HIV/AIDS and viral load

Ah, another day, another paper for the anti-HIV establishment to glom onto and misrepresent.

Last week’s issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association published this paper examining the relationship between HIV load and CD4 T-cell decline:

Context Plasma human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) RNA level predicts HIV disease progression, but the extent to which it explains the variability in rate of CD4 cell depletion is poorly characterized.

Main Outcome Measures The extent to which presenting plasma HIV RNA level could explain the rate of model-derived yearly CD4 cell loss, as estimated by the coefficient of determination (R2).

Results In both cohorts, higher presenting HIV RNA levels were associated with greater subsequent CD4 cell decline. In the study cohort, median model-estimated CD4 cell decrease among participants with HIV RNA levels of 500 or less, 501 to 2000, 2001 to 10 000, 10 001 to 40 000, and more than 40 000 copies/mL were 20, 39, 48, 56, and 78 cells/µL, respectively. Despite this trend across broad categories of HIV RNA levels, only a small proportion of CD4 cell loss variability (4%-6%) could be explained by presenting plasma HIV RNA level. Analyses using multiple HIV RNA measurements or restricting to participants with high HIV RNA levels improved this correlation minimally (R2, 0.09), and measurement error was estimated to attenuate these associations only marginally (deattenuated R2 in the 2 cohorts, 0.05 and 0.08, respectively).

Conclusions Presenting HIV RNA level predicts the rate of CD4 cell decline only minimally in untreated persons. Other factors, as yet undefined, likely drive CD4 cell losses in HIV infection. These findings have implications for treatment decisions in HIV infection and for understanding the pathogenesis of progressive immune deficiency.

The deniers, of course, have taken that last portion, twisted it, and used it like they used the Padian paper: to somehow suggest that the HIV–>AIDS paradigm isn’t true, and experts are just “bunglers.” More on what the actual research shows–and what the study authors say about their paper–below.

I’m not going to extensively review the paper, as that’s already been done here:

It’s well known (at least among those who bother to read and understand the literature) that those people with higher viral loads tend to progress faster, as was shown by John Mellors back in the mid 1990s using the large Multicenter AIDS cohort study (MACS).

This study took things one step further. They replicated the original findings of Mellors by showing again that viral load roughly predicted how fast AIDS occurred in another large cohort composed of people from 3 seperate study sites. For example, in this new paper people with viral loads less than 500 had an average loss of CD4 cells of 20 per year whereas those with viral loads over 40,000 had an average loss of 78 a year (with a smooth change for values inbetween). Basically this data proved that viral load was a reasonable predictor of rate of progression! They compared this analysis with the original MACS cohort and it looks practically identical!

But then they tried to look at the individual rate of progression of each member of the cohort. Unsurprisingly they found that the rough-and-ready estimates of progression rate within a subgroup varied from one individual to another. When they ran complex statistical analysis on the effects of viral load on THIS data they found that only about 5-6% of the inter-individual variation can be explained by the initial viral load. In another words, while viral load predicts that you WILL lose CD4 count, and you can give an AVERAGE loss of CD4 cells per year based on that count, you can’t say for sure what the ACTUAL loss will be for any one person very accurately.

As Nick mentions, these new findings nicely replicate the earlier research correlating a higher viral load with decreased CD-4 T cell count–confirming its use as a surrogate marker for disease progression. So what we’ve got here is a new paper that agrees with the older literature–how and why are the deniers spinning this? They’re focusing on the last paragraph Nick describes, and using it to suggest that because it’s much more difficult to predict at the individual level exactly how much CD4 loss will correlate with viral load, well, the whole thing must just be bunk! What they apparently don’t realize is that again, this is common in most studies looking at predictive criteria such as these. For example, on average, elevated blood cholesterol levels correlate with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). But, one person may have very high blood cholesterol level and show no signs of disease, while another may have fairly low cholesterol and still have CVD. It’s always tougher to apply these population-based measurements at the individual level, since population-based data by their nature average out these individual variations.

What the deniers are also crowing about is the number cited: that “about 5-6% of the inter-individual variation can be explained by the initial viral load.” This, indeed, has clinical implications, as the paper notes in the discussion:

The clinical implications are that in the majority of cases, an individual patient’s plasma HIV RNA level at the time of presentation for clinical care cannot predict, to a significant extent, the rate of CD4 cell decline that he or she will experience over the subsequent years and is therefore of limited clinical value in shaping the decision to initiate antiretroviral therapy. This is despite the fact that a group of individuals with an approximately similar level of plasma viremia will, on average, tend to lose CD4 cells at a faster rate than another group with a lower level of viremia, a previously reported finding that stands uncontested by our results.

Again, this also emphasizes the need for more research on other factors that drive CD4 cell decline in order to have a more robust picture of disease pathogenesis and progression (something certainly not unique to HIV by any means; we don’t have a full understanding of this in any disease I can think of). However, for deniers, these “gaps” in the research are somehow a sign of a failed paradigm, rather than a typical result of novel studies into the area. As Darin Brown over at Barnesville (now “Hank’s ‘You Bet Your Life'” and apparently a group effort by a number of deniers) sneers regarding the new paper:

Now, after 25 years of very expensive research, ‘they’ have arrived at the conclusion that 90% of what we always thought was the most important factor (loss of CD4 cells) can’t be accounted for by the amount of HIV (assuming the viral load test is even accurate in the first place).

Nevermind, the fundamental assumption cannot be wrong. We just need billions and billions more dollars to figure out the ever more enigmatic mechanisms by which HIV is responsible for CD4 loss while only 10% is accountable for by viral load. Just give us more money, and we’ll produce as many “mysteries” as we please, and you pay for.

Nick addresses the actual ramifications of this paper, and the type of thinking espoused by Brown and others:

It should also be mentioned that viral load isn’t used as a clinical criteria for starting treatment unless the load is very high and the CD4 counts are equivocal. Viral load is almost exclusively used for monitoring response to therapy on the individual level, so inter-individual variability isn’t an issue anyway.

This result is very important in that it highlights the need to investigate other factors important in triggering or controlling rate of progression to AIDS, but it won’t really change the current paradigm in terms of understanding AIDS pathogenesis, nor will it change current treatment guidelines, because neither depends on the idea that HIV viral load is the be-all and end-all of AIDS.

Except of course, that it is in the minds of the dissidents.

Finally, as with the aforementioned Padian paper (that we discussed ad nauseum here), the PI of this study, Michael Ledermen of Case Western Reserve University, has words for those deniers who’d use this research as some kind of blow against the HIV –> AIDS paradigm:

The idea that our findings published today in JAMA can be taken to support the concept that HIV is not the cause of AIDS is ludicrous. The role of HIV as the cause of AIDS has been proven over and over again. Clearly the people who are misrepresenting our work are not only incapable of clear thinking, they are also apparently unable to read.

Not that being unable to read or follow the logic of a study has stopped them before, and it’s certainly not stopping them this time either. Expect to hear more “HIV load doesn’t have anything to do with AIDS!” in the future.

References

Rodriguez et al. 2006. Predictive Value of Plasma HIV RNA Level on Rate of CD4 T-Cell Decline in Untreated HIV Infection. JAMA. 296:1498-1506. Link.

Comments

  1. #1 dale
    October 2, 2006

    Darin Brown isn’t the only ‘scientist’ over at Hank’s blog posting arguments that could be knocked over by any reasonably rational person with a modicum of scientific knowledge. Rebecca Culshaw apparently believes that HIV diagnoses are racially motivated because more blacks are diagnosed than whites and Andrew Maniotis chooses to ignore, among other things, the characteristics of T cells that require them to be activated to grow in culture.

  2. #2 DB
    October 3, 2006

    Please stop by and add something to the conversations…

    http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/

    http://newaidsreview.com/

  3. #3 DB
    October 3, 2006

    Dr.T.,
    with so many diseases and germs you could blog about, you spend a disproportionate amount of time on AIDS, and specifically on things said at Barnes-ville. Looks like you’ve got an axe to grind.

    Also, the more infallible and impervious to scrutiny you attempt to make AIDS science, the less believable you become. Carry on.

  4. #4 S.P.
    October 3, 2006

    DB – this is Dr. T’s BLOG, it is not an encyclopedia of infectious disease. Therefore, there is no such thing as a “disproportionate” amount of time for Dr. T to spend on AIDS. She blogs about subjects of interests to her, and many of us read her blog regularly to learn more about the science of diseases which she chooses to address. I’ve never noted any attempt by Dr. T to represent any science as “infallible” or “impervious to scrutiny.” You are welcome to read this blog regularly and see for yourself, or to “Carry on” with off-the-cuff and illogical commentary.

  5. #5 Tara C. Smith
    October 3, 2006

    Darin, I suppose it’s too much to ask of you to address my actual *points*, rather than simply suggest I’ve got “an axe to grind?”

    Indeed, AIDS is an interest of mine–as is HIV/AIDS denial, and science denial in general, as you well know. And please, quote me where I’ve ever, ever suggested that AIDS science, or any science, is “infallible and impervious to scrutiny.” Quite the opposite–I’m all for skepticism and questioning, but what I refuse to do is misrepresent the science and the scientists, as y’all are so fond of doing. Funny how you completely ignore Dr. Lederman’s interpretation of his own study–but again, not altogether surprising.

  6. #6 Brian
    October 3, 2006

    Axe to grind? Well, let’s see – people like Duesberg and the other HIV deniers were responsible for giving Mbeki the “scientific” backing to deny antiretrovirals as a matter of course to HIV-infected pregnant women. The effectiveness of these drugs in reducing vertical transmission can approach 50%. The birth rate in South Africa is 18/1000, and the population is 43 million, giving ~700,000 annual births, or 2.1 million over the three-year span. If 25% of mothers were HIV-infected and the vertical transmission rate is 25% (conservative with breast-feeding added in), then ~130000 children were infected by this route from 2000-2003. 65000 infections, then, were completely preventable.

    It’s impossible to say how much Duesberg and his ilk were responsible for those 65000 children. As a guess, 5-10%, maybe? Well, then that’s only 3-6000 children that they killed. And that’s just in this one scenario. So, yeah, I think that this is definitely a fucking ‘axe to grind’ situation.

    Maybe I’m being unfair. My numbers here are ignoring drug trials that definitely lowered this number a bit, and nowhere near 100% of pregnant HIV-infected women would have access to these drugs even if Mbeki had been something other than an incredibly short-sighted idiot. But it angers me so much that people like Duesberg are essentially gambling other (poor, black) people’s lives because they couldn’t get grants anymore. Or they distrust ‘Western’ medicine. Or any number of equally stupid reasons, given that the evidence for HIV=AIDS is virtually smacking them in the face.

  7. #7 quitter
    October 3, 2006

    Of course he won’t address your actual points, he’s a denialist.

    This is just the typical tactics of people who argue when they have no data and not a leg to stand on. In this case, poisoning the well/ad hominem or any other typical form of illogical argument to throw people off the scent of your bullshit.

    They’ll never show any data, or at least they won’t do it without misrepresenting it in a way that either the original author didn’t intend, or to make it conflict with the huge body of research that shows HIV is causitive for AIDS. This is the selectivity tactic of the typical denialist. Most people don’t really understand that scientific theories aren’t based on one paper, but a body of literature. This obsessive focus and nitpicking and amplification of minor problems is just so typical of the unscientific illogic of the denialists.

  8. #8 DB
    October 3, 2006

    Thanks, guys,
    your responses let me know that I’ve struck a nerve.

    In other words, I’m right.

  9. #9 Tara C. Smith
    October 3, 2006

    How odd that you equate “striking a nerve” with “being right.” If I insult your mother and “strike a nerve,” does that mean I’m right with my insult? It really is a bizarre world you live in, Darin.

  10. #10 quitter
    October 3, 2006

    AAHHAHHA!

    My head just exploded from the stupidity of that denialist piece of crap response.

    There’s just no point arguing with them. They simply won’t present data, they will not argue logically. And then, after such a glorious piece of illogic as that, he(she?)’s probably thinking that was a real score. Helluva response there Brownie.

    Just reject their crap out of hand as denialism and be done with them. You might as well argue with the guy yelling on the streetcorner about the microchip in their brain put there by the FBI. It’s just crazy talk.

  11. #11 pat
    October 3, 2006

    perhaps we should wait for a coherent HIV=AIDS explaination before letting our heads explode in laughter at the “crazy talk”. The last laugh is always the best laugh.

  12. #12 Orac
    October 3, 2006

    Thanks, guys, your responses let me know that I’ve struck a nerve. In other words, I’m right.

    Wrong.

    Your argument is pretty pathetic and shows that you clearly have little or no knowledge about biomarkers.

  13. #13 Orac
    October 3, 2006

    Let’s try it again, this time with the link not mangled. That’s what I get for posting before looking at a preview ;-)

    Thanks, guys, your responses let me know that I’ve struck a nerve. In other words, I’m right.

    Wrong.

    Your argument is pretty pathetic and shows that you clearly have little or no knowledge about biomarkers.

  14. #14 Tara C. Smith
    October 3, 2006

    There’s just no point arguing with them. They simply won’t present data, they will not argue logically. And then, after such a glorious piece of illogic as that, he(she?)’s probably thinking that was a real score. Helluva response there Brownie.

    Just reject their crap out of hand as denialism and be done with them. You might as well argue with the guy yelling on the streetcorner about the microchip in their brain put there by the FBI. It’s just crazy talk.

    I agree with most of this, but it’s not about getting them to change their minds. Ain’t gonna happen. I address their nonsense because there are a lot of people out there who stumble upon these questions, and don’t know what to believe. Contrast the response from Orac, Nick, or myself regarding this new research to Darin’s “I struck a nerve so I’m right” comment. It won’t convince Darin, or Hank, or others, but it exposes the vacuous nature of their position to interested lurkers.

  15. #15 quitter
    October 3, 2006

    Tara,
    We’ve ended up having this discussion before about the importance of arguing these issues. Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that you get the good word out. I’m mostly just talking about the process of debunking this stuff and some things to avoid.

    For one, I would avoid directly arguing with them. It’s like seeking out arguments with trolls. Each argument they make will just be another illogical distraction from the main points, will devolve into innanity, and serve to distract from a valid discussion of the facts. They really are not worthy of direct engagement, because the denialists really are a big nuts, especially on HIV/AIDS denialism.

    Second, I think when you initially debunk the papers the use of a denialism detector is helpful because it means you don’t have to do 10x as much work debunking their lies. It’s a bit of a timesaver. Because, after all, they’re just going to rearrange the words tomorrow and say the same BS over again. If you have to address their arguments from scratch each time, it becomes a bit onerous.

    Third, I think that the invention of the denialist technique to attack and politicize science is its own nasty problem. I don’t believe this tactic is very old, it sounds like it was created by the cigarette companies when they were trying to spread disinformation on carcinogenicity of their product. So, it’s a relatively new tactic, but many groups are using it quite effectively to create false policy debates over established science. I feel as though we would do ourselves good to attack this type of illogic as a separate thing with the perhaps overoptimistic goal of preventing these types of arguments from being used in the first place.

    They are trying to create a debate in areas where the debate is over, the tactics they use are those of denialists, the arguments people use when they have no data, and not a leg to stand on. That’s what I’m trying to attack, the generation of “debate” from thin air itself.

  16. #16 Wilhelm Godschalk
    October 3, 2006

    To set the mood, let me start out with a couple of quotes from two Nobel laureates:

    “A goodly number of scientists are narrow-minded, dull and stupid.” – James Watson

    “We’re not laughing at AIDS, we’re laughing at you.” – Kary Mullis

    I’m reading so much crap from people toeing the party line, that it’s time again to jump into the fray.
    Tara and her pack of sycophants allege that we ‘denialists’ emphasize the lack of correlation between “viral load” and progression to AIDS. Well, not really; we don’t need to. Why would we do that, while we can attack the central dogma itself? Namely, the correlation between low CD4 cells and AIDS or any other disease. Why bother with a small load of crap while we can go after the big heap?
    This whole idea of T-cell depletion being responsible for progression to AIDS rests on a coincidence: The man who invented AIDS, Michael Gottlieb (in my opinion one of history’s worst criminals) just happened to be an immunologist MD. He noticed that all (that’s all five) of the first patients he examined, were low in T-cells. So he declared this first epidemiological cluster to be suffering from GRID (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency). If had been a podiatrist, he might have invented GRFS (Gay-Related Flatfoot Syndrome). I hate to think what he would have invented, had he been a proctologist.

    We are continuously accused of never presenting any data. Where would we get the money to pay for the necessary studies? The HIV/AIDS syndicate (the provider for the scientists referred to in James Watson’s quote) won’t give a penny to anybody who wants to do a study where the conclusion (HIV causes AIDS) has not been stipulated from the start. But we denialists are smart people: So we use the data from the orthodoxy. There are hudreds of thousands of papers on the subject (written by millions of authors). Usually the Introduction already points out what they intend to find. The Materials and Methods section invariably gives away the plot, how we are being bamboozled. The section Results is not so bad, most of the time. We can live with that. But the Discussion always reads like a Manifesto of the ruling party, also known as blah blah, blah.
    So we use these papers to show time and again where the flaws are. And it also seems to be necesary to remind the HIV-hustlers time and again of the fact that “HIV” has never been isolated. And even if they do have a virus (or a multitude of them) in cell cultures, these klutzes don’t seem to mind that the cells used are cancerous T-cells (with a mitogen added). These cells thrive, while HIV is supposed to kill T-cells in one way or another. These are crucial points, but they are constantly being glossed over.

    I read a tearful post somewhere in this thread with a calculation about how many mothers in Africa transmit “the virus” to their babies, and how many lives are being lost by not treating them with antiviral poisons from hell. The calculation is fully based on the dogma that the drugs save lives, and whoever doesn’t us them, dies. We’re talking now about abominations such as AZT and Nevirapine! Drugs that have not only been shown to be ineffective, but also very dangerous. All these pregnant women and young mothers with their babies are getting cruelly murdered with these infernal poisons. And then this character who wrote that post (don’t even remember who it was) has the gall to turn the facts around, and accuse Duesberg of being reponsible for so many deaths! Now really, that’s chutzpah! Why do you want to kill off so many people? Do you think there are too many babies born in Africa? Maybe so, but I’d hate to leave the birth control to the likes of you. They must be paying you very well.

  17. #17 Pinko Punko
    October 3, 2006

    Wilhelm, thank God there are infinite numbers of words in the world, you’d otherwise use them all up. In a way, I very much enjoy your blathering. I’m reading your online manifesto, you know. It is a classic.

  18. #18 Seth Manapio
    October 4, 2006

    Why do you want to kill off so many people? Do you think there are too many babies born in Africa? Maybe so, but I’d hate to leave the birth control to the likes of you. They must be paying you very well.

    ———————

    Ahh… where would we be without Goldshalk? Who would tell us about the great drug conspiracy to kill off all africans? Who would tell us that Duesberg is joking about the existence of HIV? Who would let us know about the evil intentions of the HIV/AIDS syndicate (whoever the hell they are supposed to be) without Goldshalk, the man who sees through everything! Apparently, there are now MILLIONS of people in on this conspiracy… millions! Writing hundreds of thousands of papers, these millions… and they are all part of the conspiracy!

    Wow.

  19. #19 Charles Hoy
    October 4, 2006

    Apparently, there are now MILLIONS of people in on this conspiracy… millions! Writing hundreds of thousands of papers, these millions… and they are all part of the conspiracy!

    No, they’re not part a conspiracy. There is no conspiracy. There are only a couple of Al Capones leading the herds of millions-say-it’s-true-so-it-must-be-true sheep with lazy brains (also known as the Aids apologists) on one side, and a bunch of not very well organized yet very clever, witty and intelligent Malones and Eliott Nesses on the other.
    The masses of innocent bystanders don’t understand a fuck of what’s happening and how they are involved.

  20. #20 DB
    October 4, 2006

    No, they’re not part a conspiracy. There is no conspiracy. There are only a couple of Al Capones leading the herds of millions-say-it’s-true-so-it-must-be-true sheep with lazy brains (also known as the Aids apologists)

    Charles,
    Tara and her friends need to use words like conspiracy, denialists and deniers because they’re propagandists.

    If they were scientists, confident in their assertions as they have thousands upon thousands of documents that (supposedly) support those assertions, then they wouldn’t use words like “conspiracy” and “denialists”. They would stand on such high ground that using those words would only make them look childish and foolish, and call their integrity into question.

    By the way…I’m not Darin Brown. I switched handles on a fairly contentious thread a few months or so ago. I was having some sort of problem posting on that thread using my former handle. The problem seemed to be solved when I changed it.

  21. #21 Wilhelm Godschalk
    October 4, 2006

    Indeed there is no conpiracy involving millions of people.
    Charles Hoy already formulated it very clearly: Just a handful of crooks, directing this scam. All the others are docile sheep. The narrowminded, dull and stupid scientists Jim Watson was talking about.

    The context in which I mentioned “millions of authors”, writing hundreds of thousands of papers, has to do with the fact that the contemporary herd of scientists does not seem to be able anymore to write a paper on their own, or together with one or two co-authors. It takes 15 of these dullards now to write one (lousy) paper. Every time I see anoher one of these mass efforts, I laugh my ass off and wonder how many of them it takes to screw in a lightbulb. And that brings us again to the second quote I used: “We are not laughing at AIDS, we’re laughing at you.”

  22. #22 Chris Noble
    October 5, 2006

    If HIV “rethinkers” have valid points why do they transparently misrepresent “orthodox” papers?

    Why do HIV “rethinkers” believe that they can better interpret the results than the authors of the papers?

    So far we’ve had several scientists publicly criticise “rethinkers” that misinterpret their work.

    Statement from Harvard School of Public Health Researchers Regarding Misinterpretation of Findings on Vitamins and HIV/AIDS

    HIV heterosexual transmission and the “Padian paper myth”

    Of course “rethinkers” will see the protestations of the authors as further evidence that they must be one to something.

  23. #23 Charles Hoy
    October 5, 2006

    If HIV “rethinkers” have valid points why do they transparently misrepresent “orthodox” papers?

    Ah… Noble changing tactics.

    What are you talking about, you dummy? Everybody interprets and may misinterprete. Nobody knows the absolute truth about anything.
    There’s a big difference between the Aids dissidents, who question, and the Aids apologists, who lecture and hide behind their silly tales of overwhelming evidence. Overwhelming evidence… Another holy mantra of the Aids maffia. The Aids priest sermon: Overwhelming evidence inevitably shows that HIV, the virus that causes Aids, can only be fought by life saving AZT, ARVs etc.

    It’s such an easy role to play. Even the most striking evidence, like for instance the evidence of people who start to vomit the day they take the life saving drugs, and who stop throwing up the day they refuse to take them any longer, even that kind of evidence is easly wiped off the table if you’re eager enough to defend your market.

  24. #24 Seth Manapio
    October 5, 2006

    “If they were scientists, confident in their assertions as they have thousands upon thousands of documents that (supposedly) support those assertions, then they wouldn’t use words like “conspiracy” and “denialists”.”

    ——————-

    I’m so thankful for these people, I really am. Otherwise, how would I learn that the vast majority of medical researchers are too stupid to see past simple arguments that even people with no information can see through. What guys like Goldshalk don’t understand is that their hypothesis is covered by a limited number of facts: either millions of people are in on this conspiracy, or millions of scientists are too stupid to see past the small conspiracy that some idiot in his basement with a bong can easily detect. Either way, the AIDS Denialist (denialist being an apt name for people who deny a particular hypothesis) is making a sweeping, general, perjorative statement about a statistical totality of virologists.

    Hoy is a little dull. I don’t see him offering anywhere near the same entertainment value of Goldshalk. Wilhelm is sincerely insane, and paints with such a broad, vivid, brush that it is hard to see how Hoy can possibly compare… he’s just repeating the same dull, fact and thought free stuff: All scientists are idiots and sheep, and only the rethinker saints can lead us out of the valley and into the promised land–but this time with a mafia metaphor. Standard Jeremiac narrative, really, couched in pretend skepticism and americana. Yawn.

  25. #25 Charles Hoy
    October 5, 2006

    All scientists are idiots and sheep

    I object. Many are not. Only those in the spotlights mostly are. Either that or they only play that role because they cannot possibly let their buddies know that they do not agree. A house, a car, a career. You know how it is.

    Yawn.

    Yeah, well said. All sheep go back to sleep.

  26. #26 Seth Manapio
    October 5, 2006

    “There are only a couple of Al Capones leading the herds of millions-say-it’s-true-so-it-must-be-true sheep with lazy brains (also known as the Aids apologists) on one side”

    “I object. Many are not. Only those in the spotlights mostly are.”

    “Either that or they only play that role because they cannot possibly let their buddies know that they do not agree.”
    ———-

    Hoy IS almost as much fun as Goldshalk! He can’t even keep his baseless insults straight… who knows what lunacy he is capable of?

    Again, we see that the AIDS denialist bounce back and forth between two positions: a statistical totality of AIDS researchers are friggin’ morons, or a statistical totality of AIDS researchers are conspiring to murder children in africa, or possibly, AIDS researchers divide into either killers or idiots. Since these are not reasonable claims, when you call them on one, they bounce to the other. Totally predictable.

  27. #27 quitter
    October 5, 2006

    There is no meaningful debate to be had here. The data are in, HIV causes AIDS, drugs like AZT, while toxic sure, can save and extend lives as they have clearly done since the beginning of this epidemic. AZT in particular when given in a single dose before labor can prevent maternal transmission to a child nearly all the time. The debate is over, HIV causes AIDS, and the anti-retrovirals work, although not without side-effects (like every other damn drug). The goal of the denialist is to create debate where there should be none. Don’t let them.

    It’s like trolling to the nth degree. Correct the record, for sure, but don’t engage them. They’re nuts.

  28. #28 Charles Hoy
    October 5, 2006

    The goal of the denialist is to create debate where there should be none.

    Create a debate? With whom? It’s impossible to debate with people who think there’s nothing to debate.

    No, I’m not trying to debate at all. I’m just making fun with Aids apologists. You guys are really the stupidest people in the world to think a debate that never took place can be over. One day the people of the Earth will realize to which degree they’ve been fooled over the HIV=Aids issue and then they will recognize the Aids deniers for what they are. Witty whistleblowers. They’ll go like: “My oh my, I just discovered what the Duesbergs, the Godschalks, the Hoys and so many others have tried to tell us for ages. Stupid us not to have listened more closely.”

  29. #29 Seth Manapio
    October 5, 2006

    “They’ll go like: “My oh my, I just discovered what the Duesbergs, the Godschalks, the Hoys and so many others have tried to tell us for ages. Stupid us not to have listened more closely.”

    ———–

    Hoy is HERE, brothers and sisters, this super-wise-powerfull mind, so much smarter and less greedy-stupid than a MILLION PhD’s, the master of AIDS truth, a disciple of the true Messiah Duesberg–of the funky sense of humor–to lead us to the promised land! Can I get a Halleluhiah? Can I GET AN AMEN?! People of EARTH, are you ready to LEARN the TRUTH?!

    I’m not saying that Denialists have a messiah complex. I’m just saying that they have a messiah complex. Its the need to feel super-special, compared to all us stupid people. Hoy is part of the cool crowd.

    What Hoy misses is that there is a constant debate about HIV and AIDS, as in all science. First there was the question of whether there was a disease at all, then what caused it, what HIV is, what it does, and now there is an ongoing debate about treatment, best options, and so forth. The existence of scientific papers illustrates the existence of debate.

    But while science marches happily along, and knowledge of immunology, virology, and epedemiology expands, guys like Hoy are stuck, unable to move forward, unable to learn new things because they are wrapped up in a poisonous memeset that kills their basic ability to think straight and evaluate truth claims.

  30. #30 Charles Hoy
    October 5, 2006

    First there was the question of whether there was a disease at all, then what caused it, what HIV is, what it does, and now there is an ongoing debate about treatment, best options, and so forth.

    What you describe here is called a monologue and has nothing to do with a debate. If there is any trace at all of some kind of dialogue, it’s solely because dissidents who have not giving up all hope force you to come out in the open all the time.

    What causes AIDS? Not HIV. Drugs, stress, famine. There are some causes. But you don’t want to discuss because there’s nothing to discuss.

  31. #31 Wilhelm Godschalk
    October 6, 2006

    Chris Noble wrote:
    “If HIV “rethinkers” have valid points why do they transparently misrepresent “orthodox” papers?”

    Oh we do, Chris, we do. But we don’t “misrepresent”. We only point out the mistakes. How valid data are followed by the wrong conclusions that have already been fixed before the study was even done.

    “Why do HIV “rethinkers” believe that they can better interpret the results than the authors of the papers?”

    Well, that’s obvious. Because we HIV rethinkers have not received any money from the chief con men, so we are under no obligation to recite the orthodox version.

    “Of course “rethinkers” will see the protestations of the authors as further evidence that they must be one to something.”

    Of course. The protestations of these authors sound too much like the stammering recantations of “blasphemic ideas” by scientists who had been worked over by the Inquisition.
    The HIV goons sure got through to Nancy Padian, don’t you think?

  32. #32 Tara C. Smith
    October 6, 2006

    The HIV goons sure got through to Nancy Padian, don’t you think?

    I can’t believe you’re still claiming this. Can you get any more dishonest? You really think she was “worked over” by the “Inquisition” to post her post her statement decrying the abuse and misrepresentation of her studies by y’all? Incredible.

    And y’know that Lederman et al. are the “Bad boys” of HIV research, and as noted in the Nature article, they “fight against orthodoxy.” Wonder why they still think you’re full of it, eh, Wilhelm?

  33. #33 Wilhelm Godschalk
    October 6, 2006

    Seth, it would be so nice if you could finally learn how to spell my name right. You make me sound so Jewish. Not that I think there’s anything wrong with being Jewish, but I hate to pretend to be what I’m not.

    “AIDS researchers divide into either killers or idiots. Since these are not reasonable claims, when you call them on one, they bounce to the other.”

    Well, I think Charles Hoy has explained it very clearly: There are a small number of killers, intent on murdering a large part of the population of Africa, and millions of friggin’ idiots who help carry out the plan without asking questions. Hasn’t every act of genocide ever carried out in history been based on the same setup?

  34. #34 Wilhelm Godschalk
    October 6, 2006

    Seth, it would be so nice if you could finally learn how to spell my name right. You make me sound so Jewish. Not that I think there’s anything wrong with being Jewish, but I hate to pretend to be what I’m not.

    “AIDS researchers divide into either killers or idiots. Since these are not reasonable claims, when you call them on one, they bounce to the other.”

    Well, I think Charles Hoy has explained it very clearly: There are a small number of killers, intent on murdering a large part of the population of Africa, and millions of friggin’ idiots who help carry out the plan without asking questions. Hasn’t every act of genocide ever carried out in history been based on the same setup?

  35. #35 Dale
    October 6, 2006

    Charles writes One day the people of the Earth will realize to which degree they’ve been fooled over the HIV=Aids issue and then they will recognize the Aids deniers for what they are. Witty whistleblowers. They’ll go like: “My oh my, I just discovered what the Duesbergs, the Godschalks, the Hoys and so many others have tried to tell us for ages. Stupid us not to have listened more closely.”

    I don’t think so Charles. Because IF the HIV causes AIDS hypothesis is ever replaced by a hypothesis that better explains the data, it isn’t going to be done by the Duesbergs, the Godschalks or the Hoys. It’s going to be done by the scientists who actually do experiments and carry out clinical studies. And the people of the Earth will say, if and when that day ever comes “If Duesberg and Godschalk and Hoy knew all along that factor x causes AIDS then why didn’t THEY perform the simple experiments that would have demonstrated it YEARS AGO instead of making the same nonsensical arguments over and over and continually whining at the scientific community about conspiracies and other such drivel.”

  36. #36 Wilhelm Godschalk
    October 6, 2006

    “I can’t believe you’re still claiming this. Can you get any more dishonest? You really think she was “worked over” by the “Inquisition” to post her post her statement decrying the abuse and misrepresentation of her studies by y’all?”

    Yes Tara, I’m still claiming this. Just look at the Recantation paper you cited: The first two sentences are already typical of something written under duress:

    “HIV is unquestionably transmitted through heterosexual intercourse. Indeed, heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide”

    Good grief! Can you imagine a more slavish rendition of one of the main dogmas of the HIV orthodoxy? This nonsense goes directly against her own data, gathered in a 10-year study!
    To make matters worse, she quotes an article by Downs and The Vincenzi that preceded her own, and reports on a study that was decidedly inferior to her own.
    But her original article will stand forever. The information cannot be destroyed anymore, and will speak for itself when Nancy is long dead, and out of reach of the Inquisition. Oh well, Galileo recanted too. But his ideas prevailed.

  37. #37 Tara C. Smith
    October 6, 2006

    Good grief, indeed. Did you read beyond the first 2 sentences? Did you see how she explained that it in no way goes against her data? Did you hear her speak in Toronto about being misrepresented? I suppose they twisted her arm? Had her family held at gunpoint unless she capitulated? Maybe she wrote those sentences because *that’s what the evidence shows* and she’s tired of people lying about her work?

    The world y’all live in, man…I’m glad I don’t see it through your glasses.

  38. #38 Wilhelm Godschalk
    October 6, 2006

    Ah, Dale! Nice to meet again here.

    “And the people of the Earth will say, if and when that day ever comes “If Duesberg and Godschalk and Hoy knew all along that factor x causes AIDS then why didn’t THEY perform the simple experiments that would have demonstrated it YEARS AGO instead of making the same nonsensical arguments over and over and continually whining at the scientific community about conspiracies and other such drivel.”

    Maybe they wil say that, but that would mean the people of the Earth would have become even dumber than they are now.
    Let’s see: Duesberg didn’t receive a penny in grant money anymore since he let the world know he didn’t believe the standard HIV/AIDS ploy. Godschalk… Well, when he was in the lab, nobody had even heard of AIDS. Very fortunate, because I could never have contributed to this swindle.
    And Hoy? I don’t know enough about him, except that he’s a guy who’s in the know.
    It’s sad, but biomedical science will make no more progress, until after Hatchet Day.

  39. #39 DB
    October 6, 2006

    Oh, Tara,
    a bit defensive on the Padian issue!

    Hmm. Wonder why that might be?

    Could it be how damning Padian’s work is to the party line?

    Yes, I know, she’s being a good little soldier and saying all the right things. But like Wilhelm stated, her work stands, and in direct contrast to the dogma. Ouch.

  40. #40 Dale
    October 6, 2006

    Convenient isn’t that Wilhelm? That ‘lack of funding’ ‘prevents’ all these dissident scientists from ‘proving’ something that they claim is so obvious from the mainstream scientific literature. Maybe that sounds plausible to the general public but I’ve been in and around science long enough to know that ‘lack of funding’ rarely prevents anyone from getting an experiment done if they feel strongly enough about seeing it done. It seems far more likely to me that either Duesberg or others have done experiments and they haven’t turned out to support his hypothesis (after all Duesberg still had something like 3 years left on his NIH funding when he published his 1989 PNAS paper) or the dissident scientists have yet to come with a reasonable experiment to test any alternative hypothesis.

  41. #41 Tara C. Smith
    October 6, 2006

    Yes, I know, she’s being a good little soldier and saying all the right things. But like Wilhelm stated, her work stands, and in direct contrast to the dogma. Ouch.

    Only when you people misrepresent it.

  42. #42 Seth Manapio
    October 6, 2006

    “millions of friggin’ idiots who help carry out the plan without asking questions.”

    ————–

    Wait… I gues Goldshaft can’t decide whether they are idiots, or co conspirators… or lazy? I’m not sure, but apparently, yes, in order to believe Wilhelm, you have to accept that there are, somewhere, people who for no reason at all want to kill millions of people in africa, and that millions of biologists, either know what is going on but don’t care, or are remarkably uninformed about basic biology. Apparently, the hope of fame and fortune and best selling books ala Duesberg is not enough of a draw for most biologists, they would prefer to have less money and total obscurity, and kill people to get it. This is, as I have pointed out, totally stupid.

    Of course, he also advocates taking a hatchet to Tara. Dreams about it, looks forward to the day when it happens, even. So I’m not sure that his sense of morals is a good guide for normal human behavior.

  43. #43 Wilhelm Godschalk
    October 6, 2006

    “Did you see how she explained that it in no way goes against her data?”

    No, I just saw how she’s trying to worm herself out of hard data that she had obtained and published previously. She’s just grasping for an alibi. Just face it, Tara. She’s a woman in distress. She may be an epidemiologist like you, but she is very different. She originally never intended to deceive.

    “Did you hear her speak in Toronto about being misrepresented? I suppose they twisted her arm?”

    No, I wasn’t in Toronto then. (Haven’t been in Toronto since they rolled up the sidewalks at 1:00 a.m. every night).
    But I wouldn’t have been surprised to spot a guy backstage with her latest grant proposal in his hands, ready to tear it up.

    “Maybe she wrote those sentences because *that’s what the evidence shows*”

    We KNOW what the evidence showed. We can read.

    “The world y’all live in, man…I’m glad I don’t see it through your glasses.”

    You’re right about that. Through your glasses you see beautiful people such as us denialists. Through mine I only see ugliness: Conspirators and collaborators.
    Oh, if only Hank Barnes were here! He would understand. We’re playing his song.

  44. #44 Seth Manapio
    October 6, 2006

    “We KNOW what the evidence showed. We can read.”

    ” I wouldn’t have been surprised to spot a guy backstage…”
    ——————-

    Apparently, Godschalk can only read what he agrees with. If Padian writes something he disagrees with, she was pressured. If Duesberg does, he was joking. All things can be explained by the amazing Godshalk’s super powers of discernment… in fact, before you trust anything you read from anyone, you should really run it past Godshalk in order to determine whether they really mean it… and before you believe anything you hear, you need to call Godschalk, wherever he may be, to find out if there are invisible people in the background.

    —————-
    “Oh, if only Hank Barnes were here! He would understand.”
    ———–
    Ah… the messiah! Save us, Hank! Save us!

  45. #45 Wilhelm Godschalk
    October 6, 2006

    The world according to Dale:
    “Maybe that sounds plausible to the general public but I’ve been in and around science long enough to know that ‘lack of funding’ rarely prevents anyone from getting an experiment done if they feel strongly enough about seeing it done.”

    Well now, Dale, if you have been around science, then you undoubtedly know how “easy” it is to get anything done in the lab without any grant money. Equipment and supplies cost a fortune these days. The days when Robert Koch could sit in a little room with his microscope and not much else, are over. And to make matters worse, The chairman of the department and the dean regard you as a pariah. If you don’t have tenure yet, they are already checking how soon they can get rid of you.

    But then, let’s say (oh happy but vain thought!) that I’m a billionaire, and I have enough money to fund my own research. What experiments would I do? Proving that HIV does NOT exist, or that HIV does NOT cause AIDS is impossible. You can’t prove a negative. What then? Finding “factor X” that causes AIDS? Give me a break! AIDS is not a disease; it’s at least 29 different, unrelated diseases. I can’t, even in my wildest dreams, come up with anything that could cause all these diseases. So that approach is out.
    But wait! They say that all these AIDS patients have in common that their level of CD4 T-cells is low. Well, I guess they have other things in common a well (like having a nose or two arms and two legs), but the inventor of AIDS, the unspeakable Michael Gottlieb, is an immunologist, so let’s keep looking in the immunological corner:
    What causes low T-cells? Well, apart from the mythical “HIV”, there are so many possible factors, I can’t begin to count them all. Even nutritional factors such as zinc deficiency can cause T-cells to go down.
    So I’m thinking: All these different diseases (well, most of them anyway) have known causes. And low T-cells can be caused by so many factors… WHAT THE HELL ARE WE LOOKING FOR? Everything we wanted to find out has already been known for a long time. So… I would use all this research money on a different project. I certainly wouldn’t want to be remembered by future generations as one of those guys who took a retrovirus with magical powers seriously.
    Let’s throw this whole HIV/AIDS paradigm to the winds, with the shreds of all the useless papers written about it, and start over. There’s nothing to find. No alternative theory needed. What we know now, we knew already 15 years ago. Let’s do some real science.

  46. #46 Wilhelm Godschalk
    October 6, 2006

    “Apparently, Godschalk can only read what he agrees with.”

    Oh, get real, Seth! Those two starting sentences I quoted read just like the “public confessions” that were prevalent once in the old Soviet Union, where some hapless “reversionist” declared that he had been wrong, acting against the teachings of Lenin, and the principles of the Communist party.

    “Ah… the messiah! Save us, Hank! Save us!”

    Too late. He was already crucified some time ago, and forbidden to say anything more about the Padian study.
    I guess I’m still one of the lucky ones…

  47. #47 Wilhelm Godschalk
    October 6, 2006

    “in order to believe Wilhelm, you have to accept that there are, somewhere, people who for no reason at all want to kill millions of people in africa, and that millions of biologists, either know what is going on but don’t care, or are remarkably uninformed about basic biology”

    For no reason at all, Seth? All those nice earth treasures that Africa has (oil, diamonds, etc.) are plenty of reason. It would be a waste to share all that wealth with so many millions of African people, now wouldn’t it? And there are more Africans born every day. So what’s a little eugenics and genocide among friends?

    I don’t want to throw those millions of biologists on one heap (sure would be nice), but I have to be fair: Not all of them are the same. – Some are crooks, others are stupid, and still others are cowards, knowing what’s going on without the courage to fight it.

    “Of course, he also advocates taking a hatchet to Tara.”

    Now that ain’t fair, Seth. You really know how to hurt a guy. Taking a hatchet to lovable huggable Tara? I wouldn’t think of it. (Can’t guarantee an irate mob won’t show up at your door, though.) No, I’m not really referring to violence when I mention Hatchet Day. It will be the day when all the real crooks will be locked up, and all the biological nincompoops will be relegated to other, more useful jobs (street sweeping, etc.)

  48. #48 Seth Manapio
    October 6, 2006

    “He was already crucified some time ago, and forbidden to say anything more about the Padian study.”

    ————–

    You would think that someone who had been nailed to a tree until dead wouldn’t have to be forbidden to say anything afterwords. But, since Barnes is alive and well and blogging about Padian as recently as August 06, maybe these sentences have no meaning. Its so hard to say, I guess I’ll have to ask Godschalk to reveal the hidden meaning of these words, since only HE can know what is in the minds of men. Or women.

    Wouldn’t this make Padian a collaborationist? Doesn’t this make her party to mass murder?

    In fact, it would, so this is the accusation we are hearing: Nacy Padian is so afraid of NOT GETTING A GRANT that she is willing to knowingly participate in the mass slaughter of millions of people. She is so afraid of not being properly FUNDED that she is willing to lie to the entire world, and rather than change specialties and study something else, she has willingly continued to foster this lie and publish in this field up to this day. And this kind of pressure, the pressue to have to maybe study a different virus–or write a best selling tell-all and make millions–is being compared to the threat of having your entire family summarily executed.

    And you have to believe this, or Wilhelm’s theories make no sense. Unless you believe that Nancy Padian is willing to participate in genocide rather than make an alteration to her specific area of research, Wilhelm is talking crazy talk. Unless you believe that the threat of possibly missing one grant–while still keeping your job, house, car, family and even hobbies intact–is equivalent to the threat of having your entire family murdered, all your property confiscated, and being shipped to Siberia to be worked to death, Wilhelm’s ideas are ludicrous.

    You have to believe all these crazy things because Wilhelm is pitching a religion complete with a Messiah, a chosen people, forces of darkness, and a day of salvation. There is nothing rational there, only the semblance of arguments built on premises so sick and ridiculous that you just have to laugh! Or, you laugh until you realize that people with his mental disease also have positions of power. But still… thats kind of funny too, in a graveyard humor kind of way.

  49. #49 hankbarnes
    October 6, 2006

    Hah! You guys are trip. Doctress Smith writes:

    Maybe she wrote those sentences because *that’s what the evidence shows*…?

    Here’s what the evidence shows. Permit me to quote:

    “We found no seroconversions after entry into the study” (Padian, page 354.)

    I’m wonderin’ why this bugs so many people:)

    Happy Hank

  50. #50 Seth Manapio
    October 6, 2006

    “Some are crooks, others are stupid, and still others are cowards, knowing what’s going on without the courage to fight it.”

    “lovable huggable Tara”
    ————

    I wonder, does Godschalk think that bucolic stupidity, craven cowardice, or murderous criminality is a lovable trait? Maybe all three? Is it her complete inability to process information that he loves, or her desire and willingness to profit off of the deaths of millions?

    Another crazy bit of Godshalk fun: apparently, planning and executing a worldwide conspiracy complete with payoffs to western politicians, hush money for journalists, and millions in grant money is cheaper and easier than just paying off a few corrupt politicians in Africa.

    Wow… its like reading “illuminati” or watching the X-files, you never know whats going to come next!

  51. #51 DB
    October 6, 2006

    Seth,
    are you done frothing at the mouth over Wilhelm’s views on Padian?

    One thing’s for sure…she’s got plenty of company. Maybe being part of something so large absolves one from feeling too much guilt.

  52. #52 DB
    October 6, 2006

    We found no seroconversions after entry into the study” (Padian, page 354.)

    I’m wonderin’ why this bugs so many people:)

    Probably because there’s nothing vague about the number zero. Kind of difficult to “spin” that one.

  53. #53 Seth Manapio
    October 6, 2006

    “are you done frothing at the mouth over Wilhelm’s views on Padian?”

    —————

    Cool! DB is corroborating my point! He believes that Padian is a lying mass murderer, just as I said was required! Neat!

  54. #54 DB
    October 6, 2006

    Seth, are you done frothing at the mouth over Wilhelm’s views on Padian?

    Looks like the answer is “no”.

  55. #55 Pharma Bawd
    October 7, 2006

    Hey Hanky!

    I gotta tell you Hank, I’m very disappointe in you.

    Please don’t ask me to answer your questions if you aren’t going to let me post to the answer.

    http://momentofscience.blogspot.com/2006/10/helping-out-slow-kid-in-class.html#links

    Coward.

    Now I really owe Salvador Cordova an apology.

    http://momentofscience.blogspot.com/2006/07/well-someone-has-to-do-it.html

    I’m not sure there is anyone in the evolution denial pantheon that can match you for both your cravenness and your ignorance.

    PhB

  56. #56 Wilhelm Godschalk
    October 7, 2006

    Please Seth, get a hold of yourself.

    “Cool! DB is corroborating my point! He believes that Padian is a lying mass murderer,”

    I said no such thing. I just said the lying mass murderers have brought Nancy Padian back under their control. She’s as reconditioned as a revisionist in the gulag. The first two sentences in her recantation paper read as if they’ve been dictated by Tony Fauci.

    I never called lovable huggable Tara a lying mass murderer either. I’m more charitable than that. Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt. Who knows what pressure she’s under. Maybe they have threatened to kill her dog if she didn’t toe the party line.

    “You have to believe all these crazy things because Wilhelm is pitching a religion complete with a Messiah, a chosen people, forces of darkness, and a day of salvation.”

    Must you be so cooky? Religion? Messiah? Chosen people? You must have been reading other literature instead of my posts. All I’ve done is attack the HIV/AIDS religion, in which alternative ideas are forbidden. But it’s so full of holes and nonsense that the people who profess to believe in it must have been made an offer they couldn’t refuse by the dons and the capo’s. Yes, the “dark forces” are definitely there.

    The “bucolic idiots” are not really willing to participate in mass murder, just to keep their job and receive some grant money. No, they may suspect what’s going on, but they prefer to look the other way and pretend it’s not happening.
    It’s not a new phenomenon. During the holocaust (yes, it really happened) many people had a pretty good idea what was happening. But they looked the other way, because they were not the targets of the genocide. After it was all over, they pretended never to have known about it.
    The same thing is happening again, in Africa this time. But the Western folks don’t know anything about the killing spree with antiretroviral medicines, because they look the other way and mumble something about “saving lives”.

    Well, I’m not a violent man at all, and I wish you well. Nonetheless it would tickle me to death if, one day, you would wake up and find several African people standing around your bed, all mad as hell because they had lost relatives to “antiviral treatment against HIV infection”.

  57. #57 Seth Manapio
    October 7, 2006

    ” I just said the lying mass murderers have brought Nancy Padian back under their control. ”

    ————–

    All that godschalk is saying, then, is that Padian is willing to knowingly falsify her research, knowing that it would lead to millions of deaths, in order to effect a minor bump in her creature comforts–this being the absolute worst threat that the “establishment” could manage.

    Or, to put it another way, that she would lie in order to facilitate mass murder. This makes her a liar, and a party to mass murder, or, bluntly, a lying mass murderer.

    Notice that even Godschalk can’t actually bring himself to believe what he is saying, when confronted with it, he has to deny the logical conclusion of his statements, or make utterly stupid comments about Tara being threatened. He says it himself, you have to believe really crazy things–like that there are shadowy figures threatening to kill Dr. Smith’s puppies if she doesn’t blog about AIDS–if you don’t want to believe that she is a liar and a willing party to mass murder. If you don’t beieve ridiculous things like this, the whole genocide idea just collapses under its own ridiculous weight.

    Godschalk believes that it is cheaper to engage in a world wide conspiracy about a made up disease than it is to just bribe easily bribable poor people. This is stupid. He believes that millions of biologists would knowingly falsify research, knowing that these lies were going to kill people, in order to obtain grants… and that not one of them, anywhere, has come out and admitted that they did. This is also totally ridiculous. And he now believes that there is a conspiracy to kill Dr. Smith’s pets, which is just crazy…

    Truly, a unique mind.

  58. #58 Charles Hoy
    October 8, 2006

    millions of biologists would knowingly falsify research, knowing that these lies were going to kill people, in order to obtain grants

    I think that’s not the the way we should look at it. Nobody is lying and killing people to obtain grants. It’s just that nobody feels the urge to criticize the things they swallowed all their life. It’s the difference between telling a lie and not being interested in the search for truth.
    It’s so much more comfortable to keep doing the things everybody expects you to do, you may even become a winner. Rowing against main stream is very unconfortable and if you do, you’ll almost inevitably become a looser.

  59. #59 Seth Manapio
    October 8, 2006

    “Nobody is lying and killing people to obtain grants.”

    ———————-

    Notice how, when the actual implications of their crazed statments are laid bare, the HIV deniers start backpedalling. Its all very well in the abstract, but when you start assigning the motives that they ascribe to “scientists” to real people, they get very uncomfortable.

    Obviously, in the World According to Godschalk, someone is lying and killing people. He says so explicitly. Some other people must be lying to get the grants, knowing that people are going to be killed, because the HIV “truth” according to Godschalk is so amaziningly easy to discover. One of these people is clearly Nancy Padian, otherwise, you have to take the position that Padian is NOT misrepresenting her research, and that the HIV denial community IS misrepresenting her research.

    There is no way around it, in the WAG, millions of scientists are perfectly willing to participate in a mass murder, whether it benefits them or not. This means that with a handful of exceptions, every single phD biologist on planet earth is either a coward, a fool, or a murderer. This is a slanderous accusation, and one that needs much better evidence than 3 or 4 twisted papers and a couple of questions.

    Hoy, of course, doesn’t believe in disease at all, so the WAH is such a poor predictor of actual events that I suppose you can’t expect any rationality from it.

  60. #60 Charles Hoy
    October 8, 2006

    Hoy, of course, doesn’t believe in disease at all, so the WAH is such a poor predictor of actual events that I suppose you can’t expect any rationality from it.

    Did I write I didn’t believe in disease? I can’t remember having written such a remarkable statement, really. I must have been totally drunk when I wrote that. Or you, when you read it.

    Anyway, I cannot possibly deny the existence of disease because sometimes I meet people who don’t feel too well. I swear I do! And even, believe it or not, I have felt sick myself several times in the olden days. So no discussion there. Sorry.

    What I don’t believe in though, is that the cause of a disease may be the oh so tiny, tiny little microbes. That is pure baby babbling only to be taken seriously by people who are either not interested at all in the subject or too dumb to listen to something besides mainstream dogma, use their brain and think logically.

  61. #61 Seth Manapio
    October 8, 2006

    “What I don’t believe in though, is that the cause of a disease may be the oh so tiny, tiny little microbes. That is pure baby babbling…”

    ==================

    Yes, ladies and gentleman, hundreds of years of experiments, the incredible practical success of vacinnes and antibiotics, and a wealth of observation that has steadily improved general health, all are clearly inferior to two minutes of stoned conversation with some guy in a bar in Amsterdam.

  62. #62 Wilhelm Godschalk
    October 9, 2006

    “Notice how, when the actual implications of their crazed statments are laid bare, the HIV deniers start backpedalling.”
    Backpedaling?? If I pedaled forward, I would run all over you, Seth. That would mean writing things that are not suitable for this civilized blog.
    I’ve said clearly enough that biological scientists are either murderers, fools, cowards, or without grant money and probably unemployed. Most of them are cowards. When they get their grant funded, they look the other way. They don’t even want to hear about the killing that’s going on. The whole thought is completely blotted out. They know very well they have to perpetuate the HIV/AIDS myth, because if they don’t this will have been their last grant ever.

    Oh, and the members of the press… They are not really being bribed. They are cowards too. I have a special name for them in Dutch, and I can tell you it’s not a compliment. The free press and the independent reporter don’t exist anymore. Some 20 years ago, the Wall Street Journal still dared to express some doubts regarding the paradigm. But that’s all over now. The pharma industry advertises in their paper, you know. The only act of bravery I’ve seen lately was shown by the editors of Harper’s, who approved publication of Celia Farber’s article, this year.

  63. #63 Wilhelm Godschalk
    October 9, 2006

    “…the incredible practical success of vacinnes…”

    Eh… What were those incredible practical successes of vaccines again, Seth? I know some of them were indeed incredible.

    “…and a wealth of observation that has steadily improved general health,…”

    I read recently that, in general, Americans were in poorer health than Europeans. Could public health be over the hill?
    Perhaps the average life span is going down again, from now on. And I think I know several causes for it already: Antiretroviral drugs, too many antibiotics, statins, prozac, valium, coke, crystal meth… Should I go on?

  64. #64 Seth Manapio
    October 10, 2006

    “Perhaps the average life span is going down again, from now on. And I think I know several causes for it already…”

    ———————-

    Perhaps it is going up again, from now on. I know the causes of this already…

    I mean, really. Wouldn’t you think that you should verify whether the average life span is going up or down before you start figuring out why it is going down? Wouldn’t SOME kind of research be in order, here?

    Apparently not.

  65. #65 Wilhelm Godschalk
    October 15, 2006

    Won’t wonders ever cease! I agree with you, Seth!

    “Wouldn’t SOME kind of research be in order, here?”

    It certainly would! Unfortunately, this is a long-term study, and we are strictly short-term. So I’m afraid I won’t live to see the end of it. But I’ve been ahead of my times so often that I feel safe to speculate. History will provide the answer – But to our short-lived siblings, not to us.

  66. #66 Wilhelm Godschalk
    October 15, 2006

    Tara: a few words more about Nancy Padian:

    Nancy Padian is a Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at the University of California and she has worked on the heterosexual transmission of HIV since 1984. She is a frequent participant in annual NIH Office of AIDS Research planning workshops and has chaired the workshop on international research for the last four years. She is an elected member to the Institute of Medicine and the American Epidemiology Society. She served as vice-chair of the University of California task force on AIDS and currently directs international research for UCSF Global Health Sciences, the UCSF AIDS Research Institute and she is co-director of the Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy.

    I’d like to add that she also worked in Zimbabwe on a project that is paid for by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
    Now wouldn’t you love to tread in her footsteps? I’m sure you would. But could she have chalked up all these prestigious positions on her C.V. if she had kept on writing honest papers such as her 1997 publication (the one we denialists always quote)? Nobody believes that. Would anybody give up all this, just for the sake of integrity?
    Well, eh… (grumble) sure, I know a few people who would do that, but they are negligible, because they are either stupid or honest.
    Didn’t I read somewhere that the HIV-goons tried to bribe Peter Duesberg first, before they set out to destroy him?

  67. #67 jdach
    October 23, 2006

    Cool! DB is corroborating my point! He believes that Padian is a lying mass murderer, just as I said was required! Neat!
    Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 6, 2006 08:03 PM

    Reply from jdach:

    I find SM’s remarks to be merely the shrill, high pitched rhetorical distortions of a person suffering from anticipated loss of a crucial belief system. At the same time, I am amazed at the angelic patience displayed by Wilhelm Godschalk as he replies in carefully measured tones which ring loud and true.

    There are two new web sites devoted to the HIV positive who wishes to avoid toxic anti- HIV drugs. These were started by Stephen Davis a former Arizona state senator. Especially recommended is the first site which contains personal stories of living for years with the HIV diagnosis without drugs and without disease. This is very powerful and very emotional. http://www.livingwithouthivdrugs.com/
    Also visit: http://www.helpforhiv.com/

    People are wising up guys. It’s over.

    Regards from wwww.drdach.com

  68. #68 Kevin
    November 1, 2006

    The Ignorant blowhard named SETH wrote:
    Yes, ladies and gentleman, hundreds of years of experiments, the incredible practical success of vacinnes and antibiotics, and a wealth of observation that has steadily improved general health…

    My “general” health was hardly improved by the “success of vaccines and antibiotics. In fact, the opposite is true. It was nearly ruined by years of medically-supervised antibiotic use. I only recovered my health after learning about how frequent antibiotic use can cause severe systemic fungal infections. Suffice to say, I have since lost all the undue reverence for the ignorant and compromised healthcare system in this modern age.

    I continue to test HIV- but have had several “Aids-defining” illnesses in the past. Currently, I am in the best health of my life, but it is with no thanks due to the myriad of health professionals who were unable to help me get well for over 2 decades of illness.

    You are an arrogant coward, Seth Manapio. I’ve been reading this blog for a while now, and you consistently use uninspired rhetoric and intimidation to debate the dissidents who post on this blog. It’s really unbecoming.

    I am thankful for learning of the dissident position when I did; otherwise, I might never have regained my health since I had the same reverence for science and modern medicine that many of the apologists on this blog possess. The “science” that is being produced in academia in this modern age is highly politicized and anyone who is not willing to acknowledge that fact, much less debate it, is a mere caricature of the noble scientists of the past.

    Orwellianly yours,
    Kevin

  69. #69 Kirk
    November 26, 2006

    If viral load isn’t the “end all and be all” in the love affair with HIV/AIDS, then what is the magic bullet, or the unholy grail?

    Up until now, the viral load was said to indicate virus activity, t-cell death, and sometimes, should be used to guide the subject into treatment, namely ARVs, or HAART. I believe that count has been variable based upon CD4 cell counts of under 350 I believe. Now the WHO says that up to 15% of a cohort studied in Africa, HIV negatives had CD4 t-cell counts below 350. Does that throw the entire prescribing mechanism into disarray? Some say it does.

    Others in more established situations may fear the consequences of having to admit that the past 25 years of pushing pills was done in the dark. No matter, people have made a lot of money, and a certain industry has used NGOs, governmental agencies, and earnest researchers around the globe as pawns in their quarter-century chess match.

    The paradigm is, in fact: HIV stalks t-cells, hijacks them kills them, but not before converting the new digs into a factory for replicating itself. This hell-mouth called HIV then causes any combo of 32 AIDS infections, including tuberculosis, dementia, cervical cancer, and no doubt, special reserved seating for the bugs that have us on their shit list, like Cryptospordium.

    If viral load isn’t a measure of infectiousness vis-a-vis CD4 t-cell death, then what of relevance does it measure?
    Individual levels is a term used in these posts. I don’t see any other level to bring this discussion, for HIV, a stigma, not an illness, always affects an individual.

    It is telling that to AIDS lovers and researchers worldwide, HIV’s object of desire is a faceless nonindividual. HIV is a dirty stain leeched from money weighing down a sea of subjects who have become fodder for future drug studies.

    Sadly, the professionals in pharmacoepia cleverly co-opted the moral high-ground falsely in the most egregious manner, ending trials early, saying “it would be unethical to hold back the drug; giving the placebo is unethical because the new drug worked so well, we’ll ram this through FDA (or however it works over there) and make a billion next year.”

    I digress.

    TB disease dates to the Pharaohs, cervical cancer is caused by HPV, not AIDS, crypto affects a large percentage of the at large population and HIV / AIDS has nothing at all do with it.

    There is good reason to say the paradigm is falling apart. We are all catching on to the mystery usually shrouded in fancy terms; the research within the industry itself is dissolving the 25 year cover.

    Despite how HIV & AIDS devotees wrap research results around a core predetermined belief, in support of drugs usually, the facts will speak for themselves. WHO report | paradigm

  70. #70 Kirk
    November 26, 2006

    Seth & Mr. Godschalk,

    Pertaining to your interchange about lifespan, in the United States of America, it is going down relative to our developed world counterparts.

    From Amazon book details:

    “Dirty examination and operating rooms in doctor’s offices and hospitals . . . Health care executives pulling in millions in bonuses for denying treatment to the sick . . . More than 100 million people with inadequate or no medical coverage . . . This may sound like the predicament of a third-world nation, but this is America’s health care reality today.

    The U.S. spends more on health care than any other nation, yet our benefits are shrinking and life expectancy is shorter here than in countries that spend significantly less per capita.

    Meanwhile, HMOs, pharmaceutical companies, and hospital chains reap tremendous profits, while politicians–beholden to insurers and drug companies–enact legislation for the benefit of the few rather than the many, while the entire system is on the verge of collapse.”

    “In CRITICAL CONDITION, Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele expose the horror of what health care in America has become.
    About the Author

    “DONALD L. BARLETT and JAMES B. STEELE are America’s most widely acclaimed investigative journalism team. They have worked together for three decades, first at the Philadelphia Inquirer, and, since 1997, as editors at large for Time.

    They are the only journalists in history to have won two Pulitzer Prizes and two National Magazine Awards, as well as dozens of other national awards. They are the coauthors of six books, including America: What Went Wrong?, which spent eight months on the New York Times bestseller list.”

    Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

  71. #71 Kirk
    November 26, 2006

    If viral load isn’t the “end all and be all” in the love affair with HIV/AIDS, then what is the unholy grail?

    Up until now, viral load was said to indicate virus activity, t-cell death, and sometimes, should be used to guide the subject into

    treatment, namely ARVs, or HAART. I believe that count has been variable based upon CD4 cell counts of under 350, I believe. Now the WHO says that up to 15% of a cohort studied in Africa, HIV negatives had CD4 t-cell counts below 350. Does that throw the entire prescribing mechanism into disarray? Some say it does.

    Others in more established situations may fear the consequences of having to admit that the past 25 years of pushing pills was done in the dark. No matter, people have made a lot of money, and a certain industry has used NGOs, governmental agencies, and earnest researchers around the globe as pawns in their quarter-century chess match.

    The paradigm is, in fact: HIV stalks t-cells, hijacks them kills them, but not before converting the new digs into a factory for replicating itself. This hell-mouth called HIV then causes any combo of 32 AIDS infections, including tuberculosis, dementia, cervical cancer, and no doubt, special reserved seating for the bugs that have us on their shit list, like Cryptospordium.

    If viral load isn’t a measure of infectiousness vis-a-vis CD4 t-cell death, then what of relevance does it measure?
    Individual levels is a term used in these posts. I don’t see any other level to bring this discussion, for HIV, a stigma, not an illness, always affects an individual.

    It is telling that to AIDS lovers and researchers worldwide, HIV’s object of desire is a faceless nonindividual. What is HIV but a dirty stain leeched from money weighing down a sea of subjects who have become fodder for future drug studies.

    Sadly, the professionals in pharmacoepia cleverly co-opt the moral high-ground falsely in the most egregious manner, ending trials early, saying “it would be unethical to hold back the drug; giving the placebo is unethical because the new drug worked so well, we’ll ram this through FDA (or however it works over there) and make a billion next year.”

    I digress.

    TB disease dates to the Pharaohs, cervical cancer is caused by HPV, not AIDS, crypto affects a large percentage of the at large population and HIV / AIDS has nothing at all do with it.

    There is good reason to say the paradigm is falling apart. We are all catching on to the mystery usually

    shrouded in fancy terms and the research within the industry itself is dissolving the 25 year cover.

    Despite how HIV & AIDS devotees wraps research results around a core predetermined belief, in support of drugs usually, the facts will speak for themselves.

  72. #72 Kirk
    November 26, 2006

    If viral load isn’t the “end all and be all” in the love affair with HIV/AIDS, then what is the unholy grail?

    Up until now, viral load was said to indicate virus activity, t-cell death, and sometimes, should be used to guide the subject into treatment, namely ARVs, or HAART. I believe that count has been variable based upon CD4 cell counts of under 350, I believe. Now the WHO says that up to 15% of a cohort studied in Africa, HIV negatives had CD4 t-cell counts below 350. Does that throw the entire prescribing mechanism into disarray? Some say it does.

    Others in more established situations may fear the consequences of having to admit that the past 25 years of pushing pills was done in the dark. No matter, people have made a lot of money, and a certain industry has used NGOs, governmental agencies, and earnest researchers around the globe as pawns in their quarter-century chess match.

    The paradigm is, in fact: HIV stalks t-cells, hijacks them kills them, but not before converting the new digs into a factory for replicating itself. This hell-mouth called HIV then causes any combo of 32 AIDS infections, including tuberculosis, dementia, cervical cancer, and no doubt, special reserved seating for the bugs that have us on their shit list, like Cryptospordium.

    If viral load isn’t a measure of infectiousness vis-a-vis CD4 t-cell death, then what of relevance does it measure?

    “Individual levels” is a term used in these posts. I don’t see any other level to bring this discussion, for HIV, a stigma, not an illness, always affects an individual.

    It is telling that to AIDS lovers and researchers worldwide, HIV’s object of desire is a faceless nonindividual. What is HIV but a dirty stain leeched from money weighing down a sea of subjects who have become fodder for future drug studies.

    Sadly, the professionals in pharmacoepia cleverly co-opt the moral high-ground falsely in the most egregious manner, ending trials early, saying “it would be unethical to hold back the drug; giving the placebo is unethical because the new drug worked so well, we’ll ram this through FDA (or however it works over there) and make a billion next year.”

    I digress.

    TB disease dates to the Pharaohs, cervical cancer is caused by HPV, not AIDS, crypto affects a large percentage of the at large population and HIV / AIDS has nothing at all do with it.

    There is good reason to say the paradigm is falling apart. We are all catching on to the mystery usually shrouded in fancy terms and the research within the industry itself is dissolving the 25 year cover.

    Despite how HIV & AIDS devotees wraps research results around a core predetermined belief, in support of drugs usually, the facts will speak for themselves.

  73. #73 Kirk
    November 26, 2006

    If viral load isn’t the “end all and be all” in the love affair with HIV/AIDS, then what is the unholy grail?

    Up until now, viral load was said to indicate virus activity, t-cell death, and sometimes, should be used to guide the subject into treatment, namely ARVs, or HAART. I believe that count has been variable based upon CD4 cell counts of under 350, I believe. Now the WHO says that up to 15% of a cohort studied in Africa, HIV negatives had CD4 t-cell counts below 350. Does that throw the entire prescribing mechanism into disarray? Some say it does.

    Others in more established situations may fear the consequences of having to admit that the past 25 years of pushing pills was done in the dark. No matter, people have made a lot of money, and a certain industry has used NGOs, governmental agencies, and earnest researchers around the globe as pawns in their quarter-century chess match.

    The paradigm is, in fact: HIV stalks t-cells, hijacks them kills them, but not before converting the new digs into a factory for replicating itself. This hell-mouth called HIV then causes any combo of 32 AIDS infections, including tuberculosis, dementia, cervical cancer, and no doubt, special reserved seating for the bugs that have us on their shit list, like Cryptospordium.

    If viral load isn’t a measure of infectiousness vis-a-vis CD4 t-cell death, then what of relevance does it measure?

    “Individual levels” is a term used in these posts. I don’t see any other level to bring this discussion, for HIV, a stigma, not an illness, always affects an individual.

    It is telling that to AIDS lovers and researchers worldwide, HIV’s object of desire is a faceless nonindividual. What is HIV but a dirty stain leeched from money weighing down a sea of subjects who have become fodder for future drug studies.

    Sadly, the professionals in pharmacoepia cleverly co-opt the moral high-ground falsely in the most egregious manner, ending trials early, saying “it would be unethical to hold back the drug; giving the placebo is unethical because the new drug worked so well, we’ll ram this through FDA (or however it works over there) and make a billion next year.”

    I digress.

    TB disease dates to the Pharaohs, cervical cancer is caused by HPV, not AIDS, crypto affects a large percentage of the at large population and HIV / AIDS has nothing at all do with it.

    There is good reason to say the paradigm is falling apart. We are all catching on to the mystery usually shrouded in fancy terms and the research within the industry itself is dissolving the 25 year cover.

    Despite how HIV & AIDS devotees wrap research results around a core predetermined belief, in support of drugs usually, the facts will speak for themselves.

  74. #74 Monty
    February 8, 2007

    Tara:

    As a fellow scholar, I’d like to see a formal, moderated, academic-style debate that focuses on one issue. Obviously, if there are “mountains” of evidence to support the “HIV/AIDS” claim, and if the the dissidents are deluded, then surely this would be brought out into the daylight within the confines of such a structured format. I am more than willing to debate in this way on a number of topics in which I feel that I possess the requisite expertise. I would also be willing to be the moderator for such a debate. If I was the moderator, I would assume the role of “blank slate,” but I would apply human reason and basic logic, and I would examine the evidence put forth to support various claims, and I would begin by asking both sides to state exactly what their claim is.

    I think that much of the problem with the “HIV/AIDS debate” resides in the fact that there is no debate, but instead various kinds of “point/counterpoint” forums such as this one (or a series of nasty statements, as in the Bialy/Moore situation). Why are there not several “HIV/AIDS” advocates openly challenging the dissidents to such a debate? The idea that the public, in general, would understand the nuances (let alone care about any aspect of it) and be swayed by deluded individuals is laughable, as is the possibility that the mainstream media would have any interest in it. Instead, leaving the situation as it stands means more articles such as Celia Farber’s recent one, for instance. At the very least, the kind of debate I’d like to see would clarify exactly what the areas of contention are. I’ve found that such debates are very useful in a number of ways, with there always being unintended ones.

    I’ve found it quite troubling that I have yet to locate an “HIV/AIDS” advocate to agree to a basic academic debate format, while there are plenty of dissidents willing to participate. If anyone is interested in representing the “pro” side, I have a forum that can serve this purpose, and I would moderate. The two parties and myself would need to agree about the exact issue to be debated, and the “ground rules” would be stated explictly, beforehand. As I often tell people, it’s possible to change or manipulate the social reality, but not the scientific one. This debate format is designed to negate all the techniques used to deflect attention away from the central issue. I have been trained to detect such techniques, point them out, then hold that person’s feet to the proverbial fire. This debate would be published on my web site and all who are interested could read it and decide for themselves. Would you be interested in representing the “pro” side, Tara?

  75. #75 Tara C. Smith
    February 8, 2007

    Of course the dissidents are willing to debate–it gives them a forum and respect they don’t deserve. Having watched such “debates” in the same vein regarding the creation/evolution “controversy,” I have no desire to see such a thing regarding HIV. The debate has already taken place in the scientific literature, and the “dissidents” have already lost.

  76. #76 Chris Noble
    February 9, 2007

    I would also be willing to be the moderator for such a debate. If I was the moderator, I would assume the role of “blank slate,” but I would apply human reason and basic logic, and I would examine the evidence put forth to support various claims, and I would begin by asking both sides to state exactly what their claim is.

    Your own website demonstrates your nonexistent grasp of science.


    Why the “germ theory” is not science.

    Chris Noble

  77. #77 Monty
    February 9, 2007

    “The debate has already taken place in the scientific literature…”

    Could you please cite a reference to this “debate?” I have yet to come across such a debate (moderated and in accordance with common academic standards). I am volunteering my time. I have no interest in the epidemiological arguments, actually, and so I believe that I could be quite “objective” here, but if someone else wants to moderate, I could still publish it on my forum. As to conclusions I’ve reached, since I understand the scientific method (having taught it for years), I am more than willing to discuss verification experiments with those who can provide the funding. If I am incorrect, then I will be glad to know what the scientific reality actuall is. At this point, I am basing my conclusions on what various, famous “bug hunters” themselves have stated.

    I would also be willing to host other debates, such as the evolution/creationism one. That is actually a good example, because I would require the “creationsists” to put forth a specific hypothesis and then present their evidence for it. I can’t imagine what that would result in, but I would certainly be curious to see how this person responds. The key is an understanding of the scientific method, which is very simple. A specific claim is put forth, and all the evidence must support it. Any evidence that clearly contradicts it refutes it, unless the evidence is flawed. Experiments to verify the claim must be direct and “on point,” and as many such experiments should be done as is practical. All possible causes of the phenomenon must be taken into account, and then experiments conducted to rule the factors in or out. However, if one feels the need to modify this view of the scientific method, that would be fine, if all three parties can agree beforehand on it.

    Another example is “global warming,” which is based upon models and indirect evidence. One can only say that the model appears to be correct. Actual direct and “on point” experiments cannot be conducted, for obvious reasons. I wish the scientific community would create new language for this kind of endeavor, but until those in charge do, these kinds of phenomena are called “scientific,” though the scientific method has not been applied to studying them. Here, one is dealing with “reasonable” interpretations of the evidence, but one can always claim that one interpretation is reasonable but another is not, and then a moderator would need to be a judge, and that is not a role I want assume. Either a verification experiment, or series of experiments can be conducted (in accord with the scientific method) or it cannot.

    As moderator of any debate, I would only interested in what the claim is and whether experiments that control for all possibly causal factors have been conducted. I have asked people like Mr. Noble to provide a formal hypothesis for the “germ theory,” yet to date I have yet to receive a coherent reply, but this is where the scientific method must begin. I have made the point that if one claims that there is only one cause of an effect, then if present, the cause must generate the effect all the time, or else the hypothesis must be modified to explain why this does not happen. Then experiments must be conducted to determine if the claim is accurate. To be specific, in the “HIV/AIDS” context, I have pointed out that if a few dozen healthy young adult volunteers (“HIV negative”) were confined and subjected to conditions similar to those endured by the “AIDS patients” in the early to mid 1980s (in the USA), and after two or three years tested “positive for HIV,” even though they could not have been “infected” by it, then I hope we could all agree that this experiment would directly refute the “HIV/AIDS” claim, whatever it might be (I have frequently asked for a statement of what the “HIV/AIDS” hypothesis is, without ever receiving a coherent response).

  78. #78 Michael
    February 9, 2007

    Hello Monty. I think it would be wonderful for an unbiased authority to mediate a debate on the actual science of HIV, although I think you will be hard pressed to find any so-called HIV expert that would be willing to do so. Such has been the case since 1987, and nothing has changed except that the “experts” have gotten more vocal, to the point of seeming paranoia, about not being willing to have a debate.

    Actually, although, I had originally and for several years believed that HIV was the cause of AIDS, after many years of my own research on the issue, I am, for the last several years to be counted among the AIDS dissidents.

    Although I am a confirmed dissident, I do not see how your proposed “experiment” with college students would be anything close to the “reality” experienced by gays in the early 80’s to mid 1990’s.

    The variables that you most likely would be unable to produce, to have a truly comparable study, have to do with (1) the intense emotional aspects of the disease.(2)Gays at the time lived with extreme fear and terror of the “gay disease”, (3)Many were dealing with very toxic emotions such as shame, guilt, fear, and addiction, along with often untreated drug and alcohol addiction, along with many suffering extreme emotional disturbance, depression, and even many with suicidal impulses due to the individuals own experiences with homophobia, both external and internalized. (4) Many had been disowned by their families for being gay, along with those battling for acceptance with employers, work places, and friends. (5)Various illicit drugs, some which are no longer even common or available, were prevalent with some of the HIV/AIDS groups, (6) various antibiotics at varying exposure were given to many gays that time, and some of these are not even commonly prescribed today, (7)various lubes, including those containing toxic benzene, were often used. (8)Nobody ever heard, until more recent years, of “latex allergies”, which are said to affect up to 8 percent of health workers. (9) the “live virus” hepatitis vaccinations that were aimed at the gay community in the late 70’s are no longer used. (10) High dosage AZT monotherapy is no longer used(11) Even the same HIV tests are not given today that were given in the 80’s-90’s. (12)A current cohort would most not likely not be exposed to the same strains of STD’s as were prevalent at the time.

    I am sure that there are also other variables that could also have been affecting the issue of gay mens health, as well as varying factors known and proven to cause false positive HIV tests.

    As such, even if you had your entire cohort get ill, or if the entire cohort stayed well, I do not think your results would at all mirror the real life experiences of those who had been involved. But it is a wonderful suggestion, that may show some benefit or understanding of various issues.

  79. #79 Tara C. Smith
    February 11, 2007

    Monty,

    Thing is, science is not resolved by such a moderated debate like you propose. Disputes are resolved by the peer-reviewed evidence; it doesn’t matter who’s a better debator (debater?) or who “wins” according to some moderator, but rather whose hypothesis is better supported by the evidence. This is what I mean when I say the debate has already taken place, and the evidence overwhelmingly shows that germs cause disease, that evolution occurs, and that HIV causes AIDS.

  80. #80 Chris Noble
    February 11, 2007

    Could you please cite a reference to this “debate?” I have yet to come across such a debate (moderated and in accordance with common academic standards).

    Scientific dialogue occurs in the peer review literature. This is the cornerstone of the modern scientific method. This has demonstrably already occurred. Duesberg and other “rethinkers” have had their opinions published in scientific journals. They have had their opportunity to convince other scientists that their ideas have any validity. They have completely and utterly failed. Several articles have been published that directly refute Duesberg’s arguments.

    Duesberg and other “rethinkers” simply refuse to accept that the debate has already occurred and they have lost. Having failed in the scientific arena they have moved to targetting a lay-audience. They write books targetted at lay-audiences and do their best to create the false impression that a controversy exists.

    Public debates in front of a lay-audience are typically advocated by groups that have already lost the scientific debate. Public debates favour rhetoric over science. Simplistic strawman arguments are very successful in public debates. It is very easy to selectively cite the literature, picking small sound-bites that appear to support a “rethinker” position. It is much more difficult to explain to a lay-audience that things are more complicated than the “rethinker” would have you believe.

    The types of public debates that are being called for are normally framed asymmetrically. One side is typically assigned the task of “proving” a thesis for example that HIV causes AIDS. The other side can declare victory by simply claiming that it hasn’t been “proved”. In reality the amount of evidence supporting “alternative” theories of AIDS is neglible compared to that supporting the role of HIV in AIDS. Most groups calling for these debates are involved in negative campaigns attempting to tear down a well established science such as evolution rather than providing valid alternatives of their own.

Current ye@r *