strange indeed that you are now calling these two cases, in your very own words: And anyway, these are just anecdotes,
But prior to being "just anecdotes", you were throwing a complete hissy sissy fit over them, and using these two "just anecdotes" as your foundation and proof for why Peter Duesberg is wrong! What kind of la la land do you live in boy? WAKE_UP! Please, Go get laid or get a blowjob or something! And break out of your stupor!
AND AS FOR YOU TARA! PEACE on YOU! and PEACE on your BIAS.
Posted by: lincoln | August 12, 2006 12:08 AM
Jeeze Wilhelm,
What field is your Phd in? And what University did you earn it from?
It's one of hundreds on the subject that you can find
Undoubtedly the large number is due to the fact that evolution of antiviral drug resistance is so common in HIV, and is so well known. In fact its the reason for developing the multidrug combination therapies in the first place.
Oh, for good measure
Posted by: Pharma Bawd | August 12, 2006 12:32 AM
Well, folks, it's been a "fun" thread.
I'm glad that I know a number of people who are immune to "AIDS", including myself.
"AIDS" is complete and utter tripe. It's a mind-killer first, then the body follows suit. But there's no physical pathogen. Only a deeply-rooted belief that manifests in a variety of ways, depending on the individual. For myself, I saw through it quite quickly. For others, including friends of mine, death came as swiftly as their deep belief, hopelessness and fear would take them.
Every one of you AIDS promoters are charlatans. Your lies help condemn people to suffering and death. You have no conscience, no morals, no love, no compassion if you choose to continue with these horrible lies.
You don't love. And you don't care.
Posted by: DB | August 12, 2006 12:44 AM
DB,
Your comments are unsupported and thoroughly offensive. I suggest that you stay away from the keyboard for a while until you have calmed down - I can't imagine someone would say something so horrible unless they were overwrought.
"lincoln",
After your latest effort, it would be ironic, but not unexpected, if Tara finally did that of which you accused her in that absurd e-mail you sent to me, and banned you.
Posted by: Peter Barber | August 12, 2006 1:09 AM
Here is a picture of EXACTLY what ALL of you AIDS ADVOCATING TRUTH DENIALISTS,
http://www.whiskeyb4breakfast.org/podcast/myPic.png
look like to all of us RETHINKERS, RE-APPRAISERS and DISSIDENTS.
Closed Minded, Closed Eyes, and as dense as a rock.
(picture courtesy of Seth Manapio)
Posted by: lincoln | August 12, 2006 1:10 AM
lincoln said: "There is no proven method by which HIV supposedly kills Tcells or destroys the immune system F-wad! If there were any such proven evidence, there would be no "AIDS denialists" fool!"
--------------
lincoln, what would you consider proof that HIV destroys or disupts the immune system? I assume that you are familiar with and agree with Duesberg's claims that HIV has been isolated and is infectious (Question 7). Given that HIV exists and is infectious, what would it take to convince you that it has a negative effect on the immune system?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 12, 2006 1:28 AM
And so we come full circle. Cue Wilhelm:
There are two small problems with this. Firstly, supervening bacterial or fungal infections bad enough to require treatment are treated with antibacterial or antifungal agents specific to those organisms (once the organism is identified), not with antivirals.
Secondly, there are thousands of cases of virus mutations documented in the primary literature, including several where mechanisms are investigated. (No, I am not going to attempt to summarise them for you.) Do you dispute their veracity? If so, at what point in your scientific career did you stop trusting Index Medicus or MEDLINE?
Posted by: Peter Barber | August 12, 2006 1:28 AM
I think I got snagged by the link limit with my last post. So, without links--
lincoln wrote:There is no proven method by which HIV supposedly kills Tcells or destroys the immune system F-wad! If there were any such proven evidence, there would be no "AIDS denialists" fool!
--------------
To which I reply: Great! we are making progress. Lincoln, I assume you agree with Dr. Peter Duesberg, who maintains that HIV exists, has been isolated, and is infectious. Given that, what would you consider evidence that HIV has a negative effect on the immune system?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 12, 2006 1:51 AM
Seth.
Actually, I am not convinced either way as to the evidence that HIV exists, and has been isolated, or not. There was too much shady dealings with the original science, and the race to be the next Jonas Salk and Nobel Laureate, that was obfuscating the results. Please familiarize yourself with the early dealings and confusions over the virus gallo claimed to have taken from, as he called them himself, American "Fags", was subsequently proven via DNA analysis to be the virus of Montagnier. After this confusion, the fight was over who discovered it, with proof of it actually causing the disease in question, taking a back seat to wrangling over patents and royalties.
I am also willing to allow for the possibility that HIV is endogenous in a small percentage of the population and passed down maternally. I am certainly not going to say it does not absolutely exist, as anything is possible. 20 years ago, very very little was known about endogenous retrovirus, I think only about 4 had been identified at the time, and it was looked upon at the time, as useless DNA junk. Since then, it has been found that every piece of DNA in every cell in your body has at least 1000 various retroviruses as a part of it, and there is evidence that it serves various purposes, and is not useless DNA junk.
The perth group in Australia, (hats off to you and yours down under, Mr. Barber, as it is nice to see some original thinkers over there) has some rather persuasive arguments that what is being found and called HIV is not necessarily HIV and is cellular debris caused by various factors contributing to the cellular breakdown and DNA breakdown and could very well be pieces of breaking DNA in the combinations that are suspected to be that of HIV. I really do not know. I suggest you research their web site to form your own opinion.
As for sexually transmitted, Nancy Padian's 6 year study of 370 or so sero-opposite couples, with absolutely zero conversion of the negative partners to become HIV positive, with at least 1/4th of whom did not even use a condom or any other protection at all, is rather persuasive to me, that HIV is most probably not contagious. Please remember that the western blot and elisa tests are for antibodies only, and are non specific tests and not approved for diagnostic use by the fda for that very reason. They are only approved for prognostic use. Is it not suspicious to you, that after her findings, they did not run more studies on transmissability here in the US? Why not? I certainly have my own suspicions why not. As we are talking about a period where anything that government officials did wrong, was covered up. This is still happening in many areas, although more and more, these types of coverups are exposed.
Persuasive evidence of the mechanism by which HIV is shown repeatedly to kill Tcells or the mechanism by which hiv inhibits the manufacture of Tcells would be required, and would need to be independently verified by independent groups unrelated to the "good old boys" network and outside of the proven to be corrupt NIADS department, in order to blame HIV as the culprit.
Posted by: lincoln | August 12, 2006 2:52 AM
"But Pat, even after all that you still didn't answer my question and point out the difference between the two groups, each calling scientists biased"
Tara
Listen closely : I dont give a FUCK about creationism, thats the difference! Me saying that I'm not a creationist is a strawman ? Using the "strawman" argument it IS a strawman, you make no sense anymore when you use it.
"As far as "scandals" and "pharma," the problem is that I know far too many people doing biomedical research and who've never received any money from any pharmaceutical companies--and their results are the same as scientists who have received some funding from industry. That's where your "bias" issue falls apart".
You live in a cute world, we envy Iowa.
Posted by: pat | August 12, 2006 9:40 AM
Next up is Robster:
"So we know how HIV is spread, how HIV infects a cell, how it kills T cells, how it makes the person more susceptible to opportunistic infections, and how HIV's effects on the immune system can be delayed."
Riiiiiight! Now all we have left to know is how to isolate and identify HIV... Or prove it exists.
Robster, I think I read somewhere in this thread that you are a toxicologist. Aren't you ashamed to be puttering around in this bogus virus mess, instead of using your knowledge in your own field to solve this AIDS puzzle?
I have advocated for some time to cut the excessive spending on the virologist, and divert most of that money to the toxicologists, so that they can find the real causes of all those AIDS-related diseases. But if even the toxicologists jump on the HIV bandwagon, instead of clearly demonstrating what the danger is of using heroin, cocaine, crystal meth, AZT or Nevirapine, then who can we turn to?
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 12, 2006 11:33 AM
lincoln writes:
'Actually, I am not convinced either way as to the evidence that HIV exists, and has been isolated, or not. There was too much shady dealings with the original science..."
----------------
I'm going to start here, because obviously, if HIV cannot be shown to exist, it clearly cannot be shown to be infectious or effect the immue system in any way.
Lincoln, the original science isn't relevant to Duesberg's claim that HIV exists and has been isolated, as seen here.
Duesberg argues that "HIV has been isolated by the most rigorous method science has to offer." He is definitely outside the "good old boy network" and the supposed corruption of the NIH. He meets all of your criteria for a credible source, and you cite him as such repeatedly.
Are you now saying that Duesberg is NOT a credible source, and is NOT knowledgeable about retrovirii in general and HIV in particular?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 12, 2006 11:35 AM
And Peter Barber:
"Firstly, supervening bacterial or fungal infections bad enough to require treatment are treated with antibacterial or antifungal agents specific to those organisms (once the organism is identified), not with antivirals."
I honestly wish you were right, Peter, but this is a fantasy world you are describing. Once a sick patient is brought into the hospital, and is known to be seropositive, the diagnosis is "AIDS", and treatment with antiretrovirals is started. No further diagnostics needed...
As the ARV's kill all cells indiscriminately, they also kill bacteria. So the patient seems to improve short term.
And then... the patient is kept on ARV's until death follows.
"Secondly, there are thousands of cases of virus mutations documented in the primary literature, including several where mechanisms are investigated. (No, I am not going to attempt to summarise them for you.) Do you dispute their veracity?"
YES! "Mutations" are just an excuse for irreproducible results, these days. Because every time these boneheads do an experiment, they find something different. So they invoke a mutation. And they try to hide in the crowd, by publishing their papers under the heading of 12-20 authors.
When did I lose my confidence in this kind of "science"? In 1988, when Peter Duesberg was called as a witness before the Presidential Committee on AIDS.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 12, 2006 12:07 PM
"Duesberg argues that "HIV has been isolated by the most rigorous method science has to offer."
Oh, for catsake, Seth! Duesberg said that in an article in Continuum, where he tried to claim the prize for anyone who could prove that HIV had been isolated (He didn't get the prize; neither did anybody else).
Duesberg has a great sense of humor, and probably meant it as a joke. He used the same expressions and mannerisms the HIV-believers use. Molecular cloning (!) Of DNA (!&^%#*&!!) And would anybody really take that seriously, as an isolation of an RNA-virus? Oy ve!
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 12, 2006 12:17 PM
"lincoln," please stop with the personal attacks. You know because of your history that you're on thin ice, and I'm not giving any more chances.
Second, you say:
Perhaps you should read what Nancy Padian herself says about her study being misrepresented by deniers. Interesting how Hank Barnes has gone from using her as an example to now calling her a "ditz."
Wilhelm, regarding resistance to antivirals, I hope you saw PharmaBawd's comment. Hers is about HIV resistance, but since you asked for peer-reviewed articles regarding the news item I posted about antiviral resistance in influenza, I'll point you to a few:
Hayden FG. 2006. Antiviral Resistance in Influenza Viruses -- Implications for Management and Pandemic Response. NEJM. 354:785-8. (Be sure to look at Table 1)
Bright et al. 2006. Adamantane resistance among influenza A viruses isolated early during the 2005-2006 influenza season in the United States. JAMA. 295:891-4.
Additionally, by your description, Wilhelm, it seems you don't understand how they determine resistance, either in bacteria or in viruses. These are in vitro measurements, Wilhelm. Sure, seeing that a drug doesn't work in a cohort is a red flag that the patients may be carrying resistant organisms, but what you suggest just isn't how resistance is tested, and would be an unethical method to do so.
Finally, one thing I've not thought of previously regarding Duesberg. If y'all claim that HIV doesn't exist, that takes away any expertise Duesberg--as a retrovirologist--brings to the camp, and indeed, if he's "kidding" about HIV actually existing, then he removes himself as an expert in the area. So doesn't that make him "biased" to the issue of HIV existence as well?
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 12, 2006 12:48 PM
Richard Jefferys wrote:
"And, if you look back up the thread (or better yet, read the paper that viji was referring to), you'll see that this is exactly how the data were obtained. So, on what basis are you saying that Robster's statement that most untreated people with HIV progress is a "baldfaced lie."?"
Well Richard, I did look back up the thread, and I would still say the data on progression to full-blown AIDS just weren't there. A lot of banter about CD4+ counts and Viral Load, but the health and well-being of the patients never entered the picture. They could be dead, and if their CD4+ counts and VL were good just before they died, the poisonmasters would still claim it as a success for HAART.
Of course, proper studies would be of long duration now. In the second half of the eighties, drug and popper use were still rampant. And the victimms were finished off quickly with AZT monotherapy. The present HAART pills contain less AZT, and besides more seropositives are starting to realize that stopping some of their bad drug-habits may save their lives. From a few months, the time to develop full-blown AIDS has increased to at least 10 years. It won't be long now until all HIV+ victims will get wise, recognize what really got them into trouble (and it ain't sx either), and will finally die of old age.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 12, 2006 1:26 PM
"Duesberg has a great sense of humor, and probably meant it as a joke."
-----------------
Goldshalk puts forth the proposal that no quote or article from Duesberg is necessarily representative of his true beliefs, as Duesberg himself does not differentiate between the presentation of "jokes" and "facts", but may at any time simply be joking around. Based on this assessment, I can only reach the conclusion that Duesberg is completely untrustworthy... for all I know, he may think its a joke to say that HIV does not cause AIDS!
Do you agree with that assessment of Duesberg, lincoln? Or do you prefer to posit that he is merely incompetent to reach an informed decision as to the existence of HIV and methods for isolating it? Or, perhaps, would you agree that the balance of the evidence supports the hypothesis that HIV exists?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 12, 2006 2:01 PM
Hello Tara.
Rocks:
Rocks have served mankind in a multitude of ways. They have been used to grind the food that nourishes us, they have served as decorations, served as tools, or been ground up to have their useful components and ingredients extracted to serve our desires and purposes.
Rocks, have been used to defend, and at times to destroy. At times to murder and at times to kill. They have been thrown by hand and by sling and even by catapault to be used as weapons of human destruction.
Artists, such as myself, attempt to craft a statue of beauty, to bring out the inner truth and beauty that we artists, connected to the vibrations of love in the universe, can clearly see, in what is an otherwise meaningless and ugly and useless to man and beast, chunk of rock, by chiseling, blasting, drilling, or other seemingly violent means. At times the process may indeed look violent, perhaps even look malicious to the unaware onlooker, but every blow and every blast, is done with total focus of nothing but, pure calculated and focused love, to find and craft that thing of beauty that is within every rock.
Witness the statue of David!
Would you come between the artist and his chisel? Perhaps, if you become afraid. There is nothing to fear Tara, but fear itself. I do believe the major blows have already been made, and the inner beauty of the statue can be accentuated and be finished with a finer, and less explosive chisel and then polished off, with no more than a slightly abrasive sand paper.
And You have my word Tara, that I will carefully proceed further as such.
Perhaps I was not strong enough in my assertion of my own beliefs:
that HIV is most probably not contagious.
I personally am quite convinced that it is not at all "contagious".
Tara, you wrote:
Perhaps you should read what Nancy Padian herself says about her study being misrepresented by deniers. Interesting how Hank Barnes has gone from using her as an example to now calling her a "ditz."
Certainly you are aware, that the rethinker community is making huge dents in raising the awareness of the public to the obvious failures and flaws of the HIV=AIDS=DEATH paradigm. Many in the "good ole boys" defenders of the "faith team, are filled with fear and trepidation as the foundations of their arguments are crumbling beneath them. They are striking out in every way they can think of, to try to stop or slow down, the inevitable coming destruction and overturning of the paradigm. It is obvious that the reason for Nancy Padian being drummed up at the AIDSunTruth site, is motivated by the pure and unadulterated fear of those defenders of the faith.
Rolling out Nancy Padian herself, to tout the party lines in her very obvious politically motivated words this week, is certainly not believable to any worldly and sophisticated person. Any healthy sceptic familiar with her original study can see through her pronouncements quite clearly. It is quite understandable why the defenders of the faith of HIV would feel the need to do this, this very week, as the attrition to the side of the rethinkers and reappraisers is growing by leaps and bounds every day.
As this very thread was originally about the words of Rebecca Culshaw, I find her words on the Padian Paper to be quite succinct and to the point. They can be found at the following:
http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/08/more_on_african.html#comments
Tara, as far as what you typed:
If y'all claim that HIV doesn't exist, that takes away any expertise Duesberg--as a retrovirologist--brings to the camp, and indeed, if he's "kidding" about HIV actually existing, then he removes himself as an expert in the area. So doesn't that make him "biased" to the issue of HIV existence as well?
To me, Tara, it does not take away from Duesberg at all. To me, it merely demonstrates that he should have been fully funded to fully investigate this to completion in 1987.
Unfortunately, his funding was denied by those biased individuals on the review board, by those such as Flossie Wong-Staal, Robert Gallo's former consort and lab assistant, whom even bore Gallo a child before his wife found out and moved Flossie to San Diego to chair the UCSD HIV/AIDS Chair and direct the AntiViral Research Center there.
Posted by: lincoln | August 12, 2006 2:29 PM
Interesting how Hank Barnes has gone from using her as an example to now calling her a "ditz."
Interesting how you deliberately mislead people, bordering on lying, Tara.
I've never held Padian up as an "example." She's always been a ditz. Her DATA, however, ---"No serconversions" in the longest epidemiological study of heterosexual transmission of HIV -- is what matters.
Hank
Posted by: Hankbarnes | August 12, 2006 4:21 PM
And perhaps some of you might think that the UCSD AntiViral Research Center, originally overseen by Flossie Wong-Staal, or Typhoon Flossie, as those close to her know her by, is an unbiased, independent, and California state university system funded operation, but let us see where this research center gets their funding. Is it from the state of California, as this is a state run university?
Only partially. The majority of the UCSD AVRC funding, comes from two sources:
1) Funding from the NIADS AIDS Clinical Trial Group Studies.
2) Funding directly from the pharmaceutical companies whose drugs are being tested on the unsuspecting and unknowing gay boys in San Diego.
The AZT has been overseen for many years, by the original Burroughs AZT team member, Dr. Douglas Richman. The AZT trial became unblinded due to the obvious difference between who was on it and who was not, as the side effects gave it away immediately. The trials only lasted for four months, before they were stopped and the FDA agreed to give AZT to everyone.
The AVRC runs advertisements through-out the gay community there, sets up at the gay pride events, and has leaflets in almost every AIDS advocacy and treatment organization throughout the community.
Advertisements appealing to the gay paranoia of being infected by HIV, such as the following half page advertisement that has run in the San Diego Gay and Lesbian Times:
ARE YOU SURE IT'S THE FLU? UCSD AVRC may be able to help you determine if you have Primary HIV infection. certainly scares many into going there at the first terrifying sniffle or sneeze!
And the following, full page ad, showing a very young and fawn eyed gay mans attractive and vulnerable face, to appeal to the heartstrings of those diagnosed as HIV to make something good come out of their diagnosis:
WITHOUT YOU, THERE CAN BE NO CURE. It's a fact. You can find out about our studies by calling or visiting our website.
Is the AVRC so benevolently and caringly seeking a cure, as the advertisement implies, or are they lining their own pockets and using the paranoid and fear filled HIV terrorized gay boys of America's Finest City as their ticket to more funds? Read the following and you decide?
When asked the following three simple questions in a private face to face meeting, the front office director quite hesitantly answered with the following answers.
Question Number One:
Does the AVRC receive funding directly from the pharmaceutical companies, on a per drug, per patient, per study, basis? (please remember that patients are also on more than one drug and enrolled in more than one study)
Answer given directly and face to face to me personally:
Yes, we do get funded by the drug companies per patient per drug per study.
Question Number Two:
How much IS the AVERAGE payment from the drug company, per patient per drug per study?
Answer:
We receive from $3000 to $10,000, and UP.
Not exactly an average given to me, and I can't help but wonder what "and UP" means, as it could very well be tens of thousands of dollars.
Last question asked:
Does the AVRC inform any of the enrolled patient volunteers, of the obvious conflict of interest of the drug companies who are paying for the study?
Answer:
NO WE DO NOT
I let the readers of this blog, ponder this, and determine for yourselves whether this is all appropriate science, or science that is bought and paid for with perhaps the blood of the "lab animal" like gay population, especially given that all of the AIDS drugs are known to be deadly toxic, and all are Fast Tracked through the FDA approval process, by the data (hopefully but doubtfully honest and unbiased) supplied to the FDA by the drug companies themselves, from these pharma company directed and paid for trials.
Furthermore, very little followup studies, even though required by the FDA for having approved these drugs, has ever been finished and much has never even been started.
These trials are ongoing in many of the cities across the US and even worldwide. The Harpers article, by Celia Farber, "AIDS-Out of Control, AIDS, HIV-AIDS, The Corruption of Medical Science", demonstrates the sheer lack of caring, lost log books, lack of safety, as well as the out and out corruption in some of the trials run by the ACTG Aids Clinical Trial Group Studies.
The Harpers Article can be found at the following:
http://www.harpers.org/OutOfControl.html
I say again, for all to plainly hear:
End This Terror, and SET MY PEOPLE FREE.
Posted by: lincoln | August 12, 2006 5:02 PM
lincoln,
Perhaps you thought that it would be missed in all of your prose, but you never addressed either Tara's point about Duesberg or mine about the existence of HIV. Either Duesberg is joking around and is totally unreliable, or he is, as you say, incomptetent to judge whether HIV exists.
I ask you again: Duesberg wrote in 1996 that HIV had been isolated by the best methods science had to offer. Do you feel that Duesberg is incompetent to make that judgement, or would you agree that the bulk of the evidence supports the existence of HIV?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 12, 2006 7:03 PM
Seth, I consider Duesberg to be a brillian man. That should be fairly obvious to you by now.
I think his opinions should be very highly regarded. However, without having funded him, the world shall never know what he might or might not have contributed or proven or disproven as to the existence or nonexistance of HIV, or its supposed causality of AIDS. That too should be fairly obvious to you that this is my opinion.
I don't know who got it right. This also should be absolutely obvious to you if you actually read or thought about any of the things I have posted on the subject.
It seems to me you ask questions of which the answers are obvious. As I told you before, and it seems to me that you need things repeated and seem to have a difficult time digesting anything that I write, or extracting your own intelligently based observations upon it.
I do not know if Duesberg/Gallo/Montagnier was right or if the Perth group was right. They both should have been fully funded, especially Duesberg, and their claims should have been investigated in other labs as well to verify and sort out the claims. This should not have been too difficult as over 100 billion dollars have been thrown at HIV so far.
Is it too difficult for you to understand that the NIH investigator of the year, Dr. Duesberg, was defunded immediately after challenging HIV as the cause of AIDS? I could swear I have mentioned this about 3 or more times to you.
Seth. You can write any comments that you wish about me, and you can ask any questions that you wish of me.
I will not be responding to you anymore, or the seemingly to me, loopy nature of your questions which are very obviously either asking irrelevant questions, or questions that are already answered, which is most likely why no-one else but you is asking them! Everybody but you, Seth, seems to understand my opinions.
Write anything you want to me or about me, Seth, I will not be replying to you further.
You seem to me, and again I repeat myself, to be agitating simply to get some attention. If you would like someones opinion or would like to ask a question, ask of someone else. I will not be responding. I feel very uncomfortable with what I perceive to be your attitude in all of your posts but one directed to me.
I will assume that you felt ignored by those who raised you in your early childhood, and only received attention when either being demanding of attention or seemingly obnoxious. Well Seth, I am not your babysitter nor surrogate papa. If you feel hurt by this move on my part to no longer respond to you, your feelings and your reactions have nothing to do with me, but have everything to do with yourself. This is the last bit of attention you will get from me on this thread, as I do not care to repeat the obvious over and over just for you. I thank you for your participation and hope that you have found some of it helpful to your forming your own opinions.
Posted by: lincoln | August 12, 2006 7:36 PM
Seth, I take it back just this one time. One last bit of attention from me to you! I DO want to honor your honest opinion's of what you think about me, I just looked at your blogsite that comes up when I clicked on your name. I felt that the piece you wrote was honest, and funny, and well written, and should really be shared by all. Know that it really brought a smile to my own face, and I am yet smiling. I am glad we have pushed each others buttons, as this is how we all grow and expand our own consciousness. I am sure you do not mind me posting your piece, and sharing it with all, as I am sure many here would agree with you, although I am equally sure that many would not. Many of your thoughts may even be true, (I must confess that the second to the last sentence has gone through my mind quite more than once, I have even actually tried)!
Tara, I am sure you will enjoy this, Everyone, I present the very talented and entertaining words.... Of Seth!
As found at: http://www.whiskeyb4breakfast.org/
Can you say "Narcissist"
Aetiology: I KNEW you could
The things I do to entertain you people. Both of you.
I'm still asking the same questions over at Aetiology... I have this sick fascination with the inner mind of this weird creature calling himself "lincoln." Here's a tidbit from his latest effort:
Artists, such as myself, attempt to craft a statue of beauty, to bring out the inner truth and beauty that we artists, connected to the vibrations of love in the universe, can clearly see, in what is an otherwise meaningless
I'm cackling madly. This is better than kung fu porn.
Now, you know I would never chastise, and indeed might applaud a fellow writer for the crime of writing sentences that are perhaps slightly longer than the sentences that--hamstrung by limited vision and a misplaced love of brevity--the typical writer would craft. I've written my share of crap.
But this guy is really something special. This is grade 'A' crappy writing... self congratulatory, monomaniacal, messianic... and best of all, his prose is just horrible. Not merely bad, but floridly, sickeningly bad. Bad like a 14 year old in love bad, bad like only a man whose convinced he can't be bad can be bad.
I'm restraining myself a great deal over there... I want to mock this guy, to write little vignettes that say things like:
ME: Does HIV Exist?
lincoln: No, indeed, in my search for oneness and transparency in a cruel and greedy universe, my belief cannot be pinned down but rather is part of the great circle of kumquats and ocean spray.
Me: Yeah, but your favorite scientist says it does. Is he wrong.
lincoln: I'm artist, and HIV researchers are bad and greedy. Read this article here, and let my people go! I am so cool, if I could blow myself I'd never leave my wonderful house of love...
But I just can't do his twisted weirdness justice. He isn't as much fun as George Bush beat poetry, but its close.
posted by Seth at 8/12/2006 07:33:48 PM
Posted by: lincoln | August 12, 2006 8:22 PM
lincon writes:
"I consider Duesberg to be a brillian man. That should be fairly obvious to you by now."
--------------
lincoln,
No, it isn't. You can't decide whether he is competent to judge whether HIV exists... how brilliant can you think he is? Anyway, you still aren't answering the question, but I'm cool with that. Your admission that you are basically incapable of reaching a conclusion about the very existence of HIV renders your certainty that it does not cause AIDS meaningless.
Between Goldshalk claiming that gravity doesn't exist and levity is Deusberg's motivator, DB ranting about scientifically meaningless questions, and your thousands of content free lines of florid prose, I think that this conversation stands alone as a testament to the vapid nature of the HIV denial position.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 12, 2006 8:34 PM
I am not just still smiling, I am rolling on the floor and howling with laughter. Seth, Thank you!
Posted by: lincoln | August 12, 2006 8:42 PM
Wilhelm wrote: "No (exasperated sigh), that's not logical at all. You mix up viruses again with bacteria. Viruses DON'T develop resistance against drugs (although bacteria do). These HAART drugs work on the host's cell metabolism, not on the virus itself."
As Tara noted, that claim is bit hard to square with findings that the variations which allow the virus to replicated in the presence of the drugs maps to the viral genome. In many cases the nature of resistance is understood at a biochemical level. In fact, one can clone the mutant gene and demonstrate that the protein produced is no longer inhibited by the drug. There is nothing special in the work with HIV resistance and HAART that wasn't also done in many other straight-forward studies of pathogen resistance.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 12, 2006 11:58 PM
lincoln,
my personal opinions about you and your evaluation of my sense of humor aren't really relevant. Nor is Deusberg's funding status in 1987. The question on the table remains, is Peter Duesberg competent to evaluate the science and determine whether HIV exists, or isn't he? His website in 2006 clearly shows that he is of the opinion that it does. Is it your position that he is not knowledgeable enough in this area to make that call?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 13, 2006 1:07 AM
Tara said (much, much earlier in the thread): "And to clarify, the intent of this post wasn't to mock or ridicule Culshaw. But because she's being held up as a current darling of the HIV "rethinker" groups and an authority on HIV, I feel it's quite relevant to point out her complete lack of understanding of basic biology and virology".
And others might mock you and your complete lack of understanding of basic mathematical and statistical principles. But that wouldn't be fair. You're just a biologist. We really shouldn't expect too much of you in the interpretation of mathematical results emanating from what you see in a microscope.
Posted by: End Times | August 13, 2006 1:23 AM
FALSE DICHOTOMIES
http://www.noumenon.co.za/html/winter_1995.html
Posted by: lincoln | August 13, 2006 2:23 AM
End times, ...vice versa
You've made your point. However, methinks Tara has clearly defined her the purpose of bringing up the topic of Dr Culshaw too, as she says, the intent of this post wasn't to mock or ridicule Culshaw.
What's more, your point can be applied to Dr Culshaw too. According to my reading of (1) her self introduction webpage on her stand on HIV-AIDS and (2) from the description of her upcoming book, I suppose Dr Culshaw's intent in both cases are to comment on issues pertaining to the HIV-AIDS that is beyond the domain of her expertise (being Mathematics), i.e. her slight understanding of HIV biology, or her misconceptions of PCR methodology used to detect HIV, little experience with the microbiology of the disease, etc.
In addition, my reading of her published studies on the mathematical modeling of the disease, did not show me that her work support her beliefs, much less did her original work gave her any first hand experience of the various aspects of HIV research that she critiqued and critisised.
Then again, Dr Culshaw did clarify in a response on this thread that, quote
"Finally, I never claimed to have ever been some world expert on hiv - NEVER. At no point was I trying to win authority points for the dissident side. "
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/08/interview_with_hiv_rethinker_r.php#comment-186429
end quote
But the HIV dissidents does seem to present her as the poster girl or some sort of scientific authority for their claims. Perhaps that is why Tara brought up the topic in the first place, that is to note the limitations of Dr Culshaw's views and explain possible misconceptions on Dr Culshaw's part, which may stem from the limitations in her understanding of fundamentals in HIV research beyond the realm of mathematics.
What puzzles me still is that Dr Culshaw laments about having moral problems continuing to make her livelihood off a the HIV-AIDS "hypothesis" yet she seems to be contented at earning some income by publishing a book for the masses that disseminates information that she has little background to critically assess and, more importantly, introduces concepts (e.g. statements that HIV is non-infectious) that has yet to be backed up by research or confirmed by science).
To me, the ramifications of desseminating such concepts/information which would seriously undermine public health in regards to HIV-AIDS (especially if adopted by persons with little understanding of HIV-research), certainly HAS MORE SERIOUS IMPLICATIONS AND MORAL QUESTIONS than working as a researcher trying to forward the science, which in turn can churn out results that can either confirm or reappraise HIV-AIDS.
Isn't working the science a better approach than selling a point that has no empirical research backing it up to the general public? especially when it involves something as serious as the terminal disease AIDS.
Posted by: viji | August 13, 2006 2:47 AM
Its easy for people to invoke false dichotomies on issues such as one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter
Very philosophical, but that of course bear little relevance in the topic of HIV-AIDS,
Reading at the sidelines as a trained scientist not involved in HIV research whatsoever, and after following the discussions, in my opinionlearly, there are little and few disputes in HIV being the causal factor in an eventual progression to AIDS, and that certain drugs have been able to delay this. I just can;t see how an empirical research effort that involves so many aspects of science, worked on by countless scientist (funded by pharma or otherwise), and observed by both doctors and health workers in the field can falsify the outcome of research or be involved in some sort of conspiracy that often accused by "HIV-dissidents"
On the other hand, all that the HIV dissidents stand for a a whimmy whammy of a few papers - of which a lot have been misrepresented a- ccording to the original authors of the papers, NOT a stich of original research affirming their claims, a diverse lot of working hypothesis, and mountain loads of conspiracy theories, dishonest defamations, etc. Much of the noise thus far have been generated by the fanfare of "dissidents" who first struggled to understand the science, following without question any HIV dissenting theories forwarded to them, and disregard any science contrary to their whims and fancies.
This is of course not the first time someone in this thread has reached such a conclusion from reading the posts
Then irony is they accuse scientist of having a herd mentality when its evident that they're victims of such behaviour, avoiding serious questions by saying its irrelevant, never bothering to understand the research, concocting outlandish statements like PCR is witchcraft or ridiculing someone's choice of dressing up a webpage, and talks of little more than conspiracy theories.
Far from dissenting, thats denialism. What false dichotomy? I don't see the people standing for the HIV-AIDS showing such ridiculous behaviour.
Posted by: viji | August 13, 2006 3:18 AM
Set my people free, and YOU will be freed in the process:
WINTER 1995 VOLUME ONE NUMBER TWO
NOUMENON - A NEWSLETTER FOR THE NONDUAL PERSPECTIVE
FALSE DICHOTOMIES
An Inquiry into the HIV/AIDS Controversy
Kriben Pillay
Even before I encountered the literature on the HIV controversy, I speculated that AIDS, whatever its causation, was telling us something significant about our collective psyche. The hysteria that it generated, the prophecies of doom that it seemed to fulfil for our smirking moralists, the elevation of medical science into an even more powerful figure of authority, were all pointers to something very fundamental happening just below the threshold of our conscious awareness.
[snipped out text--if you want to link it, "lincoln," feel free but please don't C&P so much text. -TS]
Posted by: lincoln | August 13, 2006 3:30 AM
Hello viji,
you seem to have completely missed the heart of my post,
You asked, What false dichotomy?
Viji, as with many people in science, you read two words of a post, and are unable to move your mind beyond it. You did not even bother to even LOOK at the
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR FALSE DICHOTOMY
and look upon perhaps the singular most beautifully written viewpoint of HIV/AIDS as a false dichotomy that was ever written.
Posted by: lincoln | August 13, 2006 11:33 AM
" look upon perhaps the singular most beautifully written viewpoint..."
--------------
Not really. The author plays the Hitler card in a very inappropriate way, and takes far too long to say far too little. Also, the author's understanding of fuzzy logic is very poor: he cites it as an inspiration, but no where in the article is there any use of fuzzy logic. In fact, the authors reference to evolutionary theory shows their complete lack of understanding of either fuzzy logic or evolutionary theory.
First, fuzzy logic is a branch of set theory, not rhetorical logic, and second, evolution is the ultimate expression of fuzzy logic. When does a species separate? There is no precise border, no specific moment where THIS virus becomes this OTHER virus, but undeniably, there is a time when the two are distinct sets. That is fuzzy logic, or at least the simple version.
And the authors view of science and the HIV hypothesis is pitifully narrow. Science creates fuzzy logic, information theory, systems theory. Science is totally aware of multiple causes for simple problems, that is why studies have controls and list possible confounding variables.
But in the end, this discussion is not about society, or about funding, or about social policy or fuzzy logic or philosophy. It is very simply about the characteristics and behavior of a virus. Does the virus exist, and does it affect the human immune system? This question is independent of Gallo's morality or treatement of Duesberg, of presidential politics or homophobia.
Of course, there are social issues relating to AIDS, and of course, we all want good science. And if there are companies that engage in unethical practices, we all want to know about them. And if drugs aren't working as advertised, that is worth knowing too. The true fallacy is to lump these issues together, to assume that if there is a problem with homophobia, then HIV must not exist, that if drugs don't work well or have dangerous side effects, then HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS. To assume that because they have no cure, science must not have a cause.
To believe that because there are shades of gray in human knowledge and limits to our control over nature, we can change the existence and behavior of a virus by closing our eyes and wishing; that is the true fallacy.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 13, 2006 1:00 PM
I absolutely and completely agree with the following words quoted from Seth:
we all want good science.
I absolutely concur!
Then Seth Typed:
Science is totally aware of multiple causes, for simple problems
Quite true, most all can see the multiple causes for simple problems! It is unfortunate that so many, particularly in the science of HIV/AIDS, have seemingly not applied their awareness of multiple causes to the more complex problems of this issue.
Then Seth typed:
because they have no cure, science must not have a cause.
I also agree with Seth in the probability of this remark of his, after 25 years and more than 100 billion dollars, it certainly seems logical to me!
Then Seth typed:
if there is a problem with homophobia, then HIV must not exist
Well, Seth may very well be right here as well, but there is no way to prove nonexistence of HIV, so I think he carries it just a bit too far, as all things are possible. Although perhaps here too, Seth may very well be absolutely correct that homophobia, internalized and externalized, could very well be at the core of the problem, at least in the western world. Certainly seems to beg of us to ask the question. Is there a problem with Homophobia? And while we are at it, Is there a Problem with Racism? Forgive me for asking these two questions so blatantly, as I hadn't noticed it myself.
Then Seth typed:
if drugs don't work well or have dangerous side effects, then HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS.
I don't know if we could rule it out 100 percent on the basis of side effects of dangerous drugs, but here too, I believe Seth is most likely onto the truest aspects of the situation, in particular when drugs such as AZT, DDI, DDL, and others are known to be precursors of some of the very symptoms of the syndrome itself.
Seth also typed:
we can change the existence and behavior of a virus by closing our eyes and wishing.
Interesting that Seth would bring this up , as I too believe that the beliefs themselves, and the unseen and unmeasureable vibrations of energy behind our very thoughts, seem to be a major influence and are perhaps at the very core of the issues. Certainly explains the placebo effect. Fascinating also, as quantum physics and string theory scientists, are currently explaining much of what we perceive life to be, along the same lines of thinking.
Maybe Seths statement is quite correct. Maybe this has been known for thousands of years! Perhaps it is the foundation for those ancient words of wisdom written in the bible:
"As a man thinks, so is he"
and
"according to your faith, it shall be given unto you"
and
"Ask and you shall receive"
For what is faith, but a belief, and what is a belief, but faith.
And exactly where does faith and belief interface to the physical realm of which our limited perceptions are capable of experiencing as such?
Although I agree in basic form with Seth's words that I have chosen from above, I think perhaps he yet views life in a far too simple form of right/wrong, good/bad, me/you, and other incomplete pictures of his perceptions of reality, in comparison to those who seem to be viewing it from the broadest possible and all inclusive viewpoints, although he definitely seems to be making progress, as is evidenced by his even pondering such thoughts.
Posted by: lincoln | August 13, 2006 2:53 PM
Wilhelm wrote:
We've been over this before. Go back up and read the cited articles.
I'm surprised you didn't ask when I stopped beating my wife. I have seen no convincing evidence that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Produce the evidence.
How nice of you. Please. Stop. We have real work to do on real science. Having to go back and repeat negative results research is a waste of our time.
Clever rhetorical trick. Lump in illegal drugs with ARVs.
Toxicologists rely on, among many things, statistics and projections of risk.
Heroin, cocaine, meth, etc users that are not HIV+, statistically, are at time zero, at little risk of developing AIDS. The small amount of risk involved is that they become HIV+, at which point their risk of developing AIDS increases dramaticly. HIV- drug users have their own problems and associated toxic endpoints. The HIV deniers have yet to produce any evidence otherwise.
Anotehr example would be the inhalent type drug referred to as poppers. Poppers (amyl/butyl nitrates) were previously mentioned as a cause of AIDS and AIDS related KS. This is an old and mostly abandoned belief. Poppers do have some fairly toxic effects, can be easily abused, and dangerous overdoses are easy.
Poppers are a likely promoter of KS (Kaposi's Sarcoma) in HHV8/KSHV+ (Human Herpesvirus 8/Kaposi's Sarcoma-associated Herpesvirus, referred to as KHSV hereafter) indiviuals, and may increase the chances of becoming infected with KSHV. KS (in the west) is almost exclusive to HIV+/KSHV+ individuals.
The most likely route of KSHV exposure is kissing, similar to oral herpes (HSV1). By their immuno-compromising effects, I would not be surprised if poppers also decrease the viral dose needed to begin the initial HIV+ infection (my conjecture). Poppers were used for a good 20+ years before the KS cases shot up. Coincidentally, the upswing in KS cases was concurrent with AIDS cases. Poppers are linked to KS, although the statistics are weak, but not as a causal factor.
Wilhelm, that you don't accept or understand the concept of mutations and viral resistance (especially when the error rate of retroviruses is highly documented, search reverse transcriptase and proofreading) does not impress me. Rather, it shows a refusal to keep up with the scientific literature and knowledge base.
Posted by: Robster | August 13, 2006 4:00 PM
Robster, that you don't accept or understand the concept of toxicology regarding mutations and immune system impairment,(especially when the effects of various usage of illicit drugs, although not yet very well studied, and certainly not much studied in many combinations of drugs, legal and illicit, is still highly documented) does not impress me. Rather, it shows a refusal to keep up with or further explore the science, scientific literature and knowledge base.
Posted by: lincoln | August 13, 2006 4:25 PM
Since we seem to have circled back around to the original topic of this post, that is: Dr. Culshaw demonstrating that she is not qualified to pontificate on infectious diseases and epidemiology, she and Darin Brown are presently on the verge of "discovering" that Herpes Simplex Virus 1 and 2 cannot be transmitted through sexual contact. From Hank's blog:
"However, I sense a great deal of confusion regarding what "we" are interpreting the Padian study to actually say. It is quite clear to readers of this blog that we interpret Padian (and many other studies showing similar odds ratios to 1/1000 *or even less*) to tell us that there is no way such a low infectivity can possibly be responsible for the raging hiv sex-plague that we are told is occurring. This is a clear and correct interpretation, and the point is, *Padian is not the only study showing low infectivity*!! Furthermore, the best African studies show the exact same odds ratios - effectively destroying the notion that Africa can possibly be in the midst of a deadly heterosexually propagated sex plague. Period, case closed."
Yet readers of Tara's blog, as opposed to those who merely comment without reading, will remember that this has already been discussed in the context of the Padian study:
"The transmission rate per sexual act for herpes simplex 2: 1/1200 (from "Effect of Condoms on Reducing the Transmission of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 2 From Men to Women JAMA 2001 285(3100-3106)")
Herpes is considered to be sexually transmitted. Why not HIV?
[Adding from the conclusion of that paper: "Our study revealed several new findings about the frequency and prevention of transmission of HSV-2 infection to sexual partners. Among monogamous couples with 1 partner who had known symptomatic genital herpes and 1 who was susceptible, we showed that the rate of transmission from men to women is 8.9/10 000 sex acts. This rate is similar to that seen with sexually acquired HIV.--Tara]"
discussion_of_the_padian_paper
So one can infer that professor of mathematics Dr. Culshaw also does not believe that the tens of millions of herpes infections in the US could have been heterosexually transmitted.
One gratifying thing about her post is that it seems to be slowly dawning on her that she has cast her pearls before some decidedly anti-scientific swine:
" Now, there is another way that some people interpret Padian, and that is to say that "no seroconversions => hiv cannot be sexually transmitted". This interpretation is just silly, because there is no way that we can *prove* with however many examples that hiv is just plain not sexually transmitted, any more than one could prove that it IS using a bunch of examples (post hoc, ergo propter hoc). And this interpretation is where things get sticky, because it seems pretty obvious that some people (I don't think you, Hank, btw) are using the study to attempt to support this conclusion.."
Think again Dr. Culshaw!
From Hank:
"The only logical, scientific conclusion from the Padian report is that AIDS is not a sexually transmitted disease."
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/02/post_3.php#comment-12905
" My conclusion is that the connection between sex and AIDS has been proven false. Some folks don't like that conclusion. The ostrich crowd has emotionally invested in the wrong paradigm, and are unwilling to change their beliefs, despite the evidence. Not very scientific, mind you.
Myself, I go with the facts. NO SEROCONVERSIONS. You cannot have a sexually transmitted disease, where sexual activity is abundant, yet sexual transmission is non-existent."
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/02/outtie.php#comment-14859
And this from the person who first opened her eyes about the "holes" in the HIV/AIDS "paradigm" Dr. David Rasnick:
" In fact, the scientific, medical literature is full of evidence that neither AIDS nor HIV is sexually transmitted. It is only assumed that they are."
sex has nothing to do with AIDS http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/326/7381/126/e#28943
I would have loved to have seen poor Hank's reaction to this: " to say that "no seroconversions => hiv cannot be sexually transmitted". This interpretation is just silly,"
Silly Hank! I'll bet he wasn't laughing!
Posted by: PharmaBawd | August 13, 2006 4:25 PM
Lincoln wrote,
Wow. Vibrations? Energy?
HIV+ HIV/AIDS deniers shouldn't die of AIDS related opportunistic infections. But they do. Not to be crass, but maybe they didn't believe hard enough.
Posted by: Robster | August 13, 2006 4:30 PM
Sorry, Lincoln. You aren't going to get to me with your paraphrasing of my comments, either.
I have never stated that drug abusers may have weaker immune systems. But their HIV status is the factor that absolutely determines if they will progress to AIDS.
Posted by: Robster | August 13, 2006 4:48 PM
Sorry, that should have been "may not."
Posted by: Robster | August 13, 2006 4:49 PM
"I would have loved to have seen poor Hank's reaction to this: " to say that "no seroconversions => hiv cannot be sexually transmitted". This interpretation is just silly,"
Well, the following was in fact presented by myself in comments on Barnesworld on August 12, 2006 at 08:09 AM for discussion, following which prompt deletion occurred:
"There appears to be uniformity of opinion with the following statements, a distinction this reader has not previously found expressed by Hank Barnes in any forums."
"Mark Biernbaum: "The fact that there were no transmissions in the Padian study does not "prove" that HIV isn't transmissable."
Rebecca Culshaw: "...there is no way that we can *prove* with however many examples that hiv is just plain not sexually transmitted,..."
Nancy Padian: "Individuals who cite the 1997 Padian ....in an attempt to substantiate the myth that HIV is not transmitted sexually are ill informed, at best." "
.
Posted by: McKiernan | August 13, 2006 9:04 PM
Well... Lincoln said
"For what is faith, but a belief, and what is a belief, but faith. And exactly where does faith and belief interface to the physical realm of which our limited perceptions are capable of experiencing as such?
..., I think perhaps he (Seth) yet views life in a far too simple form of right/wrong, good/bad, me/you, and other incomplete pictures of his perceptions of reality, in comparison to those who seem to be viewing it from the broadest possible and all inclusive viewpoints (is Lincoln implying himself - certainly his iccessant accusations and rants of a pharma financed scientist driven HIV-hoax conspiracy doesn't show him to be having any open mind in the stance, and Lincoln holding on to his "beliefs" in light of the many studies persons have pointed to him to explain to him his misconceptions shows exactly his uncompromising stand)
In short, indeed Lincoln, you have an uncompromising beliefs in your "HIV-hoax-Pharma-Scientist Conspiracy theories" and your strong faith in any item that your HIV-dissidents sources tell you. It really doesn't matter to you if such items are not backed up with empirical research, or if such assertions are empty and not substantiated BECAUSE anything else - including what scientists and the WHO say - are blasemy . It really doesn't worry you if your beliefs can have serious implications to public health, as you have faith to draw strength from.
Urrgh... I don;t really like writing this response
Posted by: viji | August 13, 2006 9:10 PM
I've been quote mined! I'm so totally flattered!
Wait... let me try...
lincoln wrote: "I agree with Seth"
My work here is done, lincoln has eschewed HIV denialism!
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 13, 2006 9:27 PM
Very good, Seth. So this 2 week thread is now complete. On to other things.
Bottom line is apparently this - until HIV/AIDS doubters can scientifically prove their point, we really do have to go with the rather vast consensus in the greater scientific community (which includes all sorts of related science, much of which is not dependent on the good will of Big Pharma to be able to proceed with their work) that, indeed, HIV is sexually transmitted and that it does cause AIDS. It is pointless to think or argue otherwise, unless you happen to be a scientist who is doing research that does prove otherwise.
Posted by: End Times | August 13, 2006 11:14 PM
End times,
I believe that should be the case, dissent in science should be done accordingly, by presenting original work supporting a dissenting idea contrary to the scientific consensus. Otherwise, arguments made on assumptions and assertions would be pointless as the bottom line for scientists is that there is no preliminary work available for scientist to evaluate, to work-from, and hopefully reappraise if follow-up experiments are supportive of the dissenting idea.
That was how Einstein approached the scientific community with his idea of relativity decades ago, that is with his original work and mathematical calculations to support his idea. And as I've highlighted previously, such an orderly approach is even more crucial in HIV-research as any new research findings in this area can have serious impact on public health. That is why I do not agree with the actions of the current "HIV-dissenters" in general.
If you are sincere about doubting the HIVAIDS issue, there should be two questions in your mind, (1) that the current public health initiatives based on the scientific consensus of HIV-AIDS have been successful at averting an AIDS epidemic in the USA (not necessarily the world); OR ALTERNATIVELY (2) the dissenting idea would be that AIDS is contributed by a list of factors suggested (and quite a few if we've followed the arguments brought forth by participants in this thread). (1) is supported by empirical research findings, both in clinical and laboratory settings and are currently the consensus that best predicts the HIV-AIDS phenomenon, while (2) is based on ad-hoc interpretations (or misinterpretations )of a few cherry-picked papers, with no experimental backing. (Whats more the arguments are pock marked with baseless allegations and assertions). How would you expect a scientist to receive such a form of a dissenting idea?
And I think the current "HIV dissenters" present here will go about bemoaning the lack of funding and the a conspiracy to restrict funding etc. etc. But again, as discussed previously on another thread in this blog, a pilot study or preliminary experiment, if the experimental design is done properly, would not require humongous funds. A good start would be to document and following closely the cases of HIV-positive persons voluntarily rejecting ARV or treatments (base on Lincoln's assertions, there seems to be quite a huge group of these persons in the USA)or follow the citamin experiments of the RATH foundation in South Africa. The responsible thing to do is to wait for the outcome/publication. Writing conspiracy theories or unsubstantiated claims in books for the masses would just confuse a lay-person and complicate matters for public health services. A good example would be like the real-life case of Jacob Zuma, South Africa's former deputy president and had headed the official government AIDS body, saying that " he (Zuma) had sexual intercourse without a condom and with a woman he knew to be infected with HIV, because he believed that men did not contract the disease particularly easily. He also told the court that he showered after sexual intercourse to "minimise" the possibility of contracting HIV." His superior President Thabo Mbeki even believes that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, because he read about it on the internet. Check Wikipedia to see for yourselves.
Zuma's trial leaves confused messages on AIDS http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/332/7550/1112-b
Posted by: viji | August 14, 2006 3:50 AM
As I have stated, before, it is not possible, nor is it necessary to prove a negative, such as to prove a virus does NOT cause a disease, let alone to prove a virus or any other thing does NOT exist somewhere in all of space and time. Those who are waiting for proof of a negative, will probably be waiting eternally for any such satisfactory proof to come forth. For only they can decide what is satisfactory proof, unless they are willing to defer responsiblity for their beliefs, and to allow someone else to decide for them.
I do not believe in conspiracies, but I do believe in human ignorance. Ignorance has been an outstanding trait in mankind since the beginning. Although it is quite forgivable, as all are prone to it. All are brought into the world knowing nothing and everything must be learned along the way, usually by trial and error. Especially in science, error usually precedes the truth.
We are all subjected to the implantation of much false belief into our very fertile and grasping minds. Most of what we believe to be true, is found to be faulty information as we grow and learn and in particular once we look within, and reflect on what we believe, and why we believe it, as well as who we are, and from where we come.
Where did we receive so much faulty information? From generations now past? From our parents? From our teachers, preachers, and friends? From our media and television? From our own imaginations?
Who at some point in their lives has not believed in something that we now would all agree was founded in falsehood? Who has not believed in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny or monsters under the bed, or even martians?
Who among us has not at one time or another, followed the beliefs of leaders that we later found had lacked integrity and truth? Just look back upon the annals of time. Millions upon millions have followed non-integrous leaders preaching their unwitting untruths, and have followed these leaders to their deaths, and millions and millions still continue to do so! Millions upon millions, marching to their own destruction, oblivious to having their own hands involved in their own inevitable fates, and often leading to their deaths.
All are innocent. None are to be faulted for this. Neither Leaders, nor Followers. Neither Doctors, nor patients. None are to be faulted, as it is truly no-ones fault, but simply the frailty of the human condition. The consequence of having a mind that never shuts up, and an ego that believes all that it perceives as real, is real.
A famous saying from Albert Einstein:
There are two things that are unlimited, Human Ignorance, and the Universe, And I am not so sure about the universe!
Quite the humourous genius, was he not?
My own current beliefs were acquired through diligent work and commitment and willingness to face my own fears, and question my every belief. In other words, it was indeed, a lot of hard work, and a lot of commitment. Very few are willing to follow such a path to knowledge. Fewer still even realize that they could. As has been said before in history, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.
viji typed:
your beliefs can have serious implications to public health
I could not ask for more, viji. This would be the answer to my prayers, that my words do indeed, have serious implications for the betterment of the public health. That my words will reach out and touch the very souls of all those whom desire, or seek the way to health and freedom. But I don't think you'll have much to worry about, as so few are ready to hear or capable of understanding my words, let alone willing to put them to use, although more are every day.
My belief, nay, my faith in the body to heal itself, as evidenced even in your own self, in every scar and even every cold, flu, and illness that you have had and recovered from and survived. My faith is in everyone's ability, whether that ability is known to them or not, to make connection to the unlimited power and genius of nature and creation and healing and health. My belief in life, health, and healing are, I believe, the very best thing for the public health.
No-one whom is sick will ever recover without the hope and willingness to do so, drugs or no drugs. Even most surgeons will hesitate to operate on a patient when he knows that the patient believes the operaton will go badly.
My friends, I believe that my beliefs, my faiths are quite healthy, as do others whom have chosen a similar path. If there were but some way to share them with you and with all the peoples in the world, I would gladly do so. But few are prepared or even desirous of such a gift. And a gift that is not accepted when offered, remains with the giver. However, The connection to faith such as what I write, and freedom from the fears that keep one from experiencing such faith, is still within us all, right behind our misperceptions, ego and our fears.
However, for those dealing with the issue of HIV/AIDS, who are not ready or willing for such faith, there are always pills and medicines. Certainly not a substitute for higher truths, as their faith in impending death is still one day closer to being fulfilled. But quite often it is helpful to give the patient who believes in the power of viruses or diseases to destroy them, just one more day to learn of the power of faith and belief. So, even toxic and deadly pills can be helpful to those who believe in the proclamations of fear and hopelessness and who believe in, and have faith in a disease filled death sentence. So indeed, pills and medicines, can often at least, give the patient one more day to believe in something. One more day to perhaps even find the path to a higer truth. All things serve a purpose, though not always the highest truth. But, the teacher does not appear who could assist them in learning this, until the student is ready. And as I have no idea who has been reading or following this blog, so I present the reader with this, my higher truth, to do with as they will. It is only meant for those whom have ears to hear it, and minds to understand it. I let readers decide if my words have anything to offer them.
Posted by: lincoln | August 14, 2006 6:13 AM
viji, Are you so sure that your own beliefs , as well as those whom a group of scientists have declared are truth regarding HIV are not all founded on assumptions? Are you really so very sure?
Although I am sure your heart is in a good place, I personally think it very inappropriate for you to want to put your nose between Jacob Zuma's or anyone elses legs without being invited. His sex life and choices are none of your business, and neither is it anyone elses. And I hope you will Please keep your nose out of my pants! You have your own pants to concern yourself with, and have rights to put your nose in no other pants, incuding the public at large, without an invitation. Although you are certainly entitled to your opinions. Or do you have some issues with your own God Given sexuality that you wish to project at others? Or do you just have issues with the sexuality of others?
You wrote:
dissent in science should be done accordingly, by presenting original work supporting a dissenting idea contrary to the scientific consensus.
But when German American Dr. Peter Duesberg did just this, you believe in this case, because it is a virus that YOU believe causes a SEXUALLY transmitted disease, that his viewpoints should be censored, he should be cut from funding, and his views should not be heard and are absolutely wrong without being investigated.
Had Dr. Duesberg been heard out instead of censored 20 years ago, we would not even be having this conversation today!
Do you really consider yourself to be a fair person in your viewpoints on this?
Your current beliefs are, in my opinion, most dangerous ones to the public, as well as hazardous to your very own health. You have faith in viruses, fear your others inevitable death, have your faith in illness, and disease, and no faith whatsoever in what I speak of having my own faith in.
And, if you like your faith so much that you are not willing to accept my humble gift, you may certainly have ALL of your hopelessness, viruses, death, and disease and illness that you or anyone else wishes to believe in. It always amazes me beyond belief, how hard you and many others here will FIGHT to have viruses and diseases and illnesses to attack yourselves and mankind. You are seemingly to me, all such imaginative children. And certainly, you may all have and keep all of the beliefs and faiths and have all of the viruses and diseases you please. Neither I nor my words can, nor should, take any of your beliefs or viruses and diseases from you, should you wish to keep them. They are your own beliefs, or the beliefs you have agreed to believe in, to keep or dispose of as you will. They are in your lives for very simple reasons.
My perception of you all, is that you are currently not un-like a cult of scared-to-death fear and HIV worshippers. And most of mankind has now joined that cult. Unable to take your eyes off of a problem long enough to look for or at obvious solutions.
All who are in opposition to my words, seem to me to be the most willing victims of external beliefs and forces of their own beliefs. And as such, can only be saved by an external remedy such as another humanly created creation, a mere pill, mere chemical vibrations, to save yourselves but temporarily from your own chosen victimhood.
And why? Why do you obsess over viruses and disease? Death is why. Your ego fears the inevitable death that will descend upon you all, even sooner than you think. It mistakenly thinks that by saving someone else or inoculating one's own self, one can be eventually inoculated from their own inevitable death, that somehow these external pills and inoculations can somehow save you from yourself. And if you put your faith and belief into such negative beliefs, you will only create more of the very diseases and viruses and illnesses, and need more pills and inoculations, and foster yet greater hoplessness amongst each other, through that in which you have placed your faith and beliefs.
And do you choose, or are you presently incapable, to possibly consider making a simple change of perspective or belief to free yourselves of your self creating obsessions?
If you wish to fight so hard and so much for a deadly virus and disease to exist, then according to your own faith, may many such things be given unto you and yours, to come as teachers, to help you see what it is and how it is, that you create.
Be gone from me, belief in disease worship, be gone illness! Thank you for being my teacher. Remain only with those who yet need it to learn and grow from the experience.
Unlike you, those whom agree with me, all have something that you do not, and we can not even give it to you, as it is something that all who ever have it must wish to have it, and, must love themselves enough, to give it to themselves. And what is this gift that I am talking about? What is it that I have? In your very own words, that you admit that you really don't like even writing:
faith to draw strength from.
You are quite correct, I do have faith. Abundantly. So do all who choose faith and place their own hope and faith behind these mere words and are willing to go within to connect to it. You may too, anytime you choose to put away or surrender up your own destructive, negative, fear filled false beliefs.
Do not get me wrong, I wish upon you, all of you, much love, and faith in good things, and much hope, health, peace, and a life filled with happiness and joy. I wish this for you and for all. But, I can not give this gift to you. For you, just the same as all of us, must want to accept it, if it is to be had by you at all, and you must first and foremost, wish above all, to give it to your very own selves and all others, as it will not come to you until you are willing to have it first and give it away freely to others. And the best way to give it to yourself, is to give it to all others, and they will eventually, mirror it right back to you.
You have certainly lived long enough to have heard some version of the following:
What you put out, you get back.
As you sow, so shall you reap.
So I ask you, what would you sow? What would you reap?
So take heed from the post of END TIMES above. Would you keep this disease by allowing others to choose it for you? For most of you, this choice was made when you were quite young. Decide for yourselves if this is the path you would choose, or if you would choose another.
The choice, is yours.
Posted by: lincoln | August 14, 2006 6:51 AM
So we have a choice of science or your new agey magik and faith in energy? A cult with Lincon as our teacher? meh.
Faith is belief in absence of evidence.
We don't have faith in diseases, we have evidence of diseases and evidence based medical science.
Posted by: Robster | August 14, 2006 11:58 AM
Looking out my window would convince me that the earth is flat and the sun goes around the earth. Is "evidence" always correct?
Faith is belief in absence of evidence.
How true. Robster. How true.
Quite appropriate to the Faith you and others portray, in HIV as the cause of AIDS, wherein we can find no single, reliable, unbiased study, to prove HIV as the causative factor, or to prove its sexual transmissability, or prove its mechanism to accomplish the feats ascribed to it, that only the faith-filled believers, worshipping the so-called scientists and science of HIV/AIDS, believe are true!
Whereas scientifically proven facts, such as the toxic deadly and poisonous nature of all HAART and HIV drugs, is, a very scientific and proven fact. The very labels in which they are packaged even say so quite directly!
You are certainly welcome to have your own "saviors" such as the dissident hating John Moore, now up in Toronto, giving his testaments and preaching his gospel to the 25,000 faithful whom have gathered to behold his words. And what are his words: "Look Not Upon The Dissidents", they are devils, whom will lead you to darkness. Look only upon me, and listen only to the words of Pope Anthony Fauci. Send us your Homos. Send us your black ni**ers from Africa, and we shall set them free. But pass the hat and tithe unto us, and fund us well, as this is the word of your dark lord, Robert Gallo. Perhaps even the good pope Anthony Fauci, will wave his blessings upon the crowd. His picture alone, is enough to bring tears to the eyes of all of the faithful.
Thanks Robster, I am guilty as charged. I am a heretic to this faith. You may fully consider me a full fledged heresy spewing and eschewing heretic to the faith of HIV/AIDS worship to the very end, and you may now set torch to the slow roasting fire reserved especially for the most vocal heretics such as myself.
Posted by: lincoln | August 14, 2006 1:07 PM
Hey Lincoln,
As I have mentioned, and as the artcile British Medical Journal has elaborate, it is first and foremost, a very serious matter pertaining Mr Zuma on his misconceptions about HIV-AIDS and as a result his unsafe sexual practices because he has faith in his beliefs (that are contrary to the science). And why is his sexual behaviour under scrutiny you ask? well he headed South Africa's AIDS agency for pete's sake, for such a figurehead, his misdeeds does have implications as a whole. I can;t believe you failed to see that. Perhaps that is why you can;t see the dangerous and irresponsible way some parties of the "HIV-dissident" camp behaves, that is to embrace and propagate personal perspectives in the science and politics and also misconceptions of some grey not-fully understood areas in HIV-research with no regards to the scientific evidence and instead choose to only "see" ad-hoc HIV-dissident arguments. At least the more rational persons at the blog evaluates every point brought forth for discussion and stop short of invoking baseless accusations, unlike you which we find tends to dodge important questions by saying they're irrelevant and falls to hollow rhetoric to explain your stance. That doesn't seem very sensible to me. So your responses may be long and arty, but in reality it lacks convincing content.
Posted by: viji | August 14, 2006 1:40 PM
Yeah you love to potray all the empirical studies conducted to date, in many aspects of science and health care as unreliable and biased
and 1-2 Duenberg perspectives (not even an original study or review) as the "higher truth" and the 25 or more popular paperbacks spouting conspiracies as "facts"
Well... go figure
Posted by: viji | August 14, 2006 1:46 PM
Well, even Wikipedia agress that Duenberg has already been givn the chance to defend his views in scientific literature. His peers and even collegues who supports his right to dissent found his perspectives to be unconvincing in terms of science. He didn't come up with any pilot study describing his views, who would you secure grants with nothing to show? I've mentioned before, its really not that difficult or financially impossible to run a small pilot study.
Posted by: viji | August 14, 2006 1:52 PM
And if I may ask, what serious implications to public health does in understanding in HIV science pose if I may ask? since every decision is backed up with empirical findings and observations, and are subject to revision with new breakthroughs AS OPPOSED TO YOUR BELIEFS that are base on ....
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/08/interview_with_hiv_rethinker_r.php#comment-193119
and
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/08/interview_with_hiv_rethinker_r.php#comment-192980
Posted by: viji | August 14, 2006 2:00 PM
END TIMES said
QUOTE
Very good, Seth. So this 2 week thread is now complete. On to other things.
Bottom line is apparently this - until HIV/AIDS doubters can scientifically prove their point, we really do have to go with the rather vast consensus in the greater scientific community (which includes all sorts of related science, much of which is not dependent on the good will of Big Pharma to be able to proceed with their work) that, indeed, HIV is sexually transmitted and that it does cause AIDS. It is pointless to think or argue otherwise, unless you happen to be a scientist who is doing research that does prove otherwise.
ENDQUOTE
Indeed.
I haven't found any original work supporting the HIV-dissenting position. Until then, the tried and tested is the most viable option. Otherwise people will be blindly taking vitamins as a miracle cure for AIDS and worse, thw likes of Zuma who think that HIV is a fiction of imagination, will go forth to spread his "love"
you'll get my drift
Posted by: viji | August 14, 2006 2:06 PM
Its 4AM here in Australia....time course experiment. I need to find some shut eye.... Sorry bout the badly-structured sentences.
Posted by: viji | August 14, 2006 2:12 PM
Sleep well viji,
and good dreams to you. This issue and the various viewpoints are not worth losing a precious moment of needed sleep over. Life and the science of life are an evolving process, not an event. And the process shall continue with or without any of us. Undoubtedly, We will talk again when you are more awake and rested.
Bon nuit.
Posted by: lincoln | August 14, 2006 2:32 PM
Lincoln wrote,
Can I suggest this link? You can find thousands of articles here. A tiny fraction of articles have already been listed in this thread, and you can have a nice read.
I don't think you will find any articles that you would consider unbiased, though. They all support the HIV/AIDS link. From what I can tell, if you disagree with something, it must be biased.
So does ibuprofen. Caffeine is pretty damn nasty as a powder. Nicotine used to be used as a pesticide (blackleaf 40), and a pack of cigarettes has enough caffeine to kill a person if it were delivered as a single dose. All things are poisons at the right dose. Camptothecin is too dangerous to use as an anticancer drug on its own in humans, but modified forms can be used. They aren't pleasant, but they have decent antitumor activity. Name a chemical, and I can find a dose or condition in which it will be toxic. Cox2 inhibitors would probably never gotten a bad name if they had been formulated at a lower dose or used on occaision instead of continuously.
Calling a drug toxic and dangerous, while alarming, can be very misleading.
Posted by: Robster | August 14, 2006 6:00 PM
"and a pack of cigarettes has enough caffeine to kill a person if it were delivered as a single dose."
sorry, nicotine. Need to go get some caffeine...
Posted by: Robster | August 14, 2006 6:02 PM
You are quite correct Robster, all things, even drinking water are toxic in excess. HOWEVER, when is the last time you saw a bottle of ibuprofen, a cup of starbucks choice java, or even a pack of cigarettes with the following label as is found on a bottle from SIGMA of 25mg or more of AZT, also known as Retrovir, and also known as Zidovudine. It is currently a main ingredient in most "HIV Drug Cocktails".
Just when is the last time you bought a bottle of ibuprofen or a cup of coffee with a label such as THIS:
"TOXIC. Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed. Target organ(s): Blood bone marrow. If you feel unwell, seek medical advice (show the label where possible). Wear suitable protective clothing."
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/azt.htm
Note the skull and bones on the label; the warning for a deathly poison (Bottle contains only 100 mg, humans are prescribed 300 to 1500 mg a day).
AZT was given for 10 YEARS as the SOLE MEDICATION in doses of 1200mg to 1500mg to primarily GAY MEN, BLACKS, Intravenous drug abusers, and a handful of Hemophiliacs, and a smaller handful of PREGNANT MOTHERS!
And, Mr. Toxic Boy, knower of all virology and toxicology, this very 10 year period happens to be the period of THE HIGHEST AIDS DEATHS, as 1995. The people recieving this drug survived an average of 8 months to ONE YEAR! The death rate only came down as Doctors killed off their patients, and as many in the gay community refused to use the drug, and as the newer, AIDS drugs came on line, which are now resulting with the majority of deaths of the individuals taking these newer medications who are now dying PRIMARILY of LIVER FAILURE while taking them.
Robster, viji, et al, go take an ibuprofen, have a cigarette, and a cup of coffee, and wake UP!
THIS IS Government Sponsored TERRORISM! THIS IS GENOCIDE! THIS IS SUICIDE! THIS IS Government sponsored and Doctor initiated IATROGENIC MURDER!
Wake Up, Robster et al. You are all sleepwalking!
Do you intend to wait until they are coming for YOU or Someone in Your family, or YOUR LOVED ONES?
It will be too late!
THIS HAS BEEN A 25 YEAR LONG HOLOCAUST OF PRIMARILY GAYS AND BLACK HETEROSEXUALS! AND YOU ARE SPONSORING IT!
And now that you know this FACT, if you ignore it for just one, little, moment, longer, and you do nothing to turn this around or stop it, THEN YOU TOO ARE A MURDERER!
DEAL WITH IT!
Posted by: lincoln | August 14, 2006 9:11 PM
Robster wrote:
"We've been over this before. Go back up and read the cited articles."
Oh come on, Robster! You didn't cite any articles, and you know it. For the simple reason that these articles don't exist. The only papers that are ever quoted have been written by at least a dozen authors, and are based on the fundamental belief that HIV exists and causes AIDS.
"I'm surprised you didn't ask when I stopped beating my wife. I have seen no convincing evidence that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Produce the evidence."
WHAT?!! HIV must be the cause of AIDS because you haven't seen evidence that it is not? (Let me catch my breath)
Well, I guess the planet Pluto must be made of cheese then, because I'm sure you haven't seen any evidence that it's not. (grumble) And I, Wilhelm Godschalk, have to produce evidence that HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS?? You know what chutzpah is, don't you? And by the way, when DID you stop beating your wife?
Clever rhetorical trick. Lump in illegal drugs with ARVs.
Toxicologists rely on, among many things, statistics and projections of risk."
Can you explain the difference between illegal drugs (crystal meth etc.) and legal drugs such as AZT to my liver?
If toxicologists rely on statistics and risk projections, they are not doing their job. Leave those things to the epidemiologists. Focus instead on effects chemicals have on human metabolism and detoxification mechanisms of the liver. That would be real toxicology. But you seem to be firmly integrated in the paradigm: "Produce any data you want. As long as the interpretation points to HIV".
"Wilhelm, that you don't accept or understand the concept of mutations and viral resistance (especially when the error rate of retroviruses is highly documented, search reverse transcriptase and proofreading) does not impress me. Rather, it shows a refusal to keep up with the scientific literature and knowledge base."
This wording reminds me of Chris Noble. Did he dictate this paragraph to you? I have explained time and again that this pet theory of frequent mutations by RNA viruses is just hot air. Most RNA viruses are genetically stable. There may be point mutations occurring, but they don't lead to viable infectious virus particles. Mutation is just an excuse for sloppy research, producing irreproducible results.
And viral resistance to drugs is baloney. There is nothing to get resistant to. How many times must I repeat that a virus is NOT a micro-organism?
Yes, I do read the modern literature, whenever my stomach is not queasy. Most of it is hogwash that has to be thrown out after Hatchet Day.
But your reaction des not come as a surprise to me. After all, you don't even have a clear understanding what toxicology is.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 14, 2006 9:21 PM
Wilhelm wrote:
I'm a toxicologist, not a medic (though I went through med school). However: my wife is a paediatric intensivist, and also worked with HIV+ patients in Soweto some years ago. One of our best friends is an infectious diseases consultant who looks after dozens of patients with HIV. Most of our friends are, in fact, doctors - and those who know doctors will know they 'talk shop' at every opportunity, so whether I like it or not I hear plenty of discussions over the dinner table about their patients' progress.
What Wilhelm tells me about the management of HIV+ patients (with or without AIDS-defining conditions) bears little resemblance to the accounts I hear from my wife and medic friends. I hope he will excuse me if I place more trust in their opinions than his.
Posted by: Peter Barber | August 14, 2006 10:27 PM
"lincoln",
I think the hazard warning you quote is from a Manufacturer's Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) not the patient information leaflet. It sounds alarming, until you realise these are a stock phrases which appear (with minor variations, e.g. the target organ) on thousands of MSDSs. We could play a great game with scary quotes from MSDSs, for instance:
Nasty stuff - and it can cause liver failure in moderate overdose! Can you believe this stuff is sold in kiosks as a headache remedy?
Posted by: Peter Barber | August 14, 2006 10:41 PM
Mr. Peter Barber. I am quite certain that you are quite excused by Dr. Godschalk. He is quite congenial and nothing if not understanding.
All posts posted by you, will be considered quite special by me at least, as I am considered by some to be an expert of quickly percieving the inner beauty and qualities of most men, as is often exposed through hours of tedious psychology to others less astute.
At times Mr. Barber, particularly upon looking at your very own website blog, reached by clicking on your "Peter Barber" name, I do detect that perhaps you come from, what would it be called, well, let's say rather priveledged stock. True? I also detect that you have perhaps had a sheltered and protected and nurtured life. True? Certainly no cockney accent has ever wafted or rolled off of your tongue, and has seldom disgraced your ears. However sir, I quite often find, that those among us with upbringings such as yours, have a tendency to come across to others, as, what would be the word? Let's just say a tad "haughty". Not unlike a mere pretense of real sophistication or pretense of real world experience or understanding of the realities of the human drama. No sir, very few Mother Theresa's living in the ghetto's of Calcutta personally bathing the lepers and outcasts sir in this crowd. In my vast experiences of dealing with many of those sheltered and protected and overly nurtured individuals that I usually find, personally, to be what I might call haughty, I also quite often find a general naivete of the real world experience, and often, oh, how I do hate to use the word, shallowness. Yes there you go, I have said the word, shallowness. Perhaps a Shallowness of thought. Often not quite as sophisticated regarding reality as perhaps a mud puddle decorated with a patina of faux gold flashing. Now this is not however, what I would consider you to be. Not at all, as I am sure you are much more sophisticated than this. However, as I do not know you at all, anything could be possible. I merely remark that I do however feel certain impressions, whether correct or not. My perhaps mistaken perceptions in the case at hand, is often seen by me in the light of perhaps haughty and sheltered, but guilded, shallowness. Oh well, pardon me. Nothing meant by this at all sir. Do carry on, sir, and how is it all now that you have left Glasgow behind, and transplanted yourself to that at one time barbaric land down under. Oh do tell, now, won't you? Tell us all that your dear guilded friends and doctors have clued you on to, as to what the realities of the world of HIV/AIDS really are. And unworldly as we are, do spare us no details. The shock might do us all good, and perhaps wake us from our own vapid stupor.
Posted by: lincoln | August 14, 2006 11:31 PM
lincoln:
Look up the MSDS sheets for caffeine and ibuprofen:
Caffeine:
WARNING! HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED OR INHALED. CAUSES IRRITATION TO SKIN, EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. POSSIBLE BIRTH DEFECT HAZARD. MAY CAUSE BIRTH DEFECTS BASED ON ANIMAL DATA.
Chronic Exposure:
Excessive use of caffeine may lead to digestive disturbances, constipation, palpitations, shortness of breath and depressed mental states. Possible teratogen. May cause congenital malformation in the fetus.
Ibuprofen:
Potential Acute Health Effects:
Very hazardous in case of ingestion, of inhalation. Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant). Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (permeator).
Potential Chronic Health Effects:
The substance is toxic to blood, lungs, the nervous system, mucous membranes. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage.
Perhaps it's time to sue Starbucks and the makers of Nuprin?
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 15, 2006 10:24 AM
Wilhelm wrote: "I have explained time and again that this pet theory of frequent mutations by RNA viruses is just hot air."
No, Wilhelm, you've just asserted it as 'fact' without backing data and in spite of clear results to the contrary in the scientific literature from labs that do active research in viriology.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 15, 2006 10:31 AM
Mr. Unsympathetic.
When is the last time you read a PHYSICIANS DESK REFERENCE. Oh, never. I SEE! I now understand our worldly and sophisticated friend even more.
And bear in mind, that the AZT/Retrovir/Zidovudine warning is for an amount ONE THIRD LESS than what was given to HIV Positives for the TEN YEAR PERIOD with the HIGHEST death rate for the patients. Corresponding DIRECTLY, to the HIGH DOSAGE AZT USE.
The following is DIRECTLY from the Physicians Desk Reference, not an msds sheet, my very sophisticated darling:
SOMETIMES IT IS DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH SIDE EFFECTS FROM THE UNDERLYING SIGNS OF HIV DISEASE OR THE INFECTIONS CAUSED BY HIV.
And the PDR Continues as follows:
COMMON side effects may include:
Cough, diarrhea, difficult or labored breathing, ear pain, discharge or swelling, enlarged liver, enlarged spleen, fever, general feeling of illness, headache, loss of appetite, mouth sores, nausea, nasal discharge or congestion, rash, swollen lymph nodes, vomiting
Less common side effects may include:
Anemia, anxiety, back pain, blood disorders, blood in urine, breast enlargement, change in sense of taste, chest pain, confusion, chills, constipation, decreased mental sharpness, decreased reflexes, depression, difficulty sleeping, difficulty swallowing, difficulty urinating, dimness of vision, dizziness, drowsiness, exaggerated feeling of well-being, fatigue, flu-like symptoms, frequent urination, gas, hearing loss, heart failure, hepatitis, hives, indigestion, inflammation of the blood vessels, inflammation of the pancreas, inflammation of the sinuses or nose, itching, irritability, joint pain, light intolerance, loss of sensation, mouth discoloration, muscle pain, muscle spasm, nervousness, seizures, severe allergic reaction, skin eruptions and peeling, skin inflammation, stomach and intestinal cramps and pain, sudden drop in blood pressure, swelling from fluid in the tissues, swelling in the eye, sweating, swelling of the face and throat, tingling or pins and needles, tremor, weakness, weight loss, yellowing of the skin and whites of eyes, vertigo
NOW DO PLEASE SHARE WITH US THE PDR READINGS FOR IBUPROFEN AND CAFFEINE! WE CAN'T WAIT! PLEASE DO CONTINUE TO SHARE YOUR SHINING BRILLIANCE!
Posted by: lincoln | August 15, 2006 11:46 AM
Lincoln, what are you doing? This thread is over. You lost. Go do some research and stop writing. Come back and share your results.
Posted by: End Times | August 15, 2006 12:12 PM
and End Times declares victory...how cunning
!
Posted by: pat | August 15, 2006 12:46 PM
End Times.
Galileo Galilei was a religious man, and he agreed that the Bible could never be wrong. However, he said, the interpreters of the Bible could make mistakes, and it was a mistake to assume that the Bible had to be taken literally. The true meaning of a Biblical verse might not be obvious at all, and wise Church scholars would have to work hard to find the true meanings. After all, a cardinal in the Church itself had once said that the intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes! He ended with an explanation of how the miracle could not possibly have taken place if the Sun went around the Earth.
This might have been one of Galileo's major mistakes. At that time, only Church priests were allowed to interpret the Bible, or to define God's intentions. It was absolutely unthinkable for a mere member of the public to do so.
And some of the Church clergy started responding, accusing him of heresy. One friar quoted from the New Testament "O ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?" Another churchmen went to the Inquisition, the Church court that investigated charges of heresy, and formally accused Galileo. This was a very serious matter. In 1600, a man named Giordano Bruno was convicted of being a heretic for believing that the earth moved about the Sun, and that there were many planets throughout the universe where life--living creations of God--existed. Bruno was burnt to death.
This time, Galileo was found innocent of all charges, and cautioned not to teach the Copernican system. 16 years later, all that would change.
The Final Trial
The following years saw Galileo move on to work on other projects. With his telescope he watched the movements of Jupiter's moons, wrote them up as a list, and then came up with a way to use these measurements as a navigation tool. There was even a contraption that would allow a ship captain to navigate with his hands on the wheel. That is, assuming the captain didn't mind wearing what looked like a horned helmet!
As another amusement, Galileo started writing about ocean tides. Instead of writing his arguments as a scientific paper, he found that it was much more interesting to have an imaginary conversation, or dialogue, between three fictional characters. One character, who would support Galileo's side of the argument, was brilliant. Another character would be open to either side of the argument. The final character, named Simplicio, was dogmatic and foolish, representing all of Galileo's enemies who ignored any evidence that Galileo was right. Soon, he wrote up a similar dialogue called "Dialogue on the Two Great Systems of the World." This book talked about the Copernican system.
"Dialogue" was an immediate hit with the public, but not, of course, with the Church. The pope suspected that he was the model for Simplicio. He ordered the book banned, and also ordered the scientist to appear before the Inquisition in Rome for the crime of teaching the Copernican theory after being ordered not to do so.
Galileo Galilei was 68 years old and sick. Threatened with torture, he publically confessed that he had been wrong to have said that the Earth moves around the Sun. Legend then has it that after his confession, Galileo quietly whispered "And yet, it moves."
Unlike many less famous prisoners, he was allowed to live under house arrest in his house outside of Florence. He was near one of his daughters, a nun. Until his death in 1642, he continued to investigate other areas of science. Amazingly, he even published a book on force and motion although he had been blinded by an eye infection.
The Story Continues...
The Church eventually lifted the ban on Galileo's Dialogue in 1822--by that time, it was common knowledge that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Still later, there were statements by the Vatican Council in the early 1960's and in 1979 that implied that Galileo was pardoned, and that he had suffered at the hands of the Church. Finally, in 1992, three years after Galileo Galilei's namesake had been launched on its way to Jupiter, the Vatican formally and publicly cleared Galileo of any wrongdoing.
Whether one wins or loses matters not. What really matters in a man's life, is whether he lived it being true to his own heart, and whether or not he shared his own truth with his brothers and sisters, as his own unique contribution and gift to the world, and and his own gift to the universe and all of creation, that created him and gave unto him his own very unique and irreplaceable and irreproducible life.
Posted by: lincoln | August 15, 2006 1:32 PM
Yes. Your hypothesis is not supported by the data available. You must provide data demonstrating why your hypothesis is superior.
Yes. It's called a hypothesis.
Toxicology is a fairly broad, multidisciplinary field. While the liver is one of my favorite organs, truly fascinating, risk assessment is an integral part of the field. We overlap a decent bit with epidemiologists.
"I have explained time and again that this pet theory of frequent mutations by RNA viruses is just hot air."
Here is a good article on that... The first few sentences of the abstract...
Wilhelm continues,
All viruses can undergo mutations, just as anything with a DNA or RNA genome does. Mutations can inactivate a virus, or they can alter virulence or any other function encoded by the virus. If one of those functions is targeted by a drug, you select for mutants that the drug has a decreased effect. Calling this sloppy work sounds like sour grapes when the proofreading function and sequence fidelity of DNA and RNA polymerases is a very healthy area of study.
Oh, I am so hurt. :D
Posted by: Robster | August 15, 2006 2:01 PM
Back up, lincoln.
Recall what you quoted from the VirusMyth website: The label from a Sigma Chemical bottle. You asked if coffee or ibuprofen came labeled similarly. Purchase caffeine from Sigma. You'll see the skull and crossbones. You'll see very dire warnings. I am not sure what to make of the description that the bottle has a skull and crossbones but only contains about a third to a tenth of the daily dose. The picture is included based on the chemical composition of the contents, not the quantity inside.
I also don't understand the claim that I've never read a Physician's Desk Reference. First, what's the purpose of the insult? Does that accomplish anything? Second, where does the reference to the PDR fit in? Is the issue that the therapeutic window for AZT is narrow and that there are side effects? There are balancing factors in choosing AZT (or any reverse--transcriptase inhibitor or combination of agents) as there are with any drug treatment.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 15, 2006 2:29 PM
Mr. Lacking of Sympathy:
You write:
There are balancing factors in choosing AZT (or any reverse--transcriptase inhibitor or combination of agents) as there are with any drug treatment.
How very true, Sir! How astute of you!
Showing a more enlightened doctor, perhaps, that a prescription consisting of:
a cigarette, a cup of coffee, and perhaps a tab of ibuprofen or two,
just might be the better choice!
Posted by: lincoln | August 15, 2006 2:44 PM
If a patient is asymptomatic with good T-cell counts and low viral loads, some doctors may consider coffee to be fine. Others don't. But those conditions do not remain stable in most HIV-infected individuals. As a patient's status declines, the risk-balance shifts in favor of taking anti-viral medication.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 15, 2006 3:53 PM
Thank you for your very educated opinion Mr. I Feel Sympathy for You!
Strangely, there are many who disagree with you, with words such as:
I am not convinced by the theory that HIV is the cause of AIDS. There were so many studies published during the last two years that question the benefits of HAART and that challenge the HIV/AIDS-model. Links to those studies can be found via Pubmed or aidsmythexposed. I already could mention enough of those studies to let the whole Toronto AIDS conference go up in smoke.
found at the following post:
Click Here for German Guest Not Convinced!
Posted by: lincoln | August 15, 2006 8:48 PM
Oh,God, lincoln,
You're not TS are you ? and quoting some internet drivel from german guy cuz he's personally not convinced the world is non-hiv from some court german judge dude ?
This is getting good.
Posted by: McKiernan | August 15, 2006 10:50 PM
lincoln: "Strangely, there are many who disagree with you..."
But really not many in the biological and medical sciences who actually know something about the issue. Thus I'm not concerned. It's not terribly strange if you think about it: One can always find a few people in any population who indulge in conspiracy theories or hold odd ideas. The relative numbers in this case seem about right. I would think it peculiar if if there were none. It's not as if scientists are proportionately any less susceptible to 'peculiar' ideas than the rest of the human race. We have our share of 'nutters'. I know a yeast geneticist who believes in reincarnation and a biochemist who thinks the earth was created only a few thousand years ago. C'est la vie. I think everyone holds at least one crazy-assed, completely irrational idea in their head somewhere. One can only hope that it doesn't come out in embarrassing moments or drive one's professional life to ruins.
My nutty idea is that spending time in discussions such as these are actually productive. At least I recognize it's not professionally 'beneficial'; hence the pseudonym.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 15, 2006 11:42 PM
Strangely, lincoln, the Toronto AIDS meeting has not yet gone up in smoke.
As for your comments concerning me: infer what you like. The evidence would not be altered whether I were the son of Richard Branson or of Nottinghamshire ex-coalminer on disability benefits.
Posted by: Peter Barber | August 16, 2006 6:21 AM
Seth wrote:
"Goldshalk puts forth the proposal that no quote or article from Duesberg is necessarily representative of his true beliefs, as Duesberg himself does not differentiate between the presentation of "jokes" and "facts", but may at any time simply be joking around."
No Seth, you are twisting my words around. "No quote or article"?? I never said that. I cited one particular instance. Continuum Magazine had offered a prize for anybody who could present proof that HIV had been isolated. Continuum is not a generally recognized scientific journal. So Duesberg must have thought it would be fun to present some of the typical jargon the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy uses. So he came up with "molecular cloning", presenting it as "the most rigorous method science has to offer." Well now, this cloning of DNA, posing as the isolation of an RNA-virus, is so totally ridiculous that any virologist who is not getting his salary from Big Pharma will see it immediately for what it is: A grotesk joke. But a funny thing happened: The HIV/AIDS idiots took it seriously, and keep on citing this as proof that "even" Peter Duesberg believes in HIV.
It is quite possible that he allows for the existence of HIV as a regular retrovirus. After all, he is an expert on retroviruses. There are thousands of them, and he has wallowed in them all of his professional life. But none (I repeat NONE) of them are as nasty and tricky as described the wild fantasies of the true HIV/AIDS believers. Retroviruses are benign passenger viruses, and all of us carry the genetic material of many of them in our own genes.
If Duesberg writes a scientific article, he is not joking. You can count on that. But in every day life, he can joke around. He compared ARV-treatment of AIDS with "shooting at bunnies with nuclear weapons".
Personally, I don't believe in the existence of HIV. But it's really not that important. If tomorrow somebody would succeed in isolating it in pure form (which nobody has accomplished in 23 years), that wouldn't mean much. It would still be an innocent retrovirus with a measly genome, that would be totally unable to perform all the tricks (like hiding, mutating on cue, killing T-cells, and causing 29 diseases) that urban legends would have it do.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 16, 2006 10:14 AM
Pharma Bawd,
"Jeeze Wilhelm,
What field is your Phd in? And what University did you earn it from?"
Ph.D. in Biochemistry. University of Leiden, the Netherlands, founded in 1575 by William the Silent (when Native Americans were still hunting buffalo, with bow and arrow, where now Stanford Univ. is located). And no... I was not a member of the class of 1579.
But you quoted some papers. The first one, from Stanford (7 authors!) is typically one of those that have to be thrown out on Hatchet Day, with the rest of the output of the past 25 years. What all these publications are lacking is a solid foundation. They casually assume that HIV exists and infects T-cells. Reading the 'Materials and Methods' section usually reveals the weak spot:
"HIV-1 RNA quantitation.
Thawed 0.2- to 1-ml plasma aliquots were centrifuged
for 1 h at 125,000 3 g at 108C. The resulting pellet was dissolved in 400 ml of 5 M guanidine thiocyanate and subjected to RNA extraction followed by reverse transcription using a previously described protocol (29). Reverse-transcribed material was then amplified with 33 cycles of PCR, using primers SK38 and SK39. The product of each reaction was quantitated in an enzyme hybridization
assay by using avidin-coated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay plates (Nunc, Naperville, Ill.), a horseradish peroxidase-labeled SK19 probe (Synthetic Genetics, La Jolla, Calif.), and a Biomek 1000 Automated Workstation (Beckman
Instruments, Irvine, Calif.)."
And this is a quantitation of HIV-RNA? Could it be any more indirect?
Also get a load of this:
"Direct sequencing of PCR-amplified HIV-1 nucleic acid was performed at baseline and at several time points in
patients receiving combination AZT and ddI therapy. In patients with positive HIV-1 cultures, proviral HIV DNAs from cultured cells were amplified by nested PCR; in patients with negative HIV-1 cultures, cDNA reverse transcribed from plasma viral RNA was amplified by nested PCR. First-round primers consisted of A(35) and NE1(35) (13), which resulted in the amplification of an '800-bp
fragment of the HIV-1 RT gene."
Really, all you need to appreciate this is a rock-solid faith in that piece of DNA that is amplified by PCR. You just have to believe that this is the proviral DNA from HIV.
Now if you just believe this, and also that the various RT molecules differing in a few alterations in the primary protein structure, are resulting from mutations of HIV, instead of being different enzymes from the co-culture soup... Yes, if you are willing to believe all that, then everything is ducky.
Everything is aimed at Reverse Transcriptase, as if this enzyme is specific to HIV. It's been a while since everybody believed that. I don't even see AZT as an inhibitor of RT. It's a DNA chain terminator, pure and simple.
No, I still don't believe in virus drug resistance. Maybe something in the cell-culture witches' brew got resistant.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 16, 2006 1:26 PM
Well, Mr. Unsympathetic, but perhaps pathetic, I do agree that you are well versed in:
crazy-assed, completely irrational ideas in their head somewhere.
Particularly as concerns HIV as causative to AIDS. In this, however, you are far from alone. Some would consider it herd mentality, some would consider it in regards to the madness of the masses.
It seems to me that your worst fears:
One can only hope that it doesn't come out in embarrassing moments or drive one's professional life to ruins.
are on the way to fulfilment as we speak!
Oh well, whatever moves man and science forward.
Posted by: lincoln | August 16, 2006 2:42 PM
Wilhelm writes: "Really, all you need to appreciate this is a rock-solid faith in that piece of DNA that is amplified by PCR. You just have to believe that this is the proviral DNA from HIV.
Now if you just believe this, and also that the various RT molecules differing in a few alterations in the primary protein structure, are resulting from mutations of HIV, instead of being different enzymes from the co-culture soup... Yes, if you are willing to believe all that, then everything is ducky."
In each step, controls and earlier experiments can be run to confirm reliability. It doesn't require 'faith'; The results are empirically accessible. We can even establish geneological relationships between the viruses of infected partners.
Wilhelm writes: "I don't even see AZT as an inhibitor of RT. It's a DNA chain terminator, pure and simple."
It is a competitive inhibitor (binding in place of the normal substrate) and a chain terminator, reducing the rate of viral transcription to DNA. Resistance mutations tend to fall into two classes: Mutations in which the RT nucleoside binding site can better discriminate between the normal substrate and the analog and those which improve the ability of the enzyme to excise the terminating nucleoside monophosphate analog after mis-incorporation. Note that there are non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) that bind in a different place and are non-competitive inhibitors. Mutations that reduce binding to NNRTIs have also been isolated and characterized biochemically. Such mutations are frequently found in patients where RT-blocking drugs fail to hold virus reproduction in check.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 16, 2006 5:16 PM
lincoln: "Some would consider it herd mentality, some would consider it in regards to the madness of the masses."
Everyone who believes they are thinking 'clearly' and 'reasonably' must come up with some rationalization for why others have strongly different opinions in an area that is readily accessible to empirical analysis. Unfortunately, "herd" mentality cannot explain the proportion of biological scientists and medical professionals who think HIV has a causal role in AIDS. The "Big Con", the "Greedy, Money-Grubbing Sycophant" and "Too Afraid to Step Forward" hypotheses are also not sufficient. The case of HIV and AIDS covers too many biological disciplines and is too well probed among a wide variety of active researchers to be accounted by 'group thinking' explanations. My suggestion is that most find the data compelling for a causal link and the counter explanations insufficient or flat-out wrong.
But by all means, continue your research as it suits you. Get a major in the biological sciences and/or work in a lab where the related experimental methods are actively used.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 16, 2006 5:29 PM
Lincoln y Galileo...
Of course, modestly, you present yourself as the modern day Galileo. He was thought wrong, you are thought wrong. He was a genius, as are you. He was a superstitious believer in the bible - are you too? Or was the brilliant Galileo wrong about something? I wonder...
Galileo's adversary was "the church". Whether the bible is full of superstitious inacruacies about nature or whether the church simply "misinterprets" what the bible is saying, is kind of irrelevant, thinks me. There is a huge difference between you "believing" you are the right, the good, the true - battling against the forces of the sciences and Galileo in a similar position - battling against the church.
I do agree with the fundamental point that winning and losing (personally) are of no great import here. I only point it out, because in order for you to fulfill your righteous quest of helping your brothers and sisters, you are going to have to quit talking and do the SCIENCE that makes it irrefutable, like Galileo and others did. After all, even if it took 200 years for the truth to be fully accepted, it was finally accepted not because the church finally correctly interpreted the bible but because the SCIENCE forced them to interpret it thus.
Now stop writing and do the science before I have you Tara and feathered prior to the execution at the stake! Crack, crack! The petri dish awaits!
Posted by: End Times | August 16, 2006 6:21 PM
"Your comments are unsupported and thoroughly offensive."
Oh, come on, Peter Barber! Unsupported? DB's comments come from somebody who has seen it all. Who was there when it all happened. So you find his remarks offensive? Well, being one of the perpetrators, you had it coming.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 16, 2006 8:15 PM
"Additionally, by your description, Wilhelm, it seems you don't understand how they determine resistance, either in bacteria or in viruses. These are in vitro measurements, Wilhelm."
Thanks Tara, but I just got through reading a 7-author paper that Pharma Bawd recommended. And I've seen the sorry state of contemporary research. When I say 'in vitro', I mean incubating a pure virus preparation with the drugs. But when they mention 'in vitro', they mean incubating a soup consisting of reverse transcripted, PCR'ed to death DNA material in a cell culture. Not quite the same. My point is still that a virus is not a micro-organism (which has its own metabolism). And the drugs don't interact directly with the virus.
What they want us to believe is that the various reverse transcriptases they find (and which show different sensitivities to RT-inhibitors) are all specific to their own HIV-mutant. They don't provide evidence for that. Host cells have reverse transcriptases too. "In vitro" means cell-free to me.
"If y'all claim that HIV doesn't exist, that takes away any expertise Duesberg--as a retrovirologist"
I don't see that at all. What we think takes nothing away from Duesberg's expertise. He has seen his share of retroviruses during his career (last time I looked there were more than 3000 of them), so for him it's not too far-fetched to believe HIV does exist. But he insists that none of these retroviruses do any harm. And they are certainly unable to perform all the circus acts that are ascribed to HIV.
The Perth Group does not believe HIV exists, and neither do I. That does not mean I deny the existence of all retroviruses. Stefan Lanka, however, even doubts the whole class of retroviruses. So there are various opinions. But we all agree on one point: A virus that is so unstable it cannot even be isolated, in spite of 20 years of trying, and has been shown to have poor infectivity besides, cannot possibly cause a dangerous epidemic.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 16, 2006 8:50 PM
Unsympathetic wrote:
"In fact, one can clone the mutant gene and demonstrate that the protein produced is no longer inhibited by the drug."
Oh, I'll readily believe that they can clone genes, but they seem to be so extatically proud of that, they keep right on cloning without ever asking where that gene comes from. This line of research is fundamentally flawed. They just assume these 'mutant genes' are viral. But how could they? Even the much-touted "complete HIV genome" cannot be demonstrated to belong to HIV, because nobody has ever seen a complete HIV particle. They don't even have a complete RNA chain. Just DNA material that is supposed to have been created by reverse transcription of HIV-RNA.
Let's get real: So far, we've seen that there are various genes (of unknown origin) that code for different proteins with different sensitivity for inhibitors. "HIV" only enters the picture if you believe in it - like Santa Claus.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 16, 2006 9:16 PM
"Now stop writing and do the science"
Are you going to pay for it, End Times? NIH won't. They will spend another gigabuck on the flock of believers before they will give Peter Duesberg 50K$ to do some independent research.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 16, 2006 9:23 PM
Wilhelm: "Oh, I'll readily believe that they can clone genes, but they seem to be so extatically proud of that, they keep right on cloning without ever asking where that gene comes from."
A claim made despite the facts that control experiments have been performed which justify the validity of the methods used in the paper. Yes, T-cells are hosts to the virus. Yes, the full length genome of HIV has been characterized (two copies of the RNA genome per viral envelope -- How did they figure that out for a virus that's never been isolated as a 'complete particle'? Go figure...) and no you won't find those exact sequences in high stringency Northern or Southern blots or in PCR amplification of human DNA from uninfected individuals, meaning it's not an endogenous, inherited sequence. Yes, the reverse transcriptase treatment does work to convert viral RNA to DNA with known fidelity. Yes, you can culture the virus outside of people and demonstrate that reagents in the culture do not contain the viral sequences prior to introducing the HIV. And yes, amplification with the primers used does pull up a specific portion of the HIV genome and you can also use reliable and well-established methods like overlapping nested PCR to amplify the entire genome for sequencing. Yes, from people for whom RT inhibitor treatment is not blocking viral replication we can isolate high numbers of HIV pol clones from this process that carry mutations known from enzymatic and cell-based assays reduce the inhibition of the HIV reverse transcriptase enzyme.
Dismissing the experimentally assembled and validated data as an artifact of something in a "cell-culture witches' brew" doesn't cut it in scientific discussion except as an admission of having no good, alternate explanation.
You also persist in the unsupported claim that there is no such thing as 'viral drug resistance' despite decades of work demonstating the contrary and seem to operate from a peculiar perspective of viral biology that few if any working biologists share.
"Let's get real: So far, we've seen that there are various genes (of unknown origin) that code for different proteins with different sensitivity for inhibitors. "HIV" only enters the picture if you believe in it - like Santa Claus."
Ignoring the tiny, inconvenient detail that reconstruction of HIV geneology is possible and that the HIV sequences neither track with genetic relatedness between individuals as you would otherwise expect from endogenous genes nor are randomly aligned as one might expect from a 'witches brew' but via relatedness that tracks with contact and infection between people. Those sequences fit a pattern of horizontal transfer between infected individuals. The origins are well established.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 16, 2006 11:17 PM
I would certainly pay for it if I could, and I'm surprised that the NIH would not fund Duesberg or any other scientist doing *any* interesting research. It really isn't in the greater interest of science for them to act that way.
That said, I'm getting a tad bored with the old "NIH stopped funding Duesberg when he came out against the HIV=AIDS model, so now there's nothing in the world we can do accept attack the research of others or try to use their research to make a different point".
Honestly, how *uncreative* for great scientific minds. There are, as was mentioned by Seth or Viji I believe, a number of relatively inexpensive research projects that could be initiated by someone getting money from any of a number of private resources. Hmmmmmm, if I were Duesberg et al, I might just go to, hmmmmmmm, the president of a major African nation who was sympathetic. I would say to him, "Sir, I know you agree with what we are saying. But we need to be funded to complete the research that will nail this thing shut. If we can do that, the person who funded it will never be forgotten". I would go to other private individuals and groups who are sympathetic. Hey, there might be some (Yuck!!) *big pharmacuetical company* that didn't get in on the HIV gold-rush and sees this as an avenue for *them* to get on track. Hey, it's a free market, right? There's money to be made from attacking this from another angle. If there really IS another angle.
But, I guess the only thing Duesberg can do is get turned down by the NIH and be a victim. It almost smells like he *rather* claim he can't get funded than to really be funded and have to produce. I'm sure I'm wrong... there must be some other reason why he and others have failed to do any non-NIH funded research. Right?
Posted by: End Times | August 16, 2006 11:18 PM
Mr. Endtimes. I am sure you are aware, although perhaps not, that Mr. Duesberg has submitted for hundreds of grants for 10 years for a multitude of various AIDS studies, and is still submitting for projects related now to his cancer research for the last 10 years. Perhaps you would like to contact him for the copies and the refusals? As far as HIV and AIDS is concerned, Duesberg's opinion for the last ten years, is that HIV was over 20 years ago, and there is no point whatsoever in doing studies that simply show again what we already know to be fact. He concerns himself with things of greater import and is now at the forefront of cancer research. You are welcome to acquire through Amazon and other sources a copy of Dr. Harvey Bialy's book, "Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS" wherein all this is quite well gone over. That is, if you are capable of reading anything besides a newspaper or a pubmed.
I think Dr. Duesberg finds it much more fruitful at this time, to enjoy his spare moments by humming a little song: "TIIiiiiimmmmmme is on my side, yessss it is!"
Posted by: lincoln | August 17, 2006 12:23 AM
Godschalk writes:
HIV RT is specific to HIV. Gene Semon kindly cited an article showing phylogenetic analysis comparing HIV RT with other RTs and polymerases. HIV does to a lesser degree inhibit some cellular polymerases.
RT is not the only target of antiretroviral treatment. HIV protease and HIV integrase are also targets. All of these are specific to HIV.
These targets are all viral anymes that are vital for the life cylce of HIV and are specific to HIV
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 17, 2006 12:29 AM
One thing in life is certain.
Sooner or later all crackpots will compare themselves with Galileo.
The Galileo Gambit
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 17, 2006 12:35 AM
Duesberg does get funding from Robert Leppo.
Why doesn't he use it to do experimental work to find evidence for his theory.
You must also realise that Duesberg has no track record in toxicology or epidemiology both of which are central to his theory.
There are researchers studying the effect of chemicals on the immune system. Why doesn't Duesberg collaborate with them?
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 17, 2006 12:43 AM
Dear Chrisp
Dr. Peter Duesberg does NOT compare himself to Galileo.
I compare Dr. Duesberg to Galileo, and so do many others.
I compare YOU to Simplicio in Galileo's book "Dialogues".
You wrote:
Duesberg does get funding from Robert Leppo.
Why doesn't he use it to do experimental work to find evidence for his theory.
As I said, perhaps you did not understand, so let me be absolutely clear: Duesberg considers the case of drugs and malnutrition, etc as the causative agents of AIDS to be a closed case. A case that he shed a light upon 20 years ago. He sees no reason to work on it for one more precious moment of the time that he has left upon this planet. He considers his time to be better spent, and Leppo's contribution to be better spent, on unlocking the secrets of cancer, which result in more deaths in the Western world, than does AIDS.
He has nothing to prove. No-one, NO-ONE has yet proved him wrong. Perhaps you, Mr. wannabe, would like to be the first! Twenty Five years of accumulated evidence prove him absolutely, and unquestionably more right with every... passing... moment. Why do you suppose the studies are just NOW being done, by Jay Levy and such, on long term non-progressors of 20 year HIV positives, whom all have in common a track record of ZERO drug or ARV use!
Posted by: lincoln | August 17, 2006 3:10 AM
He may consider it a closed case (actually a closed mind - his) but he has not managed to convince more than an insignificant number of scientists because Duesberg failed to produce evidence and failed to explain away the evidence that contradicts his pet theory.
I would have thought saving millions of Africans might be important.
Yes they have.
Ascher et al published a paper in 1993 that demolished Duesberg's nonsense. Duesberg just refuses to admit it.
Does drug use cause AIDS? Ascher MS, Sheppard HW, Winkelstein W Jr, Vittinghoff E. Nature. 1993 Mar 11;362(6416):103-4.
Duesberg accused Ascher of fraud. A charge that was found to be without substance by an independent review.
Duesberg then invented 45 cases in the HIV- group that he alleged were defined by the CDC. " ... we found 45 HIV-negative men with AIDS defining conditions (according to the CDC), as listed in Table 1."
Except that Duesberg doesn't follow the CDC definition. He includes Salmonella food poisoning which 1.4 million people in the US get every year. (It must be recurrent infection to count according to the CDC definition). Duesberg also uses Herpes Zoster as an AIDS defining disease. Except it is not. Duesberg is just not being honest.
Meanwhile the HIV+ group gets KS and other AIDS defining conditions that are extremely rare in the general population. Come on. The HIV infected group gets KS etc. The HIV- group gets food poisoning and shingles.
Duesberg's response was pathetic. Nobody in the scientific community has taken him seriously since.
Well don't wait any longer. Show us the evidence.
LTNP progressors have been studied since at least the early 90s. It has been recognised from very early on that less than 100% of people infected with HIV progress to AIDS. Studying LTNPs is important to find possible anti-retroviral treatments and also to ascertain the likely success of different vaccination strategies.
The papers that you refer to, if you bothered to read them specificied lack of ARV use in their definition of LTNP.
"Ten HIV-1-seropositive subjects from the New York metropolitan area were referred to us because they met our working definition of long-term survivors of HIV-1 infection: they had no symptoms, normal and stable CD4+ lymphocyte counts, no prolonged use of antiretroviral agents, and at least 12 years of infection."
"We studied 15 subjects with long-term nonprogressive HIV infection and 18 subjects with progressive HIV disease. Nonprogressive infection was defined as seven or more years of documented HIV infection, with more than 600 CD4+ T cells per cubic millimeter, no antiretroviral therapy, and no HIV-related disease."
The large number of people who are on HAART and have high CD4+ counts 12 years after infection are by definition not LTNPs.
Duesberg deceives his readers by implying that their is a causal connection between not taking ARVs and non-progression
There is none.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 17, 2006 6:11 AM
There were papers describing Long Term Non-Progressors in 1993-4. LTNPs are defined as people that have not progressed to AIDS after 12 years of infection (without taking ARVs). How could they have been studied any earlier than the early 1990s? Do the maths.
The idea that science has been ignoring these people is ludicrous.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 17, 2006 6:39 AM
Wow! You guys didn't leave much of Wilhelm's comment for me to correct. :(
Oh, wait! I do see something. :)
Posted by: Pharma Bawd | August 17, 2006 9:10 AM
Regarding LTNPs: Those were actively sought from the beginning. In any species' population there is variation that may confer resistance to diseases. It is a classic and time-proven research strategy to identify the resistant individuals and study the mechanisms behind resistance. That information often provides details about key mechanisms affecting a pathogen's virulence.
That Ascher paper is a classic and was probably the last nail in the coffin for Duesberg's thesis. Heck, an early dissenter like Robert Root-Bernstein recognized the core problems of Duesberg's ideas (These days, Root-Berstein is investigating areas like vaccines against HIV and possible mechanisms for the decline of CD4+ T-lymphocytes with HIV infection).
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 17, 2006 11:02 AM
Lincoln "Mr. Endtimes. I am sure you are aware, although perhaps not"
No, you were right the first time
Linc "that Mr. Duesberg has submitted for hundreds of grants for 10 years for a multitude of various AIDS studies, and is still submitting for projects related now to his cancer research for the last 10 years. Perhaps you would like to contact him for the copies and the refusals?"
Stop, stop, stop... I have already conceded as much. OK, he couldn't get an NIH grant to work on a project to save his soul. My point is to agree with this and tell you to get on to other things, which you say he has done -
Linc "He concerns himself with things of greater import and is now at the forefront of cancer research."
Fine. He's abdicated any responsibility (from a scientific perspective) of discovering and shedding insights about HIV or AIDS. He's busy with other things while other researchers work on AIDS. Then I can stop listening to his 20 year old opinions.
Linc "You are welcome to acquire through Amazon and other sources a copy of Dr. Harvey Bialy's book, "Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS" wherein all this is quite well gone over. That is, if you are capable of reading anything besides a newspaper or a pubmed."
Sorry to blow the mind of a tremendous intellectual mind such as yours - but unlike a lot of folks here, I HAVE READ IT. Didn't stop me from making the comments above. Good read though.
Linc "I think Dr. Duesberg finds it much more fruitful at this time, to enjoy his spare moments by humming a little song: "TIIiiiiimmmmmme is on my side, yessss it is!"
One look at Keith and Mick (and probably you and me), is instructive as to the veracity of that one.
Posted by: End Times | August 17, 2006 1:20 PM
Chrisp, Tend Limes, Pharma Bored, and Pathetic Unsym
Here is the latest from the Toronto Aids Festival, again re-affirming the correctness of Peter Duesberg!
TORONTO... A major focus of the conference up here is finally about Drug Use. In particular, was the use of crystal methamphetamine. "Meth is the major driver of the epidemic in the United States" said Dr. Steffanie Strathdee of the University of California, San Diego, at a conference on Monday. Strathdee's research focused on heterosexual users. Yesterday, Amy Drake of the CDC said, "One of the recreational purposes of the use of meth is increased sexual stimulation. It is clear from our data and other data that meth use among men who have sex with men presents a challenge!" Sandra Bullock, of the University of Waterloo said yesterday "It can lead to a self fulfilling prophecy. If we're telling people that using this is going to cause you to do things your not going to do, in can be a built-in excuse."
Now let's just back up right here and take a moment to look at all this. This is all a bit odd, as this drug abuse issue is exactly where Dr. Peter Duesberg had, in no uncertain terms, told the world where to look for the source of the AIDS problem a mere 20 years ago. 25 years ago, at the very same time that gay men began to sicken, just so happens to coincide with the very moment when the Methamphetamine manufacturing began to spiral upwards. While meth may at first make you want sex all the time, meth users can lose the ability to have sex after only six months of use. And national drug czar John Walters notes the physical deterioration meth users often undergo: "Hair falls out, teeth fall out. That's not sexy." After the initial euphoric 'rush,' the behavioral effects include heightened concentration, increased alertness, high energy, wakefulness and loss of appetite. As addicts binge, they typically go extended periods of time -- often days on end -- without eating or sleeping. These binges result in a cycle of physical deterioration that occurs rapidly, much more rapidly than that associated with addiction to other drugs.
Sounds like AIDS to me!
Well Gang, Dr. Duesberg, and all of us contrarian, anti-authoritarian types have KNOWN for 20 years now, that drug abuse IS AIDS. Not a mysterious and elusive virus that the real QUACKS of HIV, cashing in on more chemical laced goo and microbicides would have us believe. Drug use, especially crystal meth, and partnered with malnutrition around the rest of the world, and an unhealthy dose of stress thrown in, IS AIDS. This of course is not meant to let the anti-HIV drugs off the hook, as they too contribute to a weakened immune system and poor health, particularly AZT.
Originally the 'biker gangs' had a stranglehold on meth production, but the process was so simple that one could cook up batches of meth in their own home. All they needed was the very easy to acquire drug called ephedrine.
Germany's BASF is the world's leading maker of pseudoephedrine, Another is Krebs Biochemicals & Industries Ltd, in India. The pseudoephedrine then fetches about $180,000 for 140 barrels of it when sold to a U.S. pharmaceuticals company, and all of the big pharma companies over here buy and process it and press it into pills that can clear a stuffy nose. Big pharma is happy to be sure it gets directly into the hands of a shadier clientele for an unknown price and from there, the 140 barrels would be enough to produce $50 million of methamphetamine at wholesale value.
Now these are the forces, the manufacturers and the pharmaceutical company processors and the shady meth makers, that are making big fortunes off of creating and spreading AIDS and the HIV Lie. Even the government has been unable to stop this as our senators and representatives and governments are bought off by the pharma lobbies and unwilling to pass legislation to stop the business. And why would they want to. Big pharma makes money creating AIDS, and makes an even bigger fortune with even more toxic poisons to supposedly treat it.
Posted by: lincoln | August 17, 2006 5:09 PM
And I think the writer from Toronto, should also have added in the many viruses, bacterial and fungal infections, chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, etc, etc, that the Number One "AIDS" group, promiscuous homosexuals, have also been exposing themselves to, plus taking massive amounts of antibiotics and other drugs for. Repetitious overuse of antibiotics is well known and well documented as being the source of overwhelming candida yeast overgrowth, which has the very same symptoms of what is called "Symptoms of AIDS". Not to mention all of the fun filled and now antibiotic resistant strains of flesh eating staph going around hospitals and the gay community as well.
Be sure to send Dr. Duesberg a letter of thanks, for having straightened out your obviously warped and biased minds.
Posted by: lincoln | August 17, 2006 5:19 PM
lincoln,
As I mentioned to you previously, if meth use = AIDS, then where is the huge Iowa AIDS epidemic? You've scoffed previously about my living in this state and mocked its being rural and backwards, but by your own logic if meth abuse alone causes AIDS without the presence of HIV, then we should have a helluva lot more AIDS cases than we do.
Of course, when have inconsistencies in logic ever stopped the deniers?
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 17, 2006 6:00 PM
"Tend Limes"...
LOL!! I love it. I will use that for any future posts. You have no way of understanding why it is so aPEELling to me, but pray don't take that as an insult. You simply can't know the circumstances of my life.
One question... if meth IS AIDS, why didn't you make this connection earlier (instead of the more general "drugs") and who in poverty sticken Africa is using chrystal meth?
One other... if a blind test with no presumptions were done, in which 200 people who had AIDS-like symptoms were tested and a much higher pct of them had HIV anti-bodies than a control group had, what would that mean? Again, assuming this were all done by someone who had zero preconceived notions about the cause of AIDS.
Oh, and one more... isn't it possible that there are multiple causes and HIV is one of them? You accuse others of having a closed mind, but is your mind open to this possibility or is the very notion of HIV too distasteful to you to even consider it?
Your friendly farmer. Tend Limes
Posted by: Tend Limes | August 17, 2006 6:09 PM
"You've scoffed previously about my living in this state and mocked its being rural and backwards,"
Well, at least the good Linc has hit on one thing I sure we can all agree on!
do they have lime farms there? I may have to join you.
Posted by: Tend Limes | August 17, 2006 6:53 PM
Seriously, we should have a tremendous AIDS epidemic in Kentucky.
Again, you confuse risk factors with causal factors.
From observations of college student meth users, most abuse heavily for a few years, both for the buzz and the ability to party and study non-stop. So where is the campus student AIDS epidemic? Without HIV exposure, nowhere.
Posted by: Robster | August 17, 2006 7:30 PM
lincoln: "Repetitious overuse of antibiotics is well known and well documented as being the source of overwhelming candida yeast overgrowth, which has the very same symptoms of what is called "Symptoms of AIDS"."
Imagine that! You can get Candida if your gut flora is disrupted or if you're immunocompromised. Actually, the infection can manifest differently. With immunocompromised people it often progresses to a systemic infection, even in patients who don't overuse antibiotics.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 17, 2006 8:35 PM
Pharma Bawd wrote:
"Besides, she's young, female, good looking and sincere."
True, but Tara is much hotter. (Married, of course. :-))
Lindsey Eck
www.corneroak.com
Posted by: Lindsey Eck | August 17, 2006 10:38 PM
Tara wrote:
lincoln,
As I mentioned to you previously, if meth use = AIDS, then where is the huge Iowa AIDS epidemic? by your own logic if meth abuse alone causes AIDS without the presence of HIV, then we should have a helluva lot more AIDS cases than we do.
To begin with Tara, unless they are intravenous drug users, Gay, or Black, they will not even be tested for HIV. As was mentioned to you somewhere by someone prior, heterosexuals very, very infrequently are even tested for HIV.
If and when they are, heterosexual's test results are read completely differently than the very subjective reading given to anyone in the so called "high risk" categories.
The same identical bands of protein going off in a so called "confirmatory" western blot would be read as "false positive" in a homosexual, and "definitely positive" in a high risk reading of the very same deceptively, homophobically, and rascistly oriented reading of the test for a homosexual.
I am having difficulty at this point, Tara, in understanding why you are asking the same questions that were answered several times prior, over and over and over? Do you not understand? OR do you simply not WANT to understand? It must be either one of the two. It can not be that you are too ignorant to understand, as you are indeed somewhat educated and capable of understanding written words, I would believe. I would hope you are of a sufficient maturity to only ask a question in which you truly desired to find an answer.
Either way, I will repeat some points on this for those readers who have not read other threads on this subject.
And actually Tara, I do not believe meth use alone causes AIDS, as AIDS is nothing more than a category definition. Aids usually, though not always,(see #1 below) is dependent upon, and requires an HIV positive-,but yet, HIV-NON-specific test result, (as per the fda literature on all HIV tests being a non-specific test) added to another witches brew of either a questionable CD4 count OR any one of 29 diseases that drug abusers and others whom have run their body down for multitudinous reasons quite often come down with.
AIDS is not in and of itself a disease. I repeat, AIDS, is not a disease. But in the large cities, it is shown to be the single leading contributing co-factor, if not the main cause in the gay community, as to being at the core of the cause of the condition known as AIDS.
This was even the case with the original 5 "grid" Gay Related ImmunoDeficiency cases that turned up. These were the very first 5 reported. Common ingredients: Meth use number one, many other illicit drugs number two, poor eating habits number three, sexual history of extremely high number of many partners number four, large amount of various std infections, number five, and large amount of antibiotic use number six. And an unknown quantity of stress as gay men dealing with their own unique set of emotional difficulties living in a straight world that despised them in 1981, where, being a gay drug addict "ain't always so glamorous and ain't always so GAY!"
These men had ALL run down their bodies, and exposed their bodies to more pathogens than can be found in the petri dish refrigerator at your local std clinic. They ahad all be highly treated with antibiotic after antibiotic. (do I need to explain what the basic parts of the word 'anti-bio-tic' means? It means anti-life. The massive antibiotic use in and of itself, with many gays taking them all the time to ward off even possible infection was a self creating, and iatrogenic physician created disaster, just waiting to happen, as these men destroyed the very gut flora needed to digest their food, and first line of immune defence in their guts, and this behavior also opened their bodies to attack by every type of fungus they became exposed to. The gay community is very mobile, and pretty much every pathogen around the world has been added to the mix that some gay men have been exposed to.
How much abuse can an immune system take before it ceases to function as intended?
And as word traveled of a new "gay disease", the gay community went into an ever increasing and level of fear and panic. Even more so than typical in a community that lived in fear every day. Fear of being found out gay. Fear of being bashed or arrested by police. Fear of government. Fear of losing their jobs. Fear of parents and friends finding out they were gay. Fear of being gay bashed as was common in the gay communities at that time, and sometimes, still is. Just ask Mathew Shepard, not all that far from where you are at Tara. And Tara, I am sure that if you truly wanted to find out the immunologically destructive effects of fear on the body, you would have done so in scientific and university literature by now, as this point has been made several times prior.
Reference #1 meaning:
The CDC itself, in a memo sent out to American doctors in December of 1999 to tell doctors that NO HIV TEST IS NECESSARY for diagnosing AIDS in GAY MEN or other SUSPECTED RISK GROUP MEMBERS. In the same memo, the CDC anounced several NEW ways to declare patients to be HIV positive who previously tested negative to HIV antibody tests.
Although this was another way for the CDC to be seen as doing their utmost to "control" the supposed HIV epidemic, this very memo is construed by myself and many others, to be SUBJECTIVE, RACIST, and HOMOPHOBIC of the targeted groups.
Tara, I will not be answering any more questions posed by you, unless I find them to be unbiased, sincere, and of a sufficient level of maturity to warrant an answer.
Furthermore, Tara, may I ask, Are you a racist or homophobic? I only ask, because I have yet to see the slightest display from you of what I consider to be any compassion toward the most affected groups, by what most simple men, would construe from the diagnostics procedures of HIV, was either subjective, if not even very possibly based in homophobia and/or racism.
Posted by: lincoln | August 18, 2006 3:28 AM
Tara, would you do me the tremendous favor of correcting in the above post, in the fourth paragraph, in the sentence of
The same identical bands of protein going off in a so called "confirmatory" western blot would be read as "false positive" in a homosexual,
to read:
The same identical bands of protein going off in a so called "confirmatory" western blot would be read as a "fale positive in a HETEROSEXUAL,"
The only word that needs to be changed, is to change HOMOSEXUAL, to the word HETEROSEXUAL.
I am sure this should be fairly easy to accomplish in the typed words above, even though it has been proven to be seldom if not fairly impossible in the real world model.
You may also erase this post after doing so.
Thank You.
Posted by: lincoln | August 18, 2006 3:40 AM
Lindsey,
that was Dale. But I agree with you Tara gets my vote.
Linc,
Links Linc, Links.
Posted by: Pharma Bored | August 18, 2006 3:45 AM
Dear Limey,
One question... if meth IS AIDS, why didn't you make this connection earlier (instead of the more general "drugs")
Glad to see your last posts were not quite as SOUR as some of the previous ones have tasted. As to why I didn't make the connection earlier. I made the connection in 1984. The question I would love to have asked is why the SEXPERTS of HIV did not make the connection even as of yet? Certainly one does not need to be a braniac to understand the toxicity of almost all of the drugs used illicitly. Many drug addicts sickened and died of many different diseases, prior to AIDS even way back as far as the 1800's, early, and mid 1900's. But back then, they were not called AIDS patients, they were simply called "JUNKIES".
You also asked:
and who in poverty sticken Africa is using chrystal meth?
Please take notice of the complete difference between western "aids" and African "aids". In Africa, it is said to be a scourge equally to men and women. In Africa, it is very different diseases, with almost no Kaposis Sarcoma, as KS was the NUMBER ONE AIDS Defining illness in the US, particulary among multiple drug using, promiscuous poppers (butyl nitrate) sniffers. In the west, it has been confined to almost exclusively gays, drug addicts, and an increasing, but still minor number of the black community which is now highly targeted for HIV testing, and a mere smattering of others not fitting into these categories.
If you read current world events, you will find central and southern Africa is still a cesspool of problems, with massive starvation, genocides,lack of clean water, lack of proper nourishment, poverty, tuberculosis is 80 percent of reportable disease, children are playing in the sewers in the middle of the streets, people are drinking from streams filled with cholera and sewage, Population doubling every 25 years, TB is the majority 80%+, of AIDS cases, and the list of problems goes on and on. How well do you suppose your own immune system would survive in such as this?
Here in the states, Blacks are now forgetting the lessons of Tuskeegee, and again blindly trusting that the government sponsored health system is designed with everyones best interests at heart as some type of public benevolence association. The intertwining of the military/industrial complex with medical care and science, has shown that this is impossible in reality. Tony Fauci, director of NIADS, is also the director of the military bioweapons division. You are probably not aware that the NIH itself is a "uniformed branch" of the military, hence it is run overseen by the surgeon "general". I don't know if you read current events or listen to the news, however, fairly every week for some time now, has been newstory after newstory documenting the corruption within the FDA/NIH in connection to the pharmaceutical "for profit" industry.
As one little old lady -former scientist/then journalist, put it, at the Toronto Conference on Monday, at the Session for Journalists, as she said "HIV/Aids is tied to Biotechnology,which is tied to industry, which is tied to profits, and this is why we must question their science!"
Posted by: lincoln | August 18, 2006 4:22 AM
Wilhelm wrote:
(If there was a 'heartsink' emoticon on scienceblogs, it would be inserted here...)
No, Wilhelm, you come on. 'Perpetrator'? I'm not an virologist or immunologist, I have no financial connection to pharmaceutical companies, and I was only seven years old when the first cases of AIDS were reported.
You see, you've just made the same mistake as DB: you have made a serious accusation about others' integrity which you simply cannot back up.
Even a suspected war criminal would be unlikely to take this accusation:
lying down (otherwise, why bother setting up bodies like ICTY?).
You have to understand that when these words are directed at people who have taken the trouble to read as much of the literature on HIV as is practical (maybe like yourself), and have come to a well-reasoned, defensible conclusion (leaving aside the question of whether they are correct), they are highly insulting. Apart from casting aspersions on their mental faculties, it suggests they don't care about their fellow human beings, to the point that they would deliberately inflict serious suffering and death on them. Such an accusation needs some evidence of intent. I think you have none.
Posted by: Peter Barber | August 18, 2006 6:35 AM
lincoln wrote:
"Here is the latest from the Toronto Aids Festival, again re-affirming the correctness of Peter Duesberg!"
-------------
There are at least two opinions that lincoln does not trust when it comes to the very existence of HIV: his own, and Peter Duesberg's. In fact, he considers Duesberg to be a gullible fool for believing that the HIV literature after 1990 contains solid proof that HIV exists.
And yet, he somehow thinks that his own analysis, or Duesberg's, of whether HIV causes AIDS is somehow meaningful.
But of course, it is meaningless. The question of HIV existence is crucial to the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, and someone like lincoln who is undecided on the former is just babbling nonsense when they profess an opinion about the latter.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 18, 2006 8:38 AM
Lincoln wrote,
lol, Lincoln, you owe me a new keyboard. You made me spit coffee all over mine.
Posted by: Robster | August 18, 2006 10:23 AM
lincoln: "As was mentioned to you somewhere by someone prior, heterosexuals very, very infrequently are even tested for HIV."
I was tested during a health screen as part of a hiring process. I'm also tested whenever I donate blood. In the USA, millions of heterosexuals have been tested.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 18, 2006 10:42 AM
Oh, yes: I was also tested for HIV prior to purchasing life insurance.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 18, 2006 10:44 AM
I pointed that out to "lincoln" via an email conversation weeks ago. I also pointed out that many white, middle class, heterosexual college kids also get tested for HIV when they're screened for other STDs--a fact "lincoln" simply ignores. He also accused me of bigotry against homosexuals and racism then as well. That kind of thinking--ignoring any point your opponent might make because it's all "biased" and they're just bigots anyway--is the last refuge of someone who realizes they're completely floundering, and can't provide valid answers to the questions being asked of them, so they smear their opponent's character instead.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 18, 2006 11:30 AM
Seth, another brilliant statement by you, perhaps the only judge and jury and prosecutor that we still have left, who is yet following this case. And quite astutely following it, I must add. Seth has made the most astute and applicable statement in thjs entire thread. Perhaps the most astute and meaningful statement that I have ever heard. And Seth IS absolutely correct, yet again, in the following statement that he has made:
But of course, it is meaningless.
It is absolutely completely meaningless. True, how very true. A greater truth has never been spoken so precisely and so eloquently, in the but three little words of "it is meaningless". It is indeed. Completely meaningles!! Completely, absolutely and positively meaningless, as to whether or not HIV EVEN EXISTS!
The only question of any import whatsoever, would have been: If HIV does exist, IS HIV the cause of "AIDS"? Is this minute and miniature 9 kilobase RETROvirus, the one and only and single and solitary retrovirus to be distinguished among all retroviruses, in all of existence, and that is known, shown, proved, and verified to cause a disease, let alone is it the cause of a disease that is not even a disease, known as AIDS?
IS HIV TO BE FOUND GUILTY AND HELD LIABLE FOR THE MURDER OF 500,000 PLUS AMERICANS AND MILLIONS OF OTHERS IN AFRICA AND AROUND THE WORLD?
Well the jury, the vast majority of whom collapsed in fatique, and left this courtroom for lunch a week and a half ago and never came back, is now of course quite bored and quite over the case!
The prosecuter and witnesses fell asleep under their desks one week ago, and never woke up.
But of course, in answer to this most important and pressing question. Most important especially today, this very day. This day of the final closing and curtain call of the XVI Toronto AIDS FESTIVAL, Conference, and International AIDS Olympics. Today, those whom would continue to call for the lynching of HIV have been answered. Today the very evidence to show the defence of HIV and the lack of probable cause in this question, has been fully presented and is now demonstrated repeatedly in the very mountains of evidence to be found on Tara Smith's own much peer and public reviewed data and discussion as generated right here in this thread, and also quite a bit in the preliminary hearings in one or two other prior threads on Aetiology, and the evidence has rendered HIV to be innocent. Insufficient proof of guilt. Not Guilty. Framed. Maliciously used and abused time and time again over the course of twenty long and painfilled years, and lied about by false witnesses. False witnesses have heretofore CALLED HIV THE CAUSE OF AIDS, AND HERE! Right HERE. HERE on THIS A.E.T.I.O.L.O.G.Y. blogsite, the defendent HIV, and the defence of HIV, has had its day in court and in BATTLE, before the eyes of GOD, and a mostly disinterested general public, and has been found "not guilty". Insufficient evidence. Not guilty as declared by Seth Manapio himself, due to insufficient evidence, in his statement, "it is meaningless".
And now, now that this single long and dreaded, and tumultuous and tortuous battle, this very long battle which has raged in this thread since the first of August 2006, which has been valiantly fought by heros on both sides of the issue is drawing to a close. And the bodies of a great number of brave heros and casualties of this battle and war are to be counted here.
I, lincoln, call now for the now declared by the court of Seth to be innocent HIV, for HIV to be set free immediately, and for immediate reparations made to all, in particular, Peter Duesberg, who has struggled to defend the very right of HIV, if HIV does exist, to exist, in peace.
Posted by: lincoln | August 18, 2006 11:57 AM
"Limey"?? No. I don't like that one. I may have strong British genes, but I'm too far removed culturally. I refuse to change my screen name to Limey.
You answered some of my questions, but you didn't answer the question about the research I proposed. Curious. I ask because I would consider it an example of a project that could be done quite easily without the goodwill of the NIH or any other particular body. One of many I could think of. I'm sure creative scientific minds could come up with even more. Yet they don't.
I'm sorry, but until you start doing this work I'm just going to have to capitulate responsibility for my well-being to the consensus of the experts. I believe in thinking for yourself, but a wise thinker incorporates the best expert advice he/she can get. I don't imagine myself wise enough to be an expert on every subject. I'm not particularly fond of attorneys, but if I was suddenly accused of a serious crime I would certainly take the best legal advice I could get and give it a lot of weight over my gut instincts. Right now, the dissenters are not the best medical advice I can get. Do the research and stop talking. Sorry if that sounded "sour". Wasn't meant to be.
Cheerio old chap!
Posted by: Tend Limes | August 18, 2006 12:01 PM
Another most appropriate, although cryptic post on Seths Whiskeyb4breakfast blogsite:
http://www.whiskeyb4breakfast.org/
The thing is, I've been where lincoln is, although not as deeply infected as he is. I've had his disease of denial, I know how hard it is to beat these bad memes. It took me a long time to face up to the fact that I had looked HIV positive people in the face and told them--wrongly--that HIV wasn't killing them. I had to face up to being very wrong about something important, and that wasn't easy to do.
Finally facing that was profoundly liberating. Finally realizing that it is totally okay to be stupidly wrong and cocky about it is a great feeling. What is important, what is crucial to my life and the life of people like Tara and Richard, of anyone who wants to be or is a working scientist, is to be willing to be wrong, willing to be corrected. Willing to accept that maybe, just maybe, everything you thought yesterday has to be evaluated anew in the information you have today.
If you find yourself unable to answer a question, if your best response is spewing abuse at the opposite side, jeering at them instead of trying to engage them in thoughtful discussion, that is a telling sign that your argument may be weak. Its a sign that maybe you should be reevaluating your own beliefs.
Sometimes you do... and you find that you are mocking your opponent from a position of strength. Sometimes you have to admit that you were mocking the wrong person, and should have been mocking yourself (which is illegal in five states, I believe). But I think that a skeptic should at least try to be honest enough to know the difference.
posted by Seth
Posted by: lincoln | August 18, 2006 12:30 PM
Yeah, that WAS an appropriate post. I don't find it all that crptic though. Very self-insightful on his part and nice of him to admit and share.
Posted by: Tend Limes | August 18, 2006 12:47 PM
Not guilty as declared by Seth Manapio himself, due to insufficient evidence, in his statement, "it is meaningless".
----------
Predictably, lincoln misunderstands, or pretends to misunderstand. It is his opinion that is meaningless, though this never stops him from writing another 500 words of inconsistent nonsense. It is especially amusing to see him write about evidence... evidence that he himself freely admits he is unable to evaluate! I think the word for that is "irony", but I could be wrong.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 18, 2006 1:03 PM
Tend Limes, as you wish to be known,
You wrote:
but you didn't answer the question about the research I proposed. Curious. I ask because I would consider it an example of a project that could be done quite easily without the goodwill of the NIH or any other particular body. One of many I could think of. I'm sure creative scientific minds could come up with even more. Yet they don't.
You are quite correct, and are obviously much smarter than those in charge at the NIH. There are certainly a multitude of experiments that could be done to verify all.
However, there is a bit of a problem. A study being done, does not mean it will be printed in any scientific literature, no matter how accurate and reproducible by peer reviewers the study may be. A study done, and not printed in a leading science magazine, will not be read, let alone acknowledged by scientists or medicine.
There is a little recognized word, known as censorship, that one would need to overcome in order for anything of value to be posted in the major literature of importance, such as "Science", "Nature", "The Lancet", "JAMA", "JAIDS", "NEJM", or even on the government sponsored "PUBMED".
Someone, known and loved by all of us, whom is reading these words right at this very moment, is personally familiar with the word "CENSORSHIP", and is even practiced at such.
It IS this one little word, that is behind the entire curtain of the AIDS saga. This one little word, so insulting to those of us whom wish for open debate and honesty, is a word that our own forefathers in this Great Nation of the United States of America, fought and lived and died to prevent from corrupting our very souls. It has, however, continued to live on, and disguise itself in a multitude of other forms, that continue to prevent mankind from true freedom.
In France, the originating point of Montagnier's LAV, later usurped and renamed HIV by Robert Gallo, and later still renamed HIV, was also the very birth place of the original call for freedom from Censorship.
In 1762, a man named Jean Jaques Rousseau, wrote a piece entitled "The Social Contract", in which was born the original call for freedom of the evil, biased, and immature practice of Censorship:
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm
French King Louis XVI, wanted to control all thought and speech regarding various popular beliefs, in particular religious ones, at this time.
Two french gentlemen, Jean Paul Marat, and Robes Pierre, armed and bolstered by the words of Rousseau, rose up against this censorship of thought and speech, which culminated with the storming of the Bastille in 1789. The take-over of the Bastille led to the beheading of King Louis, as well as his many supporting and not-quite-so-Noblemen.
However, Robes Pierre and Jean Paul Marat, wished to replace the King's censorship, with their own form of censorship. As such, they too came to know Messieur Guillotine, and lose their own heads to him as well. Let this be the lesson for those who would learn it:
That THEY, who do not LEARN the lessons of history, are DOOMED to repeat it.
As was said by American Patriot Thomas Paine:
"Let Reason Triumph Over Superstition And Privilege!"
And a tumultuous REVOLUTION that would change the very life of all peoples on the face of this earth was begun, and our great nation was born.
That revolution continues yet to this very day.
Posted by: lincoln | August 18, 2006 1:11 PM
Lincoln, in this thread, retroviruses responsible for diseases and syndromes, in a variety of species, were mentioned and links were given. Claiming it is the only retrovirus to cause a disease is simply false.
On the testing issue, I have been tested as a blood donor, life insurance policy owner, vaccine trial participant...
Claiming victory over meth abuse being discussed as a risk factor won't change the reality that AIDS is caused by HIV, or that the HIV AIDS theory explains the observations better than any other hypothesis.
Posted by: Robster | August 18, 2006 1:47 PM
The "Repressed Minority" gambit doesn't fly. As I mentioned previously, research in the area is performed by too many and too diverse a range of researchers for repression, simple error, greed, mass hysteria and/or any combination of the above to explain the high levels of support for the conclusion that HIV is a necessary, causal factor in AIDS. It's like herding ducks -- Yeah, you can do that with a handful but not thousands. And once scientists see a tiny gap to a new and fertile research area, they tend to bolt for it.
"The Data" is a better and more accessible explanation than psychology and motives. How about addressing the former first?
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 18, 2006 2:31 PM
lincoln: "However, there is a bit of a problem. A study being done, does not mean it will be printed in any scientific literature, no matter how accurate and reproducible by peer reviewers the study may be."
You know, I've heard of 'overthinking' yourself out of doing an experiment (something many overly cautious grad students have to overcome), but thinking yourself out of even thinking about possible research is a new one to me. Essentially, that's claiming that one shouldn't bother to support one's conclusions with actual research because nobody is going to read it anyway. Here's a news flash: Most papers don't get read by all that many people anyway. Working scientists are used to flinging out their hard-earned results to a tiny group of interested readers. That doesn't stop them from doing research.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 18, 2006 3:37 PM
lincoln,
One more comment. When you repost large tracts of text from other sources, would you mind referencing the sources? The authors spent time on the work and deserve credit for their efforts.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 18, 2006 5:36 PM
That revolution continues yet to this very day.
-----------------------------
AIDS denialists form unsupported opinions that are contrary to the evidence, and then spin elaborate conspiracy theories to support those opinions. They are not the intellectual heirs of the enlightenment.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 18, 2006 7:19 PM
Another absolute truth by Seth:
They are not the intellectual heirs of the enlightenment.
As each and everyone of us, is our very own intellectual heir to equal hope and opportunity of enlightenment, should one first of all choose it, and should one be so strong and willing and pure to surrender up all false belief, and lastly yet most importantly, should any one among us, be so graced by GOD to receive it, from whence it comes.
Posted by: lincoln | August 18, 2006 8:15 PM
Doubt is the beginning of Wisdom
Buddha
Posted by: lincoln | August 18, 2006 8:23 PM
Un simp pathetic:
"The Data" is a better and more accessible explanation than psychology and motives. How about addressing the former first?
Most all of the time, "The Data" is indeed a true way of discernment. Much data can indeed be amassed by quite rational minds, and possibly discern much to be considered accurate. Data that may even be true from one perspective, however, can not always be considered "ultimate truth", as there exists realms of discernment that are indeed more inclusive of an even truer vision of greater benefit to all involved.
The realm of the Rational Mind, is a limited realm. It is not ever possible for a mere rational mind to see the cause behind the cause of any perceived "event". Such as to see the invisible energies of belief itself, or of divine consciousness, that are imperceptible to mere rational mind. It is here, that rational mind and scientific instrument fail us. The rational mind has difficulty allowing for what it can not prove, let alone percieve. But the lack of the rational mind to prove or percieve does not change ultimate truth, whatever that ultimate truth may be.
For instance:
A person reaching up to get something from a shelf that can not be reached now has a mind steeped in anger that can only percieve that "I" am not getting whatever it is that "I" want from that shelf. Therefore "I" am angry!
A rational mind can see perhaps that the reason this being is not getting what they want is because they are not standing quite tall enough to attain it. Perhaps something somehow could be devised to lengthen their legs, boost their shoes, stretch their fingers, lower the shelf, OR, the rational mind might see this person as being a wonderful test subject to use in a trial study of "anger" reducing medications.
A higher mind yet, might perceive that they are not attaining it because they have not yet made the choice to go get the ladder to stand on to reach it. And might even offer to get them a ladder.
A higher mind yet, might percieve that they are not attaining what it is they wish off the shelf, because they do not yet believe that they can, and therefore the possibility of attainment, lies unmanifest, due simply to the lack of belief.
Posted by: lincoln | August 18, 2006 9:05 PM
The highest mind, seeks the greatest benefit with the least harm.
Posted by: lincoln | August 18, 2006 9:07 PM
lincoln: "Most all of the time, "The Data" is indeed a true way of discernment."
Absolute knowledge is impossible: Fine. How about addressing the data?
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 18, 2006 9:17 PM
And a higher mind yet, sees nothing to attain, nothing right or wrong, nothing but a process of the allness, wherein another of ones own self, is experiencing the human realms of physicality and emotion, and growing, and learning and experiencing aspects of the all that is.
Posted by: lincoln | August 18, 2006 9:25 PM
And a higher mind yet, perhaps one that has gone beyond mind, to a state of mindless all-unifying-one-ness, sees nothing to attain, nothing right or wrong, nothing to change, and nothing to fix, nothing but the IS, an eternal process of the allness, wherein another of ones own projections of self, is experiencing the human realms of physicality and emotion, and growing, and learning and experiencing aspects of the all that is.
Posted by: lincoln | August 18, 2006 9:30 PM
How about addressing the data?
is a very nonspecific question, open to infinite interpretation.
Exactly WHICH piece of "data"?
And address it from exactly WHICH level of consciousness?
The Level of consciousness where I am pissed off or the one of rational mind, higher mind, highest mind, or mindlessness?
Posted by: lincoln | August 18, 2006 9:37 PM
The hope would be that all the data, taken together, could be addressed. This is how we tell good theories from bad theories, working out which does the best job with the accumulated body of data, not just a cherry-picked subset.
And of course, if the point is to get the best picture of reality we can from the empirical facts in evidence, opting for rationality seems like a good idea.
Posted by: Dr. Free-Ride | August 18, 2006 9:57 PM
Dr. Free Ride:
Forgive me for just a moment, as when I read your post, it most definitely took me to a place of humor, from which I am not yet recovered.
Reason:
From where I am myself, currently viewing it, all 201,000 plus pieces, the perception, from the most rational mind I am capable of at this moment, is that it is mostly cherry picked and founded on subset(s) of misperceptions.
Posted by: lincoln | August 18, 2006 10:07 PM
And Dr. Free Ride, one can only have or understand another's perception, from where levels and perspectives of where they individually are at.
If one is on a level of rationality, that, is the only level they can view or understand from. Kind of like only having a certain color filter in front of your eyes.
The body requires nourishment to exist, (or at least so I percieve, through it's emotional feelings of hunger).
Later.
Posted by: lincoln | August 18, 2006 10:13 PM
"And address it from exactly WHICH level of consciousness?"
-------------------
As he has no scientific, rational,or evidence based arguments, lincoln now retreats to mystic hogwash about levels of consciousness... liberally spliced with his big bad conspiracy theory.
Sadly, he fails to realize that the data in a study is not changed by his whims, fancies, or moods. This undoubtably contributes to his self-confessed inability to draw simple conclusions about simple things.
That is, if Harvey Bialy and Peter Deusberg disagree, our "free thinker" hardly knows what to think!
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 19, 2006 12:21 AM
our "free thinker" hardly knows what to think!
This may greatly surprise you, but this "free thinker" was most likely among the FIRST, if not the first, to perceive and be convinced that the causation of the condition known as AIDS was to be other than any single monocausal virus or retrovirus, and that the "cause" extended far beyond that. And this was even before this free thinker had ever even heard the name of Peter Duesberg. And how would this free thinker have determined that 20 years ago? Based on a broader observation, as in "real world", up close, personal, first hand, experiential knowledge, of the lives and lifestyles and behaviors and emotional and belief factors, of the very first afflicted individuals and groups, unlike scientists such as Gallo and Montagnier. At the time, I was a conservative, youthful 25 year old, with dashing good looks, and a very intelligent and inquisitive mind, with what one would call "spiritual" leanings, and struggling to accept myself and my own homosexuality. This time of my life included reaching my own "bottoms" of living in the street, sleeping in doorways, eating out of dumpsters, etc. I was more fortunate than most. I was not rejected by my family upon coming out to them. I was not strung out on drugs or on sex. I was out and about, and knew many of these people personally. To me, the MOST amazing thing, was that any of them stayed as healthy as they did, as long as they did, considering what their behaviors and beliefs were. But then again, when one's body is younger, it can take quite a bit of abuse, but only to a point!
As I said, this was also quite before I ever heard the name of "Peter Duesberg" and long before I heard the name of "Harvey Bialy". But I must tell you that it was truly a delight, to later find the works of these men and others, to have confirmed my own rationally and experientially based beliefs.
I can also only share with you, what a delight it has also been- in my life, to meet with others years after my own observations and beliefs had been formed, whom also had become convinced, of and on their own, of the same or nearly similar beliefs as myself, which now includes thousands of renowned scientists and doctors throughout the world. A very small percentage of these people, sign petitions, or are at all vocal with their beliefs, as most just go about their day to day work, and keep their opinions to themselves, as I had done for many years. One can not change others opinions, and can only share ones beliefs with those whom wish to hear it.
I can also share with you what a pleasure it is, to finally meet many others, and discover that what I believed 20 years ago, has now spread to thousands and thousands, if not hundreds of thousand and millions, of like minded people, with now more than 25 books and several documentary films now done on the subject of HIV dissent. It has been a thrill to watch the dissident/rethinker side of the issue grow exponentially in just the last 6 years. One only needs to "google" the words "aids dissent" or "HIV dissent" to see the millions of pages now on the internet on the subject.
I tell you firsthand, it can be a very lonely and painful place to be emotionally, for an individual to be the only person one knows, for many years, whom quietly but passionately disbelieves what seemingly every single other person in the world believes.
And somewhere, in my heart of hearts, I know that the hundreds of thousands of lives lost of young gay men, as well as millions of others whom have passed around the world, with a diagnosis of HIV or AIDS, will not have died in vain. They will have died so that all the world may grow through the many lessons to be found in their passing, if one but looks and reaches for them. Society could move forward greatly by looking within at this entire debacle. The lessons, if we choose to learn them, could change societal attitudes and beliefs, could change government, medical care, science, industry, and bring about a seachange of how all of these are instituted, for the greater betterment of the future, of all of mankind.
Posted by: lincoln | August 19, 2006 2:49 AM
I've just realised an amusing implication of DB's claim that the data supports the hypothesis because the study was a test of the hypothesis. I'm going to hypothesise that wood doesn't burn. Now, I'll pile up some wood, and light a fire under it. According to DB's logic, because my test is predicated on the hypothesis that wood doesn't burn, we will therefore observe that the wood doesn't burn. Does that sound reasonable to anyone? No?
I see that Wilhelm Godschalk is still babbling about gravitation. Firstly, as we've pointed out previously, your arm is not doing any work on a stationary weight; work is being done internally by your muscle cells, because we don't have catch-connective tissue. A wire will support a weight indefinitely without getting tired :) Secondly, complaining about Newtonian gravitation now, when we've been using GR for almost a century, is pathetically behind the times; look up the concept of geodesic motion on a curved spacetime manifold.
"lincoln"'s outbursts are simply embarassing now, and are grossly insulting to the large numbers of concerned and dedicated health care workers and researchers who are working hard to save lives all around the world.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 19, 2006 4:30 AM
"But I must tell you that it was truly a delight, to later find the works of these men and others, to have confirmed my own rationally and experientially based beliefs."
----------------
So lincoln, lacking any knowledge of epidemiology, and without any clue as to the larger situation, concludes that drugs are the AIDS culprit. Then he finds people who confirm what he already believes, and decides that they are right. At no time in this monologue does lincoln ever question his immediate beliefs, or notice that the HIV/AIDS hypothesis matches his observations equally well, and explains many other things besides!
I'm pretty sure that the term for this is "confirmation bias".
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 19, 2006 1:36 PM
"lincoln"'s outbursts are simply embarassing now, and are grossly insulting to the large numbers of concerned and dedicated health care workers and researchers who are working hard to save lives all around the world.
To be insulted, or not to be insulted, is merely a choice.
One of many choices that could be made.
One could just as easily choose to be "thankful" instead.
Posted by: lincoln | August 19, 2006 1:55 PM
Whew. I haven't been here for many days, and you guys are still mentioning me. Must have struck a chord!
Stephen, in your misrepresentation, you actually help to prove my point.
But first, I never said that the studies were a test of the hypothesis. They aren't. The studies work under the assumption that HIV causes AIDS. The studies do not seek to challenge that assumption, or test the hypothesis. They work from the basic nearly universally-accepted belief that HIV causes AIDS.
So, let's use your burning wood example to illustrate the "logic" of HIV/AIDS. You set out to do a study of some sort that involves wood. Your study does not set out to challenge your hypothesis that wood doesn't burn. You've already accepted the hypothesis that wood doesn't burn. During the course of your study, wood becomes combustible.
Just like an "HIV/AIDS" study, you turn your head away from something so incredibly inconvenient, as it could dismantle your most basic premise (wood doesn't burn). Anyway, your study wasn't actually trying to find out if wood didn't burn as you already knew that it didn't.
You helped to illustrate my point. HIV/AIDS studies don't seek to question if HIV causes AIDS, just the way your wood study doesn't seek to question if wood doesn't burn. Both of these were accepted as facts beforehand.
Posted by: DB | August 19, 2006 1:56 PM
The term: "scared to death" has rolled off the tongues of mankind for many centuries. It can be found in the literature of the 1500's, and is still a commonly used term.
Is there any truth to the statement?
Perhaps Seth could answer the question. Is it possible for someone to "be scared to death"?
If so, or if not, perhaps Seth could answer as to how it could be "proved" in the literature or in science, one way or the other?
Posted by: lincoln | August 19, 2006 2:06 PM
DB's response is hilarious. Apparently an experiment in which we pile up some wood, and set it on fire, is not designed to question whether or not wood burns. I have this wonderful image now of DB standing in front of the bonfire, telling me that this is no reason to believe that wood burns.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | August 19, 2006 4:53 PM
linc -
"And address it from exactly WHICH level of consciousness?
The Level of consciousness where I am pissed off or the one of rational mind, higher mind, highest mind, or mindlessness that I get at moments like this, while smoking weed?"
Oh, did I misquote you there? Sorry, I think I was reading between the lines of last nights posts. Must have been a "Happy Friday" though. Hope you are well today. Let me try again on a couple of points. Although I don't know why. They one thing you said that I absolutely agree with is that you can't change another's mind. I suppose this is just too much fun not to participate. For instance, you said:
"As was said by American Patriot Thomas Paine:
"Let Reason Triumph Over Superstition And Privilege!"
Then, a few posts later, (in regards to becoming "enlightened"):
"and lastly yet most importantly, should any one among us, be so graced by GOD to receive it".
Nice. If you have never read Payne's works, I highly recommend his "Age Of Reason". I wonder what the fundies would think if public schools made this particular great patriots writing a mandatory course?
I think if I am ever truly "enlightened", I won't have to tell others about my enlightenment. They either know it, or they aren't capable of knowing it, or I don't have it. You follow my point? Do the research. Which brings up a final point.
The one you addressed as Un Simp Pathetic (Clever. Not enlightened of you, but definitely clever) said:
"You know, I've heard of 'overthinking' yourself out of doing an experiment (something many overly cautious grad students have to overcome), but thinking yourself out of even thinking about possible research is a new one to me. Essentially, that's claiming that one shouldn't bother to support one's conclusions with actual research because nobody is going to read it anyway."
And he's absolutely right. It just sounds like silly excuses for not doing the research. You know perfectly well that if the work was solid it would be published SOMEWHERE and you and other dissidents would trumpet the hell out of it in places just like this. If y'all would put as much effort in to THAT as you do in these blogs, you could have accomplished your goal by now. But if you don't think your research will back you up, I understand and will just accept the consensus as stands. It's up to you, linc. Smoke a fat one for me. I may not be enlightened, but whatever the hell you call this - it's done with out supplement.
Your friend, the farmer.
Posted by: Tend Limes | August 19, 2006 8:57 PM
DB, why do you believe that a study based on a premise must validate that premise? This is such a peculiar and strange belief, contrary to all experience and reason... how do you support it?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 19, 2006 11:28 PM
Lincoln,
You dissapoint me. Bringing your personal enlightenment into the realm of a discussion on AIDS. For starters you are clearly not enlightened because if you were you wouldn't be so pissed. I also agree with Tend Limes when he suggests that you do not need to state you are enlightened. Nor would you use it as an argument as to why you are right. Being enlightened is about helping others on their path to enlightenment accusing them of being pawns of Big Pharma and hurting people doesn't exactly inspire people to listen to you. Claiming to be their conscience doesn't qualify either nor does it assist your plight. I also believe that advising people on medication is not adviseable because it is clearly not your expertise and may do harm (which is bad for your karma). So instead of arguing on blogs about the validity of scientific research which you refuse to discuss maybe you should focus on people open to finding enlightenment. Perhaps teenagers helping them to find the right path of life avoiding drugs and other risky behaviors that will stop HIV from spreading in the first place.
Ya know you told me I needed to work on myself well I think you still have more work to do as well. You have not quite achieved the status of the Budda. So instead of preaching on blogs on matters you don't understand maybe you should continue to work on yourself because contrary to your belief that their are many causal factors of AIDS you have admitted you cannot prove HIV does not cause it. So until you have a significant amount of evidence (beyond your personal beliefs) then you should just leave medical advice to the doctors.
Posted by: Laura | August 19, 2006 11:33 PM
Laura, it's SATURDAY NIGHT for god's sake. He's lighting up his "blunt" instrument of enlightenment as we write. He may reply to you tomorrow (or much later tonight if he's bored. Hell, I know I am, but then I don't pretend to be on a "higher" plane).
Posted by: Tend Limes | August 19, 2006 11:59 PM
Tis true, I am currently seeking higher levels of being via the vehicle to instant enlightenment of a double South Park episodathon. So, you will need to practice the internal yoga of patience till I return. BUT, when I do come down and return from the South Park etherium, first Seth is in trouble, big trouble, as he asks questions before answering any asked of him, as he accused poor ole lincoln of earlier, for he has not answered the predicament of "scared to death" that in my last post I had clearly described, and second, Laura, oooohhhhh Laura, you are in for a treat! A bitterSweet treat, as I like to call them. Commercial breaks are over, gotta go! Kenny, Cartman,and Carl are calling and need my assistance!
Posted by: lincoln | August 20, 2006 1:19 AM
Tend Limes and Laura, and dear Seth as well!
Just as I suspected, South Park did indeed lead me to the answers I have been seeking, and I have reached a new height of enlightenment and truth! Indeed, it is found that HIV/AIDS is REAL! Let me explain!
Well, Cartman the prick, was being ignored by Kyle and everyone after they had enough of his crap. They decided to treat him like he was invisible and just did not exist. The only one he was not ignored by, was Butters, and he asked Butters why. Butters reached the obvious conclusion that it must be that Cartman is dead and is now a ghost and Butters believed he was seeing a ghost. Butters told his parents he was seeing a ghost and was too afraid to go to sleep. Butters parents straightened little Butters out. They told him, in no uncertain terms, that GHOSTS are not real. Butters father said, "There is nothing to be afraid of. Nothing, that is except for SUPER-AIDS. SUPER-AIDS is the ONLY thing to be afraid of, because SUPER-AIDS is REAL. Now go to bed Butters!"
There you have it. It, Super-AIDS, must be REAL. Cause Butters dad told us so! What more proof could we want! Tara, Chris, Super Bored, Seth, and all the rest, I see your proof clearly now, and now I too am a scared believer of this very real and vicious virus! After all, it knows how to find us fags, and that means I must be on it's shitlist! My apologies for EVER doubting. I shall never doubt again!
Tend Limes,
You thrill me beyond words with your knowledge of the seldom discussed Mr. Paine's amazing works. Yes his work would indeed rock a boat or two, if not sink em completely, and twould do the fundies much good , although I fear it quite beyond their abilities or readiness to give it due consideration. It is truly an inspiring piece of work, and uplifting to any who would seek a higher truth.
Paine's interpretation of the "Bible" is not unlike my own interpretation of 201,000 pages of HIV/AIDS studies. Witness Paine's words with regards to the "Bible":
THESE books, beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelations, (which, by the bye, is a book of riddles that requires a revelation to explain it) are, we are told, the word of God. It is, therefore, proper for us to know who told us so, that we may know what credit to give to the report. The answer to this question is, that nobody can tell, except that we tell one another so.
Quite appropriate, and I thank you for sharing it.
Furthermore, Paine also said:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
As I relate to this, I do not believe in the creed professed by the church of NIAD, NIH, CDC, AMA, nor any church of HIV/AIDS that I know of. My own mind suffices to guide me, and I have no need of being told what to believe or who I should trust for medical or scientific advice.
Paine also said:
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
As for me I see this as: All National Institutions of Science and Health and Pharmaceutical manufacture, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit!
Furthermore Limes,
Although, I have tasted of many different supplements, as you call them, at some various times of my earlier life, I steer clear of them as well. For me, supplementation does not assist in any way of attaining or maintaining any type of "higher mind", as higher mind is only 'attained' through awareness of what is not of higher mind and awareness. Supplementation, to me, creates the opposite of awareness. It is a form of "cheating" which also seemingly creates a backlog of necessary experience, often connected to emotionally painful perceptions, that egoic mind is protective of, and as such, keeps itself from attaining the real freedom from such, through awareness of the misperceptions that lie behind it all.
Studies exist on the effects of malnutrition.
Studies exist on the mutagenic nature of Poppers.
Studies exist on the toxicity of all HIV drugs.
Studies exist on the toxicity of various illicit drugs. (Let alone as I just mentioned above as to the unprovable effects of it on conscious awareness, leading often to more irrational and often destructive behaviors)
Studies exist on the hazard of overuse of antibiotics.
Studies exist on the immunologic lowering effects of stress, and fear. (Tony Fauci himself did his doctorate on stress and the negative effects on the immune system, though it seems he forgot his own work as soon as he got the job at NIADS, or maybe his promotion of HIV/AIDS is a further experiment in such?)
The only ones who will not look upon THIS "mountain of evidence" are those that simply choose not to.
Just exactly precisely how much "evidence" is enough for you?
And who exactly has to declare to you what "truth" is, for you to believe it?
As far as what you are meaning by research into alternatives, you are not specifically describing of any study in particular. As such, I am not talking myself out of anything.
Not to mention, there is a thing that seems to be not overly common, which many refer to as common sense. Re:
Is there anyone here who believes that exposing ones self, or any other creature to drug addiction to excess is healthy for ones body?
Is there anyone here that thinks exposing ones self or any other creature to multiple well known and already described pathogens followed by antibiotics and more pathogens and more antibiotics would be healthy? Perhaps there are those that might see this as no biggie, but established science already documents the immunological dangers of such.
As such, I do not know quite what studies you would like to use to see how much some creature could be abused or poisoned before it sickens and dies, and I for one, have no desire or stomach to do so. You are more than welcome to do such if you like, but it is not my cup of tea, thank you.
And then, there are the unprovables, such as the above example given to Seth regarding the possibility of "scared to death", which if you are not quite sure that this is common inate truth or belief or knowledge, just go find the nearest 10 people, and ask them, off the cuff, if they believe someone could "scare themselves to death". You will probably be hard pressed to find those that do not already agree.
Now for the bigger questions or issues at hand, Enlightenment.
First, I have not ever claimed to be enlightened anywhere in my words on this thread, though it is interesting that so many point toward my simple words and either accuse me of saying such, or bring up such a word as enlightened when describing either myself or my words.
Second, I agree with our lime farmer that if one was ever enlightened, one would not need to broadcast it, or tell anyone about it.
Third, If an enlightened being ever did think they were enlightened, the very thought of one's self as being enlightened means that one is not. Not only that, but it would not even be a consideration, for Enlightenment is a state of being, not a state of mentacious describing of being, such as we are doing at the moment.
Third, if I or you were enlightened, we would not even be having this conversation, as we would not care less about any of the conversation or mundane mentations of either myself or any of you, or even of the issue of whether or not HIV causes AIDS or even exists. All would be seen as illusion of mentation and physicality.
Tend Limes, Not only would the enlightened not tell anyone they were, but if they ever did, it is 100 percent guaranteed that upon the very moment of noticing it, one is no longer there. It is a 'state of grace', and one can easily fall from that state.
And now for YOU LAURA!
YOU accuse me of being PISSED!
Is this truth or is it a projection of your own self? Or is it even possibly a calculated manipulation to provoke others to their own anger, wherein they can eventually aim their anger toward arriving at a higher level of understanding for themselves through the duality of anger?
Anger, in and of itself, is not good or bad. Depends on the purpose one chooses to use it for.
Laura, are you for some strange reason contemplating looking up to me?
Buddha taught: Put no head above your own. What does this mean?
Are any of you DAFT enough to look UP to ME???
Wake up, you are all as connected to absolute truth as myself or anyone else, as all that actually exists is absolute truth, even though perhaps ones mind or ego obscures it from them. Truth is not found in mind or ego. It simply IS! We live it, eat it, sleep it, and breath it. We can all mentate over perceptions of it, and mispercieve time and again exactly what that truth is, but even this does not change it. It is what is and it is ALL that is. All IS truth, and All truth IS, but mind and ego. Even untruth is but a truthful acknowledgement of what is not truth and therefore nonexistant. Untruth does not exist anywhere but in our minds.
Every single person who has ever believed HIV causes AIDS, simply AGREED to believe it, whether they are aware that they personally agreed to believe it or not aware of their choice of agreement. Agreeing to believe or not believe something does not make it true. It would only make it one's perception of what truth IS.
Laura, you suggested or perhaps recommended that I leave the question of what is truth unto doctors or scientists? Are you gone completely mad woman? What do you think God bestowed me with my own mind for. To simply allow to be filled with the possible drivel of some other quite possibly educated idiot? If you wish to take no self responsibility for your own health and well being, or abdicate responsibility and turn that responsiblity over to others, well, that is certainly up to you. I seek a higher truth, thank you. That IS my God given right. If someone should follow me at their own choice and even to their own detriment, well that is just their own God Given right to choice, and YOU are no one to judge what is right for others. Although you have every right to speak your own belief, as do I. Perhaps you perceive yourself to be a better judge of truth than me? That is your opinion, and we all know the one about everyone having one.
And do tell me Laura, if you truly believed your community and friends were at danger from a belief that all of your own heart told you was false, would you not speak up? Would you ignore your own heart and just let them all be swept away by it without saying a word?
Have YOU bothered to become as informed as possible of other sides to this issue of HIV? I have, and read as much as possible on BOTH sides. And afterwards, I think for myself and reach my own conclusions. I have no need of someone else to tell me what to think or what to believe. Do you?
And Laura, my friend, as for the bittersweet I promised you? You said:
You have not quite achieved the status of the Budda
Tis true! But life is a journey, not a destination.
And this my friends, means it is time to bow out. To leave you all to your own journeys, your own lessons. The work that I set out to do here is done, which was but to share my own truth. I have shared with you my own truth, my own beliefs. I leave you to your own, and the consequence and experience of such. Disbelieve ALL that I have shared, and investigate all and think for yourselves. Believe no-man, not even lincoln. I have truly enjoyed all of you and all of the challenges that you have presented me, in the conversations on this thread. I shall be reading from time to time, but not joining in, as I know you all have what it takes to figure things out for your own selves, to decide what is right for your own selves. To decide what your own truths shall be. And I know you are all quite good enough, smart enough, and tough enough. Even tough enough to stand up and challenge lincoln. Thank you all, and you as well Tara, for the much appreciated opportunity to discuss some of these issues. I hope you found a word or two of it helpful in some way in the issues at hand, or in other aspects of your lives.
One is formed, known, and easily judged by one's chosen heros.
Thanks all,
Abraham Lincoln
http://sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/alincoln.html
Posted by: lincoln | August 20, 2006 6:30 AM
lincoln is quite strange. He has stated several times that all scientific institutes are, basically, filled with liars, and then claims some veracity to studies on malnutrition, poppers, etc, done by those same institutes. Quite odd, but it again demonstrates that lincoln has no objective criteria for evaluating information. Simply, source credibility is not important to him, nor is methodology, design, or analysis. lincoln demonstrates clearly, again, that his only criteria for new information is that it agree with his preconcieved notions, which were born out of his own ignorance and superstition many years ago.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 20, 2006 11:16 AM
Uh, Lincoln, if your main theory is that AIDS is caused by "sex+poppers", and helped along by AZT, aren't you a little troubled by the _FACT_ that it is trivially easy to find counterexamples that invalidate your pet theory ?
There are any number of AIDS sufferers that never took poppers, any of which who never took drugs others than coffee, alchool and cigarettes, and there are also a great many documented AIDS cases who never had sex, both adults and children. There are of course thousands of AIDS sufferers that never received AZT or other antiviral drug, and died of AIDS all the same.
What have all those sick people in common ? You guessed it, they all test positive for the HIV virus. How did they contract the virus ? Then again, in all documented cases, the HV infection can be traced to a handful of causes: sex with an HIV+ partner, blood transfusion from an HIV+ donor, sharing needles with an HIV+ junkie, or being born from an HIV+ mother without the benefits of antivirals. The common factor ? The HIV virus, as detected by an array of tests.
People that test positive for HIV are expected to develop AIDS in time, except for a handful of cases that are currently under study. People that are HIV free will stay HIV-free and thus AIDS-free as long they practice safe sex, (or unsafe sex with HIV- partners), and don't share needles.
You can stay in denial as long as you want, Linc, and we can shower you with any number of studies, and your answer will always be "I'm not convinced".
We can lead you to hospital wards were peoples are dying of AIDs, and you'll blame AIDS on the medication they take. We can lead you to South African wards, were peoples are dying on AIDS, and you'll blame it on antivirals: when informed that those particular people are not taking antivirals, you'll then blame it on "malnutrition", regardless that those particular South Africans never missed a meal in their lives.
You'll just keep on posting your denial, and heap scorn, insults, and accusations on other posters.
Posted by: _Arthur | August 20, 2006 12:06 PM
lincoln: "Studies exist on the effects of malnutrition.
Studies exist on the mutagenic nature of Poppers.
Studies exist on the toxicity of all HIV drugs.
Studies exist on the toxicity of various illicit drugs. (Let alone as I just mentioned above as to the unprovable effects of it on conscious awareness, leading often to more irrational and often destructive behaviors)
Studies exist on the hazard of overuse of antibiotics.
Studies exist on the immunologic lowering effects of stress, and fear."
Yep, but these factors don't kill CD4+ T-cells in a manner like that observed in AIDS patients and aren't communicable via blood transfer from person to person. The epidemiology of those potential causes doesn't fit the symptoms and the course of the disease exhibited by the patients. Those factors and combinations of these factors (except anti-HIV drugs*) were considered and eliminated early in the search because they couldn't account for the pattern of disease in a peculiar cluster of medical problems that appeared rapidly in the early 1980's. Instead, researchers found a retrovirus that had near perfect correlation with the cluster of symptoms and was predictive of who would likely succumb to AIDS in the future.
*Anti-HIV drugs were used *after* AIDS was uncovered so it's ridiculous to make a case that they were responsible for deaths prior to their use.
"The only ones who will not look upon THIS "mountain of evidence" are those that simply choose not to."
There are mountains of evidence. This evidence reveals that the potential causes you cite are neither necessary nor sufficient to predict the decline in a patient's immune system and depletion of T-cells that results in AIDS. These can be *modifying* factors in disease progression but they aren't, by themselves the core *intiating* or causal factor. The 'mountains' aren't where you think they are.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 20, 2006 12:10 PM
Leave lincoln to his energy, vibrations, magic, levels of conciousness, belief determines reality, and misinterpreting Payne (who would mock his superstitions) etc...
This isn't a discussion about the paranormal, but about evidence. Evidence is on the side of HIV being the causal agent of AIDS. Deniers can make all kinds of claims, from all scientists being corrupt to the non-existence of data already discussed.
They claim that the better hypothesis will win out in time. But this has already happened. The behavior hypthesis was left behind as data mounted demonstrating the superiority of the HIV hypothesis. Some don't want to accept this, which is at first, reasonable, but the point of reason has long since been passed. Most proponents of the pehavior hypothesis have moved on. Others find hangers-on and new allies among pseudoscience and snake oil salesmen. And some manage to convince actual patients of their beliefs, only leading to more suffering.
Posted by: Robster | August 20, 2006 4:33 PM
I vote Lincoln
Posted by: pat | August 20, 2006 7:34 PM
I vote Lincoln
----------------
Good for you. You can email Michael Geiger, aka lincoln, at mgeiger@simplyweb.net.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 20, 2006 10:59 PM
I just happened to run across the following today from Richard Dawkins 1982 book, "The Extended Phenotype", p. 115 wherein he quotes Maynard Smith from 1976 - "'It is the nature of science that once a position becomes orthodox it should be subjected to criticism'. This is, no doubt, healthy, but Smith drily goes on: 'It does not follow, that because a position is orthodox, that it is wrong.'"
Posted by: Tend Limes | August 21, 2006 1:15 AM
According to the pseudo-scientific hero Michael Crichton it does.
A lot of pseudoscience feeds off an uncritical reaction against science.
It should be pointed out that both evolution and the HIV causation of AIDS have been critcised over and over again. They have both withstood the criticism not because scientists are dogmatically censoring debate but because they are supported by the evidence.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 21, 2006 1:33 AM
Linc (or Michael) is no longer posting (though I'd wager he will change his mind on this) but in case he is reading - I agree with Robster who accuses him of twisting the intent of the great Thomas Payne who criticized organized religion, in favor of something he felt mankind could unite around - wisdom and common sense a brought about by the use of science. He did not feel that HE and what was inside his head were where his wisdom would solely come from but by the works of science of not only himself but of all scientists. And surely he would defer any of his "beliefs" to the wisdom of other scientists who were more expert in certain areas than he himself was. He may have disagreed, but he would either have done research himself to refute or would have persuaded an expert in the particular field to engage in the research that he felt would prove his point.
Michael Lincoln - you said that YOU KNEW that the HIV hypothesis was wrong 20 years ago, even before others had shown exactly why. How curious that your "beliefs" just happened to come true for you! Can you not see and accept that your "beliefs" are what causes you to accept the extreme minority judgment on this issue, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? This is not Payne. It's a pain! But you're worth it to me and you share an interest in enlightenment, so I continue.
Seth brilliantly pointed out the truth about you, if you're of a mind to consider it - "He has stated several times that all scientific institutes are, basically, filled with liars, and then claims some veracity to studies on malnutrition, poppers, etc, done by those same institutes". You can't have it both ways. Well, you CAN. But most of us aren't having it with you and you'll have to live with that until you do some irrefutable research that can bring us to some greater understanding than we've currently arrived at. I don't think science is always right, but I think it's always the right way to find out what is. So did Thomas Payne.
Tara, I'm the 600th post on this thread. What do I win?
Posted by: Tend Limes | August 21, 2006 1:41 AM
I retract my final sentence. Noble beat me to it.
Posted by: Tend Limes | August 21, 2006 1:46 AM
The prize for the 600th post was a book titled "1001 better things to do with your time than debating HIV 'rethinkers'".
I'll read it after my next post.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 21, 2006 2:21 AM
I'd send you a prize, but I'm not yet convinced that prizes exist, or if they're instead just a conspiracy by the entertainment industry.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 21, 2006 3:03 AM
I've been away from this board for a few days. And when the cat's away from home... But I don't intend to let all y'all get away with the nonsense that has been written.
But first I must express my appreciation for Lincoln, who has been valiantly fighting a lone battle against the flock from the Church of HIV/AIDS. He has done a marvelous job, so I expect that he will be banned soon...
Well, here we go:
Unsympathetic:
"In each step, controls and earlier experiments can be run to confirm reliability.
Emphasis mine. And that says it all. Actually "could be would even describe the situation better.
"It doesn't require 'faith'; The results are empirically accessible."
Oh, it's not the data that require faith; it's the interpretation.
"We can even establish geneological relationships between the viruses of infected partners."
See? That's what I meant. "relationships between the" WHAT?
We know, since we were told about the birds and the bees, that genetic material is transferred among partners, right?
Now if you state that it belongs to "the viruses", that requires faith.
"It is a competitive inhibitor (binding in place of the normal substrate) and a chain terminator, reducing the rate of viral transcription to DNA."
You just made that up. It sound plausible, because drugs such as AZT are nucleoside analogs. But the enzymologists I knew always purified their enzymes before they performed their kinetic studies. Not the down 'n dirty RT crowd. They measure their "HIV-RT" activity while they are stirring the contents of their cauldron. Wake up, guys: Measuring how much AZT is built into a DNA chain is NOT the same as studying the kinetics of an enzyme. The trouble with the HIV faithful is that they are making to many shortcuts in their thinking.
"Note that there are non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) that bind in a different place and are non-competitive inhibitors."
I KNOW there are non-competitive inhibitors (What is this: Enzymology 101?) Do you really think these stupid drugs are specific for "HIV-RT" (assuming this exists at all)? The host has its own reverse transcriptases. And what about the regular DNA-dependent transcriptases? Wouldn't they be inhibited by Nevirapine and its ilk?
Patients all react differently to drugs. Only when it's about patients who are seropositive and being treated with ARV's, unresponsiveness is interpreted as "resistance" of HIV, due to mutation. If you turn your ear towards Europe, I'll bet you can hear me laughing.
"Mutations that reduce binding to NNRTIs have also been isolated and characterized biochemically."
Uh-huh. Real chutzpah. My friend, they have not even been able to isolate, let alone characterize the wild type of HIV. And now you are trying to sell us the isolation of mutants? I'd really like to see a paper where they have accomplished that.
Now it's really getting crass:
"Yes, T-cells are hosts to the virus. Yes, the full length genome of HIV has been characterized (two copies of the RNA genome per viral envelope -- How did they figure that out for a virus that's never been isolated as a 'complete particle'? Go figure...) and no you won't find those exact sequences in high stringency Northern or Southern blots or in PCR amplification of human DNA from uninfected individuals, meaning it's not an endogenous, inherited sequence."
First of all: "HIV" has never been found in naturally occurring T-cells. The HIV illusionists can, however, grow something they say is HIV in a cell culture of cancerous T-cells (which are stimulated with a mitogen). From that "something" they can isolate RNA, which they can't work with because they lack the skills. So they reverse-transcribe it first to DNA. If the quantity is too small, they have to amplify using a number of PCR cycles. Then they have enough DNA that can be sequenced. And guess what: The sequences they find are not found in a cell culture inoculated with blood plasma from seronegative individuals...
So far so good. But then comes the conclusion: These sequences are not endogenous, and SO they must come from HIV WOW!! If a student had ever approached me with that kind of logic, I would have kicked him out of the lab.
Let's assume that they did proper control experiments on the pure uninfected cell culture, to show that these sequences did not come from the witches' brew itself: Does that mean the conclusion was correct? No, of course not. The only thing we know is that it's "something" exogenous.
Well, big freakin' deal! Don't we acquire all sorts of exogenous material every day? We eat food that contains bacteria and molds. Our intestine contains whole families of bacteria. We get stung or bitten by insects. We ingest worms from our house pets (mainly dogs). We get colds and the flu. And what about semen? Certainly that's exogenous, isn't it?
There are about 70 different factors that can cause a person to become seropositive. Several of these are viruses such as Herpes or Influenza. The presence of the antibodies ascribed (for no good reason) to HIV indicate that there's "something" different about these people. But if you want so bad that it is HIV, then it IS HIV, right? Just like a scared kid who sees the bogeyman everywhere. Bah.
"Yes, the reverse transcriptase treatment does work to convert viral RNA to DNA with known fidelity."
Oh, does it now? So it works with high fidelity when it's for an experiment that has to be pushed down our throats. But (according to Noble and friends) in the natural environment of our body, RNA viruses replicate with poor fidelity, and produce oodles of mutants. Do you really need to have it both ways?
"Yes, from people for whom RT inhibitor treatment is not blocking viral replication we can isolate high numbers of HIV pol clones from this process that carry mutations known from enzymatic and cell-based assays reduce the inhibition of the HIV reverse transcriptase enzyme.
Oh, come off it! You can't isolate Jack-youknowwhat from people. Not even from patients with full-blown AIDS. First you have to inoculate the witches' brew and say "Hocus Pocus".
"Dismissing the experimentally assembled and validated data as an artifact of something in a "cell-culture witches' brew" doesn't cut it in scientific discussion"
Where ARE these "experimentally assembled and validated data"? All they have been doing for 22 years is drawing conclusions on the basis of what they really should have been proving. And when I point at the holes in the reasoning they have the gall to wave the criticism away and demand alternative theories for which the critics have to provide proof (!) "We know we're right. This is how it is. And if you don't believe it, prove to us that it's NOT so".
That's science? Let these klutzes try to be useful members of society. Like street-sweepers.
"You also persist in the unsupported claim that there is no such thing as 'viral drug resistance' despite decades of work demonstating the contrary"
Decades of wasting tax money on dead-end project, you mean. "Viral drug resistance" is so completely off-the-wall that anybody who has the slightest notion of what viruses are, would laugh his ass off. Demonstrating it? Sure. Wait till you have a cold (or even the flu), and take a drug, any drug Big pharma recommends. It won't do any good. But after some time, the virus disease will go away by itself.
[Sarcasm]But the virus was resistant to the drug, now wasn't it?[/Sarcasm]
"Those sequences fit a pattern of horizontal transfer between infected individuals."
Sure, there are plenty of sequences available. You can always find one you like.
"Horizontal transfer"? You must be kidding. I... hardly dare to mention this... If Tara reads this, I may regret this... but...
Have you ever heard of Nancy Padian?
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 21, 2006 7:55 PM
Wilhelm, I haven't addressed one of your posts in a while so here goes:
"In each step, controls and earlier experiments can be run to confirm reliability.
W: Emphasis mine. And that says it all. Actually "could be would even describe the situation better. Actually "are" would be the proper descriptor. Admittedly not all science is adequately controlled or reproduced but enough of it is that the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS is still by far and away the one best supported by the data.
"It doesn't require 'faith'; The results are empirically accessible."
W: Oh, it's not the data that require faith; it's the interpretation. and yet the majority of scientists agree with the interpretation. Some would argue that is because the interpretation is the most logical interpretation.
"We can even establish geneological relationships between the viruses of infected partners."
W: See? That's what I meant. "relationships between the" WHAT?
We know, since we were told about the birds and the bees, that genetic material is transferred among partners, right?
Now if you state that it belongs to "the viruses", that requires faith. No, it doesn't require faith at all. If that genetic material can be shown, as it has, to be capable of directing the synthesis of new viruses. Even Peter Duesberg acknowledges that.
"It is a competitive inhibitor (binding in place of the normal substrate) and a chain terminator, reducing the rate of viral transcription to DNA."
W: You just made that up. It sound plausible, because drugs such as AZT are nucleoside analogs. But the enzymologists I knew always purified their enzymes before they performed their kinetic studies. Not the down 'n dirty RT crowd. They measure their "HIV-RT" activity while they are stirring the contents of their cauldron. Wake up, guys: Measuring how much AZT is built into a DNA chain is NOT the same as studying the kinetics of an enzyme. The trouble with the HIV faithful is that they are making to many shortcuts in their thinking. The enzymologists you knew purified their enzymes because they didn't have the techniques of molecular biology available to them just like Christopher Columbus spent months crossing the Atlantic in a tiny boat because that was the only way he had available to him.
"Note that there are non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) that bind in a different place and are non-competitive inhibitors."
W: I KNOW there are non-competitive inhibitors (What is this: Enzymology 101?) Do you really think these stupid drugs are specific for "HIV-RT" (assuming this exists at all)? The host has its own reverse transcriptases. And what about the regular DNA-dependent transcriptases? Wouldn't they be inhibited by Nevirapine and its ilk?
Patients all react differently to drugs. Only when it's about patients who are seropositive and being treated with ARV's, unresponsiveness is interpreted as "resistance" of HIV, due to mutation. If you turn your ear towards Europe, I'll bet you can hear me laughing. No real biochemist would make blanket statements about all transcriptases, let alone all reverse transcriptases, necessarily being responsive to the same drugs. Are all bacteria sensitive to the same antibiotics?
"Mutations that reduce binding to NNRTIs have also been isolated and characterized biochemically."
W: Uh-huh. Real chutzpah. My friend, they have not even been able to isolate, let alone characterize the wild type of HIV. And now you are trying to sell us the isolation of mutants? I'd really like to see a paper where they have accomplished that. And once again, mutants are isolated and characterized all the time. Just because you refuse to accept the techniques of molecular biology as a valid form of isolation doesn't mean the majority of scientists, again, including Peter Duesberg, don't.
W: Now it's really getting crass:
"Yes, T-cells are hosts to the virus. Yes, the full length genome of HIV has been characterized (two copies of the RNA genome per viral envelope -- How did they figure that out for a virus that's never been isolated as a 'complete particle'? Go figure...) and no you won't find those exact sequences in high stringency Northern or Southern blots or in PCR amplification of human DNA from uninfected individuals, meaning it's not an endogenous, inherited sequence."
W: First of all: "HIV" has never been found in naturally occurring T-cells. The HIV illusionists can, however, grow something they say is HIV in a cell culture of cancerous T-cells (which are stimulated with a mitogen). From that "something" they can isolate RNA, which they can't work with because they lack the skills. So they reverse-transcribe it first to DNA. If the quantity is too small, they have to amplify using a number of PCR cycles. Then they have enough DNA that can be sequenced. And guess what: The sequences they find are not found in a cell culture inoculated with blood plasma from seronegative individuals...
So far so good. But then comes the conclusion: These sequences are not endogenous, and SO they must come from HIV WOW!! If a student had ever approached me with that kind of logic, I would have kicked him out of the lab.
Let's assume that they did proper control experiments on the pure uninfected cell culture, to show that these sequences did not come from the witches' brew itself: Does that mean the conclusion was correct? No, of course not. The only thing we know is that it's "something" exogenous.
Well, big freakin' deal! Don't we acquire all sorts of exogenous material every day? We eat food that contains bacteria and molds. Our intestine contains whole families of bacteria. We get stung or bitten by insects. We ingest worms from our house pets (mainly dogs). We get colds and the flu. And what about semen? Certainly that's exogenous, isn't it?
There are about 70 different factors that can cause a person to become seropositive. Several of these are viruses such as Herpes or Influenza. The presence of the antibodies ascribed (for no good reason) to HIV indicate that there's "something" different about these people. But if you want so bad that it is HIV, then it IS HIV, right? Just like a scared kid who sees the bogeyman everywhere. Bah. HIV has been found in T cells from patients. It can be produced in larger amounts in a cell culture of cancerous T cells but it has certainly be found in patients as well. I like your statement "they isolate RNA which they can't work with because they lack the skills". Seriously, Wilhelm - if the virus uses reverse transcriptase to replicate, and it does, why shouldn't the scientists use the same approach? The sequences are not endogenous. So far so good. But you are leaving out the rest of the observation. The sequences are not endogenous. The sequences are only found (with a few rare exceptions) in people who have or go on to develop symptoms of a progressive immunodeficiency syndrome. And last but not least, the sequences, as purified DNA, can be introduced into cells that will then produce infectious virus. That last property, ability to produce infectious virus, distinguishes HIV sequences from semen or worms or any of the other agents you mention as being exogenously acquired. There have been reports of factors other than HIV that could cause seropositivity, especially on the early tests. However (i) improvements in the tests have reduced the false positive rate (ii) none of those factors cause false positives on PCR tests and (iii) false positives will usually serorevert upon retesting - true positives don't.
"Yes, the reverse transcriptase treatment does work to convert viral RNA to DNA with known fidelity."
W: Oh, does it now? So it works with high fidelity when it's for an experiment that has to be pushed down our throats. But (according to Noble and friends) in the natural environment of our body, RNA viruses replicate with poor fidelity, and produce oodles of mutants. Do you really need to have it both ways? Known fidelity, Wilhelm. Not high fidelity.
"Yes, from people for whom RT inhibitor treatment is not blocking viral replication we can isolate high numbers of HIV pol clones from this process that carry mutations known from enzymatic and cell-based assays reduce the inhibition of the HIV reverse transcriptase enzyme.
W: Oh, come off it! You can't isolate Jack-youknowwhat from people. Not even from patients with full-blown AIDS. First you have to inoculate the witches' brew and say "Hocus Pocus". You can isolate DNA from people. People with full blown AIDS and people who are not responding to the drugs. You can then introduce the mutations identified in those DNAs into wild type HIV and show that the mutant HIV don't respond to the same range of drugs that the patients themselves don't respond to. You can also use those assays to predict which drugs the patients will respond to. Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that is all coincidence?
"Dismissing the experimentally assembled and validated data as an artifact of something in a "cell-culture witches' brew" doesn't cut it in scientific discussion"
W: Where ARE these "experimentally assembled and validated data"? All they have been doing for 22 years is drawing conclusions on the basis of what they really should have been proving. And when I point at the holes in the reasoning they have the gall to wave the criticism away and demand alternative theories for which the critics have to provide proof (!) "We know we're right. This is how it is. And if you don't believe it, prove to us that it's NOT so".
That's science? Let these klutzes try to be useful members of society. Like street-sweepers. Where's the data Wilhelm? Try Genbank and PubMed. For starters.
"You also persist in the unsupported claim that there is no such thing as 'viral drug resistance' despite decades of work demonstating the contrary"
W: Decades of wasting tax money on dead-end project, you mean. "Viral drug resistance" is so completely off-the-wall that anybody who has the slightest notion of what viruses are, would laugh his ass off. Demonstrating it? Sure. Wait till you have a cold (or even the flu), and take a drug, any drug Big pharma recommends. It won't do any good. But after some time, the virus disease will go away by itself.
[Sarcasm]But the virus was resistant to the drug, now wasn't it?[/Sarcasm] Would that it were so, Wilhelm. Sadly, the mid 80s taught us how persons infected with HIV fare when they don't take drugs. The virus doesn't go away by itself. It goes on to infect their sexual partners.
"Those sequences fit a pattern of horizontal transfer between infected individuals."
W: Sure, there are plenty of sequences available. You can always find one you like.
"Horizontal transfer"? You must be kidding. I... hardly dare to mention this... If Tara reads this, I may regret this... but...
Have you ever heard of Nancy Padian? You mean Nancy Padian who found, among other things, that in a study of 400 HIV infected individuals, ~ 15% had HIV infected partners? 15% in a population where less than 0.5% of the general population was infected? Yeah, I've heard of her but I don't see anything funny about her data.
Posted by: Dale | August 21, 2006 9:51 PM
Lincoln,
I am not accusing you of being angry I was only saying that it is not a trait associated with an enlightened mind. Nor did I say anger is bad I was simply addressing how you feel your people have been harmed and you are obviously upset about it. Since we both agree that you are not enlightened it is a non issue so I will move on.
Second I never said that you should seek TRUTH from doctors and scientists only that you probably shouldn't offer medical advice since from my understanding you are not a doctor nor can you prove HIV is not the cause of AIDS. So before you claim Absolute Truths regarding causality I think you need some better evidence than belief.
You seemed to ignore where I think your beliefs could be useful though. Such as in being a mentor to teens perhaps helping them deal with coming out. Guiding them towards good choices so they don't use drugs or practice unsafe sex at bath houses for example. If you don't think that would be helpful that is your choice but I think it could be.
Third I am not judging you on your beliefs. I agree everyone is entitled to believe what they choose. I just don't believe that anyone on this Earth can truly know the Absolute Truths. It is all perception and it is unique to each individual. That is not to say that I don't think beliefs and spirituality can be good for health. I believe they are especially useful for coping in times of great stress and illness. However spirituality and belief cannot negate reality. Disease is reality whether we like it or not we cannot will it away with our minds. Since perception is so unique to each individual I believe data is our best tool for defining truths and the data supporting HIV as the cause of AIDS is currently the most supported explanation.
Finally I have not read Bialy's book because I am a full-time student and I work full-time so my time for reading outside of my studies is limited. I did do some reading at virusmyth though and it has not changed my beliefs. The most striking concept I have seen is how rethinkers tend to blame the victim for drug use and partying and how those who got sick and died before ARV's must have lied about these activities. Funny how the rethinkers don't seem to see a problem with these unnecessary deaths. Not to mention most of the examples of people who were harmed by ARV's never seem to have been drug users. Kind of coincidental don't ya think could they have lied too? Perhaps ARV therapy wasn't the cause of their ailing health maybe HIV was or maybe illicit drugs. To bad we will never know.
Like I said I am not here to pass judgement only to learn about a topic that interests me as I am very new to the rethinking movement. However IMHO I do think you could do more good counseling on healthy practices rather than dismissing the HIV paradigm because it seems to me prevention is key whatever you believe.
Posted by: Laura | August 21, 2006 10:12 PM
Wilhelm says:
"But first I must express my appreciation for Lincoln, who has been valiantly fighting a lone battle against the flock from the Church of HIV/AIDS. He has done a marvelous job, so I expect that he will be banned soon..."
Actually, if you read his final post, he banned himself!
He was fighting a lone battle here in a way analogous with all dissidents (in their few numbers) being relatively "alone". You can keep making the church comparison, but you know it's SCIENCE they are debating and the very same science that they quote as, if you will pardon this one, "gospel" - whenever it seems to suit them.
I wasn't swayed in the least by linc, and I'm a very open-minded guy, so maybe he wasn't doing a well as you thought. He is one very interesting cat though. In fact, I believe he may have retired from this discussion to finally GO DO THE RESEARCH that he thinks will ultimately vindicate his position. As you should.
Posted by: Tend Limes | August 21, 2006 10:50 PM
Correction to my last post I am not a rethinker I never realized there were people who questioned that HIV was the cause of AIDS.
Posted by: Laura | August 21, 2006 11:22 PM
Laura, there is nothing wrong with rethinking if that is what people are actually doing.
In 25 years the so-called "rethinking movement" has neither rethought its original position nor moved from it. They are still stuck in the same position they were 25 years ago. They just keep on going to more and more incredible lengths to protect their dogma.
Take the case of Raphael Lombardo. According to Duesberg in 1995 Rapahael Lombardo was a HIV+ person who did not take illicit drugs or ARVs and had not developed AIDS. As such he was evidence for his theory that HIV does not and cannot cause AIDS. When it was pointed out to Duesberg that Raphael Lombardo had in fact diedfrom AIDS in 1996 Duesberg changed his mind completely. Duesberg calls him a liar. Raphael Lombardo must have been taking drugs.
This should be a lesson to all HIV+ that are tempted to believe in Duesberg's lies. If you don't take illicit drugs and don't take ARVs but still die from AIDS Duesberg will call you a liar. He will make up stories about you taking drugs.
Raphael Lombardo is not the only case of revisionism. Various people have also accused David Pasquarelli, Jack levine and Huw Christie of secretly taking illicit drugs or ARVs.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 22, 2006 12:05 AM
"He has done a marvelous job, so I expect that he will be banned soon..."
----------
Notice the persecution/messiah thing. Goldshalk shows classic symptoms of someone infected by "denial" memes, common (I believe) to HIV denial, Evolution Denial, and Holocaust Denial. He also claims, consistently that he knows basic (insert science) better than a specialist in that field, because he is non blinded by their preconceptions. That is, he claims that "viral drug resistance" would be laughed at by anyone who has a clue what a virus is: thus labelling as clueless approximately 100% of all people who study virii for a living.
My favorite Goldshalk comment so far is the one where he said that Duesberg must have been "joking" when he said that HIV had been isolated by the best methods science had to offer. That showed another facet of this memeplex, the evaluation of "evidence" based on whether the evidence is consistent with a desired result, rather than based on source credibility, methodology, and so on.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 22, 2006 9:38 AM
I'd written: "It is a competitive inhibitor (binding in place of the normal substrate) and a chain terminator, reducing the rate of viral transcription to DNA."
Wilhelm writes: You just made that up. It sound plausible, because drugs such as AZT are nucleoside analogs. But the enzymologists I knew always purified their enzymes before they performed their kinetic studies. Not the down 'n dirty RT crowd. They measure their "HIV-RT" activity while they are stirring the contents of their cauldron. Wake up, guys: Measuring how much AZT is built into a DNA chain is NOT the same as studying the kinetics of an enzyme. The trouble with the HIV faithful is that they are making to many shortcuts in their thinking.
'Made it up'? Excuse me? No, I'm not the one who is making all this up and who hasn't followed the work in the field.
Well, Wilhem, maybe it would be useful for you to refresh your Enzymology 101.
First, they have purified the reverse-transcriptase of HIV. In fact they've purified the various resistant forms as well (Aside: Wilhelm, are you aware that the structures have also been published?). That's how we examine the mechanism and kinetics of the inhibitors and how one examines how the binding has changed in the mutant forms of the enzyme. And yes, AZT most definitely is a competitive inhibitor. Look up what a competitive inhibitor is in Segel or some other textook.
"Note that there are non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) that bind in a different place and are non-competitive inhibitors."
I KNOW there are non-competitive inhibitors (What is this: Enzymology 101?) Do you really think these stupid drugs are specific for "HIV-RT" (assuming this exists at all)? The host has its own reverse transcriptases. And what about the regular DNA-dependent transcriptases? Wouldn't they be inhibited by Nevirapine and its ilk?
The specificity of inhibitors can be determined both in vitro and in vivo. It's a useful though imperfect predictor of how well the drug will work in patients. Therapeutic windows may be narrow, and it can vary by patient which is why treatments should be monitored, but the data shows that HIV can be knocked down and extend the most patient's lives.
Patients all react differently to drugs. Only when it's about patients who are seropositive and being treated with ARV's, unresponsiveness is interpreted as "resistance" of HIV, due to mutation. If you turn your ear towards Europe, I'll bet you can hear me laughing.
A kind of desperate and certainly lonely laughter, I would venture, given that we can test for resistance prior to administering treatments. Funny how the pre-treatment measurement of resistance is such a strong predictor of how well the drugs can knock down viral levels in patients and affect the rate of progression to lowered CD4+ counts and AIDS. Who would have thought that mutations in an enzyme's sequence would affect the binding sites and activity? Who would have thought that you might be able to measure these things? I mean, besides just about every enzymologist...
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 22, 2006 10:02 AM
I wrote: "You also persist in the unsupported claim that there is no such thing as 'viral drug resistance' despite decades of work demonstating the contrary"
Wilhelm: "Decades of wasting tax money on dead-end project, you mean. "Viral drug resistance" is so completely off-the-wall that anybody who has the slightest notion of what viruses are, would laugh his ass off. Demonstrating it? Sure. Wait till you have a cold (or even the flu), and take a drug, any drug Big pharma recommends. It won't do any good. But after some time, the virus disease will go away by itself. [Sarcasm]But the virus was resistant to the drug, now wasn't it?[/Sarcasm]"
Have you done a search on the terms: "viral drug resistance". Pick up any hits with Hepatitis B virus resistance to Hepsera and lamivudine? How about H5N1 (influenza A) resistance to oseltamivir? Again, the molecular mechanisms of resistance to these compounds are known at the enzymatic level and have been characterized in labs and in the clinics. Again, you're making claims with no scientific basis.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 22, 2006 12:32 PM
Chris
Thanks for responding to me. I agree that there is nothing wrong with rethinking as long as you are actually doing research. I just wantd to clarify because if Lincoln responds he will probably turn it around that he has changed my my at some level which he hasn't.
I also noticed that the beliefs haven't changed over the past 20 years which doesn't demonstrate that any rethinking is actually going on. Just a lot of blame and conspiracy talk. However I have learned quite a bit from this site I appreciate the links to actual studies and although I am not a virologist or epidemiologist I try to follow along with the discussions on the actual science.
Posted by: Laura | August 22, 2006 8:00 PM
Laura writes: "I also noticed that the beliefs haven't changed over the past 20 years which doesn't demonstrate that any rethinking is actually going on."
Good observation.
The dissent beliefs aren't even coherent. HIV dissent can mean almost any combination of the following (this list is by no means exhaustive):
Regarding HIV...
HIV doesn't exist.
You can't find HIV in human tissue.
There are no pathogenic retroviruses.
HIV exists and infects humans but causes no harm.
You can find HIV in human tissue but the tests are completely unreliable.
The tests are reliable for the US population but not for other populations (insert your favorite third world country here).
HIV is just an opportunistic, 'passenger' virus that can infect people when they are immunocompromised.
Regarding AIDS...
There are no disease clusters. All the AIDS-associated diseases have been around for years -- There is nothing unusual or out of the ordinary that happened in the 1980s.
There are clusters of disease associated with immune system failure but they're unrelated.
Regarding HIV's role in AIDS...
The epidemiology of disease clusters and timings do not point to an infectious agent.
There is no blood-borne or body fluid-borne agent related to AIDS.
There is a connection between some of these disease clusters and blood, plasma and/or semen transfer. But it's not HIV.
It's caused by negative thinking.
It's caused by drug abuse.
It's caused by malnutrition.
It's caused by anti-viral medication.
It's caused by pollution.
HIV is not an predictor of immune system failure.
HIV is a predictor but it's either not reliable or it's not the causal factor.
HIV can't kill T-cells.
HIV can kill T-cells but not fast enough.
You'd think that you could put two AIDS dissenters in a room and they'd tear into each others' pet theory with gusto. Instead, many do not critically analyze the validity of each other's position. I think this is revealing because that is not what typically happens in a robust, scientific environment where there are multiple, competing theories. The dissenters are correct in one area, however: If this HIV/AIDS thing really was just an unsupported 'house of cards', the past 20 years and continuous scrutiny by thousands of research scientists should have hit at least one 'Achilles heel' by now, if not hundreds. In contrast, the dissenters have yet to produce or stand behind one coherent, solid, explanation for the diseases that holds up to scrutiny.
Of the dissenters, I think perhaps Root-Berstein was the most reasonable. He recognized and acknowledged the strong correlation between HIV and AIDS. His main beef was whether additional cofactors, in addition to HIV, were necessary to help deplete T-cells and cause a cascading failure of the immune system. Of course, his current work involves development of HIV vaccines and studies for mechanisms behind HIV killing of T-cells. So... I'd guess he wouldn't fit too well into the dissenter category anymore.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 22, 2006 9:33 PM
I am bowing out of this conversation as well.
I feel it is getting repetitive and tedious (Ok, it was kinda repetitive from 23rd post...). There is not a lot new to add and I'm not going to hold the hand of a former 'biochemist' and spoon-feed them stuff about modern biochemical techniques and basic enzymology that they should already know.
Chris, Seth, 'Tend Limes', Dale, Tara, et al.: you've been very patient with your recalcitrant students. Kudos to you!
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 22, 2006 9:48 PM
UR writes:
He is still proudly claimed as a "rethinker".
His current position appears to be that HIV causes the depletion of CD4+ cells and that infection with other pathogens effects the rate of progression to AIDS. This is indistinguishable from the "orthodox" position.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 23, 2006 12:50 AM
"The thing is, I've been where lincoln is, although not as deeply infected as he is. I've had his disease of denial, I know how hard it is to beat these bad memes."
[gasp!] What cured you, Seth? How many dollars?
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 23, 2006 7:56 PM
Peter Barber wrote:
"Apart from casting aspersions on their mental faculties, it suggests they don't care about their fellow human beings, to the point that they would deliberately inflict serious suffering and death on them. Such an accusation needs some evidence of intent. I think you have none."
I don't think it's so much a matter of intent. It's cowardice, plain and simple. I've seen enough examples of it during WW II, when I was a kid. Almost nobody had the courage to take part in the Resistance, although people were being deported and murdered. There's an apalling program of eugenics going on right now, under our noses. And again, nobody is protesting.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 23, 2006 8:09 PM
Seth wrote:
"Sadly, he fails to realize that the data in a study is not changed by his whims, fancies, or moods."
Oh, I've read a lot of recent papers on HIV/AIDS (wish I hadn't) Guess what? The data are usually OK. But it's always the interpretation that sucks. The authors (all 17 of them) go out on a limb, wiggling in the most impossible contortions to come up with conclusions that back up the HIV paradigm. Because that was understood when their study was funded.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 23, 2006 8:31 PM
"The behavior hypthesis was left behind as data mounted demonstrating the superiority of the HIV hypothesis."
In your dreams, Robster. The number of people who are now clearly seeing the hogwash, the deception, and the murderous slaughter with antiretroviral poisons, is iscreasing fast.
It won't be long now until Hatchet Day, when the gravy train stops.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 23, 2006 8:37 PM
"HIV denial, Evolution Denial, and Holocaust Denial."
You disappoint me Seth, that you have to drag this old strawman into the discussion again. I lived during the holocaust, so how could I deny that? I doubt if you experienced either one (evolution and the holocaust).
What's up next? Creationism?
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 23, 2006 9:00 PM
"It's cowardice, plain and simple. "
"when the gravy train stops."
"You disappoint me Seth, that you have to drag this old strawman into the discussion again"
----------
Notice that Goldshalk is playing the persecution card pretty hard, with several holocaust references to establish that he isn't a holocaust denier.
Naturally, no one ever said that he was. What was said was that the tactics of HIV denialism are strongly similar to those of holocaust denial. That is, there are structural similarities in the memeplexes. I think there is a link of some kind, but thats just an untested hypothesis.
Goldschalk takes the opportunity to again play the victim card, however, which is fairly predictable and consistent with the structure of HIV denialism.
Not satisfied with calling every scientist who disagrees with him clueless, we see Goldschalk return to the conspiracy theory, claiming that the majority of scientists deliberately skew their interpretation of data in order to placate the great pharma conspiracy, which has embarked on a program of eugenics, theoretically meant to kill off all the gay people or dark-skinned people or something.
So, essentially, in order to believe Goldschalk, you must believe that a statistical totality of scientists who study infectious disease in any way, and who study AIDS, are aware that HIV does not cause AIDS. Further, these scientists are so greedy that they are willing to lie about that and deliberately produce studies that they know will result in the deaths of thousands, if not millions, in order to get a little research funding. Why do they have to do this? Because for reasons that are somewhat mysterious, big Pharmaceutical companies (who also know AIDS is a myth) want these people dead. Goldschalk will claim its a profit thing, but this is clearly silly: living patients who feel okay but not great would be much more profitable. So there must be some hidden agenda, like: kill all the gay and black people.
So, big pharmaceutical companies want to kill all the gay and black people, and the entire scientific and medical community of planet earth (again, entire in a statistical sense, like, 99.9%) is willing to help them kill people in order to make a little money.
Does this seem even moderately feasable? When they are perfectly free to just study something else? Given the shit salaries in immunology compared to say, biotech, this is highly unlikely.
Also, Goldschalk again makes the claim, with his "interpretation" bit, that he is more qualified than almost every virologist in the world. Why? Because many people do not study AIDS and have no stake in his crazed conspiracy theory, and they think HIV causes AIDS. So they are either in on it (now he has entire biology faculties are engaged in a conspiracy to commit mass murder) or they are utter fools compared to Goldschalk.
You need a planetwide conspiracy and a lot of completely stupid scientists to make this work, and that is consistent with the typical denialist type argument.
This style of argument is also broadly similar to a jeremiad... he even has the prophecy bit where he declares that the chosen people will be led to freedom...
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 23, 2006 10:38 PM
Noble says: "Raphael Lombardo is not the only case of revisionism. Various people have also accused David Pasquarelli, Jack levine and Huw Christie of secretly taking illicit drugs or ARVs."
Let's not forget the people who are taking their meds, are healthy, and are thus accused of NOT REALLY taking their meds and lying about it. A La Magic Johnson.
Posted by: Tend Limes | August 23, 2006 11:53 PM
Seth Says:
"So, essentially, in order to believe Goldschalk, you must believe that a statistical totality of scientists who study infectious disease in any way, and who study AIDS, are aware that HIV does not cause AIDS."
Earlier Wilhelm said:
"The number of people who are now clearly seeing the hogwash, the deception, and the murderous slaughter with antiretroviral poisons, is iscreasing fast."
The problem, for me, Wil is that you are RIGHT however the rapid increase is due to the internet and the "beliefs" of non-scientists. There really has been no "fast increase" of change among researchers in the field. When there is, then you have something to talk about. Until then, you really are just saying the same stuff you've said for 20 years and I for one am not buying in.
Posted by: Tend Limes | August 24, 2006 12:40 AM
Tend Limes wrote:
"The problem, for me, Wil is that you are RIGHT however the rapid increase is due to the internet and the "beliefs" of non-scientists. There really has been no "fast increase" of change among researchers in the field."
You're right about that. But you're not really so naive to believe that I am writing all this to convince researchers in the field? No, they know which side of their bread is buttered. They will never admit that they're working on a bunch of pseudoscientific nonsense. They don't want to lose their funding, or even join the ranks of the unemployed.
You'd be surprised at the overwhelming majority of Russians, living under Stalin in the old Soviet Union, who would swear on a stack of books by Lenin and Marx that communism was the greatest system on earth. That was the safe thing to do at the time.
But, although I am answering posts by paid activists and corrupted scientists here and on other boards, I am not really addressing them. I know I'll never "convince" them anyway. No, I'm addressing that whole crowd of lurkers in the background. The lay persons who would like to know what's really going on, but don't dare to ask.
The paid activists and corrupt scientists won't change their minds until Hatchet Day, when a raucous mob is banging on their doors with axes, demanding to know why so many innocent and ill-informed victims had to be killed with irresponsibly toxic chemicals, supposedly inhibiting a virus of doubtful existence. And why a whole generation of young people had to be deprived of a healthy and enjoyable sex life. Why newborn babies had to be poisoned, and their mothers harassed endlessly.
I don't know when the grand public will realize they've been had (again). But the day will come. And I hope the perpetrators won't get away with it.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 25, 2006 8:19 PM
"There are any number of AIDS sufferers that never took poppers, any of which who never took drugs others than coffee, alchool and cigarettes, and there are also a great many documented AIDS cases who never had sex, both adults and children. There are of course thousands of AIDS sufferers that never received AZT or other antiviral drug, and died of AIDS all the same."
Uh, Arthur...
As the number of diseases that are called "AIDS" has been steadily increasing (there were 29 when I last looked), it becomes easier and easier to find anecdotal cases where somebody who lived like a monk died from one of them. If you call every sickness "AIDS", then everybody will die of AIDS.
It's very important to never allow yourself to get tested. If you do, you're marked for life, and when you die (as we all will one day), your cause of death will be marked as "AIDS". Even if you were shot to death.
"What have all those sick people in common ? You guessed it, they all test positive for the HIV virus. How did they contract the virus ?"
Beg your pardon? They all test positive for antibodies against a bunch of proteins in a kit patented by Robert Gallo. Positive for HIV? That's a big jump to conclusions. If that's supposed to be science, deal me out.
Of course all these people are seropositive. That's why they were counted as AIDS-patients in the first place. Completely skewed cohort. But you know: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
And by the way: Did you notice all these sick people had a nose? Maybe having a nose causes AIDS...
"People that test positive for HIV are expected to develop AIDS in time, except for a handful of cases that are currently under study. People that are HIV free will stay HIV-free and thus AIDS-free as long they practice safe sex, (or unsafe sex with HIV- partners), and don't share needles."
Yes, that's a good summary of the paradigm. And we'd better believe it, OR ELSE. But please DO shower us with studies, to back up your big mouth, Arthur. I've taken more of them apart than I care to remember. I especially love the ones written by 14 authors or more.
I don't doubt that there are sick people in hospitals. And also in countries where there's malnutrition. But the people who are living happily, in perfect health (seropositive or not) are the ones who DON'T take ARV's. I know many of them. And I take a dim view of people who lure others into letting themselves be poisoned to death.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 25, 2006 8:56 PM
Wilhelm writes And by the way: Did you notice all these sick people had a nose? Maybe having a nose causes AIDS...
And maybe you could draw that conclusion if having a nose was a characteristic of sick people not shared by well people. But it isn't, is it? The vast majority of people, sick or well, have noses. In contrast, the vast majority of those with progressive immunodeficiency have HIV while the majority of the population who don't have immunodeficiency are HIV negative.
Posted by: Dale | August 25, 2006 9:59 PM
Wilhelm: Resistance members in Nazi-occupied Europe faced, as you say, deportation or murder. HIV/AIDS dissenters face... the ability to promulgate their views widely on the Internet, and accuse everyone else of being dupes or shills.
It's not quite the same, is it?
Over and out.
Posted by: Peter Barber | August 25, 2006 11:49 PM
OK, at the risk of taking the bait, DB, whoever, what sort of experiment/natural experiment would convince you that HIV causes AIDS? What would researchers have to do to convince you? Hypothetically.
If nothing could make you change your mind...
Sketch it briefly
Posted by: rob-ot | August 26, 2006 12:01 AM
Not content with playing the Hitler Card, Goldshalk plays the dreaded super duper mega powerful all encompassing STALIN CARD!
Of course, notice he is even more explicit now: AIDS researchers are nothing more than hired assassins who deserve to be killed. At least he's honest about where he stands.
This is a serious charge, and the lurkers should really think about what Goldshalk is saying. See that picture of Tara at the top of the page? That nice young lady, according to Goldshalk, is a ruthless, lying, mass murderer, and so are all her colleagues. Almost everyone in the field of biology must be in on this in order for his theory to work.
As has already been covered by other posters, these mass murderers have nothing to fear if they drop out, study another area, or just break ranks and tell the world what is going on. They will not find themselves stripped of life or property, they will merely have to find a different job, which is not all that hard.
Goldshalks theory just makes no sense. It is absurd to argue taht there is a vast cabal orchestrating the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, and that virtually everyone who studies HIV is in on it. How on earth do they recruit? When a new graduate student (who is, if nothing else, out to clear some space at the top) gets a hold of this, do they make them take a secret oath or something?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 26, 2006 1:33 AM
And I'll remind Wilhelm once again that I and many other people who support that HIV causes AIDS have never received a dime of "AIDS money." So he has to assume that anyone receiving research funding from *anywhere* somehow must pinky-swear that they'll uphold HIV causation of AIDS or else lose their money and position. But no, it's not a conspiracy theory....
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | August 26, 2006 2:47 AM
Peter Barber writes:
That's not entirely true. There are cases of HIV/AIDS dissidents being kidpnapped and secretly detained by the police just because the dissidents were telling the truth about HIV/AIDS in a totalitarian country.
Except maybe this isn't what Godschalk meant.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 27, 2006 9:46 PM
Anyone on this thread still claiming that debating denialist is boring?
Posted by: pat | August 27, 2006 9:59 PM
Only since the early 1990's.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 28, 2006 10:21 AM
However, the psychology *is* interesting and it does in very many ways parallel debates with creationists.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | August 28, 2006 10:24 AM
Debating denialists is boring.
Posted by: argystokes | August 28, 2006 11:58 AM
"It is absurd to argue taht there is a vast cabal orchestrating the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, and that virtually everyone who studies HIV is in on it. How on earth do they recruit?"
Very simple, Seth. Stalin did it like this: Shoot half the people, and tell the other half they will be shot too if they don't cooperate. Of course, it is not done in such a bloody fashion in our civilized world, but the priciple is similar:
Strip half the biomedical scientists of all funding, and tell the other half that they won't see another penny if they don't tow the party line. In a grand conspiray not everybody needs to be a co-conspirator. Lots of scared people will do just fine.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 28, 2006 8:22 PM
Hi Dale! I feel I've neglected you a little, because of lack of time. I was planning to react to your reaction to my long post, but never got to it. Well, there's a new issue now:
"In contrast, the vast majority of those with progressive immunodeficiency have HIV while the majority of the population who don't have immunodeficiency are HIV negative."
Of course I realize that the example of having a nose, leading to disease, is ridiculous. But I came up with that to illustrate that a lot of studies I've seen fail to run control experiments. And in many cases they really correlate a property that occurs across the board with a rare event they are studying.
But back to your statement I quoted above: It sounds so reasonable, but it's the reverse of what they are actually doing: In reality, they first test for antibodies. The individuals who test negative, are sent home, happy. The unfortunate souls who tested positive are subjected to T-cell counts. If they come up low, they say "Ah! You see? You have HIV!" But... but... They did already conclude that when they did the serological test. They just formed a nice biased cohort. The ones they tested for immunodeficiency all came from the seropositive group. A self-fulfilling prophesy.
If it really were as you stated, they should have done it the other way around: Test a large randomized group for immunodeficiency, and split up the population into two groups, one with high T4 counts, and one with low counts. Then test each group for antibodies. I'll bet that wouldn't come out so clearcut.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 28, 2006 8:50 PM
"HIV/AIDS dissenters face... the ability to promulgate their views widely on the Internet, and accuse everyone else of being dupes or shills."
You're right, Peter, it's not quite the same as facing the firing squad. Maybe we've become a little more civilized after all (though I doubt it). True, we can (still) spout our views on the internet, which is not that easy to control. There we find lots of shills opposing us, just to keep the big shots out of the firing line. (Has anybody seen Tony Fauci around here somewhere?)
On the other hand, the other media are solidly locked up to dissidents. Radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, scientific journals: Forget it. Public appearances: Not a chance.
Although... I did get a chance to hold a speech in Brazil, last year. My last, I'm sure. The organizers who invited me got sued by the state health dept., and I'm sure they won't invite me again.
But none of the dissidents got shot or tortured yet, that's true. When one of us dies, though, no matter of what cause, the orthodoxy dances on his grave, cheerfully chanting: "Ha! He died of AIDS! We told you so!".
But the "nice" way we're being treated (Oh thank you! Thank you for not torturing us!) may be changing soon. Mark Wainberg, the most despicable sourpuss I've ever seen, has already expressed his desire for incarcerating the "evil" people (such as Peter Duesberg) who deny the HIV?AIDS paradigm. Every morning, just before dawn, I expect a heavy knock on my door now.
Posted by: Wilhelm Godschalk | August 28, 2006 9:19 PM
"In a grand conspiray not everybody needs to be a co-conspirator. Lots of scared people will do just fine."
-------------
Goldshalk has a weird definition of conspirator. According to him, all biologists are willing to keep silent--while all AIDS researchers promulgate a secret program of murder and deception on a global scale--in order to share profits.
Sounds like conspiracy. Goldschalks dissembling aside, his position continues to require tens of thousands of people to engage in or turn a blind eye to a program of systematic deception and murder... even if their own sources of funding are not AIDS related.
Chaired professors, tenured professors dying of cancer, independently wealthy PhDs, people with nothing to lose: they are all, in Goldschalk's bizzarro universe, keeping this grand secret, lest the great pharma companies cut their funding! Researchers who have lost family, friends, loved ones, lovers to this disease? Apparently, they know its all a big lie, knew it while their lovers were dying, but they keep the killing machine alive and stay silent, lest the great horrible pharmas and the evil NIH somehow find out and cut their funding.
And why do the pharms want to do this? When it is dangerous, stupid, and less profitable than almost any other course of action? Who knows... in the Goldshalk universe, no one worries much about motive, science, or sanity.
Not to mention that non-AIDS researchers are free to say just about anything. Duesberg gets funding in other areas, just not AIDS research. Apparently, he is the only biologist in the world who is willing to get funding, keep his position, write best selling books, and make a fortune. The rest of them are too scared of... something. The bogey man, perhaps.
But hey, this isn't a conspiracy theory.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 28, 2006 10:44 PM
Godschalk's supposed conspiracy would have to extend to scientists in countries such as China, Russia, Cuba etc in addition to France, Germany, Holland, Canada, Australia, Brazil .......
Isn't it amazing how much power Gallo and Fauci have around the globe.
Posted by: Chris Noble | August 28, 2006 11:21 PM
I confirm:
France, Germany and Holland all have their Gallos and Faucis well installed in high places. The Wainberg kind of hatred is all around too.
Together with many people, I keep throwing lots of rotten tomatoes at them but they just don't seem to notice. Recently I figured that tomato juice might not matter much on suits that are already stained with blood. Maybe I should try rotten eggs, might be more succesfull.
Take care all of you. And to the denialists: don't be too rough with the dummies. Every time I read this kind of "discussions" I feel pity for their total disability to recognize logic when it bites their ass. Please don't rub it in too hard.
JS
---
www.nightsofarmour.com
Posted by: jspreen | August 29, 2006 11:29 AM
Ah... our old friend jspreen, who doesn't believe in pathogenic causes of disease at all. Apparently, he feels a kinship with the HIV deniers, most of whom are of the opinion that he is barking mad.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | August 29, 2006 2:16 PM
Hi Gang,
Especially Wilhelm. Still going at it with Chris and Dale, I see, plus a few other friends of theirs. Maybe Seth - I do appreciate "barking mad" - can ask Chris or Dale if anything I posted in the other thread resembles their strawman, Creationism, but I see here that Holocaust Denial is the big issue. Let's be sure and not leave out hollow earthers as well.
Or what's another catch phrase ... lying ...
And who can the brave and bold Unsympathetic be? I will congratulate Chris for posting at Truthseeker's site and defending his obsession with the flat curve's mathematical precision which everyone seems to get at this point doesn't exist. And the not trivial donnybrook there over MTCT. So now I have to catch up on all these wonderful threads ... or maybe ... too boring at this point ...
Hey Seth and Unsymp, why don't you - brave warriors that you no doubt are - as you gang up on Wilhelm here, take a walk on the wild side at newaidsreview, or better yet, Barnesworld, where there's more action on such subjects as PCP non correlation with HIV right from the paper of experimentalists. Yeah, people who actually measure sterols of PC.
Posted by: Gene Semon | September 2, 2006 7:31 PM
if anything I posted in the other thread resembles their strawman, Creationism,
------------------
Here, we see relative newcomer Gene ask if anything he posted IN A COMPLETELY different thread resembles something in this post, as if that is somehow relevant. Apparently, we're supposed to scour the internet for all possible denialist posts before responding to the ones we have here.
Gene, you also misuse the term "strawman". While it has been pointed out that there are similarities between the arguments of HIV deniers and other anti-reality positions, the actual positions and statements of HIV deniers on this thread are what has been refuted, not the positions and statements of creationists or whomever.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | September 3, 2006 2:32 AM
For the rethinkers, would you be willing to be infected with HIV for an experiment? Why, or why not?
Posted by: Rob-ot | September 4, 2006 12:02 AM
Gene writes:
I think that most people do not have the masochistic streak that I have.
Anybody that wants to can read the dialog in question here
The Duesberg Fallacy
What follows is the mathematically inept attempting to defend the indefensible.
The most noteworthy aspect is that the "rethinkers" have at least two mathematicians in their ranks but none of them came forward to point out the errors in Duesberg's statistical tomfoolery.
Why is that?
Why doesn't Rebecca Culshaw comment? Why can't she admit that Duesberg makes serious mathematical error?
My IP address is now being blocked from posting to the blog and I am not about to use "rethinker" tactics of using an anonymiser to circumvent this nor am I going to use a pseudonym.
So what is the outcome?
None of the "rethinkers" have really admitted to the mathematical mistake inherent in the Duesberg Fallacy. Most of them still insist that in some way Duesberg is still correct. The few that have sufficient mathematical training choose not to comment on this issue. They neither admit to the error nor attempt to refute anything that I stated.
The likely outcome is that in a few months or a few years a new batch of "rethinkers" will read Duesberg's articles and be convinced by the Duesberg Fallacy.
The German language has a good word for this activity - Sisyphusarbeit.
Posted by: Chris Noble | September 4, 2006 12:54 AM
Chris,
I can't believe they banned you over there. So they can dish it out but they can't take it. Even I found flaws in Duesberg's statistical analysis which doesn't say a whole lot for their math apptitude.
Anyhow I was wondering if anyone over here can elucidate on why Duesberg and Bialy believe that HIV is not special and cannot be latent for many years. From reading Duesberg's articles it seems to me its because they don't want it to be. There argument was only special viruses do this such as herpes but from my understanding others do as well. I mentioned the JC virus and CMV and noone acknowledged it. I know for a fact that JC Virus is latent in the normal population and only causes problems for the immune suppressed such as in AIDS and also caused a temporary recall of Tysabri due to 3 cases of PML. Can anyone offer any insight or a good place to look on why retroviruses cannot do this? I want to know if I am really out in left field and it didn't warrant a reply or if they just don't have an answer. Thanks for any help.
Posted by: Laura | September 4, 2006 3:12 AM
Laura,
Duesberg's assertion that viruses cause disease immediately or not at all is more a royal fiat than anything corresponding to reality.
Viruses don't particularly care what Duesberg says they can or can't do.
There are many viruses that cause persistent infections. It is important here to distinguish between latent and chronic infections. In latent infections there is very little viral replication until reactivation. In chronic infection there is continuous viral replication. HIV is a chronic infection.
"Rethinkers" conflate clinical latency with viral latency. HIV is replicating and casusing the depletion of CD4+ cells continuously during the asymptomatic stage. It is only when CD4+ cell counts have decreased to low levels that the risk of opportunistic infections increases to the point where most people get seriously ill with AIDS related illnesses.
HIV also causes CD4+ cell loss during acute infection. In almost all cases CD4+ counts rebound before slowly decreasing again during the asymptomatic stage. Duesberg's claim that nothing happens during acute infection apart from mild flu-like symptoms is not true.
I really have no explanation of why Duesberg clings to the idea that viruses cannot cause disease long after initial infection.
In a bizarre display of cognitive dissonace he often cites this book Fenner, F., McAuslan, B.R., Mims, C.A., Sambrook, J., and White, D.O. The Biology of Animal Viruses. New York: Academic Press, 1974. as support for his stance although it contains a chapter on persistent viral infections and contradicts his claims.
As an aside, Frank Fenner also deliberately infected himself with myxoma virus in order to disprove public concerns that this virus was dangerous to humans something that Duesberg has failed to do with HIV.
People have been pointing out the errors in Duesberg's statements for decades.
Many viruses are highly pathogenic after evidence of immunity appears. For example, reactivated herpes zoster virus causes shingles, and reactivated herpes simplex virus causes local lesions as well as lethal necrotizing encephalitis; moreover, hepatitis B virus causes chronic active hepatitis, equine infectious anemia virus causes anemia, and visna virus causes central nervous system degeneration after the appearance of specific neutralizing antibodies (3, 9). (The last two viruses are lentiretroviruses as is HIV.) These diseases also can have long and variable latent periods.
Duesberg still clings to his beliefs.
Posted by: Chris Noble | September 4, 2006 4:56 AM
Thanks,
I was a confusing latent and chronic and obviously there is a huge distinction between the two. I don't buy Duesberg's arguments because they don't make sense. However, I conceed I do not have the knowledge base to hold my own at NAR.
Posted by: Laura | September 4, 2006 1:49 PM
Chris,
Firstly I do not believe you are banned. I will ask if this is true.
Secondly you know exactly why Duesberg hasn't infected himself yet and any one with any google powers can go find exactly why he says he is not doing it yet. I wouldn't expect you to be honest enough to actually add his comments on that issue because otherwise it ceases to function as an ad-hominem and you say you are so against them aren't you?
And now that you and Laura have thoroughly debunked Duesbergs math, can you please show me which set of stats YOU use for your modelling and please provide me with a reason why you chose those specific numbers as opposed to the myriad of other inter-conflicting studies. Can you also please verify mathematically ,for my benefit, why it is that "WE ALL HAVE AIDS". Are we all going to die of Aids or is the "WE ALL HAVE AIDS" just nothing but a really stupid slogan/mantra with no basis whatsoever in statistical/medical truth? Bag on Duesberg's math all you like but the world doesn't need a mathematician to explain to them why HIV/AIDS is a dead issue. We have been fed mathematically-flawed hysterical scare stories for 25 years now and the world is definitely showing signs of "Kriegsverdrossenheit" in this WAR against an invisible epidemic (a little German Wurst for you there).
You want to know what a Sisyphusarbeit really is? The search for an HIV-AIDS vaccine!
Posted by: pat | September 4, 2006 4:36 PM
Chris, it seems you are telling an untruth regarding being banned or even filtered on any thread of the www.newaidsreview.org thread of: http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1155530746.shtml
or any other thread on that site. Perhaps it was a computer glitch on your part. The administrator at NAR also said he has not recieved any notice from you that you could not post there. Otherwise this will be construed as blatant untruth and lack of integrity. If it is such, hopefully this lack of integrity in stating a blatant untruth does not extend to the information you put in your posts, although it leaves all of your posts open to questionable integrity until you clear up the matter.
Meanwhile, here is the information directly from PNAS, in response to your post above:
Intervals of 2 to 15 Years Between Infection and AIDS Are Incompatible with
HIV Replication
If cytocidal viruses or retroviruses cause disease, they do so within 1 to 2
months of infection (23 , 86 ). By that time, the host's
immune system either eliminates the virus or restricts it to latency, or the
virus overcomes the immune system and kills the host. Indeed, clinicians
have reported that, in rare cases, HIV causes a disease like mononucleosis
prior to immunity, presumably due to an acute infection (23 ,
69,
130 , 186 ). Since this disease correlates with viral
activity (69 ) and disappears within weeks as the body develops
antiviral immunity, it may reflect the true pathogenic potential of HIV.
Considering that HIV replicates within 2 days in tissue culture and induces
antiviral immunity within 1 to 2 months (19 , 23 ,
69,
130 ), the inevitably long and seemingly unpredictable intervals,
ranging from 1 to 15 years (20 , 35 , 37 ),
between the onset of antiviral immunity and AIDS are bizarre. The average
latent period is reported to be 8 years in adults (21 ,
33-38)
and 2 years in children (21 , 36 ). Indeed, at least 2
years of immunity is required before AIDS appears in adults (7
, 38).
If one accepts that 50-100% of antibody-positive Americans eventually
develop AIDS (7 , 20-22 , 33-37 ), the average
1.5% annual conversion corresponds to grotesque viral latent periods of 30
to 65 years. These intervals between HIV infection and AIDS clearly indicate
that HIV by itself is not sufficient to initiate AIDS. Because all genes of
HIV are expressed during the early immunogenic phase of the infection, AIDS
should occur at that time, rather than years later when it is latent
(23).
In an effort to rationalize the long intervals between infection and AIDS,
HIV has been classified as a slow virus, or lentivirus (40 ), a
type of retrovirus that is thought to cause disease only after long
incubation periods (129 ). Yet there are no "slow" viruses. Since
viral nucleic acids and proteins are synthesized by the cell, viruses must
replicate as fast or faster than cells (i.e., within hours or days) to
survive (86 , 87 ).
Nevertheless, as pathogens, viruses may be (*i*) fast in acute infections
that involve many actively infected cells, (*ii*) slow in subacute
infections that involve moderate numbers of actively infected cells, or (*
iii*) asymptomatic and latent. Retroviruses provide examples of each
different pathogenic role. Acute infections with the "slow" Visna/Maedi
retrovirus of sheep, a lentivirus, rapidly cause pneumonia (131 ),
and those with equine anemia lentivirus cause fever and anemia within days
or weeks of infection (132 ). Such infections typically generate
titers of 104 to 105 infectious units per milliliter or gram of tissue
(132,
133 ). The caprine arthritis-encephalitis lentivirus is also
pathogenic within 2 months of inoculation (134 ). Acute infections
with other retroviruses also rapidly cause debilitating diseases or cancers
(23 ). This includes retrovirus infections that are now considered
to be animal models of AIDS, termed simian or feline AIDS (12
, 23,
30 , 111 , 135 ). Unlike HIV in AIDS, these
viruses are all very active when they cause diseases, and the respective
diseases appear shortly after infection (23 ). In rare cases, when
antiviral immunity fails to restrict Visna/Maedi or other retroviruses, they
persist as subacute symptomatic infections (3 , 86 ,
129,
133 ). Under these conditions, Visna/Maedi virus causes a slow,
progressive pulmonary disease (129 , 133 , 136)
by chronically infecting a moderate number of cells that produce moderate
titers of 102 to 105 virus particles per gram of tissue (136 ).
However, in over 99% of all Visna/Maedi or caprine arthritis-encephalitis
virus infections, and in most equine anemia virus infections, the retrovirus
is either eliminated or restricted to latency by immunity, and hence
asymptomatic, exactly like almost all other retroviruses in mice, chickens,
cats, and other animals (23 ). For instance, 30-50% of all healthy
sheep in the U.S., Holland, and Germany have asymptomatic Visna/Maedi virus
infections (129 , 137 , 138 ), and 80% of
healthy goats in the U.S. have asymptomatic caprine arthritis-encephalitis
virus infections (133 ) in the presence of antiviral immunity.
from Duesberg, PH, *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*, *86*, pp. 755-764, February
1989
Posted by: Michael | September 4, 2006 6:20 PM
Yesterday, I tried to post a message responding to NAR regarding your description of your personal experience. When I attempted to submit this message I received a message that my IP had been banned.
I tried once more and got the same message. I then concluded that I had been banned.
I tried again today and my post got through. It is therefore possible that the problem was indeed a computer glitch and I apologise for jumping to conclusions.
Posted by: Chris Noble | September 4, 2006 8:50 PM
Michael,
The article does not disprove my point that a virus can remain in the body as a chronic assymtomatic infection. JCV and CMV are both chronic infections that normally do not harm their hosts. Infection can be identified via antibody testing however that does not indicate whether or not the host will ever suffer an acute infection. The virus particles are undetectible in the blood so originaly the only confirmation of infection was biopsy of the infected organ. Now with PCR scientists are able to detect the viruses earlier and treat with antivirals.
Considering my interest in MS I know more about JCV than CMV. JCV normally hides in the kidneys and the brain. Even when infectous the viral titres are rather low which is why PCR is so helpful in making prompt diagnoses of PML. I have done some further reading today and found a press release of a study published this month in the Journal of Aquired Immunodeficiency Sydromes regarding lymph nodes in the gut being principle resevoirs for HIV. I admit I don't have access to the journal to read the study but it made me wonder if perhaps the low levels of the virus in the blood are because the virus is hiding in the gut (where we haven't been looking). If that's the case then it would't be unlike JCV which is undetectable in the blood and virtually undetectable in the CSF without PCR but still deadly. So can you tell me why high viral titres are necessary for infectious HIV but not for other viruses?
Posted by: Laura | September 4, 2006 9:53 PM
Neither do any of the other people posting at NAR. What they can do is regurgitate arguments form Duesberg and other chosen authorities that have already been refuted time and time again.
Ultimately it boils down to "Duesberg said it, I believe it, that settles it".
The events at NAR demonstrate this cult-like behaviour.
Posted by: Chris Noble | September 4, 2006 10:15 PM
"Ultimately it boils down to "Duesberg said it, I believe it, that settles it".
Not really Chris. It's more like HIV/AIDS said it, then it said it differently and then it did otherwise and then said it yet again differently, that settles it.
Posted by: pat | September 4, 2006 10:49 PM
"Meanwhile, here is the information directly from PNAS, in response to your post above:"
---------------
What I love about that post from Michael is that it requires no understanding on his part at all, just the ability to cut and paste. He can't explain WHY that information is relevant to the discussion, or respond to Laura's statement that it isn't relevant to her point, because he doesn't actually understand it.
Oh, if anyone wants an example of a strawman, read Pat's post, the bit where he asks about the phrase "We all have AIDS." No one here has argued that we all have AIDS, or that we are all going to get AIDS. Pat sets up a caricature of the HIV/AIDS position and then attacks it by saying it isn't supported. That is a strawman.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | September 4, 2006 11:19 PM
Seth,
"We All Have AIDS" is a slogan and not even mine (and I didn't say it was yours); HIV/AIDS and Co. set itself up there. Sorry if it flew above your head. Nice try though. Perfect example of an argument "falling" onto your keyboard, heard somewhere blurted out by someone else and you merely repeating it...reminds me of that "creationist" Zombie Tara's so in love with.
And Seth, I was addressing CN who seems to have abandonned the thread at NAR and now tried to set up this "strawman" by:
1) Accusing NAR of banning his IP on this thread:
"My IP address is now being blocked from posting to the blog..."
2)then proceeds to attack "rethinker" tactics by stating:
"...and I am not about to use "rethinker" tactics of using an anonymiser to circumvent this nor am I going to use a pseudonym."
But you would know that would you?...
PS: is the opposite of "re-thinker" an "atrophied-thinker" or a "one thought wonder"?
Posted by: pat | September 5, 2006 1:19 AM
Pat,
Just to clarify I never said I debunked all of Duesbergs math. I said I found flaws in his anlysis and I meant regarding the Concorde study which I posted at NAR. Specifically that he compared the fatalities between two groups without accounting for the size of each group. Thats all. I haven't even attempted to figure out the probablity of infection nor have I posted on the topic.
Posted by: Laura | September 5, 2006 1:19 AM
How many of you are HIV positive? How many of you high and mighty pundits live every day with fear that any runny nose, stomach cramp, headache, or sore throat is THE AIDS and the THE END is near?
For 20 years as an every-six-month-tester, thank-GOD-it's-still-negative! gay guy, I lived with this fear.
For the last six months this fear has been magnified by the dreaded TEST result gleefully recited POSITIVE by the "counselor" who left me alone to tremble with ashen face and shaky knees as I yelped the words, "I need water," and busy Gay and Lesbian Center employees rushed about with great self-importance.
You, HIV-ers, you, AIDS-lovers, you, you are a sorry bunch. You do nothing useful; you never actually show anybody anything about being well, getting well, or living life to its fullest. All you do is incessantly rant about the latest bullshit mutant discovery, blog on and on about an ever-growing array of "anti-virals" that cause buffalo humps, heart disease, liver failure, face deformation, and old grey skin. Do you call that helping?
Thank God I decided that this HIV scare would be no different from the other situations in my life, where I saved myself from incompetent "professionals" who doubted my own conclusions based upon my own feelings in my own body, my own thoughts in my own head.
I would research first. Foremost, I would not jump into a "regimen" and be led like a lost boy along the road to "adherence."
There was a nagging voice that kept asking, "If there is no cure, and the virus is always fatal, and anti-virals don't cure HIV, nor decrease infectiousness, then why the hell would I be interested in all those PILLS that cause all those side effects?
I don't feel sick, and never felt sick, or acute, or whatever the freaking term is you HIV storytellers use to describe the unholy SEROCONVERSION.
Well put your pens down, take off your glasses, loosen your tie, undo the knot in your head, look out the window, and think for a moment.
When you're ready to actually pay attention to someone truly in the "field" - someone truly qualified to talk about HIV, you will hear me clearly. I don't want your help. I have never taken your AIDS drugs, and I am not interested, but thanks for offering.
I am a thriving, living, person, and NOT a PWA. I am not ill, nor have I suffered any of those AIDS infections, except for the 3 or so I had over the 20 years when I was -gasp- NEGATIVE.
My CD4 count is stable, and NORMAL, and it never was anything but NORMAL, as the doctor said, there is "NOT ONE abnormal result." My weight is stable and healthy, and my life continues, unimpacted, as two doctors agree. THanks be to God he gave me a brain. One doctor, meaning well, tried with a perfunctory, "Wait...we can..uh... do things." "What things?" I ask. I don't need any "things" thank you very much.
Attention AIDS lovers, I will not adhere to your insane suggestion that I take some DNA altering pills that won't cure HIV, nor prevent AIDS, whatever that may be, and isn't certain to do anything but give me loose bowels, gaunt jowels, or to take the cushion off my ass and put it in my back. I like my butt, and I like my jaw line, and my back, that's nice too. Certainly it's my body and I'd like to keep it that way.
The unsung heroes of the AIDS century are clearly those genuine and humble scientists who want to uncover the TRUTH, who don't claim to know all the answers, who admit they are ignorant, and who stand up for a CONTINUING pursuit of proven knowledge, even if it disproves an earlier belief.
As a gay man you can imagine, (in the words of the inimitable Whitney Houston, said to some vapid news hostess) "I HAVE partied."
Do I feel resentment towards someone who suggests that certain party favors may cause changes in my cells that can generally be reversed? NO! Of course I don't. I knew exactly what I was putting up my nose; I'm not proud of it, but I won't wear HIV-branded blinders. How laughable it is. All those years of partying and -gasp- unsafe sex- oh my! - never saw me seroconvert; it wasn't until I decided to settle down and be monogamous was I served the cursed news. How's that for irony!?)
HIV/AIDS lovers, please spare us all the high-mindedness, and please don't try to speak for me, gay 37 year old "poz" guy who is fine and isn't on your pills, won't ever be on your pills, and who doesn't require any of your time. It's a shame untold billions have been spent on AIDS when we all knew sleep and nutrition were not optional.
Still reading? There must be a conference you should be attending. You better check your calendar. Do you want me to call you a cab?
Go find something to do in life where you can really make a difference if that is what you want to do. It certainly isn't HIV and AIDS. These I think have overstayed their welcome. The market is SATURATED.
Congratulations on your attention span, and thanks for reading. NNTR.
-Kirk Cordell
P.S. I am using my real name, not a pseudonym like Pharma-fuck or whoever s/he is.
P.P.S. Lay off the gentle woman, Rebecca Culshaw. Don't be so vicious! Be decent to one another for the sake of humanity.
Posted by: Kirk Cordell | September 28, 2006 3:26 AM
Notice how Kirk insults everyone freely, denigrates their life work, calls them stupid, insults people profanely, and then closes with "be decent to one another."
Priceless. Truly priceless.
Kirk also has no facts, studies, or evidence of any kind to support any of his allegations. His sole claim is that he personally isn't sick. Of course, this isn't unusual, people frequently feel just fine when they test HIV positive, no one denies this, but our super-thinker holds up this single unremarkable fact as his evidence that the AIDS research community is a sorry bunch.
Brilliant. Just... brilliant.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | September 28, 2006 9:13 AM
Yes, Kirk's comment "Don't be so vicious! Be decent to one another for the sake of humanity" is a suitably ironic end to a vicious, indecent inhumane post.
Posted by: DDS | September 28, 2006 11:01 AM
""We All Have AIDS" is a slogan and not even mine (and I didn't say it was yours); HIV/AIDS and Co. set itself up there. "
-----------
Hey Pat, I just noticed this.
Um... no. You said: "Can you also please verify mathematically ,for my benefit, why it is that "WE ALL HAVE AIDS"."
This is a straw man, you are postulating that Chris has put forth that position, supports the slogan, or is in any way involved with that statement, when in fact you cannot demonstrate that anyone on this board has ever put forth that position or agrees with that slogans use. You are creating an inaccurate caricature of the opponent and then attacking it.
You are also caricaturing the slogan itself, the actual campaign is "if one of us has AIDS, we all have aids." Which is not meant to imply anything about the transmission of AIDS, merely about the impact. So, you are setting up two strawmen, not one.
Its like shooting fish in a barrel.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | September 28, 2006 12:34 PM
shooting HIV/AIDS is like shooting fish in a barrel. They're just in denial that they are dead.
Posted by: pat | September 28, 2006 7:53 PM
Seth,
Nowhere did I call anyone stupid. As to your other comments, I am a 'layperson' who is speaking from direct experience over 20 years of being inundated with doomsday HIV media madness. My facts are firsthand from my interactions with HIV positives, and from the last six months as a "poz" guy myself.
I didn't go through any "acute" phase, and six months into "it" my t-cell counts are rising, and "viral load" is nominal, and I am healthy and even gaining some weight (time to hit the gym!)
On the other hand, during the years as a "negative" I came down with at least 3 of the "AIDS defining illnesses."
There is strong evidence that HIV does not cause AIDS based on solid research by the Perth Group and many other leading scientists. The recent research out of Chicago that "viral load" doesn't impact CD4 t-cell counts is another piece of evidence that HIV doesn't kill CD4 cells.
Statements from Kary Mullis, founder of the PCR technique, and numerous other scientists shed serious doubt on the flawed HIV / AIDS diagnostics and overall on the HIV / AIDS linkage.
Finally, my post was an emotional account of my personal experience over 20 years as a "negative" and then 6 months as a "positive." I wasn't writing a white paper for publication (although I dare say my subjective prose has more truth than much of the academic research that has been exposed as faulty and unsubstantiated by research).
Rather than focusing on an absent bibiliography of my personal story, it would behoove you and the rest of the AIDS-lovers to consider the real lives of untold thousands and millions who are not part of the AIDS establishment, and who quietly live healthy lives after an HIV positive diagnosis, and yet who never went on AIDS meds.
Of course, it is in these millions of stories where the truth lives, and over the coming years as these stories are told, the imaginary HIV/ AIDS theory will be further discredited.
Not AIDS! Find answers to questions you never you knew you had. NotAIDS! Eliminating AIDS, one mind at a time. http://notaids.com
Posted by: Kirk | November 4, 2006 1:31 AM
Perhaps one day science may acknowledge and encompass underlying spiritual causes for medical and physical phenomena, and more closely tie psychological and emotional drives as initiators of disease. Then, by addressing these, treat the physical illness to create wellness.
An interesting article is at http://www.louixdordempriey.com/article12.html
Posted by: James | December 3, 2006 9:23 PM
"Perhaps one day science may acknowledge and encompass underlying spiritual causes for medical and physical phenomena"
We, that is humans, tried that for the first few thousand years we were sentient. It didn't get us much except average lifespans of a few decades, very high rates of infant mortality, high levels of chronic and debilitating diseases even in the young...you get my point.
Although some disease is clearly exacerbated by, or even caused by, mental/spiritual issues I think humanity as a whole would be better off if Louix and his ilk accepted at least some of what scientists have learned in the past few hundred years.
D
Posted by: DDS | December 3, 2006 9:37 PM
It appears the germ theory deniers are the AIDS believers, how odd.
Posted by: no | February 7, 2008 7:51 AM