While all the HIV “dissidents” are milling around….

…I’m sure they’ll be happy to see that Gambia’s president is curing AIDS:

From the pockets of his billowing white robe, Gambia’s president pulls out a plastic container, closes his eyes in prayer and rubs a green herbal paste onto the rib cage of the patient — a concoction he claims is a cure for AIDS.

He then orders the thin man to swallow a bitter yellow drink, followed by two bananas.

“Whatever you do, there are bound to be skeptics, but I can tell you my method is foolproof,” President Yahya Jammeh told an Associated Press reporter, surrounded by bodyguards in his presidential compound. “Mine is not an argument, mine is a proof. It’s a declaration. I can cure AIDS and I will.”

Foolproof, y’hear? Who needs research when we have an assurance like that?

More after the jump…

The only good news about this is that, as far as African countries go, Gambia’s rate of infection is still fairly low–the article puts it at 1.3%. Additionally, Jammeh hasn’t publicized (yet) what the “cure” is comprised of, so for now, patients must be treated by him individually–you can’t make it in your own backyard. However, he does require that patients go off their antiretroviral meds in order to be “cured” by him. (Patients must also forgo coffee, tea, alcohol, and sex). But hey, he backs it up with science!:

Jammeh has gone to great lengths to prove his claim, sending blood samples of the first nine patients to a lab in Senegal for testing. A letter on the lab’s stationery indicates that of the nine, four had undetectable viral loads, one had a moderate viral load and three had high loads, a result posted on the government’s Web site as proof of a cure.

This is problematic, though, for a number of reasons. First, as noted in the article, there was no baseline measurement taken for this. Those who had undetectable viral loads easily could have had them at that level prior to treatment, so it can’t be said that the treatment reduced the viral levels in the blood. Second, one with “moderate” and three with high viral loads–and he’s touting that as “proof” of his cure?

Of course, in the end, it all comes down to the anecdotal evidence, science be damned:

“It feels as if the president took the pain out of my body,” Ousman Sowe, 54, told the AP. Diagnosed with HIV in 1996, he is among the first nine men and women Jammeh has treated and has been under the Gambian leader’s care for nearly a month.

“My appetite has come back and I have gained weight,” said Lamin Ceesay, thin from a nine-year battle with HIV.

Small comfort, I suppose, that at least they’re not claiming that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS (as far as I know; otherwise, the viral load tests would seem to be rather pointless).

And of course, what would a magical cure be without invoking god?

Jammeh then held up the Quran, pointing it at each of the patients: “In the name of Allah, in three to 30 days you will all be cured,” he said.

Comments

#1 Dave S.
February 21, 2007

Tara writes:

Second, one with “moderate” and three with high viral loads–and he’s touting that as “proof” of his cure?

Another odd thing…nine patients had their blood tested, but there are only 8 when you add up the “four had undetectable viral loads, one had a moderate viral load and three had high loads”.

What happened to the other guy??
#2 pat
February 21, 2007

Your choice of headline betrays your propensity for “Schubladendenken” (compartmentalization). What does this crackpot have to do with people who question the HIV/AIDS theory? As far as I can tell, and by application of your compartmentalisation logic, this guy is quite squarely an “orthodox” crackpot!
#3 dukkillr
February 21, 2007

“Patients must also forgo… sex…”

That seems helpful.
#4 pat
February 21, 2007

besides, “viral load” explains disease progression only 5% of the time. So if your viral load is high relax; there’s a 95% chance that it means absolutely nothing.
#5 Wic
February 21, 2007

pat the moore you talk about rodriguez et al the moore you show your understanding of the paper extends precisely to and not beyond a knowledge of the first authors last name.
#6 pat
February 21, 2007

Enter stage left, WIC (hurling insults)

“pat the moore you talk about rodriguez et al the moore you show your understanding of the paper extends precisely to and not beyond a knowledge of the first authors last name.” -Wic

“pat the moore you talk about rodriguez…” mmm, either a typo repeated twice or an attempt at humour.

“…only a small proportion of CD4 cell loss variability (4%-6%) could be explained by presenting plasma HIV RNA level”

“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.”

“Other factors, as yet undefined, likely drive CD4 cell losses in HIV infection”…go figure.
#7 Stephen
February 21, 2007

I know what causes AIDS! It’s obviously another of Lord Voldemort’s plots! He’s come up with a new curse, and from the looks of it, it should be unforgivable.
#8 ERV
February 21, 2007

What does this crackpot have to do with people who question the HIV/AIDS theory?

How is what this man is doing any different from the professional Deniers peddling vitamins and lemon juice?
#9 Tara C. Smith
February 21, 2007

As far as I can tell, and by application of your compartmentalisation logic, this guy is quite squarely an “orthodox” crackpot!

ERV already beat me to it, but exactly–his use of an unproven herbal concoction rather than proven drugs puts him in league with y’all, pat. He may not deny that HIV causes AIDS (as far as I know), but you certainly have a spectrum of denial, from “HIV doesn’t exist” to “AIDS is caused by antiretroviral and other drugs.” That it can be “cured” in 30 days by a few herbs certainly doesn’t put him on the side of science.
#10 Chris Noble
February 21, 2007

You forgot to mention Iran’s recent contribution to AIDS quackery.

Iran’s AIDS “Cure”

Matthias Rath, Hulda Clark and many othe quacks that claim to cure AIDS are all on the “rethinker” list.
#11 lincoln
February 21, 2007

Tara, thank you for sharing with us your belief that any of the anti-HIV antiretrovirals are, as you called them: “proven drugs. However, I am not sure what you mean by that.

I realize you have heard the fable many times over that these drugs are “life saving” or “life extending”. But none have ever been tested against either placebo or no treatment at all.

If this is what you meant, it seems Lancet’s page 451 of Vol 368, August 5, 2006 disagrees with you that any of these are “proven drugs” in any healthy way.

The study involved 22,217 HIV positive people in Europe and North America, including many from sub-Saharan Africa, who had never taken ARVs before, and about 75% had no AIDS symptoms at the start of medication.

As the Lancet says in its own comment, HAART’s first decade: success brings further challenges,p 427,

“The major findings are that, despite improved initial HIV virological control (percentage <500 copies per mL at 6 months increased from 56% in 1995-6 to 83% in 2002-3) there were no significant improvements in early immunological response as measured by CD4-lymphocyte count, no reduction in all-cause mortality, and a significant increase in combined AIDS/AIDS related death risk in more recent years.”

Why, Tara, are you claiming that antiretrovirals are “proven drugs” when the orthodox studies show them to be proven ineffective, toxic, and even deadly?

Were you just not aware of this study? Are you unaware that the leading cause of death in HIV positive Americans is actually liver failure, which is not due to any virus?

As for these “proven drugs”, they are not quite as fast at killing the patient as AZT, but obviously just as ineffective at preventing illness, and perhaps also quite “proven” effective at causing other damage such as lipodystrophy, neuropathy, kidney failure, and of course, as I said, the study of 5700 gay american HIV positive deaths done by Amy Justice/2002, shows the leading cause of death in HIV positive Americans is now liver failure with a direct corelation to taking these drugs.

Tara, what exactly did you mean by “proven” drugs? Did you mean as in “proven deadly” or “proven ineffective at keeping a person alive or healthy, or proven to cause deadly side effects, or proven toxic to the mostly gay and black patients taking these drugs?

Surely you did not mean proven effective in any healthy healing curing way, as the science on this does not currently back you up.
#12 Chris Noble
February 22, 2007

lincoln the study which you refer to says nothing that could honestly be interpretted in the way that you have.

HIV treatment response and prognosis in Europe and North America in the first decade of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis.

The strongest possible conclusion is that HAART in 2002-2003 is no more or slightly less effective than HAART in 1995-1996. The study also provides some explanations for the lack of improvement the foremost being that the demographics changed in this time period.

In classic Schubladendenken “rethinkers” fail to note table 1 which gives the median CD4 count at the iniation of HAART for the different years. In 1995-1996 it was 170. This rose to 269 in 1998 but fell to 202 in 2002-2003.

This directly contradicts Celia Farber’s claim parroted from Peter Duesberg that HAART accounts for 75% of AIDS. CD4 depletion and immune deficiency in the vast, vast majority of cases had occurred before iniation of HAART. So unless the effects of HAART can travel back in time it cannot have caused the depletion of CD4 cells and AIDS.
#13 lincoln
February 22, 2007

Chris thank you for your propaganda. Your vast intellectual understanding of the issues is much appreciated.
#14 DT
February 22, 2007

Linoln, rather than make ad homs against Chris Noble (who has merely alerted you to the conclusions of the Lancet paper) you would do better by rationally responding to the points made. Or perhaps you prefer to stick to quoting misinterpreted study conclusions that you have cherry-picked for the express purpose of promoting your denialist agenda.
If you want some other data on survival, why not see look at this study which shows a median survival of 35 years with treatment?
#15 Wic
February 22, 2007

lincoln here’s an honest question. what are the references for liver failure as the most common cause of death.
#16 Wic
February 22, 2007

lincoln sorry I was lazy but I decided to look it up since you’d just send me to some science fiction sight like healtoronto. here’s something more recent than your upmc study that doesn’t say what you say it says anyway http://www.natap.org/2005/CROI/croi_36.htm
23,411 patients on HAART followed for four years. 1248 deaths (5.3%). 30% of deaths from AIDS and strong correlation with CD4 count. 14% of deaths from liver disease. Most liver deaths 79% were from viral hepatitis. Less than three percent of deaths were from non-hepatitis liver disease and that includes alcohol effects.
What are we down to lincs close to 0%?
#17 DT
February 22, 2007

The thing about deaths from things such as liver disease (which can sometimes be related to drug toxicity) is that they are not that much more common as an overall cause of death in absolute terms than they were 10 or 15 years ago.

What has changed is that now they are relatively more common, and therefore account for a significant proportion of overall deaths. So if 15 years ago, for example, there was an mortality of 18 per 100 person years in AIDS patients, (because most were dying of AIDS) but 3 had died from liver disease (a sixth), today with the dramatic drop in AIDS mortality because of the drugs, there might only be 6 deaths/100py (of which 3 might still be liver related). This is 50%!

(cue shock and horror and major denialist wailing about this representing a major leap in drug toxicity – when as you say, most liver deaths are due to concommitant hepatitis anyway)
#18 Wic
February 22, 2007

Another study to look at that has Amy Justice as an author is alcohol abuse in HIV+ veterans almost a third of them are chronic abusers and guess what that much alcohol does to your liver.
Then there are the IDUs guess what injecting drug use does to the liver.
Seems those “toxic” ARVs might not be so bad in fact NOT TAKING HAART correlates nicely with higher risk of Hepatitis C. That’s from P Braitstein et al AIDS 2006 and yes lincoln your friend Amy Justice is a coauthor maybe you don’t like her so much anymore?
#19 lincoln
February 22, 2007

Hey Wic. You are correct that alcohol abuse is very high in the supposed group affected by this issue. You would also be correct to point out that the vast majority of AIDS cases in the US and Europe are also drug addicts.

Obviously you are not too bright of a bulb, or you yourself would have figured out that the entire issue of AIDS was correctly hypothesized to be an issue of toxic abuse of the body, and not an issue of a virus.

But as you are most likely either a paid off shill of either drug companies or HIV research, these are not issues you wish to face or admit to.

In my opinion, people such as yourself, who are neither gay, nor black, nor threatened by the HIV paradigm have absolutely no right whatsoever to spread your own toxic beliefs to the effected public. Your attitude smacks of either being paid off, or being a closet case gay, or making a living off of HIV for you to continue to spout your trash to those of us that live in the midst of this.

To the more intelligent and quick among us, we can clearly see that external and internalized homophobia and racism is at the very core of the AIDS paradigm. Which one are you Wic? A closet homophobe or racist? A paid off shill making your living off it? Or a deeply closeted gay man that uses fear of AIDS to stay in the closet. Or are you just an egotistical fascist who ended up on what will be the wrong side of the belief and now your very ego is threatened by perhaps having to rethink your beliefs. Come out of your closet Mr. Wic, and come clean with us as to who you are and what your vested or closeted interest in pushing your propaganda actually is, if you are at all capable of any honesty.
#20 Chris Noble
February 22, 2007

In my opinion, people such as yourself, who are neither gay, nor black, nor threatened by the HIV paradigm have absolutely no right whatsoever to spread your own toxic beliefs to the effected public.

But Duesberg, Rasnick, the Perth Group etc. do?

To the more intelligent and quick among us, we can clearly see that external and internalized homophobia and racism is at the very core of the AIDS paradigm. Which one are you Wic? A closet homophobe or racist? A paid off shill making your living off it? Or a deeply closeted gay man that uses fear of AIDS to stay in the closet. Or are you just an egotistical fascist who ended up on what will be the wrong side of the belief and now your very ego is threatened by perhaps having to rethink your beliefs.

Is this meant to be a parody?

To most people it looks like you are inventing reasons for ignoring the evidence that is presented to you.
#21 lincoln
February 22, 2007

Golly Gee, Chris! My statement seems to have pushed your buttons too, there Mr. Software Animation Programmer and espouser of all wisdom on HIV and AIDS! Which one are you, while we are asking? I would guess a deeply closeted gay man who uses fear of AIDS to stay in the closet, or perhaps just an egotistical computer troll that wants to come off as being someone important. Gee Chris, why did you allow all of those people to call you Dr. Noble, and not correct them? Why did you never answer people when they asked you what you did for a living or what your connection to the HIV issue was? Tell us Chris, why you allowed others to believe you were an HIV specialist, but suddenly come clean yesterday in admitting that all of the trash you have posted is nothing but the uneducated opinion of some backwoods Australian computer animation hack!

No wonder Val Turner and Eleni would not give you the time opf day! You obviously have no sincere interest in getting sincere answers to your questions or in finding truth. Your only interest has obviously been to argue with those whom hold different beliefs than you do.

What a poseur, what a fraud, what an egotistical jerk you seem to be Chris. How dare you volunteer to be a know it all to those who have been diagnosed HIV that have followed these threads on this, NAR, BMJ, and other sites. How dare you allow yourself to be presented as an HIV expert or doctor to these people, Mr. Poseur of all HIV and AIDS wisdom?

Mr. Computer animator and wannabe expert on HIV and virology! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHhhhhhhAHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

If you weren’t so pathetic Chris, it really would be funny!
#22 Tara C. Smith
February 22, 2007

lincoln–knock it off. You’ve already been banned once for this type of thing.
#23 Roy Hinkley
February 22, 2007

Hey Lincoln,

Do you know how you come across?

As an ignorant fool who parrots arguments he doesn’t understand.

Your profound inability to properly use who/whom as subject/object of a sentence only compounds this impression.
#24 lincoln
February 22, 2007

Helo Roy. How does the following article from today’s “The Australian” newspaper come across? Now even the defenders of HIV are doubting HIV causes AIDS!

Witness opposes jail for HIV cases
Jeremy Roberts
The Australian, 22 February 2007, p7.

COURTS should not jail men for sexually transmitting HIV to partners, according to a private email by a prosecution expert who testified this month against a man convicted of exposing three women to HIV.

Emeritus professor Peter McDonald sent the email to scientists in the US on Saturday, three days after he told an Adelaide court he “had no doubt” HIV caused AIDS.

Defence lawyers were sent the email and showed it to Supreme Court judge John Sulan in a hastily arranged hearing on Tuesday. Justice Sulan has called Professor McDonald back to be cross-examined on the document next Wednesday.

Professor McDonald was pivotal in marshalling more than six highly regarded HIV scientists and clinicians to give evidence. He is an expert on infectious diseases and for 15 years up to 2002 chaired the national committee that provided funding for HIV research.

The witnesses appeared in the appeal of Andre Chad Parenzee, 36, who was convicted last year of endangering the lives of three women with whom he had unprotected sex despite knowing he was HIV-positive.

The prosecution was rebutting members of the HIV sceptic Perth Group, who claimed HIV had never been adequately identified in the laboratory and could not be said to cause AIDS.

In the email, Professor McDonald says Parenzee’s jailing was “inappropriate”. He also admits to doubts over the link between HIV and the onset of AIDS.

However, he told The Australian his email did not contradict his testimony. There was “some conjecture” among scientists about the mechanism by which HIV leads to AIDS, he said, but this “in no way destroys the notion that HIV causes (immune system) cell reduction and causes AIDS”.

HHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

You great defenders of HIV just crack me up!!!
#25 Chris Noble
February 22, 2007

lincoln,
I have consistently told anyone and everyone that I do not work in a HIV related field. This hasn’t stopped numerous people from accusing me of being a pharma-shill.

If you really want to be consistent then I, unlike Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, do have a PhD. I would never encourage anyone to call me Dr Noble but it is technically correct.
#26 lincoln
February 22, 2007

Dear Mr. Chris J Noble, P(iled) H(igher)& D(eeper). Thank you so much for clarifying that daddy paid for your schooling to make sure the family has some bragging rights.

I notice you never bothered to correct anyone who believed you were an HIV or medical doctor! You, even with your PHD, are still, a backwoods of australia computer hack, and how dare you allow people who have been diagnosed as HIV positive to be misled into believing your bullcrap opinions were from an MD? You hack and poseur and fraud!
#27 Chris Noble
February 22, 2007

Now even the defenders of HIV are doubting HIV causes AIDS!

Stop playing silly word games. This is not what Professor McDonald said.

The article itself is vague and deceptive.

He also admits to doubts over the link between HIV and the onset of AIDS.

Why do “rethinkers” rely on quote-mining and misrepresentation?
#28 Dale
February 22, 2007

Why do “rethinkers” rely on quote-mining and misrepresentation?

Were it not for quote mining and misrepresentation they would not be able to maintain even a veneer of rationality.
#29 lincoln
February 22, 2007

An exact copy of the email douchebag!

It was brief and to the point! There is nothing quote mined about his exact words:

“Overall I think I share with you some scepticism about the jump from scientific observation to a deduction that HIV transmission and pathogenesis is set in stone”

From: Peter McDonald
Sent: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:46:17 +1030
To: Kary Mullis
Cc: Robyn Richardson, Attorney General’s Department of South Australia
David Crowe
Christine Maggiore
Subject: HIV/AIDS/legal proceeding
Many thanks for taking the time to respond to my request.

Your views were helpful in terms of confirming the validity of PCR in which you were being quoted as “having no confidence in the technology”.

Overall I think I share with you some scepticism about the jump from scientific observation to a deduction that HIV transmission and pathogenesis is set in stone and becomes a legitimate basis for criminal prosecution.

I personally do not believe that it is appropriate to lock people in jail for sexual transmission of HIV – but that is the law!

I thank you for your assistance and would be happy to keep a dialogue.

Kindest regards from down under

Peter

Hey Dr. Fraud with the Piled High and Deep!

Are you incapable of understanding the professors own and exact words????
#30 lincoln
February 22, 2007

And please notice Dr. Hack, that the item you claim I had quote mined were the EXACT WORDS OF THE AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER WRITER, and NOT MINE, Dr. Douche.
#31 Roy Hinkley
February 22, 2007

It comes across as further evidence for your inability to read with comprehension, to do your own research, and that you simply parrot things you find elsewhere rather than doing any thinking for yourself.

If Dr. McDonald does not believe that people who transmit HIV sexually should be prosecuted, that is one thing. The question before the courts, however, is somewhat different: whether someone who knowingly transmits HIV by lying to his partner about his HIV+ status is guilty of a crime. Under the Australian law it’s clear that he is guilty of a crime. Whether Dr. McDonald agrees with this law or not (his email does not make clear) is wholly irrelevant.

I think you’ll be disappointed when he’s called back on the stand.

Also, the email exchange between Karry Mullis and McDonald comes across as indicating that everyone agrees that defense witness and Perth group denialist Valendar Turner, if left in a fully equipped molecular biology lab, could not discriminate between his ass and a hole in the ground any better than you can discriminate between the subject or the object of a sentence.
#32 lincoln
February 22, 2007

And just what is your interest in all of this Roy? Have you been diagnosed HIV? Are you a gay man? Are you black?

Is someone near and dear to you diagnosed as HIV? Do you hang out with people diagnosed as HIV?

Are you a paid and pretty pet lap dog of the pharma or research branches.

Do you have some knowledge about the truth behind the issue that I don’t have access to?

Or are you just another internet troll who likes to be self important?
#33 lincoln
February 22, 2007

And thank you Roy, for clarifying what the issue before Superior Court Judge John Sulan actually is. No doubt you think the judge to be incapable of deciding this for himself. I am sure he will be eternally grateful for your telling him what the purpose of his court is to be.

I think you’ll be disappointed when this appeal has ended.
#34 Roy Hinkley
February 22, 2007

And just what is your interest in all of this Roy?

I like to see the truth prevail, especially in matters of science.

Is someone near and dear to you diagnosed as HIV? Do you hang out with people diagnosed as HIV?

Several of my friends have died from AIDS, several more are living with it.

Are you a paid and pretty pet lap dog of the pharma or research branches.

Unfortunately I’m not qualified to be a “pretty” anything.

Do you have some knowledge about the truth behind the issue that I don’t have access to?

Well,… I am able to understand what I read.

Or are you just another internet troll who likes to be self important?

Nope, you seem to be the only one of those whom(sic) has graced Tara’s blog with his presence this evening.
#35 lincoln
February 22, 2007

Roy, you said: “Several of my friends have died from AIDS, several more are living with it”.

Isn’t that special! My ex lover died from AZT. My ex partner died from AZT. Several of my friends have died from AZT. Many of my friends and many of the people who come to my HEAL San Diego meetings are suffering from the side effects of the drugs they have been taking. Effects such as liver problems, neuropathy, lipodystrophy, brain tumors. I have taken people into my home who were almost destroyed by taking AIDS drugs and nursed them back to health. I consult with mothers who are threatened by the court with the removal of their children if they refuse to give AIDS drugs to their children. Perhaps you would like to debate the HIV issues with me in one of Tara’s forums!

Personally Roy, I think you are a liar and a coward!
#36 Robster
February 22, 2007

Well, as usual, when lincoln realises that he is losing the debate, he moves from misinterpretation and misrepresentation of data and the words of others, sprinkled with ad hominem attacks to a a blend much richer in bile and ad homs.

Chris’s area of expertise is less important than his understanding of science behind HIV/AIDS.

Hell, I don’t have ovaries, breasts, and I don’t smoke, but that doesn’t keep me from researching ovarian, breast and lung cancer, does it?

When someone points out that a denialist is wrong and untrained, it is different from saying that someone is wrong because they are untrained.
#37 Roy Hinkley
February 22, 2007

And I think that you Lincoln are committed to a belief that you cannot rationally evaluate. Like Celia Farber in an earlier thread, you try to use the emotional appeal of your personal experience to overwhelm those who disagree with your beliefs. This is an emotional fallacy (look it up). It’s not an argument.

If I try to present the evidence for the effectiveness of AZT and other ARV’s you will tell me about Diarrhea and vomiting… If I talk statistics you’ll talk sores… If I talk about increased life expectancies you’ll talk about tombstones and funerals…

So where does that leave us?

Discussing the various colors of vomit and the way the smell never gets out of your nose?

Perhaps you would like to debate the HIV issues with me in one of Tara’s forums!

What would be the point? My suffering and the suffering of my loved ones is more important than your and your loved one’s suffering?

That’s a very sad game of emotional one-upsmanship your looking to play. I’m afraid I’ll have to decline.
#38 lincoln
February 22, 2007

And what is your interest in all of this Robster. You have spouted your garbage defence of HIV causing aids for about 6 months now?

Are you personally effected by this? Are you Gay, or are you a closet case Robster? Just what is it that you know more than those of us who have been directly affected?

Is someone close to your heart diagnosed as HIV? Do you even know anyone diagnosed as HIV or AIDS? Do you know anyone taking HIV drugs or suffering from the side effects Robster?

Just why is it that you feel you are qualified to spout your crap as if you had some direct knowledge or experience in any of this?

Are you another egotistical computer troll spouting off about something you know very little about? I have yet to see any critical thinking in any of your posts. You have not asked anyone a single question unless it was meant in some smart ass way?

Do you suffer from some emotionalal disturbances that you have not yet dealt with Robster?

Just what do you have to offer some of the HIV positive people that have read these threads searching for knowledge and truth?

Do you know some ultimate truth about HIV and AIDS that the rest of us don’t have access to?

Robster, Is there some reason that you are incapable of critical and unbiased thinking beyond wishing to get some attention?
#39 lincoln
February 22, 2007

Mr. Hinkley. You said: “So where does that leave us”?

Where it leaves us, Roy, is knowing that you are another troll that has nothing to add to the discussion. Someone who likes to pretend to be knowledgeable and knowing. It shows you to be a phoney and a fraud and a fake and a liar.

But most of all, Roy, again, it shows you to be incapable of critical and unbiased thinking. Of being another egotistical jerk-off know-it-all who has no direct experience whatsoever on either side of the issues.
#40 Roy Hinkley
February 22, 2007

Yes Lincoln, of course.

And all of that has exactly what bearing on how a retrovirus called HIV destroys the human immune system and kills people?
#41 lincoln
February 22, 2007

What’s the matter Roy? I must presume you also did not get enough attention as a child unless it was negative attention. Is this the case. Someone who seeks to provoke a negative response is attention seeking. Do you not even know yourself well enough at this point to see this trait quite clearly?

Please share with us the trauma of your child abandonment issues so we can get to the bottom of what ails you.
#42 Roy Hinkley
February 22, 2007

Look at the top of the page Lincoln. Look at what Tara has written in this and the last thread concerning HIV. Look at your participation in this and other blogs.

Then, think about who exactly it is who is courting negative attention by being here.

Then maybe you should get some help with the issues you so clearly, and understandably, are dealing with.

Best Wishes

RH
#43 Shalini
February 22, 2007

Notice that Lincoln doesn’t bother to substantiate his case anymore, instead choosing to slide into ad hominem attacks. Who knows, he might even be the closet gay.
#44 pat
February 22, 2007

“And I think that you Lincoln are committed to a belief that you cannot rationally evaluate. Like Celia Farber in an earlier thread, you try to use the emotional appeal of your personal experience to overwhelm those who disagree with your beliefs. This is an emotional fallacy (look it up). It’s not an argument.”

If you dare take a leap you’ll easily see that your own argument is of value either way you see the debate. Everyone harbors the “emotional defense”.Emotions run high everywhere. Take a side but abandon the argument because it serves all sides.

“If I try to present the evidence for the effectiveness of AZT and other ARV’s you will tell me about Diarrhea and vomiting… If I talk statistics you’ll talk sores… If I talk about increased life expectancies you’ll talk about tombstones and funerals…
So where does that leave us?”

In disagreement. Don’t panic, it happens everyday. You’ll quickly realizer that only YOU are in control…if you want to be…

“Discussing the various colors of vomit and the way the smell never gets out of your nose? What would be the point? My suffering and the suffering of my loved ones is more important than your and your loved one’s suffering?”

Its called “expressing grievences 101″, “my vomitting is more green than yours…”

“That’s a very sad game of emotional one-upsmanship your looking to play. I’m afraid I’ll have to decline.”

Bend over then…

“And all of that has exactly what bearing on how a retrovirus called HIV destroys the human immune system and kills people?”

Everything, because that is a slogan not supported by scientific finding but purely supported by socially accepted “factoids”. Ask anyone about how HIV destroys the immune system…listen and weep.
#45 pat
February 22, 2007

“Who knows, he might even be the closet gay”

And you’re white trash maybe?….
#46 Shalini
February 22, 2007

[Everything, because that is a slogan not supported by scientific finding but purely supported by socially accepted "factoids". Ask anyone about how HIV destroys the immune system...listen and weep.]

And your side is supported by what exactly? Lunatic ravings?
#47 lincoln
February 22, 2007

AP news story today

Studies: Circumcision reduces HIV risk

“This is an extraordinary development,” said Dr. Kevin de Cock, director of
the World Health Organization’s AIDS department.

I understand Dr. de Cock does all his circumcisions in an office.

I wonder if he shares the office with proctologist, Dr. Elliott de Finger.
#48 lincoln
February 22, 2007

Hey Shalini. You are obviously another tres mucho bright bulb.

You said in reference to me: “Who knows, he might even be the closet gay”.

Did you ever consider I might be an “OUT OF THE CLOSET” GAY MAN????>

Do you have some personal problem with that?
#49 Shalini
February 22, 2007

[Do you have some personal problem with that? ]

Nope. Remember, you were the one who said the following:
“proven ineffective at keeping a person alive or healthy, or proven to cause deadly side effects, or proven toxic to the mostly gay and black patients taking these drugs?

I was just wondering where your blatant homophobia (and racism) came from. It could be that you’re actually ashamed of your own issues. It happens.

Unless you’re willing to subtantiate your opinions with solid science, I don’t think I’ll bother to change my opinion of you.
#50 lincoln
February 22, 2007

Hey Shalini! Certainly you are bright enough and capable enough of typing AIDS DRUG SIDE EFFECTS into any web search to find a few thousand ORTHODOX and MAINSTREAM information pages to verify my statement:

“proven ineffective at keeping a person alive or healthy, or proven to cause deadly side effects, or proven toxic to the mostly gay and black patients taking these drugs?

But just in case you are not intelligent enough or not interested enough to do so, here are just a handful of descriptions from

http://www.aidsmeds.com/lessons/DrugChart.htm

ZERIT:
Special warnings:* Buildup of acid in the blood (has been fatal in pregnant women when combined with Videx/Videx EC); fatty liver; damage to the pancreas (when combined with Videx/Videx EC). Numbness, tingling, or pain in the hands or feet (peripheral neuropathy); lipodystrophy; muscular weakness (rare); increased cholesterol and triglycerides.

* “Special warnings” reflects side effects reviewed in the “Black Box Warnings” that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has required manufacturers to list in the package inserts for some HIV drugs. These are the most dangerous side effects that healthcare providers and people living with HIV should be aware of. However, drugs without Black Box Warnings can still have serious side effects.

Aptivus:
Special warnings:* bleeding in the brain; hepatitis (extra care needed for HIV-positive people with hepatitis B or hepatitis C). Rash, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia.

CRIXIVAN:
Kidney stones, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, increased glucose (sugar), lipodystrophy, increased bilirubin (not harmful), increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia. Others: headache, weakness, blurred vision, dizziness, rash, metallic taste, low platelets, hair loss, anemia.

INVIRASE:
Nausea, diarrhea, stomach discomfort, headache, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, increased glucose (sugar), increased liver enzyme levels, and increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia

KALETRA:
Nausea, diarrhea, stomach discomfort, weakness, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, increased glucose (sugar), increased liver enzyme levels, and increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia

LEXIVA:
Skin rash, nausea, diarrhea, stomach discomfort, headache, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, increased glucose (sugar), increased liver enzyme levels, and increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia

NORVIR:
Special warning:* Taking Norvir with certain allergy medications, sedatives, heart medications, and migraine medications can increase the risk of their side effects.

Nausea, diarrhea, stomach discomfort, numbness or tingling around the mouth and in the limbs (paresthesias), increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, hepatitis, weakness, increased glucose (sugar), increased liver enzyme levels, and increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia

PREZISTA:
Nausea, diarrhea, stomach discomfort, headache, increased cholesterol, increased triglycerides, lipodystrophy, increased glucose (sugar), increased liver enzyme levels, inflammation of the nose and throat, and increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia

REYATAZ:
Increased bilirubin (not harmful), abnormal electrocardiogram results, increased glucose (sugar), lipodystrophy, and increased bleeding in patients with hemophilia
#51 lincoln
February 22, 2007

Hey Shalini!

If you or anyone else think these drugs are so wonderful, maybe you should take a few fistfulls of them for yourself. I certainly have many people who would be glad to give their AIDS drugs to someone such as yourself now that they do not take them!
#52 lincoln
February 22, 2007

Hey Shalini! LUCKY YOU!

A dear friend of mine just volunteered to send you his unused injections of FUZEON:

Skin reactions where Fuzeon is injected can include itching, swelling, redness, pain or tenderness, hardened skin, or bumps; increased risk of bacterial pneumonia; serious allergic reaction.
#53 Shalini
February 22, 2007

Perhaps you should check out this study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17227932&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus
on the survival rates in the late highly active antiretroviral therapy era. I did not say that those drugs were ‘so wonderful’, and I don’t recall ever mentionning that antiretroviral drugs are free from side-effects. You are the one here that cherry-picks whatever you can find about the drugs to prop up your rants.

Bear in mind that you still haven’t responded to the main point of:
“And all of that has exactly what bearing on how a retrovirus called HIV destroys the human immune system and kills people?”
#54 Chris Noble
February 22, 2007

lincoln, nobody is denying that ARV drugs have serious and potentially fatal side-effects.

Everything you provide is taken directly from “orthodox” studies.

None of this in any way contradicts the evidence that HIV causes AIDS and that HAART can extend the life of people infected with HIV.

The paper you cited from previously
HIV treatment response and prognosis in Europe and North America in the first decade of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a collaborative analysis. does nothing at all to support your assertion that these drugs have been “proven ineffective at keeping a person alive or healthy. Suspect that you haven’t read the paper although given your reading abilities it is not impossible.

I have already highlighted one finding of the study that the median CD4 count at iniation of HAART was 202 cells/mm^3 in the 2002-2003 period. This totally refutes the “rethinker” claim that it is HAART itself that causes the CD4 depletion.
#55 Chris Noble
February 23, 2007

Table 4 in the study that Shalini cited nicely refutes some of the claims that lincoln and other “rethinkers” have made regarding deaths from non-HIV related causes in patients taking HAART.

Survival of persons with and without HIV infection in Denmark, 1995-2005.

For the cohort in the 1995-1996 pre HAART era 19% of deaths were non-HIV related compared to 37% in the 2000-2005 late HAART era.

This would be interpretted by “rethinkers” to mean that HAART is killing patients or that HAART is ineffective.

However, when you look at the absolute mortality rate (non HIV related) per 1000 person years it has actually fallen by more than a factor of two from 23.1 to 9.4.

In the same time the mortality rate from HIV-related causes fell by a factor of ten from 71.2 to 7.0.

Deaths from all causes have fallen. However mortality from HIV realted cuases has fallen fast and hence non-HIV causes now account for a greater realtive (not absolute) number of deaths.
#56 Barrry A
February 23, 2007

Someone upthread quoted the Rodriquez paper re the correlation between viral load and CD4 cell depletion.

Here’s the editorial in JAMA by Dr. Keith Henry:

“These findings provide support to those who favor non-virological mechanisms as predominant causes of CD4 cell loss.”

What “non-virological” mechanisms is this learned physician talking about?

If HIV is not the predominant cause of CD4 cell loss, then, by definition, HIV is not a sufficient cause of AIDS.
#57 Chris Noble
February 23, 2007

What “non-virological” mechanisms is this learned physician talking about?

The Rodriguez paper actually discusses this.

The level of immune activation is known to be a dominant factor that determines the rate of progression to AIDS.

Immune activation is part of the pathogenesis of HIV.
#58 pat
February 23, 2007

“As far as I can tell, and by application of your compartmentalisation logic, this guy is quite squarely an “orthodox” crackpot!”
“ERV already beat me to it, but exactly–his use of an unproven herbal concoction rather than proven drugs puts him in league with y’all, pat. He may not deny that HIV causes AIDS (as far as I know), but you certainly have a spectrum of denial, from “HIV doesn’t exist” to “AIDS is caused by antiretroviral and other drugs.” That it can be “cured” in 30 days by a few herbs certainly doesn’t put him on the side of science.”

the versatility of “Schubladendenken”…there is no end to it. I’m glad you’ve mastered it; it makes for a carefree living, don’t it?

Proven drugs? You’re kidding right? HIV/AIDS, 25 years, ZERO saved. Got it?
#59 pat
February 23, 2007

“And your side is supported by what exactly? Lunatic ravings?”

I don’t actually take “sides”; I’m free from that shit.
#60 Pope
February 23, 2007

Dr. Noble, I saw you wrote that mortality from ‘HIV-related causes’ has gone down. I was wondering, if you had some thougts about the recent drop in ‘HIV-related’ foot pain?

“The study, conducted at San Francisco General Hospital from 2003 to 2005 and published Monday in the journal Neurology, involved 50 patients suffering from HIV-related foot pain known as peripheral neuropathy.

Thirteen patients who received marijuana told doctors their pain eased by at least a third after smoking pot, while only six of those smoking placebos said likewise. The marijuana smokers reported an average pain reduction of 34 percent, double the drop reported by the placebo smokers as measured with a widely accepted pain scale.

“These results provide evidence that there is measurable medical benefit to smoking cannabis for these patients,” said Dr. Donald Abrams, the University of California, San Francisco professor who led the study.”

The Bush administration is against pot smoking for medicinal purposes. How about you, Chris; do you think it would be worth it to see if pot smoking could reduce ‘HIV-related’ liver failure?
#61 Robster
February 23, 2007

And what is your interest in all of this Robster. You have spouted your garbage defence of HIV causing aids for about 6 months now?

I’m a scientist. I am interested in good science and evidence based medicine.

Are you Gay, or are you a closet case Robster?

No. But I am a strong supporter of the LGBT community. Why, exactly, would this make my statements more or less accurate? I have evidence on my side. My sexual preference is of no importance to the evidence, or vice versa.

Is someone close to your heart diagnosed as HIV?

Close to me? No. Friends, aquantances. Yes. But that doesn’t change the evidence.

Do you even know anyone diagnosed as HIV or AIDS? Do you know anyone taking HIV drugs or suffering from the side effects Robster?

Yes. Doesn’t change the evidence.

Just why is it that you feel you are qualified to spout your crap as if you had some direct knowledge or experience in any of this?

Because I have examined… yes, the evidence. Direct knowledge is not needed to read and interpret articles.

Are you another egotistical computer troll spouting off about something you know very little about? I have yet to see any critical thinking in any of your posts. You have not asked anyone a single question unless it was meant in some smart ass way?

Actually, I have, but feel free to ad hominem some more.

Memo
To: Pot
From: Kettle
Re: Black

Do you suffer from some emotionalal disturbances that you have not yet dealt with Robster?

Nope. I am happily medicated. And it doesn’t change the evidence.

Just what do you have to offer some of the HIV positive people that have read these threads searching for knowledge and truth?

Science. Oh, and evidence.

Do you know some ultimate truth about HIV and AIDS that the rest of us don’t have access to?M/i< Yes. It is to be found at http://www.pubmed.gov

Robster, Is there some reason that you are incapable of critical and unbiased thinking beyond wishing to get some attention?

See above memo.

#62 lincoln
February 23, 2007

Dicktor Noble: You just made another UNPROVEN UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM, as if it were true? Have you no self control, or are you still so completely desperate for negative attention? You really should discuss this with a therapist, or at least tell your father how his negative and unloving treatment of you has screwed up your brain.

“Immune activation is part of the pathogenesis of HIV. ”

Perhaps you will share a study of even a handful of HIV postives that don’t take illicit or hiv drugs and have proper nutrition, to prove your obviously flawed statement? The multitude of long term non progressors and people who have trashed their aids drugs says you are a still a liar, a faker, a poseur, and a fraud!
#63 lincoln
February 23, 2007

Hey Shalini. Do you have some proven evidence of what you claimed above? Perhaps you will show us proof in any study of HIV doing anything destructive in any cell of the body. Don’t you think you should have proof before you believe, let alone espouse your claim:

“And all of that has exactly what bearing on how a retrovirus called HIV destroys the human immune system and kills people?”

Perhaps Dr. Dork will show us a computer cartoon animation and try to convince us that it is real life!
#64 Shalini
February 23, 2007

[Hey Shalini. Do you have some proven evidence of what you claimed above?]

As Robster mentioned previously, it is to be found at http://www.pubmed.gov.

[Perhaps Dr. Dork will show us a computer cartoon animation and try to convince us that it is real life! ]

As usual, lincoln resorts to unrelated ad hominems when he fails to answer rational, sensible questions. Is he really that stupid or simply wilfully ignorant?
#65 Mark
February 23, 2007

Just a couple of years ago, leading HIV/AIDS researcher, Dr. Zvi Grossman, said that HIV pathogenesis was a “conundrum.” When it stops being a conundrum, someone call me. For now, I’ll wait until Dr. Grossman — certainly no rethinker, but is a very respectable scientist, tells me otherwise. Should people really take chemotherapies in order to defeat a virus for which pathogenesis is currently a “conundrum?” I don’t think I would.
#66 Mark
February 23, 2007

And by the way — there is also “proof” that Vioxx is safe and effective at http://www.pubmed.com. I mean, really! Referring to PubMed? There are a lot of mistakes and corrections within the voluminous library of PubMed. How about a more specific citation?
#67 Mark
February 23, 2007

BTW Tara, when do you go up for tenure? And what is the process of outside reviewers submitting documents to your file?
#68 Mark
February 23, 2007

One thing to keep in mind, Tara, when you belittle “rethinkers” you are belittling many, many HIV+ individuals. Folks who have been through the treatment gamut, ARVs and all, like myself. Now, if you (God forbid) developed cervical cancer, and decided to try a treatment that was not FDA approved and that many scientists disagreed with, I wouldn’t belittle you. In fact, I’d be supportive of your attempts to preserve your health — that’s called giving someone human dignity. There isn’t a lot of that going on around here. Can I suggest something, Tara? From now on, take exception if you’d like with the scientists you don’t agree with, but make sure not to belittle the patients. Deal?
#69 Mark
February 23, 2007

Of course, if you or anyone else developed cervical cancer and lost a significant amount of weight — you’d have “AIDS” if you were HIV+ and “ICL” if you were HIV-. Strange, isn’t it, how cervical cancer, just fine on its own, has become an AIDS-defining illness. I thought cervical cancer was related to another virus entirely. Am I wrong?
#70 Wic
February 23, 2007

lincoln calls people fascists if they can pronounce the word epidemiology he is ignoring the real fascists in the denialist movement and i’m not joking since i think neo-nazis and white supremacists would go in that category.

Here you will find an article on HIV denial by of a fellow traveler of lincoln and mark
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=168
This little hatesite has a slogan “No Jews. Just Right.” A guy comments on the article and says that of course no one would debate lincoln’s friend the math professor “What this chick may not grasp is that jews don’t debate, it’s beneath them. Oh- and they have no leg to stand on.” that’s your denial friends lincoln mark and pat.

to use lincolns logic since lincoln hasnt disavowed these people specifically he must be one of them.

of course I think he’s not but that’s where an argument goes when you degrade by saying someone’s a fascist or a “closet gay” or not black or what the clarevoyaint lincs thinks i am.
#71 Wic
February 23, 2007

mark go strut your ignorance somewhere else.
“if you or anyone else developed cervical cancer and lost a significant amount of weight — you’d have “AIDS” if you were HIV+ and “ICL” if you were HIV-.”
why didn’t you look it up before you made a jennet’s hindquarters outta yourself?
in your example you would have cervical cancer and be slim if you didn’t have HIV infection not ICL at all. On CDC criteria for ICL you need CD4+ count <300 per mm3 or <20% of the total T cells. you need that at least twice without any HIV infection ever and you can’t have any other immunodeficiency or immunetherapy.

and this is so beyond anything:
“BTW Tara, when do you go up for tenure? And what is the process of outside reviewers submitting documents to your file?”
Why don’t you submit a document that says hi i’m mark an ignorant a**. no one’s belittling hiv+ people just ignorant malicious busybodies like you mark.
#72 Dale
February 23, 2007

Hi Mark!

Here’s the thing. If you believe that HIV is infectious, as I expect many of those who post on Tara’s blog do, then an individual who chooses snake oil over treatments demonstrated to reduce viral loads (i.e. ARVs) is not only putting his or her own life at risk but is also increasing his or her chances of spreading the infection to sexual partners or, in the case of women of child bearing years, to future children.
#73 ERV
February 23, 2007

So– If you arent a scientist, then you ‘arent allowed’ to speak about HIV. But if you are a scientist, youre a ‘shill’. Okay. Kinda like how HIV doesnt exist, but it was artificially created in a lab to kill ‘black’ people, but HIV is harmless, but you can cure HIV infection with bananas and garlic, but booze and poppers give you AIDS, but AIDS doesnt exist either.

And why does ‘tenure’ get brought up on every damn HIV post Tara makes? Boogedy boogedy, Mark. *rolleyes*
#74 Colugo
February 23, 2007

The many varieties of AIDS cranks and conspiracy theorists:

- HIV denialists
- fake cure peddlers
- “AIDS was created by scientists” theorists
- “AIDS cure is being suppressed” theorists

There is another group that is not as bad as the above, but obnoxious in their own way:

- male circumcision opponents who deny that circumcision reduces HIV risk
#75 Pope
February 23, 2007

Dale,

If you change your diet from bananas to chemotherapy because of tests that are not licensed for diagnostic purposes and that detect bits of RNA said to belong to a retrovirus which has never been proven to be pathogenic, you’re the suicidal one.
#76 Metro
February 23, 2007

I’m not any kind of a scientist. I came waddling in here from the weird wild web from over at … The Pump Handle, I think. But as someone who spent many, many months getting blood tests back in the early days of the epidemic, I’m always interested in this topic.

In any debate, tone and argumentation should be important. I notice that those who occupy the HIV-doesn’t-cause-AIDS niche seem extremely angry and largely incoherent. And who could blame them if they feel frustrated? But they get intensely unpleasant and personal almost from the get-go.

lincoln, particularly, has added nothing to the discourse and in fact I skipped the trollish comments because lincoln a) seems incapable of putting his case, b) can’t seem to maintain respect for people who can’t or won’t see what he can’t or won’t explain.

The HIV-causes-AIDS posts, for the most part, seem reasonable and coherent–within my limited knowledge of the jargon–and take pains to respect dissent even in the face of the outright slanders of lincoln.

When they do get a little heated, it’s usually in response to pretty vicious attacks and possibly frustration at trying to follow the loopy lincoln logic.

I admit to coming from the point of view that a) HIV causes AIDS and b) fruit juice and vitamins, or some African herbal concoction seem unlikely to cure it (otherwise wouldn’t gay bars be safe–Mai Tais contain fruit juice, don’t they?).

But lincoln’s interesting tactic of accusing anyone who stands against him of being a “closet” homo or hidden AIDS case, his racist tone, and his repeated personal insults are particularly vile.

And Doctor Smith should thank him for it: By arguing as they do, lincoln and his associates are putting the opposite case almost as well as its own adherents are.

@lincoln: I cannot empirically evaluate all the evidence of any proposition put before me. I must instead rely on trusted sources and the reasoned opinions of experts.

Here you have had an opportunity to reason, to address the field and argue for your position. But since your arguments seem entirely unreasoned, I must assume your opinions and ideas are just the same.

If you want to spew, may I suggest you get your own damn blog?
#77 Dale
February 23, 2007

Pope,

The licensing on HIV tests is no different from the licensing on pregnancy tests – they are not to be used as the sole means of diagnosing HIV infection or pregnancy respectively because all tests are prone to some degree of error.

As far as the pathogenicity of the virus goes … I’m pragmatic. Studies show 80% or more of those who are identified as HIV positive will develop immunodeficiency while an even greater majority of those who are HIV negative won’t – to me that says the virus is a strong candidate for causing AIDS. Add to that the observation that HAART reduces viral loads and improves symptoms in the majority of HIV infected individuals and the evidence that HIV causes AIDS becomes even stronger. But show me a hypothesis that better explains all the data and makes testable predictions for improved treatments or cures. If experimental evidence supports that hypothesis, I’ll happily change my position.
#78 Pope
February 23, 2007

So Metro, which AIDS disease(s) is it you don’t believe can benefit from Maitais or African jungle juice? Is it,

Candidiasis of the esophagus, bronchi, trachea, or lungs
Coccidioidomycosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
Cryptococcosis, extrapulmonary
Cryptosporidiosis, chronic intestinal
Cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease
Cytomegalovirus retinitis
Encephalopathy, HIV-related (AIDS dementia complex)
Herpes simplex virus (HSV), chronic ulcer(s)
Herpes simplex bronchitis, pneumonitis, or esophagitis
Histoplasmosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
Isosporiasis, chronic intestinal
Kaposi’s sarcoma (KS)
Lymphoma: non-Hodgkin’s (NHL), primary brain/CNS
Mycobacterium avium/kansasii complex (MAC)
Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB), extrapulmonary
Mycobacterium, other species, disseminated or extrapulmonary
Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) (now called P. jiroveci)
Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML)
Salmonella septicemia, recurrent
Toxoplasmosis of the brain
Wasting syndrome

Added in the 1993 revision:

Invasive cervical cancer
Pneumonia (other than PCP), recurrent
Pulmonary tuberculosis
CD4 cell count below 200 cells/mm3?
#79 Pope
February 23, 2007

Haha, Dale I’m sure you’d change your point of view in a blink of an eye if I showed you that for example the ‘chemical theory of AIDS’ makes even better predictions. But you seem to be getting a little ahead of yourself there. First you were talking about viral load, now you’re talking about HIV. I just don’t know what you’re referring to, and neither does a shipload of so-called HIV experts down under in Adelaide at the moment.

But leaving that aside, you say 80% of those who test positive on… what exactly? one Elisa? two Elisas? clinical symptoms? Western blot? one band? two bands? three bands? four bands? strong or weak? PCR? which primers, the ones that look for variable or conserved regions of the ‘HIV genome’? African strains? Asian strains? San Franciscan strains? the very lethal strains, or the less lethal strains? the liberal strains or the republican strains? Those strains found in the left arm or those found in the right arm?

Anyway, you say 80% go on to develop immunodeficiency? But that’s not how I remember my Durban declaration. What happened to the other 20%? Are they genetic mutants? Are they lacking a receptor molecule? Or did they just forget to take their daily chemo? What is wrong with those people exactly, please tell me?
#80 pat
February 23, 2007

“lincoln calls people fascists if they can pronounce the word epidemiology he is ignoring the real fascists in the denialist movement and i’m not joking since i think neo-nazis and white supremacists would go in that category.

Here you will find an article on HIV denial by of a fellow traveler of lincoln and mark
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/?p=168
This little hatesite has a slogan “No Jews. Just Right.” A guy comments on the article and says that of course no one would debate lincoln’s friend the math professor “What this chick may not grasp is that jews don’t debate, it’s beneath them. Oh- and they have no leg to stand on.” that’s your denial friends lincoln mark and pat.”

This is the mother of all Shubladen. If I find a nazi who shares your views on all this can I also put you in a nazi box? That site is disgusting and you’re disgustingly dishonest.
#81 lincoln
February 23, 2007

Hey Dale, You said:

“But show me a hypothesis that better explains all the data and makes testable predictions for improved treatments or cures. If experimental evidence supports that hypothesis, I’ll happily change my position”.

Well Dale, check this one out and please tell us what you think of it:

What if HIV was simply a natural signal of cellular death (apoptosis)?

http://aras.ab.ca/articles/scientific/Umber-apoptosis.html
#82 Kevin
February 23, 2007

Chris Noble wrote:
“The level of immune activation is known to be a dominant factor that determines the rate of progression to AIDS.
Immune activation is part of the pathogenesis of HIV.”

This quote does not necessarily support the HIV theory of causation. Try substituting Severe Candidiasis or Tuberculosis or any other of the serious “AIDS-defining illnesses” for HIV in the above, and you’ll see the they work just as well. In fact, I’d say that Severe Candidiasis works even better than HIV, since it is found in virtually 100% of AIDS patients.

Kevin
#83 Kevin
February 23, 2007

“If HIV is not the predominant cause of CD4 cell loss, then, by definition, HIV is not a sufficient cause of AIDS.” — Barry A

Well said, Barry.
Roy Hinkley has unwittingly asked the question that does follow necessarily from the wisdom expressed by your quote:

“And all of that has exactly what bearing on how a retrovirus called HIV destroys the human immune system and kills people?”

Thanks, Roy. We’d all like to know exactly how this retrovirus kills, but so far that process has not been sufficiently explained or even sufficiently demonstrated.

Kevin
#84 Robster
February 23, 2007

Again, lincoln, that isn’t a scientific journal, includes no experiments, only a handful of what-ifs instead of data, and blatant misinterpretation of data. In fact the author seems confused as to the difference between a vesicle and a viral particle (more denial that the virus even exists), or what the different tests actually look for.

The only testable prediction that one can even pull from this essay is that giving HIV+ people antioxidents would prevent their progression. And yet, such attempts have failed to work better than HAART. A combination of HAART and an improved diet is a patient’s best chance to prevent disease progression,
#85 Robster
February 23, 2007

Here is a paper that discusses how HIV kills cells and induces apoptosis, contradicting both lincoln’s claims and those found in the essay he just linked to.
#86 Wic
February 23, 2007

according to pat “This is the mother of all Shubladen. If I find a nazi who shares your views on all this can I also put you in a nazi box? That site is disgusting and you’re disgustingly dishonest.”
what the hell is shubladen? sounds like a nazi word. didn’t put nobody in the nazi box. just showed that there are nazi denialists.
#87 Wic
February 23, 2007

calling lincoln.
I sent the D:A:D study of 23,411 HIV+ people taking ART. Less than 3% of the deaths in this cohort were due to liver complications that weren’t viral hepatitis.
Are you retracting that HAART causes most AIDS deaths or what?
#88 Pope
February 23, 2007

There’s thousands of papers that discuss how HIV kills cells, perhaps Robster could explain why he finds this particular one to be superior, how it contradicts the claims in the Umber article Lincoln linked, and what makes it superior as a theory to Jean Umber’s – which by the way didn’t claim to be backed up by the experimental resources comparable to those backing the ‘conventional’ theories. So if we are to play by those rules we’ll end up with a disussion that’s determined the same way as a presidential race. No chance for a third party.
#89 Barry A
February 23, 2007

Hello Kevin,

Very sound analysis — amidst the screeching from both sides above.

You noted a person in response to me who wrote:

Immune activation is part of the pathogenesis of HIV.”

This does not sound right. The claim is now that immune activation causes immune deficiency?

Are folks claiming that AIDS is an auto-immune disease in addition to the 25 old diseases listed by Pope above?

I return to my simple formulation: If non-virological mechanisms are the predominant cause of CD4 cell depletion, than HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS.

Does anyone disagree? If so, why?
#90 Pope
February 23, 2007

Barry, I think the term is “hyperactivation” of the immune system causing premature cell death, increased cell turnover, wearing down the immunesystem by attrition from years of chronic infection etc. Plus HIV prefers to attack precisely the CD4 cells that are produced in great numbers by a hyperactivated immune system. Or so the story goes.
#91 Kevin
February 23, 2007

I return to my simple formulation: If non-virological mechanisms are the predominant cause of CD4 cell depletion, than HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS.
Does anyone disagree? If so, why?

Hello, Barry. I certainly don’t disagree with that statement. A reasonable reply is such a rarity here that I wanted to give you some kind of answer, even though I’ve gotta be out the door soon. I’ll try to be concise.

I do think that AIDS is an auto-immune disease, with a multi-factoral cause, though drug use seems to be a necessary component. However, you are right, that is not how it is popularly understand and to change the story at this point is damning for the status quo, for it removes HIV as the necessary causal component–a status it has never earned in the first place. Thus, how thoroughly transparent, now that they want to categorize the method of pathogenesis as indirect. Would any other organism be given so many chances to emerge as pathogenic? Only if it was equally profitable, I imagine.

My own take on “immune activation” and it’s relation to what is actually occurring with “AIDS” is based on my own health experience and on my correspondence with dozens of others who have also suffered AIDS-defining illnesses. Mind you, some were indeed test-positive, but I corresponded with many HIV test-negative individuals who suffered similar illnesses and who, like me, had difficulty getting appropriate care. Anyway, I’ve previously noted that Mayo Clinic studies show a strong link between “immune activation” and chronic sinusitis. In fact, 96% of chronic sinusitis is now believed to be caused by an immune response to fungi, though popular treatment remains unchanged, i.e. antibiotics and more antibiotics. As I explained in another thread, this unusual immune activation is not caused by HIV but by the colonization of other areas of the body by fungi, just like in the sinuses, which absolutely makes more sense in light of the Mayo Clinic findings. It’s usually candida albicans. I assert that what we now call “AIDS” is really severe candidiasis, which can be very difficult to eradicate. In short, the constant infection with the candida organism, particularly once it’s achieved rhizomes, is severely immuno-suppressive. If proper treatment is not given, eventually other pathogens will kill the weakenedhost. Finding the proper treatment for each case of severe candidiasis is difficult and deserve more research attention. However, it most certainly does not involve AZT nor the administration of any other immuno-suppressive agent.

So much for brevity…

Kevin
#92 pat
February 23, 2007

“what the hell is shubladen? sounds like a nazi word. didn’t put nobody in the nazi box. just showed that there are nazi denialists.” -Wic

And for what purpose exactly? Are you a random trivia generator?
Wic, obviously you are blending realities and fantasies. I hope you are the only one who does not know the difference between german and “nazi” but since you are a klutz I’ll give you this:

German (also called “High German) is an Indo-European language that is based on a “High German” dialect which is spoken by approx. 120 million people world-wide. It is the official languages of Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, and is also widely used as an international language for scholarship and science. (dictionary*)
(interesting fact: German accounts for the most written translations into and from a language – Guinness Book of Records).

“Nazi” is a colloquial abbreviation and stands for Nationalsozialismus (National Socialism). It is in effect a fascist Ideology which was promoted by a lowly Austrian corporal by the name of Adolf Hitler and is ideology not specific to germanic peoples. Nazis today are found throughout the world and fascist ideology transcend gender, race and religion. The largest concentration of Nazis per capita is currently found in US (and I mean “Nazis”, not fascists in general)
“Schubladendenken” is a GERMAN word and translates literally as “Drawer-thinking”. The english language equivalent is “compartmentalization” (which you would have read had you actually been following this thread). It is the logic of lumping people into categories so as to simplify the task of pre-judging people or ideas based on simple common denominators at the expense of the much more complex but revealing method of judging each person and idea individually on its own merits. The fallacy of your compartmentalization is that it ingores real and relevant differences and has for effect the smearing of character by random association with completely unrelated and repulsive concepts, whether it is intentional or not. It is a prefered logic of the poor, lazy, radical and/or dishonest thinkers. You bring me and others into Nazi association buy pointing out that there are Nazi “HIV-rethinkers” and I despise you for it. What makes me a “rethinker” anyway? Because I am of the opinion that the meds suck? Which makes me wonder about the rest of this racially and morally compartmentalized money-laundering circus? If I pointed to the Nazis that trusted the HIV/AIDS “establishment” my point would be exactly what? To discredit you by association! I will not do that for I have no reason to believe you are a Nazi but I do believe you have shown your intelligence to be “self-limiting” through your use of “Schubladendenken”.

Also, by making such stupid remarks and associations you are making a mockery of the scandelous and murderous nature of fascism. So I ask you, whatever “figment-of-your-imagination-side” you think you are on, to refrain from doing so in the future; there are over 55 million dead men, women and children whose memory are begging for it. Bedankt.

*dic·tion·ar·y [dik-shuh-ner-ee] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun, plural -ar·ies.
1. a book containing a selection of the words of a language, usually arranged alphabetically, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, etc., expressed in either the same or another language; lexicon; glossary: a dictionary of English; a Japanese-English dictionary. (dictionary.com)
#93 pat
February 23, 2007

“didn’t put nobody in the nazi box” < - this sentence alone implies you did.
#94 pat
February 23, 2007

that sentence alone implies you did ; )
#95 pat
February 23, 2007

n’ techinikly it mean notin’ at all cuz It ain’t have no seuubjekt.
#96 ERV
February 23, 2007

Chris Noble wrote:
“The level of immune activation is known to be a dominant factor that determines the rate of progression to AIDS.
Immune activation is part of the pathogenesis of HIV.”

This quote does not necessarily support the HIV theory of causation. Try substituting Severe Candidiasis or Tuberculosis or any other of the serious “AIDS-defining illnesses” for HIV in the above, and you’ll see the they work just as well. In fact, I’d say that Severe Candidiasis works even better than HIV, since it is found in virtually 100% of AIDS patients.

Kevin

Google ‘siglecs’. *sigh*
#97 lincoln
February 23, 2007

Manto Tshabalala Msiman, Health Minister of South Africa, is presently very ill and in ICU.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/world/africa/23africa.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

If Manto dies from the stresses currently upon her, I think it will be one more death that has been contributed to greatly by the AIDS orthodoxy whipping up the furor of her own people of South Africa into a frenzy against her, orchestrated by many leading AIDS apologists, including people such as John P. Moore at http://www.aidstruth.org, Greg Gonsalves, Marc Wainberg, Richard Jefferies, with the support of pharmaceutical companys funding of groups such as The Treatment Action Campaign, Zachie Achmat, and others, and even those among her own people who have raised arms against her in the press and radio of South Africa, and who have not supported her and have tried to destroy her in her struggle to protect and bring health and well being to the people of South Africa.

Since the Toronto Aids Conference, she has been in a constantly attacked and has been in a situation of extreme emotional distress. This has been intensely contributed to by her inability to save her people from toxic AIDS drugs, and an inability to lift her people up to health and well being and nutritionally adequate diets and clean drinking water to drink, and sanitation, without the backing of many of her own people, and the people of the world.

The only support our country has offered is to send toxic AIDS drugs, which will only exacerbate and overwhelm the already overtaxed health system of South Africa.

She is in my prayers, for a full recovery.

I invite you and hope you will join with me in holding Manto Tshabalala Msimang up in prayer, to acceptance of life as it is, to regaining her peace of mind, and regaining her health and her well being, and regaining her energetic and overflowing optimism for a better and healthier future for all.
#98 lincoln
February 23, 2007

The use of hate words such as “DENIALIST” are used to breed hatred, as in holocaust denier. It is equivalent to whites using the word “N&^%$R” to denigrate a black man, or “K&^E” or “dirty jew” for someone of the Jewish faith, or “towel head” for a Muslim, or “f*&&*t” to denigrate a homosexual.

Words such as this have but one purpose: to bring about hatred.

And they are used quite successfully to manipulate the minds of the uneducated and trusting masses.
#99 Mark
February 24, 2007

Okay, so let’s say that Tara, due to diurnal rhythms and perhaps some random cold virus, returned a CD4 count of 194, which research in your beloved PubMed says can indeed happen, AND had invasive cervical cancer, and also developed systemic candida — voila! It’s ICL! Unless of course she also tested HIV+. Then it’s AIDS. How does that make sense exactly? Can someone explain?

Can anyone (i.e., how about it Tara) defend the addition of invasive cervical cancer to the diagnosis of AIDS? Again, isn’t invasive cervical cancer related to a different virus?
#100 Mark
February 24, 2007

And no more AdHoms in response please. If you can’t answer the question, just admit it, how about? Besides, all the AdHoms in the world aren’t going to bother me — so I suppose if you folks need to make them, go ahead.

There was never any justification for adding invasive cervical cancer to the list of AIDS-defining illnesses — at least, no scientific justification. But hey — if you think you’ve got one, let’s hear it. Otherwise — it looks like your favorite diagnosis is broken and there’s nothing to be done to fix it.

Oh and Dale — couldn’t one believe that HIV is indeed infectious, but also harmless? After all, it hasn’t harmed me one bit, so why would I believe it was harmful? After 10 years, no AIDS. What’s a guy to do?
#101 Mark
February 24, 2007

And one more thing on tenure files — they are always open to letters from outside commentators, except for that short period when the file is actively under review. So unless Tara is currently actively under review, any letters received by the Dean of her college are placed automatically in her file — she does have the right to rebut such letters if they displease her, but she can’t keep them out. That’s just how tenure works. Kinda sucks, huh?
#102 Mark
February 24, 2007

Not that I’m suggesting anyone here should submit a letter to Tara’s file — that would be pointless — too easy to rebut. But if a certain Nobel Laureate whom Tara has, shall we say, given a less than kind review to here on these pages, were to write a letter — well, that might be a different story.
#103 ERV
February 24, 2007

Dont be stupid, Mark. Everyone in research knows of Mullis’s stance on HIV and no one gives a shit except Deniers. Why? Because even though hes a ‘Nobel Laureate’ he still cant muster up an abstract worth of data to support his world views. Too busy being abducted by aliens, evidently.

Creationists with degrees, Deniers with degrees, no one submits journals. *yawn*
#104 Dale
February 24, 2007

Mark,

If HIV hasn’t harmed you one bit after ten years, I’m happy for you. You’re lucky. According to CDC data and the literature, many people aren’t as lucky. As to why cervical cancer would be added to a list of AIDS defining diseases when it is associated with another virus, the rationale is the same as for Kaposi’s or certain types of lymphoma which are also associated with viruses other than HIV. Because the probability of developing certain virus associated cancers is significantly higher in HIV infected individuals than in non infected individuals.

Could HIV be infectious but harmless? Based on the literature, I would say no. Not when the vast majority of HIV positive individuals eventually develop immunodeficiency. Could HIV be rendered harmless in some way that didn’t involve ARVs? Possibly. There’s certainly evidence that rare individuals have immune systems that can keep the virus under control. But that’s not currently very helpful to the majority whose immune systems can’t.
#105 Mark
February 24, 2007

That’s funny, I had another Nobel Laureate in mind, but I guess Kerry would do too!
#106 Mark
February 24, 2007

Since I’m so stupid, and I imagine the converse is true of you (H)Erv, why not do some sleuthing and figure out which Nobel Laureate I was thinking of, why don’t you? Oh ye of little faith (and of seemingly too little knowledge of Nobel Laureates)!
#107 Mark
February 24, 2007

Meanwhile — still no answer about invasive cervical cancer. When do we get to call lack of response a white flag?
#108 Mark
February 24, 2007

How about now? Good, then.

So we all agree that it’s bullshit that invasive cervical cancer is an “AIDS-defining illness.”

Score one for the “truthidents!” (Sounds more accurate than dissidents, doesn’t it)?
#109 Dale
February 24, 2007

Actually Mark I responded to your query as to why cervical cancer along with a few other virus associated cancers (i.e. Kaposi’s and some lymphomas) might be defined as AIDS defining illnesses. Unfortunately the comment appears to have been trapped in Tara’s spam filter. So I’ll repeat myself.

Cancers that appear at significantly higher frequency in HIV positive individuals than they do in HIV negative individuals are classified as AIDS defining. My reading of the literature suggests that not everyone agrees that cervical cancer should be included in that list as the difference in frequency in positive and negative individuals is not nearly as great as it is for Kaposi’s or some others.
#110 Wic
February 24, 2007

very nice of you pat to make fun of my spelling. you’re not such a bright bulb yourself. when i misspelled more twice, you later said i “repeated it twice” which would mean i wrote it three times. and i didn’t. good to see you’re not claiming to be reasonable anymore though and admitting you’re a hardcore denialist.
#111 pat
February 24, 2007

“Because even though hes a ‘Nobel Laureate’ he still cant muster up an abstract worth of data to support his world views. Too busy being abducted by aliens, evidently.”

Apparently nobody can pull up any papers for anything. Some say none exist and others say the information is overwhealming but in the meantime we all stare and the largest mound of paper and it tells us absolutely nothing beyond a few theories.

On his site you can find this little disclaimer: “I suggest that you not be shooting at the messenger; I am just reporting what I have observed.”
#112 pat
February 24, 2007

“very nice of you pat to make fun of my spelling. you’re not such a bright bulb yourself. when i misspelled more twice, you later said i “repeated it twice” which would mean i wrote it three times. and i didn’t. good to see you’re not claiming to be reasonable anymore though and admitting you’re a hardcore denialist.”

So it was a typo and not an attempt at humouring my name
“…a typo repeated twice or…” Wic, you ask for it because you’re a hardcore miserable hick with a world view a la O’Reilly. Did you get the part of the Schubladendenken? Do you understand what is a german word and what philosophy Natinalsozialismus actually is? Are you going to apologize to the dead?
#113 Wic
February 24, 2007

same for you mark. hardcore denial!
Denial isn’t a hate word. ask yourself do you deny that HIV causes AIDS and if the answer is yes you’re a denialist. When you do science you’re a scientist. when you live on a commune you’re a communist. they’re not hate words just describing peoples outlook.

mark you can’t even understand what you think fence boy. so why do you think you understand cervical cancer?

Cervical cancer is caused by HPV. HIV+ has higher rate of HPV coinfection. correlation between cancer or neooplasia and HIV+. inverse between how bad the cancer is and immune function. (there’s one connection mark)

HIV Tat protein enhances HPV expression this was already published in 1993 by M.L.Tornasello. J.Nyagol et al showed Tat pushes cells to divide to and so enhances cancer last June in “Cancer biol ther” There are two more mark.
As HIV+ people live longer and longer on haart other cancers probably become associated with AIDS too we’ll see. For the same reasons like Tat and cell cycle.
#114 pat
February 24, 2007

What is it I am denying? Denialist on its own means absolutly notin’
#115 pat
February 24, 2007

“when you live on a commune you’re a communist”

Stop the fodder Wic. If I live on a commune can I also be a pedestrian? Or a commuter? Or a capitalist trying to expand my world view? -Shubladendenken in action here
#116 Wic
February 24, 2007

pat says “Are you going to apologize to the dead?” and i sure as hell won’t i didn’t kill anyone hitler and his millions of adoring german speaking followers did.
how bout an apology from your denialist idiots who killed thousands of south africans by convincing mbeki to give them lemon juice instead of medicine. you know there names and you worship them just like the germans worshiped hitler.
#117 pat
February 24, 2007

“pat says “Are you going to apologize to the dead?” and i sure as hell won’t i didn’t kill anyone hitler and his millions of adoring german speaking followers did.
how bout an apology from your denialist idiots who killed thousands of south africans by convincing mbeki to give them lemon juice instead of medicine. you know there names and you worship them just like the germans worshiped hitler.” – Wic

Please stay, you’re scoring points for the independent thinkers here and crapping your pants at the same time. You’re a disgrace.
#118 Wic
February 24, 2007

Whatever pat.
the great independent thinker Celia Farber has discovered the schocking truth of hiv and aids.

it’s not AIDS kills people or even antiretroviral drug toxicity.

it’s voodoo! if you don’t believe me look over on NARnia.
she says scientists killed EJ Maggiore by voodoo and now their killing a government minister in south africa!

some racist homophobe closet gay fascist scientists must be sitting at the top of Orthanc tower on NIH campus doing voodoo ceremonies to kill off millions of people. that would make a nice movie maybe Celia could find a more successful career in screen writing.
#119 pat
February 24, 2007

“it’s voodoo! if you don’t believe me look over on NARnia.”

You’re not descerning enough to actually understand what she means by that. You’re probably thinking of dolls and needles aren’t you?
#120 pat
February 24, 2007

OMG you are thinking dolls and needles!

“some racist homophobe closet gay fascist scientists must be sitting at the top of Orthanc tower on NIH campus doing voodoo ceremonies to kill off millions of people. that would make a nice movie maybe Celia could find a more successful career in screen writing.”
#121 pat
February 24, 2007

Have you ever been so medicated that you went from taking medicine because you’re sick to “feeling” crippled because of them? It is a phsycological threshold, Wic. You do know what a self-fulfilling prophecy is. You are made to think of yourself as sick because the definition of your disease allows no escape, i.e. low T cell counts (arbitrarily set and with little understood significance) but no phisical symptoms the patient can feel-60% of Aids cases. It begins in the head and ends in the grave.
#122 Mark
February 24, 2007

So, here are the lame duck answers to the cervical cancer question — makes one understand why there are “truthidents” out there:

Cancers that appear at significantly higher frequency in HIV positive individuals than they do in HIV negative individuals are classified as AIDS defining. My reading of the literature suggests that not everyone agrees that cervical cancer should be included in that list as the difference in frequency in positive and negative individuals is not nearly as great as it is for Kaposi’s or some others.

Posted by: Dale | February 24, 2007 12:43 PM

mark you can’t even understand what you think fence boy. so why do you think you understand cervical cancer?

Cervical cancer is caused by HPV. HIV+ has higher rate of HPV coinfection. correlation between cancer or neooplasia and HIV+. inverse between how bad the cancer is and immune function. (there’s one connection mark)

HIV Tat protein enhances HPV expression this was already published in 1993 by M.L.Tornasello. J.Nyagol et al showed Tat pushes cells to divide to and so enhances cancer last June in “Cancer biol ther” There are two more mark.
As HIV+ people live longer and longer on haart other cancers probably become associated with AIDS too we’ll see. For the same reasons like Tat and cell cycle.

Posted by: Wic | February 24, 2007 01:04 PM

Word up, Dale. Controversial to say the least. And Wic, darling, no more fence sitting here, sorry to tell you! You must have missed my big Truthident Cottillion. Sorry, the invite must have gotten lost in the mail — but let’s review your reasoning — “as HIV+ people live longer…” Are you, Wic, admitting that HIV is not a death sentence? And Wic, darling, don’t the indicidence of most cancers INCREASE AS ALL PEOPLE LIVE LONGER? Duh. And it’s hardly surprising, at least to me, that some similar proteins are expressed by some similar viral entities.

In other words, your arguments for including cervical cancer as an AIDS-defining illness simply suck. Sorry! If we follow your line of reasoning, as HIV+ people live longer — well, then shouldn’t coronary artery disease and arthritis be defined as AIDS-defining as well?

Your lack of think-through is rather astounding. Can I inquire as to what your qualifications are? You’ve made some very poor arguments here, indeed, calling into question the rationality of everything else you’ve written here. Seriously sad, Wic. Seriously sad.
#123 Mark
February 24, 2007

And can we assume, Tara, that you too find the inclusion of invasive cervical cancer as an AIDS-defining illness as, Dale says, “controversial?” Let’s hope so! I can’t see you arguing what Wic has argued; you’re generally more reliable than that.
#124 Mark
February 24, 2007

And most importantly, let’s not forget what including cervical cancer did for the number of AIDS cases in the U.S. — OMG, a miracle. The number of cases in WOMEN just skyrocketed! Wow. Who would have expected that. Watch out, ladies. Bad pap smear and you may be on your way to an AIDS diagnosis faster than I can type this comment! Guess us guys are lucky that we don’t have a cervix.
#125 Dale
February 24, 2007

The number of cases in WOMEN just skyrocketed!

Hardly Mark. According to Klevens et al. who analyzed CDC data in the first year of the expanded definition of AIDS. RESULTS: Of the 16,794 women 13 years old or older and reported with AIDS in 1993, 217 (1.3%) had invasive cervical cancer and 9113 (54.3%) had other opportunistic illnesses; the remaining 7464 (44.4%) had no opportunistic illnesses and were reported based on immunologic criteria.

I’d hardly call 217 out of 16,794 a ‘skyrocketing’ increase.
#126 Chris Noble
February 24, 2007

I wrote:“Immune activation is part of the pathogenesis of HIV.”

lincoln responded with: Dicktor Noble: You just made another UNPROVEN UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM, as if it were true? Have you no self control, or are you still so completely desperate for negative attention? You really should discuss this with a therapist, or at least tell your father how his negative and unloving treatment of you has screwed up your brain.

I also indicated that this is discussed in the Rodriguez paper that every “rethinker” enjoys citing without actually reading or understanding.

Dicktor Noble: You just made another UNPROVEN UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM, as if it were true? Have you no self control, or are you still so completely desperate for negative attention? You really should discuss this with a therapist, or at least tell your father how his negative and unloving treatment of you has screwed up your brain.

Quoting from Rodriguez et al: What factors may account for the residual variability in CD4 cell decay rate? HIV infection is associated with heightened T-cell activation and cellular turnover,18,37 and expression of immune activation markers is associated with both clinical disease progression38 and rate of CD4 cell depletion.39 Cellular immune activation is commonly measured through enumeration of the proportion of cells that express markers such as CD38 and HLA-DR by flow cytometry, although this test is not routinely performed in clinical practice.

18. Hazenberg MD, Hamann D, Schuitemaker H, Miedema F. T cell depletion in HIV-1 infection: how CD4 T cells go out of stock. Nat Immunol. 2000;1: 285-289.

37. McCune JM. The dynamics of CD4 T-cell depletion in HIV disease. Nature. 2001;410:974-979.

38. Giorgi JV, Liu Z, Hultin LE, Cumberland WG, Hennessey K, Detels R. Elevated levels of CD38 CD8 T cells in HIV infection add to the prognostic value of low CD4 T cell levels: results of 6 years of follow-up: the Los Angeles Center, Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 1993;6:904-912.

39. Bofill M, Mocroft A, Lipman M, et al. Increased numbers of primed activated CD8 CD38 CD45RO n cells predict the decline of CD4 T cells in HIV-1infected patients. AIDS. 1996;10:827-834.

Of course these articles are written by megalomaniac racist closet gay homophobes with financial ties to pharmaceutical companies so you can safely ignore them.
#127 Tyler DiPietro
February 24, 2007

Of course these articles are written by megalomaniac racist closet gay homophobes with financial ties to pharmaceutical companies so you can safely ignore them.

Actually, you are wrong. They were, as everyone knows, written under the direction of the Office of Gentile Poisoning in the International Jewish Conspiracy. That is why we can ignore them, just like we ignore the technical professionals who say 9/11 conspiracy paranoia is a load of shit. You should learn the intricacies of conspiracism before devling into such nonsense.
#128 ERV
February 24, 2007

Almost Tyler– if you had something in there about the Illuminati, Masons, and a grassy knoll, you would have had it. Oh yeah, and what Stephen said about Voldemort. HIV is a great way to kill Muggles. ‘Black’ Muggles.
#129 Kevin
February 24, 2007

When you do science you’re a scientist. when you live on a commune you’re a communist.

Wow! What a lead-in you’ve provided, Wic-i-boy. You’re moronic motor-mouth makes you an easy mark. Thanks. Without further ado let’s look at some of the brilliant comments that some of the “scientists” from this site have contributed:

*”If I try to present the evidence for the effectiveness of AZT and other ARV’s you will tell me about Diarrhea and vomiting… So where does that leave us? Discussing the various colors of vomit and the way the smell never gets out of your nose?”
*”That it can be “cured” in 30 days by a few herbs certainly doesn’t put him on the side of science.”
*”You forgot to mention Iran’s recent contribution to AIDS quackery.”
*”why not see look at this study which shows a median survival of 35 years with treatment?”
*”lincoln sorry I was lazy but I decided to look it up since you’d just send me to some science fiction sight like healtoronto.”
*”I know what causes AIDS! It’s obviously another of Lord Voldemort’s plots!”
*”Chris’s area of expertise is less important than his understanding of science behind HIV/AIDS.”
*”And your side is supported by what exactly? Lunatic ravings?”
____________________________________________
Were all of this blog’s leading propogandists able to locate their individual contributions? Some of you may be listed twice and that is not by mistake, for it solidifies your role as a more accomplished propogandist. I’ll leave it up to reader’s try to make sense out of each quote, but it is obvious that none of you are capable of debating the finer points of this issue without resorting to name-calling. I would, however, like to ask the following question to all the propagandists here: How many AIDS patients have realized the 35 year life expectancy given that “AIDS” has only been around, at most 25-27 years, give or take a year and how many of those that do suppose were taking AZT monotherapy, back in the day?

George Santayana wrote a terrific, short essay entitled, “There Is No First Principle Of Criticism”. I certainly recommend it to all the propagandists on this site, all those masquerading as “scientists”, but anyone interested in understanding the impure intersection of modern science and human health might find it worthwhile. When science is believed to be beyond criticism, it is no longer science, it is dogma. Regardless, I highly recommend the essay to any of the sycophants who contributed any of the nonsense noted above.

With that said, Tara does deserve praise for providing this blog as an opportunity for criticism; whether she likes it or not, the “gallery” at this “scientific” blog is ridiculously unscientific. Not to mention, Tara, herself, is unwilling to civilly engage those of us with whom she disagrees. At least she allows that character flaw to shine through unencumbered, most notably apparent in her incessant use of propagandized titles for all dissident-related top posts.

Kevin
#130 Chris Noble
February 24, 2007

Can the “rethinkers” that don’t think that the Gambian president belongs to their side explain the difference between him and various other “rethinkers” that claim to be able to cure AIDS (and cancer, heart disease, chakra misalignments etc).

Matthias Rath cites studies supposedly demonstrating that vitamin C inhibits HIV in vitro as support for his quack panaceas. This has not stopped him from being wlecome under the HIV “rethinker” big tent. Rasnick was working for him for some time.
#131 Chris Noble
February 25, 2007

Barry wrote: I return to my simple formulation: If non-virological mechanisms are the predominant cause of CD4 cell depletion, than HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS.

Only in the trivial sense in which influenzavirus is not sufficient to cause influenza.

There are host factors in every infectious disease this does not in any way mean that the pathogens do not cause the disease.

There are host factors that determine the rate of CD4 depletion. Some people progress faster. Some progress slower. On average people with high viral loads progress faster than those with low viral loads. There are exceptions. Some people with high viral loads progress slowly and some people with low viral loads progress rapidly. The vast majority of people with HIV infection do progress to AIDS.
#132 bharath
February 25, 2007

Strange that he can cure AIDS with simple methods. Seems like his method is not good enough to diagnose people?

I am sure these are the sort of figures we need in a way. If American doctors can bribe this guy and have him administer the medicine, very soon whatever stigma is attached to medicine will be gone. so there is a plus, if he can used effectively.
#133 lincoln
February 25, 2007

Chris just told us a classic! He said the most memorable words I have ever heard:

“Some people progress faster. Some progress slower”.

My oh my Chris. You are almost as bright as Peter Duesberg, who said: “There are no slow viruses, only slow virologists”.

Right on Chris! Go to the mirror right this moment and repeat your own words:

“Some people progress faster. Some progress slower”.

“Some people progress faster. Some progress slower”.

“Some people progress faster. Some progress slower”.

“Some people progress faster. Some progress slower”.

“Some people progress faster. Some progress slower”.
#134 lincoln
February 25, 2007

Although it might be most accurate to say:

A FEW PEOPLE PROGRESS FASTER, MOST PROGRESS SLOWER!

Which one are you, Chris? Which one would you like to be?
#135 Tyler DiPietro
February 25, 2007

Some of you may be listed twice and that is not by mistake, for it solidifies your role as a more accomplished propogandist. I’ll leave it up to reader’s try to make sense out of each quote, but it is obvious that none of you are capable of debating the finer points of this issue without resorting to name-calling.

Are you one of those people who doesn’t understand irony?
#136 Tyler DiPietro
February 25, 2007

My oh my Chris. You are almost as bright as Peter Duesberg, who said: “There are no slow viruses, only slow virologists”.

HOLY CRAP! What an insight! I now know for sure that differential capabilities of immune systems that influenced by multiple factors Mb>HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON THE PROGRESSION OF VIRUSES! None!

Here let me say it a bunch of times, because that makes it true and funny in some way that is alien to everyone but me!!!

“Differential capabilities of immune systems have no impact on virus progression.”

“Differential capabilities of immune systems have no impact on virus progression.”

“Differential capabilities of immune systems have no impact on virus progression.”

“Differential capabilities of immune systems have no impact on virus progression.”

BOOYAH! That’s it for the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy, we can all go home now.
#137 lincoln
February 25, 2007

Tyler, you, obviously, are another of the slower progessors in life. Must be nice. I hear ignorance is bliss.
#138 Kevin
February 25, 2007

Are you one of those people who doesn’t understand irony? — Tyler DiPietro

Are you one of those people of only aspires in lieu of anything substantive to contribute to the discussion?

In case you are in denial, the following quote suggests that you are indeed a blow-hard:

HOLY CRAP! What an insight! I now know for sure that differential capabilities of immune systems that influenced by multiple factors Mb>HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT ON THE PROGRESSION OF VIRUSES! None!

Ironically yours,

Kevin
#139 Chris Noble
February 25, 2007

lincoln, thanks for the comments.

I was interested in knowing whether you think that someone that is not homosexual, doesn’t take drugs, is not HIV+ and does not personally know anyone who died of AIDS is to be taken seriously regarding HIV and AIDS.
#140 kevin
February 25, 2007

Here let me say it a bunch of times, because that makes it true and funny in some way that is alien to everyone but me!!!

“Differential capabilities of immune systems have no impact on virus progression.”

It’s not alien to me, Lincoln. Our friend (Tyler) has unwittingly spoken the truth. It’s funny how that is always happening to AIDS apologists. It must be related to the numerous and inescapable contradictions inherent to their theory.

Kevin
#141 lincoln
February 25, 2007

Chris, I think that would depend on a few things, such as:

One, their sincerity.
Two, their ability to comprehend.
Three, their willingness to learn.
Four, their ability to be flexible and honestly and sincerely consider both sides of an issue before reacting.
Five, their level of consciousness.
Six, their level of integrity.
Seven, their motives.
#142 Chris Noble
February 25, 2007

lincoln,
how would you judge 1-7?
#143 lincoln
February 25, 2007

Chris.

I would say from personal observation, that those who seem to go the farthest in any issue, not just the one that we seem to be stuck on, are the ones who continue to question all, and even continue to themselves and question their own beliefs.

The men who have done this throughout history have always been the innovators and discoverers of the most impacting of inventions and discoveries. That is not to say they have always been right in their own discoveries or inventions, it is just to say that these are the men who end up overturning what all others simply accepted as truth and never bothered to question.

As Peter Duesberg himself says at the top of his own website: http://www.duesberg.com :

“The important thing is to not
stop questioning.”
Albert Einstein

This bodes well for my likelihood to consider Duesberg to more likely be on a correct track, not just because I agree with Einstein’s statement, but because it has also often been said that “one is known by their heros”. What this means, is that it is very easy to quickly understand much of where someone is at on the list I wrote above, by simply asking them who their heros are. As Einstein is held up by Peter as one of his own personal heros, this says much about Peter Duesberg himself.

May I ask who your own heros are?
#144 Kevin
February 25, 2007

There are host factors in every infectious disease this does not in any way mean that the pathogens do not cause the disease.

You are exceptionally dense, Chris. Sometimes host factors alone are responsible for disease. Before you can attribute an illness to a pathogen, you must first prove the method of disease causation. On that note, the pathogenesis of HIV has not been established and your appeals to the new “programmed cell death” explanation are laughably unfounded, as Barry A pointed out earlier in this thread. I’m sure the story will change yet again, in a few years.

Any other suspected pathogen would have been abandoned after the first series of explanatory failures. As for “host factors”, several concommittant host factors appear to be present in all AIDS cases, and HIV is not reliably present; yet, candidiasis and drug use are ever present in AIDS. Your biased analysis is doomed to imcompleteness, Chris. When will you wake up from your own state of denial?

Kevin
#145 lincoln
February 25, 2007

I will tell you some of my own:

Jesus
Budha
Ghandi
Ben Franklin
Thomas Jefferson
George Washington
Abraham Lincoln
Albert Einstein
Carl Jeung
Alexander the Great
and to a lesser extent, Howard Hughes.
#146 lincoln
February 25, 2007

And I would also add in:

Nelson Mandela
Martin Luther King
and of course, George Washington Carver
#147 Chris Noble
February 25, 2007

Before you can attribute an illness to a pathogen, you must first prove the method of disease causation.

Where did you get this idea from? It certainly would have been news to Robert Koch.

As a matter of historical record the causes of infectious diseases have been established before the details of the pathogenesis. The pathogenesis of most infectious diseases is still being actively researched.

One example is TB.

Mycobacterium tuberculosis pathogenesis and molecular determinants of virulence.

The argument that because we don’t completely understand the pathogenesis of HIV we therefore know nothing is just a silly rhetorical trick.
#148 lincoln
February 25, 2007

And:

Plato
Socrates
Pharoa Ahktenatun
Bill W. (started Alcoholics Anonymous)

and that is enough, although I have not listed all of my own heros. Some are everyday people just like yourself, who in a moment of humility stepped up in various situations and in moments of humility and courage, allowed their best to shine through.
#149 Pope
February 25, 2007

Dr. Noble,

It may or may not be correct that “the argument that because we don’t completely understand the pathogenesis of HIV we therefore know nothing is just a silly rhetorical trick.” (Chris Noble)

But per usual you have not presented any rethinker argument in that statement. The rethinker argument is that when we constantly have to bend, twist and change the facts, using old chewing gum to make the theories of HIV pathogenesis hang together, then, according to the rules of real science, it’s time to start rethinking old ideas. And that’s not silly at all.

You want an example of a truly silly rhetorical trick, Dr. Noble?

“Barry wrote: I return to my simple formulation: If non-virological mechanisms are the predominant cause of CD4 cell depletion, than HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS.”

Chris Noble answers:

“Only in the trivial sense in which influenzavirus is not sufficient to cause influenza.
There are host factors in every infectious disease this does not in any way mean that the pathogens do not cause the disease.”

So first we learn that Dr. noble thinks it a triviality that influenza virus is not the predominant cause in influenza. I’m pleased to see this new holistic approach to disease causation from the distinguished PhD of computer games. Now I’m sure Dr. Noble would like to commend people like Matthias Rath for focusing on the admittedly PREDOMINANT disease factors, such as nutritional deficiencies, in any disease prevention and cure.

Then he’ll explain to us by what “silly rhetorical trick” all other microbes and toxins involved in what we call “AIDS” get termed “host factors” while only the putative HIV is awarded the fine title “pathogen”.

Following that he’s quite ready to explain by which silly trick, scientific or rhetorical, “association”, as in

“HIV infection is associated with heightened T-cell activation and cellular turnover,18,37 and expression of immune activation markers is associated with both clinical disease progression38 and rate of CD4 cell depletion” (Rodriguez et al.),

becomes causation as in,

“Immune activation is part of the pathogenesis of HIV” (Chris Noble)

Need we remind our slowly regressing expert in associative reasoning that by his preferred scientific logic yellow fingers is part of the pathogenesis of lung cancer?
#150 Mark
February 25, 2007

Cervical cancer. Shouldn’t be there. Everyone knows it is only there to show an increase in the rate of AIDS diagnoses in women. No compelling alternative argument has been presented. Case closed. But this really shoudl cause people to pause and think about exactly what an “AIDS” diagnosis is anymore. Remember the good old days, when it was only 5 very rare diseases? Now it’s 25-29, depending on who you talk to. That’s not what a good epidemiological surveillance tool should result in, should it Tara?
#151 Mark
February 25, 2007

And could someone find me the reference where Dr. Zvi Grossman endorses apoptosis or any other pathogenic mechanisms as the likely mechanism in HIV/AIDS? Far as I can recall, last he said, and I’d hate to contradict as guy as smart and nice as Dr. Grossman, HIV pathogenesis, after 25 years of research, remains — to use his exact word, a “conundrum.” That’s the bottom line, really. When he comes out and singingly endorses any of the way too many failed pathogenesis hypotheses out there, I’ll listen. But so far, he doens’t find any of them compelling, and neither should anyone else. After all, Dr. Grossman is The Man when it comes to HIV pathogenesis.
#152 Mark
February 25, 2007

And to Wic — I guess I am in denial. After all, my docs said I should be dead by now, or at least sick. But hey — they can’t be always right! So I guess my overall excellent health prompted this denial — which really, translated, only means — gee, I haven’t died, the tests they do on my blood don’t change, I’ve not gotten sick — MAYBE their hypothesis isn’t quite right. That’s denial, in my case. More like just looking at the truth in my own situation.
#153 Kevin
February 25, 2007

As a matter of historical record the causes of infectious diseases have been established before the details of the pathogenesis. The pathogenesis of most infectious diseases is still being actively researched.

What a bunch of booshat, Chris. You’re trying to confuse the issue by conflating the terminology, which is typical of your approach. Pathogenesis is most simply defined as, “the production and the development of disease.” I have no problem with the study of diseases of “unknown causes”, but you can’t have it both ways, Chris. The specious science behind HIV collectively morphs into an almost unrecognizable new theory every few years, and any improvements in care always come with a toxic price tag. Science, performed this way, has succumbed so completely to societal demands that it is essentially worthless. In modern medicine, it is too often assumed that the cause of any disease is known before the pathogenesis is well understood. Otherwise, how would the drug companies be able to justify their premature profiteering?For examples of this phenomenon, one does not have to dig very deep. Most notable is how the majority of human health concerns magically turn out to be health issues the have an individual pharmaceutical component. The subsequent drug therapy is most often considered necessary and sufficient as the first line of defense in virtually all new medical conditions, well before the pathogenesis of any particular disease is proven to be understood. A few favorite examples are: “chemical imbalance” requiring treatment with mind-altering drugs, “high cholesterol” requiring treatment with dangerous statin drugs, and “Restless Leg Syndrome”. Of course, each of these examples pales when compared to HIV — the most heinous medical blunder to emerge from these new standards of “scientific inquiry.”

In the past, when scientific inquiry was not scripted to fit a corporate wishlist, complicated processes such as disease pathogenesis were explored without prejudice until a causal mechanism either emerged or until one was discovered. Contrast that scenario with HIV, where it was pronounced as “the virus that causes AIDS” with the utmost certainty, by a scientist who applied that same day for a patent to test for the condition; all of this occurred well before its pathogenesis was understood and the ever changing description of AIDS proves that fact undeniably. What’s particularly sad is that it is still considered to hold value as a hypothesis, even after over 20 years of failed predictions. The pathogenesis of HIV is regrettably being actively researched to exlusion of all other inquiry, but that certainly does not mean that research practices are justified.

Kevin
#154 Barry A
February 25, 2007

I asked:

I return to my simple formulation: If non-virological mechanisms are the predominant cause of CD4 cell depletion, then HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS.”

Chris Noble answered:

“Only in the trivial sense in which influenzavirus is not sufficient to cause influenza.

Thank you for your response. There are 2 facts that wreck your comparison of HIV to the influenza virus: First, the flu doesn’t have a 10 year latency period. You get it within 30 days of exposure or never.

Second, the flu is easily transmissble — it isn’t strangely limited to sexual relations or needle-sharing or breast feeding. It doesn’t target gay males or hemophiliacs. People don’t worry about getting the flu from blood transfusions.

If HIV were like the flu, you wouldn’t have to make up all these virological exceptions.

Bottom line: The weakness of your response suggests that HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS.

The next question becomes: Is HIV necessary to cause AIDS?
#155 Kevin
February 25, 2007

As a matter of historical record the causes of infectious diseases have been established before the details of the pathogenesis. The pathogenesis of most infectious diseases is still being actively researched.

What a bunch of booshat, Chris. You’re trying to confuse the issue by conflating the terminology, which is typical of your approach. Pathogenesis is most simply defined as, “the production and the development of disease.” In modern medicine, it is too often assumed that the cause of any disease is known before the pathogenesis is well understood. Otherwise, how would the drug companies be able to justify their premature profiteering? The specious science behind HIV collectively morphs into a completely new animal every 5-7 years, and any improvements in care always come with a toxic price tag. Science, performed this way, has succumbed so completely to societal demands that it is essentially worthless. For examples of this phenomenon, one does not have to dig very deep. Most notable is how the majority of human health concerns magically turn out to be health issues the have an individual pharmaceutical component. The subsequent drug therapy is most often considered necessary and sufficient as the first line of defense in virtually all new medical conditions, well before the pathogenesis of any particular disease is proven to be understood. A few favorite examples are: “chemical imbalance” requiring treatment with unproven SRRI drugs, “high cholesterol” requiring treatment with dangerous statin drugs, and “Restless Leg Syndrome”, yet another poorly described syndrome. Of course, each of these examples pales when compared to HIV–the most heinous medical blunder in the history of humankind.

In the past, when scientific inquiry was not scripted to fit a corporate wishlist, complicated processes such as disease pathogenesis were explored without prejudice until a causal mechanism either emerged or until one was discovered. Contrast that scenario with HIV, where it was pronounced as “the virus that causes AIDS” with the utmost certainty, by a scientist who applied that same day for a patent to test for the condition; all of this occurred well before its pathogenesis was understood and the ever changing description of AIDS proves that fact undeniably. What’s particularly sad is that it is still considered to hold value as a hypothesis, even after over 20 years of failed predictions. The pathogenesis of HIV is regrettably being actively researched but that certainly does not mean that such research is justified.

Kevin

The spam filter apparently did not like my links, but anyone can google either of the conditions above plus a word like “scam”; you’ll find out that there a large number of people realizing that modern medical research is indeed often, a greedy scam.
#156 Barry A
February 25, 2007

Kevin,

Good points.

I always thought “pathogenesis” of viruses was pretty easily understood. The virus is a parasite, which means it cannot replicate without cellular machinery.

1. So, the virus must infect a cell.

2. The virus must replicate abundantly.

3. The consequence of abundant replication results in the “lysis” of the cell.

4. Upon lysis, the viruses are unleashed to infect more cells.

5. More lysis occurs.

6. After sufficient amount of cell death, you get sick.

When and why did all this change into a convoluted, politicized, ad hoc scientific theory that changes course every 5 or so years.

If small amount of virus (low titer), then insufficent amount of cell death.

If insufficient amount of cell death, then no disease.

Apoptosis is simply an ad hoc excuse.
#157 Chris Noble
February 25, 2007

Barry writes:I always thought “pathogenesis” of viruses was pretty easily understood.

You thought wrong.

Instead of reading oversimplified strawman versions of science from “rethinkers” read some actual science.

Global host immune response: pathogenesis and transcriptional profiling of type A influenza viruses expressing the hemagglutinin and neuraminidase genes from the 1918 pandemic virus.

Apoptosis is simply an ad hoc excuse.

Viruses and apoptosis.
#158 Chris Noble
February 25, 2007

And could someone find me the reference where Dr. Zvi Grossman endorses apoptosis or any other pathogenic mechanisms as the likely mechanism in HIV/AIDS?

The review article from which the “conundrum” citation is cherry picked contains a good discussion of what is known about the role of immune activation in HIV pathogenesis.

Pathogenesis of HIV infection: what the virus spares is as important as what it destroys.

The “rethinker” spin on this paper to “we know nothing” is pure rhetoric.
#159 noreen martin
February 25, 2007

Guess that I’m in denial too, because I have a viral load greater than 100,000, CD4′s are at 86, have been off the meds a year now and I’m healthy as a horse!
#160 Chris Noble
February 25, 2007

Noreen, I hope you stay healthy.

I also hope that if you do become ill with opportunistic AIDS relaated conditions that you evaluate all of your options.
#161 lincoln
February 25, 2007

WOW! Tony Fauci, is discussing his Atomic Photo of HIV shaking hands, and Fauci also finally explains just how HIV causes AIDS today at the following link:

http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/
#162 Chris Noble
February 26, 2007

lincoln writes:
Helo Roy. How does the following article from today’s “The Australian” newspaper come across? Now even the defenders of HIV are doubting HIV causes AIDS!

Witness opposes jail for HIV cases
Jeremy Roberts
The Australian, 22 February 2007, p7.

That’s funny. I just had a look at the 22 February 2007 Australian and this article does not appear on page 7.

Why is it that I can’t find this article on the Australian website?

Why are you saying that it appeared on page 7 when it isn’t there?
#163 DT
February 26, 2007

Barry, you clearly have no idea how viruses cause disease. The model of direct cell toxicity applies to some viruses, but not others. Many viruses employ a mix of methods.
Are you going to deny a viral aetiology for all these other illnesses as well? Can we look forward to the establishment of denialist movements for all these viruses too?
How about “EBVMythExposed”, “CMV-rethinkers”, “Dengue-dissidents”, “Society for the reappraisal of chronic Hepatits”, etc? (And I thought Lanka was stupid…)
We can’t help it if you and a few other like-minded sheep don’t don’t understand how viruses work.
#164 DT
February 26, 2007

Just to bring the thread back on track for a moment, I see the Australian does give news that the President of Gambia is now turning a bit nasty towards anyone who disbelieves his utterances.
#165 noreen martin
February 26, 2007

Thanks for any concerns Chris but if I ever get ill, I will do what always used to be done in medicine, that is treat the symptoms at hand and use medicines only when absolutely necessary. You see, by proper health habits, diet, etc. I have managed to rebuilt my health naturally and I feel better know than previous to my HIV/AIDS diagnosis. So I know that it can be done, irregardless of what both sides may argue back and forth in theory as for myself, I have lived it from all points of view and like the saying goes, if it works use it.
#166 noreen martin
February 26, 2007

Thanks for any concerns Chris but if I ever get ill, I will do what always used to be done in medicine, that is treat the symptoms at hand and use medicines only when absolutely necessary. You see, by proper health habits, diet, etc. I have managed to rebuilt my health naturally and I feel better know than previous to my HIV/AIDS diagnosis. So I know that it can be done, irregardless of what both sides may argue back and forth in theory as for myself, I have lived it from all points of view and like the saying goes, if it works use it.
#167 Robster
February 26, 2007

Pope, sorry I didn’t get back to you till now. Its midterms now, which is busy enough with just giving exams, but taking them, too. bleah.

Short explanation of the above article is to say that it is a recent review, including the current, best theory regarding apoptosis in HIV+ individuals. Said theory is explained with citations of the evidence supporting it.

After Wednesday, I should be able to give a more complete review.
#168 Pope
February 26, 2007

“Instead of reading oversimplified strawman versions of science from “rethinkers” read some actual science.”
“>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16520776&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum”> (Chris Noble)

Dr. Noble, instead of continuing your bad habit of throwing around more or less accessible, more or less relevant references, why don’t you explain your position using illustrating quotes like every other honest debater? Or is it the case in your opinion that the rules for civil discussion are blowing in the same wind as those of virus isolation and purification?

“We can’t help it if you and a few other like-minded sheep don’t don’t understand how viruses work.” (DT)

Well DT, why don’t you then explain to us exactly how viruses basically work, since then maybe we’ll be in a better position to understand why the scientists don’t understand how the, by all accounts genetically run off the mill, yet highly unusual, HIV ‘works’?

We’d like your thoughts on various phenomena such as molecular mimicry; is that a major part of how viruses work? Exactly how does the chronically hyper-activating antigen manage to evade and exploit the immune-reponses in HIV disease? Is THAT a normal part of how viruses work?

Don’t forget a thorough explanation of why Dengue fever seems to have progressed from a ‘mild non-fatal disease’ to a potentially lethal one after WWII, whose fatalities are confined almost exclusively to Southeast Asia. You will include of course the phenomenon of antibody-dependent enhancement as it applies to the aetiology of Dengue fever -and perhaps an EM photo of Hepatitis C for those of us who’re almost as stupid as Stefan Lanka. All so that we’ll be in a better position to understand your learned lectures on HIV.
#169 DT
February 26, 2007

Pope, my comments were directed at Barry, not you. I am sure he is perfectly capable of responding without your attempts to side track the issue with a few choice terms you have gleaned of the internet in an attempt to fool everyone how clued up you are on viruses.

I did not offer to give you all a talk on how viruses work, and do not intend to (I’ve been there before, done that). On the other hand, there is plenty of information both on Tara’s site and linked to in previous posts to give you all a good grounding.

There seems to be an assumption by denialists that HIV should only be pathogenic by direct cytotoxicity, just as it is always assumed that HIV somehow breaks the (totally mythical, denialist-inspired) “rules” of virology. This is a common excuse given for dismissing HIV as a cause of progressive immunodeficiency.

There is no standard “run of the mill” way all viruses cause disease (your talk of this reveals your true grasp of the subject at hand). Just because what is “normal” for retroviruses happens to be different from what is “normal” for polio, that does not mean it is “wrong”.
#170 Pope
February 26, 2007

DT,

Your inability to read what not only others but yourself write in standard prose, substandard in your own case, I think shows the basis for you calling others stupid – which wasn’t directed to Barry alone, but Lanka and “other like-minded sheep”.

I called HIV a standard virus GENETICALLY, then I talked about BASIC ways in which viruses cause disease. If there are no basic or even standard ways in which viruses are presumed to cause disease, what is it exactly Barry and others are ignorant about? Is it the fact that anything goes, any new ad hoc hypothesis is as valid and established as any other? Tell me are you a postmodernist DT?

But ok, we’ll narrow it down as you wish: what is “normal” for retroviruses and why?. You can begin by telling me exactly how many of them are known to cause diseases in humans as opposed to farm animals or inbred chicken. I won’t give you any multiple choice hints, since you say you’re not comfortable with googled terms. If you’re completely lost, tell me and I’ll throw you some pubmed links, seeing this is the standard way of showing one’s erudition here, apart from name calling obviously.
As a veterinarian or whatever calling Lanka stupid I think it’s you who needs to show us just how clued up you are on viruses, retro or not.
#171 Dale
February 26, 2007

Pope,

Pathogens, including viruses, caused diseases long before human beings were aware of their existence. Likely there are still many pathogens out there that contribute to disease of which medical science is still completely unaware. So how many retroviruses had been shown to cause human disease before HIV-1 and HIV-2 were discovered is irrelevant. The relevant questions are whether there are biologically plausible mechanisms by which a retrovirus could cause a disease and whether there are other examples in any species of similar retroviruses causing diseases. Since the answers to those questions are yes; there are no a priori reasons why HIV can’t cause AIDS.
#172 Robster
February 26, 2007

Pope, we refer to papers as a means to demonstrate that there is evidence for our statements. It isn’t a matter of being erudite, but having support. You can go to any link, read the article, learn about the subject directly. From there, you can accept the article as valid or not. In science, that is an honest debate.

When somebody says that HIV has never been isolated, you can correct that person by referring them to an article discussing it. When someone says that there is no known reason why some people have different rates of progression, you explain that they are wrong, and point them in the direction of the appropriate research.

When and why did all this change into a convoluted, politicized, ad hoc scientific theory that changes course every 5 or so years.

Scientific theory changes with evidence. Your list of steps is no longer the only route that we know of, and there are various permutations on that specific means of cell killing. Also, it isn’t ad hoc, because it is based on evidence. Sometimes science is complex, I don’t know if I would call it convoluted, but definitely complex.

Within my own field, we are constantly discussing how once simple molecular pathways have become much more complex over the last few years. It is the nature of progress.
#173 Pope
February 26, 2007

Dale,

As I see it, it is not the lack of ‘biologically plausible mechanisms’ that is the problem; rather it is the seemingless endless supply of those mechanisms that is worrisome.

If you think animal ‘precedents’ are relevant, let me rephrase: how many retroviruses cause disease in animals via the same mechanisms proposed in the case of HIV, and the same epidemiology as proposed in HIV; that is, no bell shape and no immunity.
#174 Pope
February 26, 2007

that’s “seemingly”, not “seemingless”
#175 Pope
February 26, 2007

Robster,

Within any field I’ve encountered so far, true progress means simplifying, clarifying that which is complex and convoluted. I see no such progress in HIV science.
#176 DT
February 26, 2007

…what was that comment about substandard prose?

Pope: As a veterinarian or whatever calling Lanka stupid I think it’s you who needs to show us just how clued up you are on viruses, retro or not.
Why on earth would you think I am a veterinarian? (In fact I know precious little about animal retroviruses, my only form of contact has been with HIV in a purely professional capacity). Whatever, as you say.
But I do know enough virology to call Lanka’s ideas stupid. Do you agree with his bizarre concepts on virology? Or do you also think his ideas are stupid?
#177 Dale
February 26, 2007

Pope,

Why should more than one biologically plausible mechanism of causing disease be worrisome, as long as there is solid experimental evidence to back each one up?

As far as HIV not demonstrating a bell shaped incidence curve indicative of the development of population immunity, I expect that is largely due to two factors – medical intervention and lack of time. If doctors were to stop trying to halt perinatal transmission or treat HIV infection in adults in all likelihood, given a hundred years or so, the surviving human population would develop immunity.
#178 DT
February 26, 2007

“Within any field I’ve encountered so far, true progress means simplifying, clarifying that which is complex and convoluted. I see no such progress in HIV science.”

So let’s recap shall we…
On the one side we have the concept of a transmissable virus which can cause progressive immunodeficiency. This results in a variety of clinical manifestations dependent upon which infections the individual is exposed to or which latent infections are reactivated. One theory, one virus, one disease. I call that pretty simple.

On the other hand, we have the concepts of a syndrome which has been attributed to all of the following: 1. Overuse of antibiotics, 2. Candida infection, 3. Lack of vitamins and other nutrients, 4. Use of poppers, 5. Use of injectable drugs such as heroin, 6. Chemical toxicity from zidovudine, 7. degenerate lifestyle, 8. receptive anal sex, 9. Malaria, 10. Tuberculosis, 11. Receipt of Factor VIII, 12. Having a blood transfusion, etc etc…
Factor in the near total lack of credible evidence for any of these along with the failure of correcting any of these factors to consistently alter the natural history of disease.

Science is perfectly happy with the idea of simplifying matters. It is the denialists who hypothesise ever-more outlandish scenarios to explain away the disintegration of their own theories on the matter.
#179 Pope
February 26, 2007

Dale,

I didn’t say “more than one biologically plausible mechanism “, I said there’s always a rich supply at hand to salvage the pet theory. If you can always bring in ‘host factors’ and ‘co-factors’, even admit that those factors singly or put together may be ‘predominant’ factors in disease, it becomes rather difficult to falsify the HIV theory by this route.
For example an experiment that shows little correlation betwen viral load and disease progression just confirms that co- or host factors may play a larger role than hitherto thought. Idiopathic CD4 lymphocytopenia is not a proof of ‘HIV free AIDS’, it’s evidence a low CD4 T cell count, doesn’t cause a positive antibody test in the absence of HIV etc.

DT,

nice try but not so. We have old established diseases with established causes. Then Gallo and the rest added an extra cause, HIV, and all of a sudden we have a ‘syndrome’ consisting of an ever changing number of diseases and conditions, an ever increasing number of co- and host factors and ever increasing amount of never before seen characteristics, odd behaviour, and ‘indirect’ causation attributed to one little run off the mill retrovirus.

You’ll have to be a bit more specific about which bizarre ideas of Lanka you’re referring to before I can answer that. I agree with most of his bizarre ideas about HIV, especially the idea that retrovirologists seem to set rather low standards for themselves these days.
#180 Kevin
February 26, 2007

DT, true to his propagandist role on this blog, offers:

So let’s recap shall we…

I have a better idea…let’s recap Dale and DT’s recent attempts to shift the burden of proof, shall we?

First, you are a moron, DT, if you think that “Science” isn’t also perfectly happy providing simplified explanations that do not always include pathogens as the cause of disease. It’s corrupt scientists and the drug companies paying them that are unhappy with that scenario.

_____________________________________________

On the other hand, we have the concepts of a syndrome which has been attributed to all of the following: 1. Overuse of antibiotics, 2. Candida infection, 3. Lack of vitamins and other nutrients, 4. Use of poppers, 5. Use of injectable drugs such as heroin, 6. Chemical toxicity from zidovudine, 7. degenerate lifestyle, 8. receptive anal sex, 9. Malaria, 10. Tuberculosis, 11. Receipt of Factor VIII, 12. Having a blood transfusion, etc…Factor in the near total lack of credible evidence for any of these along with the failure of correcting any of these factors to consistently alter the natural history of disease.

The very definition of a “syndrome” might lead reasonable, unencumbered scientists to explore the possibility that there are multiple, contributing factors to syndromes, particularly when there are multiple symptoms of seemingly disparate origins, as is the case with AIDS patients. After all, the symptoms of AIDS patients in Africa are certainly not equivalent to those of AIDS patients in the West. Perhaps, there wouldn’t be a “lack of credible evidence” if the factors you list were studied without bias. As an HIV test-negative patient, my health history included 6 of the factors you list, and my doctors were at a loss as to waht treatment to try next. Knowing what I know now, that does not surprise me. The very fact that I achieved substantially greater health only after discarding their treatments and those that you espouse, DT, further proves the worth of studying the factors you’ve listed. As Noreen and many other patients can attest too, my experience is not an anomaly, no matter how hard you and Dale wish it so. By the estimation of anyone with sufficient comprehension skills, your posts suggests that you are the one who lacks credibility.

______________________________________________

Why should more than one biologically plausible mechanism of causing disease be worrisome, as long as there is solid experimental evidence to back each one up?

It’s the last part Dale that you seem to struggle with, the “solid experimental evidence” part. It doesn’t exist. Outside of the lab, anyway. I can’t say it any better than Pope, so here’s is the very valid complaint for you again, Dale: it is the seemingless endless supply of those mechanisms that is worrisome. If you weren’t part of the problem, perhaps, you might agree that accountability is an issue that naturally arises when one explanatory mechanism is jettisoned for another one, as has been the case with HIV on numerous occasions. Such accountability is a hallmark of real science.

Also, it isn’t ad hoc, because it is based on evidence.

Earth to Robster: it’s the very evidence to which appeal that is being questioned, so your circular statement is hardly a worthy rebuttal.

___________________________________________

Pathogens, including viruses, caused diseases long before human beings were aware of their existence. Likely there are still many pathogens out there that contribute to disease of which medical science is still completely unaware.

Wow, this post by Dale actually starts out promising, but then it degenerates into this:

So how many retroviruses had been shown to cause human disease before HIV-1 and HIV-2 were discovered is irrelevant.

Once again, Dale, your biases are clouding your abilities or perhaps there really are dimwits among us? What you are attempting to assert is that discovery is still a viable part of scientific inquiry. Oh, how I wish it were so, but I think I’ve already argued effectively that where human health is concerned, “scientific” discoveries need to be thoroughly scrutinized before being popularly accepted. HIV has only recently began to be thoroughly scrutinized, and more and more people are recognizing that it is a failed hypothesis. Perhaps, there are other pathogenic retroviruses amongst us, but it will take real scientific inquiry to prove their pathogenesis, too.

Just to bring the thread back on track for a moment…

This post was never on track, DT, not by anyone who values real scientific debate. Tara only posted her original comment to slander dissidents. The post has since gotten “on track” quite nicely, though, don’t you think?

In fact, I’d say that the following quote from Pope sums things up quite perfectly:

Robster,

Within any field I’ve encountered so far, true progress means simplifying, clarifying that which is complex and convoluted. I see no such progress in HIV science.

Kevin
#181 Dale
February 26, 2007

Kevin,

From my perspective, I would say that your biases are clouding your reasoning. Where human health is concerned it is important to identify infectious agents as quickly as possible to try to prevent their rapid spread through populations. The vast majority of HIV positive individuals identified to date develop progressive immunodeficiency. That is a strong correlation that very few deny. Correlation does not prove causation but combined with the molecular biology and cell culture studies demonstrating the properties of the virus and in the absense of another model that explains both AIDS and the strong correlation between HIV and AIDS, HIV-causes-AIDS is the hypothesis that best supports the data.

Your personal experience, as an HIV negative individual who has suffered from an “AIDS-defining illness” is irrelevant to whether HIV causes AIDS. “AIDS defining illnesses” are not restricted to those with HIV but their incidence among HIV positive individuals is far higher than among HIV negative individuals.
#182 noreen martin
February 26, 2007

Dale, if you say that most HIV persons, which is about 40,000 per/year (new cases)leads into immune deficiency or AIDS, then why are the actual AIDS statistics so very low, around 14,000 per year and secondly if this is infectious, then why isn’t this being highly reflected in the 13-24 year olds, the most sexually active group of the population?
#183 Wic
February 26, 2007

exscuse me if I answer Noreen but there were like 50,000 cases of AIDS per year before good combination therapies and protease inhibitors were introduced in early 90s. then the numbers dropped like a toilet seat from a space station. toxic drugs my big fat posterior.
#184 Kevin
February 26, 2007

Your personal experience, as an HIV negative individual who has suffered from an “AIDS-defining illness” is irrelevant to whether HIV causes AIDS.

Not if the cause of my health problems is the same cause of the health problems experienced by HIV+ individuals. I was frequently prescribed broad-spectrum antibiotics for chronic sinusitis and suffered progressively declining health because of it, just like AIDS patients, culminating in PCP and severe candididasis; yet, the treating physicians at a leading research hospital, no less, wanted to contiue giving me even more potent antibiotics for the sinusitis. After recovering from the pneumonia, I decided to try a different path and Viola!, my health began to improve. My experience and that of any other HIV-negative AIDS-case is absolutely relevant! Any medical practitioner interested in the truth would never say that a patient presenting with the same symptoms as those suffered otherwise only by those considered “afflicted”, any such researcher would hardly find this scenario irrelevant, unless he wanted to maintain belief, at all costs.

The real correlation in all of this is drug use, both prescribed and recreational; it causes and/or exacerbates severe immune dysfunction in patients, and HIV status is the true irrelevant correlation. However, unlike the HIV theory, this explanation is not excessively defensive; thus, the idea that there are other co-factors at play is not only acceptable, but likely.

Kevin
#185 Kevin
February 26, 2007

if this is infectious, then why isn’t this being highly reflected in the 13-24 year olds, the most sexually active group of the population?

Excellent question, Noreen.

(Oh, and Wic-i-boy, your answer is hardly sufficient since very few 13-24 year olds are on ARVs.)
#186 Dale
February 26, 2007

Kevin,

The problem with your theory is that the majority of people who take lots of drugs (recreational and or prescription) do not develop immunodeficiency. HIV is a better predictor of developing immunodeficiency than drug use.

noreen, AIDS diagnoses are lower than HIV diagnoses because the average latency from HIV infection to full blown AIDS is many years. That being the case it isn’t too surprising that there aren’t a lot of AIDS diagnoses among 13 – 24 year olds. Those who acquired HIV at birth are generally diagnosed before entering their teens and those who might acquire HIV in their late teens to early 20s are likely still in the latency period.
#187 noreen martin
February 26, 2007

Even if there is a latency period, the 45 year old have the highest cases, at least in the male population. I would beg to differ with you too about all the lives being saved by HAART,when over 300,000 were killed from AZT but you won’t see that or any other disease for that matter listed on the death certificate, just AIDS related…what any easy out. The number one and the second cause of death by AIDS patients is liver failure and heart attacks related to the anti-viral use. To cover their asses, I am waiting for these two diseases to be added to the list, which makes about as much sense as cervical cancer. Anything to try to inflate the AIDS statistics.
#188 Kevin
February 26, 2007

The problem with your theory is that the majority of people who take lots of drugs (recreational and or prescription) do not develop immunodeficiency.

But what about those that do? I never said that every drug user develops AIDS. That type of hyperbole isn’t necessary. I realize it’s hard to be objective when your belief is so strong. I once believed in the tooth fairy. Anyway, it is indeed a relatively small percentage of “drug users” who are so severely affected, but that also correlates well with the data since AIDS cases are a relatively small number compared to the population at-large, or even compared to those that have merely tested HIV-positive. Furthermore, many people are developing symptoms of immune problems of various degrees. Allergies, multiple-sclerosis, lupus and even toe fungus are just a few examples of immune-related diseases that are on the rise. Your proving my point for me, Dale, which is to be expected since my explanation fits the data far better than the HIV theory. Any other “damning” comments, Dale?

Kevin
#189 Dale
February 26, 2007

Kevin,

According to the literature, the majority of HIV seropositive individuals become immunodeficient (i.e. develop AIDS) within 20 years of becoming seropositive. The majority being 80% or greater. The majority of drug users do not become immunodeficient. Perhaps among those who do become immunodeficient, drug use did cause or contribute to their immune problems. But because it is such a small fraction of all drug users, drug use has no value in predicting who will become immunodeficient before they actually do. HIV seropositivity does have predictive value. Not in predicting immune problems in general but in predicting immune problems that lead to increased susceptibility to opportunistic infections or certain virus associated cancers. Not all immune disorders (i.e. allergies or lupus or MS) lead to increased susceptibility to opportunistic infections, Kaposi’s or NHL.
#190 Pope
February 26, 2007

exscuse me if I answer Noreen but there were like 50,000 cases of AIDS (Dale)

50,000, I see, so that is the steady number over the last… how many years?
#191 Kevin
February 26, 2007

Dale, the spinster offers this:

But because it is such a small fraction of all drug users, drug use has no value in predicting who will become immunodeficient before they actually do.

Let’s substitute “HIV positive” in place of “drug use”:

But because it is such a small fraction of all HIV positives (who get sick), HIV positive has no value in predicting who will become immunodeficient before they actually do.

_____________________________________________

From the CDC’s website:

“At the end of 2003, an estimated 1,039,000 to 1,185,000 persons in the United States were living with HIV/AIDS.”

“In 2005, the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS in the United States and dependent areas was 45,669.”

So, roughly 4% of HIV positive individuals are diagnosed as AIDS cases in a given year. No wonder you need a “flexible” latency period to explain the onset of AIDS. It gives you ample time to poison and scare enough seropositive individuals into severe illness.

I assert that that 4% could more accurately be explained by other factors, including drug use and mal-utrition. You’re certainly welcome to continue living in a dream world where HIV has unquestionable “predictive value”, but don’t expect everyone else to join you.

Kevin
#192 Pope
February 26, 2007

And now I’m sure, Dale being the good sport that he is, will define for us what he means by “immunodeficient”, so we can all communicate.

He will also reveal how his last comment refutes Denialists Duesberg, Perth, Lanka, who have all agreed that an HIV positive test is a good marker of eventual progression to “immunodeficiency”, just as yellow fingers is a good marker of eventual progression to lung cancer or any of the various ‘smoker ailments’.
#193 Dale
February 26, 2007

Pope,

The USA is a large country and different states have been collecting data for different periods of time. Look at the data for New York state for example. 49 AIDS cases prior to 1981, 491 in 1982, 4880 in 1987, 10037 in 1992, 5089 in 1998 & 3800 in 2004. Nothing ‘steady’ about those numbers.
#194 Pope
February 26, 2007

Dale,

I apologize, it was Wic who wrote about the 50,000 AIDS cases per year. I’m glad to see you don’t agree with him though (o;
#195 noreen martin
February 26, 2007

Doing the math, we have the equivalent deaths from the effects of cigarette in a TWO-WEEK period that equals the whole year of AIDS cases and all who develop AIDS do not die. Therefore, AIDS in the U.S. is not an epidemic.

Consider this, when I was first diagnosed with AIDS, my viral load was >100,000, CD4′s at 78 and I was sick and dying. Now, my viral load is >100,000 CD4′s at 86 and I am extremely healthy. What changed, I still have HIV. There must be more at play here than HIV and even Gallo and the Montaigne(hope I spelled that right)stated years later that there must be co-factors involved. That certainly would make more sense as many HIV+ positives have lived healthy lives for many years and have not developed AIDS, although they do not take the meds. Read some of their stories at living without HIV drugs.
#196 Barry A
February 26, 2007

DT writes:

Barry, you clearly have no idea how viruses cause disease. The model of direct cell toxicity applies to some viruses, but not others. Many viruses employ a mix of methods.

A mix of methods?!!? Are you joking? HIV has 9000 base pairs — the human cell has 3 Billion. HIV has, what, 3 genes total?

It’s one of the least complex items in the Universe. It’s barely considered alive, since, unlike bacteria, it can’t even replicate on its own.

Please name one disease caused by a virus that doesn’t infect a cell and replicate. I’d love to hear it. Clinical relevance, is what we’re looking for, DT. Not imaginary cases of avian bird flu or ebola.

Apoptosis is the ad hoc, all-purpose, explanatory mechanism that virus hunters invoke, when they can’t attribute ordinary pathogenesis to the harmless viruses they rigorously study in a lab.

Funny how none of Gallo’s or Montagnier’s original papers mention “apoptosis.”

Kevin and Noreen Martin are much more lucid on this discussion than the typical AIDS apologist. Keep going!
#197 Chris Noble
February 26, 2007

A mix of methods?!!? Are you joking? HIV has 9000 base pairs — the human cell has 3 Billion. HIV has, what, 3 genes total?

Have you been reading Duesberg again? HIV has 9 genes.
Some of the accessory genes have been demonstarted to play a strong role in the pathogenesis of HIV.

You are also forgetting that host factors play a dominant role in viral pathogenesis. Look up dengue hemorrhagic fever.

Funny how none of Gallo’s or Montagnier’s original papers mention “apoptosis.”

Funny how Robert Koch’s original papers didn’t mention apoptosis. It is one thing to determine that a pathogen causes a disease and another to determine the exact molecular mechanisms involved in the disease process.

All of the arguments that you bring up can equally well be used to deny the existence of disease caused by other viruses or bacteria.

This suggests that a) your entire knowledge is based on what you read on “rethinker” websites and b) you are not really interested in the science.
#198 Chris Noble
February 26, 2007

Here’s another couple of references for Barry.

The dengue group of viruses and its family relationships.

Of cascades and perfect storms: the immunopathogenesis of dengue haemorrhagic fever-dengue shock syndrome (DHF/DSS).

Albert Sabin isolated dengue virus in 1948 and yet we have papers in 2007 that detail the pathogenesis of the virus.

Sabin didn’t mention T-cell activation, proinflammatory cytokines such as interferon gamma and tumor necrosis factor.

Obviously dengue virus doesn’t cause dengue fever and all of this talk about T-cell activation and cytokines is just ad hoc excuses.
#199 noreen martin
February 26, 2007

Chris, if you are interested in science, why do you not question all the HIV and AIDS persons who are living healthy lives without the drugs. How does this add up in your scientific brain? What are we, a bunch of miracles walking around?
#200 Pope
February 26, 2007

“HIV has 9 genes. Some of the accessory genes have been demonstarted to play a strong role in the pathogenesis of HIV.” (Chris Noble)

Yeah really? The genes of a virus playing a role in the effects it purportedly causes? extraordinary! Like what role exactly?

And didn’t you get the hint from DT, all these googled references to Dengue virus are just attempts at side-tracking; they don’t show you’re “up on viruses” at all.

But someone as up as Dr. Noble surely would be able to explain how all of his “talk about T-cell activation and cytokines” is supposed to relate. Are the two perchance the same phenomenon Dr. Noble?

And now you’ve mentioned it, do you think “cytokine storm” is part of the pathogenesis of AIDS?

Any other similarities you wish to point to between HIV and Dengue fever, Dr. Noble?

Can you also explain why Dengue fever pre- and post WWII is not the same in terms of lethal potential in Southeast Asia, and why age and reinfection is crucial? Then perhaps we’ll be in a position to determine if the various excuses are ad hoc or not. Or du you defer to Pubmed for that as well Dr. Noble?
#201 Chris Noble
February 26, 2007

pope, my point is absolutely clear.

Barry and Kevin made a couple of false claims.

a) Viruses produce disease by direct cell lysis and nothing else
b) It is not possible to determine whether a pathogen causes a disease unless the pathogenesis is understood

Both of these arguments were made with the express purpose of somehow disproving the causal role of HIV in AIDS and with a complete ignorance of the subject.

All of this could be much simpler if “rethinkers” actually went to the library and did some background reading before they repeat rhetoric they have read on “rethinker” websites.

Now rather than admit to any mistakes or lack of understanding on their part you just move onto yet more specious arguments.
#202 Barry A
February 26, 2007

HIV has 9 genes

9 genes? What a genetic repetoire.

Is there a living organism in the universe with less genes?

The whole basis of retrovirology was that retroviruses didn’t kill cells. They simply integrated their paltry genome into cells forever. Gallo, Temin and Baltimore all thought that this, possibly, was the best explanation of cancer — ie, altering the genome of cells, propagating them, but not killing them.

When it turned out that retroviruses probably didn’t cause cancer in humans, these same people were left with viruses that didn’t cause any disease whatsoever. So, they hijacked AIDS.

Ever wonder how the Human-T-Cell Leukemia virus, first purported to cause leukemia, then purported to cause AIDS?

It likely causes neither.
#203 Robster
February 26, 2007

There seems to be some confusion as to how HIV+ cases are counted in the US. They are counted by repeated positive tests, not by AIDS defining diseases. Also, in the US, AIDS is defined either by HIV+ status and a CD4+ count of less than 200 per microliter blood or HIV+ plus at least one AIDS defining diseases.

Presence of one of these diseases in absence of a positive HIV status is not AIDS, and any doctor who makes this kind of mistake should have been put in front of the disciplinary board or equivalent.

Kevin,

Within any field I’ve encountered so far, true progress means simplifying, clarifying that which is complex and convoluted. I see no such progress in HIV science.

Are genetics, molecular biology, quantum mechanics, etc, more or less complex than when they started out?

I think you are using complexity as an excuse for your ascientific bias.
——————-
Barry,

Funny how none of Gallo’s or Montagnier’s original papers mention “apoptosis.”

Funny how they were just initial papers describing a virus and its connection to AIDS. Finding a virus and describing its mechanism of action are not simulatneous occurances. We don’t know the exact mechanisms for the pathogenesis of TB, but that doesn’t mean that we haven’t known that it is caused by M. tuberculosis since 1882.

Please name one disease caused by a virus that doesn’t infect a cell and replicate. I’d love to hear it.

Your previous statement mentioned lysis (lytic cycle). Not all viruses lyse their host cell. Some others do so after an extended period of time. Herpes viruses can remain latent in ganglia nerve cells for an extended period before activation (lysogenic cycle). Such viruses can remain dormant through repeated mitotic cycles. Retroviruses do this as well, with other cell types. Instead of lysing the cell, some viruses bud off from the host cell, a process that eventually kills the cell.
———————–
Pope,

You may be confusing prevalence (total number of cases at a certain time) and incidence (new cases over a certain period of time).
————————-
Noreen,

Therefore, AIDS in the U.S. is not an epidemic.

This does not fit the actual scientific definition, which “a rate that exceeds the expected or base level.” By this definition, 10 cases of whooping cough in a city with 100,000 citizens would be called an epidemic. At some point, the levels will stabilize and the term will change to endemic.

Best wishes.
#204 Chris Noble
February 26, 2007

Noreen,
There have been a number of studies researching people infected with HIV who do not appear to progress to AIDS.
These are very important because they can tell us what host factors play a dominant role in HIV pathogenesis. This can lead to better, less toxic treatments and provide clues for vaccine strategies. What part of the immune system allows some people to effectively suppress the virus or not get infected in the first place?
In addition the more we know about the factors that determine CD4 depletion rates the better doctors can judge when to initiate ARV treatment if at all.

I would encourage anyone that is HIV positive, healthy and not on treatment to investigate taking part in these trials.

That being said the fact that there are some people that have been infected with HIV for long periods of time does not mean that HIV does not cause AIDS anymore than people chronically infected with Hep B and no obvious disease does not prove that Hep B does not cause liver disease.

Unfortunately, many people who lived with HIV without treatment for many years do go on to develop AIDS and die. I sincerely hope that this doesn’t happen to you.
#205 Barry A
February 26, 2007

Noreen:

Is this you in this story from South Carolina?

If so, what a remarkable story.
#206 Chris Noble
February 26, 2007

The whole basis of retrovirology was that retroviruses didn’t kill cells.

You are still getting all of your knowledge or pseudoknowledge from “rethinker” websites.

EIAV, CAEV and VMV were all known to cause disease before HIV was discovered.

And no I am not saying that the pathogenesis of these viruses are identical to HIV.
#207 Barry A
February 26, 2007

Chris,

Clinical relevance, my friend.

How many people did EIAV, CAEV and VMV kill in America? Less than people killed by lightning strikes?

From what I can gather on this thread is that AIDS apologists focus on the exceptions, not the rules — merely to defend the indefensible.

BTW, much of my info is newly acquired from this short provocative book by Dr. Rebecca Culshaw, which was given to me by a renegade oncologist, friend of mine.
#208 Pope
February 26, 2007

Dr. Noble, were human retroviruses invented to explain EIAV, CAEV, VMV, or were they conjured up mainly to explain something else?
#209 Kevin
February 26, 2007

Barry and Kevin made a couple of false claims.

a) Viruses produce disease by direct cell lysis and nothing else
b) It is not possible to determine whether a pathogen causes a disease unless the pathogenesis is understood

Both of these arguments were made with the express purpose of somehow disproving the causal role of HIV in AIDS and with a complete ignorance of the subject.

Chris, you really should refrain from purposefully misquoting people.

First, I never made the claim you’ve labeled a). That was Barry A, singularly. However, I will now go on record to say that I think his point is a damn good one. As for your fitness to levy the charge of ignorance, well…if you weren’t so dependent upon an HIV framework for structuring your thoughts on the matter, you might make the relatively easy realization that criticism of HIV based on its failure to prove lysis is throughly justified and even a natural part of the discussion. After all, there was a time (more than a decade, I believe) when the lysis explanation of HIV was used to justify treatment and research direction. When HIV science completely changed its causal mechanism, that change deserved professional scrutiny. As such, lots of scientists, but by no means the majority, failed to find the new story compelling. I happen to agree with the minority opinion. Do you see why that criticism is an important dinstinction and a natural part of the equation? If not, well…you should have one of your smarter friends read and explain to you, 2 short Santayana’s essays, number one entitled, “There Is No First Principle of Criticism” and two, “Doubt and Dogma.”

As for your misrepresentation of my comments on pathogenesis, your objection is dubious, and, unfortunately, I don’t have time to explain why at the moment, but I guarantee that my contributions on the matter were not mined from any websites — no offense to them; there are quite a few good, rethinker sites out there. Unlike you, I’ve actually given the matter thought, and we’ve all seen the results of HIV science in action for a long time now. We’ve also seen virtually all current public institutions become severely corrupted by greed and the requisite deceptions. The beaurocracy of modern medicine has allowed it to suffer uprecedented corruption. Now that the media is laughably biased, many smart people are finally waking up to how corrupt and ineffectual our public institutions have become, as consumption becomes its only goal.

My view is certainly not “ascience”, as Robster inflames. I just want adherence to basic standards of science to become commonplace again. Epistemic considerations are vitally important to any science, particularly when those practicing it wish to guide human health; otherwise, major tragedies are not only possible, but indeed, likely.

Kevin
#210 Pope
February 26, 2007

Barry,

Dr. Culshaw’s book is an absolutely excellent introduction to everything that’s wrong with HIV science, but those who claim ‘Denialists’ never perform research or experiments could go here to see just how badly the vaunted HIV antibody tests perform, so badly in fact that it was impossible to even carry out the intended experiment.
ybyl today
#211 kevin
February 26, 2007

“Doubt and Dogma” should read “Dogma and Doubt”.
#212 Pope
February 26, 2007

http://barnesworld.blogs.com/
#213 Chris Noble
February 26, 2007

Kevin, I did not say or imply that each of you made both claims.

Barry made claim a) and you made claim b).

Before you can attribute an illness to a pathogen, you must first prove the method of disease causation.

I am sorry but I have read this argument ad nauseam on “rethinker” websites. Perhaps you came up with it by yourself.

Whether you invented it or are just parroting it, it is still completely and utterly false and demonstrates a profound ignorance of science and history.

Robert Koch most certainly did not understand the method of disease causation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis before he attributed the illness tuberculosis to it.

Just do a literature search and you will find active research into the pathogenesis of many pathogens long, long after it has been determined that they cause disease.
#214 Chris Noble
February 26, 2007

How many people did EIAV, CAEV and VMV kill in America? Less than people killed by lightning strikes?

Seeing as they cause disease in horses, goats and sheep – not many.

But so what. You have claimed that a) retroviruses do not kill cells and b) viruses cause disease solely by cell lysis.

EIAV, CAEV and VMV cause disease by a number of different methods including cell lysis. So you score 0 out of 2 so far.

Your arguments are of the “HIV disobeys the rules of science” form. Unfortunately for you these particular rules never existed.

BTW, much of my info is newly acquired from this short provocative book by Dr. Rebecca Culshaw, which was given to me by a renegade oncologist, friend of mine.

Who would have guessed?

Why do you accept what you read in this book as fact? Why don’t you go to a library and open up a book on virology and check some of these ‘facts’ before boldly repeating them here?

Rebecca Culshaw has apparently collected every dubious factoid on HIV that she could find and put it in her book. Blindly regurgitating these factoids does not make you a skeptic.
#215 lincoln
February 26, 2007

Hello Chris. You said:

“Why are you saying that it appeared on page 7 when it isn’t there”?

I hope you read scientific studies with more attention than you pay to reading a newspaper.

The Australian, Edition 6 – NSW Country
THU 22 FEB 2007, Page 007

Witness opposes jail for HIV cases
#216 Barry A
February 26, 2007

Chris,

Again, I repeat, clinical relevance: Retroviruses that cause disease in horse, goats and sheeps, aren’t relevant to any person, patient, doctor or normal human being.

The mere fact that you continually use clinically irrelevant comparisons is highly telling. One of your confederates upthread compared HIV to Herpes.

How many people die of Herpes?

But, I was sloppy, so I will stand corrected and amend my remarks:

The whole basis of retrovirology was that retroviruses didn’t kill [human] cells. They simply integrated their paltry genome into [human] cells forever. Gallo, Temin and Baltimore all thought that this, possibly, was the best explanation of cancer — ie, altering the genome of [human]cells, propagating them, but not killing them.

When it turned out that retroviruses probably didn’t cause cancer in humans, these same people were left with viruses that didn’t cause any disease whatsoever [in humans]. So, they hijacked AIDS.

How’s that?

The Culshaw book, by the way, can be found here. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in this issue.

Culshaw wrote a paper here that will give you a taste of a good, sober scholarship and critical analysis.

Myself, I was blown away by it.
#217 lincoln
February 26, 2007

Hey DT, thanks for sharing the newspaper clip of Gambia’s president, who believes he can cure HIV in 3 days.

I don’t know what takes him 3 days to cure it! I can cure it in 3 seconds.

Simply stop believing in it! 3 seconds later and poof! Its gone.

Of course this does not mean the person will or will not test positive on flakey antibody tests that are proven to go off on 70 plus conditions. It also does not mean they will have regained health if they had some certain illness.

But it does mean that their candida will be called candida, and their herpes will be called herpes, and their KS will be called effects of amyl nitrate sniffing, and their pneumonia will be called pneumonia, instead of being called AIDS.

Quite simple, we should have thought of this long ago!

I can see the headlines now: Cure For AIDS DISCOVERED! Simply stop believing in it.

Another messy paradigm of silliness sliced to bits by Occams Razor!
#218 Barry A
February 26, 2007

Pope,

Thank you for the link.

I add you to Kevin and Noreen Martin to the list of reasonable people above.

By the way, How did you learn about this crazy issue, that seems to have eluded millions of people?
#219 lincoln
February 26, 2007

Hey Daledork. You said:

“HIV seropositive individuals become immunodeficient (i.e. develop AIDS) within 20 years of becoming seropositive”

Wowsers! What percentage of HIV negative people develop what would be considered AIDS defining diseases in a 20 year period, such as yeast infections or herpes outbreaks, or pneumonia, or any of the other 26 common and uncommon diseases?

And these HIV negatives, of which a substantial percentage will have some of these illnesses, for the most part are not into behaviors such as drug abuse, alcohol addiction, or contending with a family who hates them for being gay!

Wowsers Dale, maybe everybody has AIDS at some point in their life!

Wowsers!

Hey Dale, have you ever had any of the AIDS defining diseases?

Be honest Dale, and tell us about all of your genital herpes infections too!
#220 lincoln
February 26, 2007

You too, Chris and wic and DT and Robster! Come clean with us and tell us when you last had an AIDS defining illness.

Be sure to share your t cell counts with us. Do you get your CD4 counts done every 3 months? Don’t you think you should so you can watch them go up or down depending on how much you stress out over us “denialists”?
#221 lincoln
February 26, 2007

Well, I certainly hope all you faithful believers in the Religion of HIV/AIDS don’t end up coming down with AIDS illnesses when the judge releases his report in the next couple of weeks!

I would hate to think your genital herpes was flaring up again. Makes it hard to type, concentrate, and scratch your noogies at the same time.
#222 Robster
February 27, 2007

Lincoln, perhaps you should look up Occam’s razor before you invoke it…

Barry, if you are attempting to take my reference to the pathogenesis of herpes out of context… well, I’m not surprised. I was attempting to explain that not all viruses follow the lytic cycle of reproduction for their entire reproductive strategy. HIV falls into this group. This makes it a reasonable statement.

Could you define clinical relevence? Or is this another Perth strawman?

Animal models of disease should be included.

BTW, herpes encephalitis is an uncommon, but serious, killer of newborns. Varicella pneumonia is a common (1 in 400 adults infected) complication of the herpesvirus that causes chickenpox and shingles. As varicella/zoster virus related mortality goes, this is the most common killer in adults.
#223 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Wowsers! and Golly Gee, sure is a lot of work going through the overwhelming evidence of HIV causing AIDS!

The faithful defenders of HIV/AIDS hard at work finding their evidence, is found here! (I couldn’t tell if this was Chris, DT, or Robster).

I wonder if they are whistling while they work.
#224 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Hey Robster! When and what was the last time you had an AIDS defining illness?
#225 lincoln
February 27, 2007

lincoln, you said:

“Well, I certainly hope all you faithful believers in the Religion of HIV/AIDS don’t end up coming down with AIDS illnesses when the judge releases his report in the next couple of weeks”!

Lincoln, you know damn well that you are lying!

lincoln answers: “Well, um, yes, I did say that. Alright, I confess. I was lying. I hope they do come down with AIDS defining illnesses when the judge determines the case! At least we have lots of unwanted and proven AIDS drugs that we can send to them”!
#226 Robster
February 27, 2007

Lincoln, again. AIDS defining illnesses don’t mean someone has AIDS. Just that individuals with AIDS have a higher incidence of these illnesses. And for the record…

I have put “N” in front of such illnesses that I have not had, and a “Y” in front of those that I have had.

N * Candidiasis of bronchi, trachea, or lungs
N * Candidiasis esophageal
N/A * Cervical cancer (invasive)
N * Coccidioidomycosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
N * Cryptococcosis, extrapulmonary
N * Cryptosporidiosis, chronic intestinal for longer than 1 month
N * Cytomegalovirus disease (other than liver, spleen or lymph nodes
N * Encephalopathy (HIV-related)
N * Herpes simplex: chronic ulcer(s) (for more than 1 month); or bronchitis, pneumonitis, or esophagitis
N * Histoplasmosis, disseminated or extrapulmonary
N * Isosporiasis, chronic intestinal (for more than 1 month)
N * Kaposi’s sarcoma
N * Lymphoma Burkitt’s, immunoblastic or primary brain
N * Mycobacterium avium complex
N * Mycobacterium, other species, disseminated or extrapulmonary
N * Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (formerly Pneumocystis carinii)
N * Pneumonia (recurrent)
N * Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy
N * Salmonella septicemia (recurrent)
N * Toxoplasmosis of the brain
N * Tuberculosis
N * Wasting syndrome due to HIV

Considering that you are taking the list out of context (as usual), I’d be highly surprised if the trend changes in the next two weeks.
#227 Chris Noble
February 27, 2007

Again, I repeat, clinical relevance: Retroviruses that cause disease in horse, goats and sheeps, aren’t relevant to any person, patient, doctor or normal human being.

You are just moving the goalposts.

Unless you believe that humans are categorically different from other animals I fail to see why if retroviruses cause diseases in horses, goats and sheep it is in any way surprising that they can also cause disease in humans.

Will you or will you not admit that you were wrong when you claimed that retroviruses don’t kill cells and that viruses only cause disease by direct cell lysis.

Culshaw wrote a paper here that will give you a taste of a good, sober scholarship and critical analysis.

Have you actually verified what she wrote? Your past performance indicates – no.
#228 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Well, don’t worry Robster, you have 20 years to keep yourself from getting herpes or having pneumonia to be able to prove that my statement does not apply to you as well.

Be sure to report to us your next outbreak or case of pneumonia.

By the way, Robster, why are you telling us that you have NEVER HAD ANY OF THESE EVENTS?

You have never had a herpes outbreak of any type for any duration of time?

You also have never had pneumonia?

You want to swear to that? Because, I believe you to be lying!
#229 Shalini
February 27, 2007

lincoln said:
[I hope they do come down with AIDS defining illnesses when the judge determines the case! At least we have lots of unwanted and proven AIDS drugs that we can send to them"!]

There he goes again. Lincoln, when are you finally going to come up with something substantial to contribute to the discussion? My guess is never.
#230 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Robster, You said:

“Just that individuals with AIDS have a higher incidence of these illnesses”.

What the individuals diagnosed with HIV have a higher incidence of, is stress due to the diagnosis!

HEY ROBSTER! Does high amount of stress have an effect on the immune system? YES OR F’ing NO?
#231 Chris Noble
February 27, 2007

I hope you read scientific studies with more attention than you pay to reading a newspaper.
The Australian, Edition 6 – NSW Country
THU 22 FEB 2007, Page 007

I can scan the page and send it to you if you want. It is not there.

Apparently, people in country NSW can read this.

I did not realise that there was more than one edition of our national paper.

Just to make you happy I will admit to being wrong. The article was apparently in one edition of the Australian. Not one that was available in any captital city including Adelaide.
#232 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Hey Robster!

Would a diagnosis of HIV produce more stress in a patient’s emotional well being than someone who is diagnosed HIV negative?

YES OR F’ing NO?
#233 Robster
February 27, 2007

As usual, lincoln, you are out of context.

I had pneumonia a few years ago, but it was not recurrent, and therefore, was not an AIDS defining illness. As herpesvirus family members go, I have had EBV and varicella-zoster, but neither of the herpes “simplex” viruses. And certainly not with the required 1 month timespan for chronic ulcers.

I highly doubt, based on statistics alone, that I will have any of the listed illnesses to the extent and severity that they would count towards the above list.

You are trying to cast these illnesses, listed at a specific clinical level of severity, as common. They aren’t, except in immunocompromised individuals.
#234 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Chris, Yes indeed, there are various editions of this paper in the various districts of Australia. And you are correct that it was not printed except in one: NSW.

I have been discussing this with the editors, and lambasting them for semi-censoring this.

I too, want to know why it was not in all of the editions or in their database retrieval system. The fact that McDonald had sent this email and that it was turned over to the judge is absolutely damning for the prosecution and must be quite frightful for the Department of Health.

I can only assume it is too embarassing to the Department of Health, whom cried foul to the editors, and are probably pleading with them not to print the results of Judge Sulan’s case if it is found in favor of the defendant. I will attempt to keep everyone posted, providing I can find out any information myself.
#235 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Robster, would you be so kind as to answer the two questions I just asked you?

1) HEY ROBSTER! Does high amount of stress have an effect on the immune system? YES OR F’ing NO?

2) Would a diagnosis of HIV produce more stress in a patient’s emotional well being than someone who is diagnosed HIV negative?

YES OR F’ing NO?
#236 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Robster, You said:

“You are trying to cast these illnesses, listed at a specific clinical level of severity, as common. They aren’t, except in immunocompromised individuals”.

Robster, I have never had pneumonia and I have not had any type of herpes outbreak in about 25 years.

It sounds to me as if you are immunocompromised, and most certainly immunocompromised compared to me. I do not ever use condoms and my ex lover was HIV positive, as were several of my affairs over the years.

I recommend you take an HIV test immediately and repeatedly until it comes up positive. I have some unwanted AIDS drugs I can send you from my HEAL members, so they won’t cost you a dime!
#237 noreen martin
February 27, 2007

First, Chris I already have AIDS and second science isn’t exactly beating at the doors of any non-progressors or persons like myself for any studies because then they would have to admit to the truth, that HIV is not what causes AIDS. If I read the CDC definition correctly, one may be classified with AIDS due to HIV+ test and CD4′s under 200, even without symptoms.

Barry, what are you qualifications as you seem to have
a remarkable knowledge on the issues? Yes, that story is about my success with AIDS! I truly believe that anyone can rebuild one’s health with some effort and especially if one does not listen to the gloom and doom predictions of the doctors. I think Bernard Shaw stated it best, They would rather bury a hillside than to cure a patient unethically. To them, allowing nature to heal the body is a great sin, rather, we should all be poisoned to death for the sake of medicine.
#238 lincoln
February 27, 2007

For the third time,

Robster, would you be so kind as to answer the two questions I just asked you?

1) HEY ROBSTER! Does high amount of stress have an effect on the immune system? YES OR F’ing NO?

2) Would a diagnosis of HIV produce more stress in a patient’s emotional well being than someone who is diagnosed HIV negative?

YES OR F’ing NO?
#239 Chris Noble
February 27, 2007

lincoln,
the article was deceptive in that it said that Professor McDonald had expressed doubts about the connection between HIV and the onset of AIDS.

This is not true. The only frightening thing is that a journalist would deliberately take Professor McDonald’s comments out of context and portray them as saying something that he clearly didn’t. Apparently Professor McDonald had clarified this with the journalist but he chose to write it anyway.

The fact that the journalist involved posted the article to a “rethinker” website when the article is not available online elsewhere makes me question his objectivity.

I am also not convinced that imprisonment is an appropriate punsihment for the crime that Parenzee committed. But that is not relevant to whether HIV exists and causes AIDS.

It is also clear that this appeal has little to do with Parenzee’s welfare and more to do with the Perth Group getting publicity and exposure. This is exactly what they have been trying to do for several years after completely failing in the scientific arena.

If anyone deserves to be in jail I would say it is the Perth Group.
#240 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Chris,

our friend Robster seems to be suffering from AIDS defining dementia at the thought of answering my questions. Perhaps you would be so kind as to answer them Dr. Noble.

1) Does high amounts of stress have an effect on the immune system? YES OR NO?

2) Would a diagnosis of HIV positive produce more stress in a patient’s emotional well being than someone who is diagnosed HIV negative?

YES OR NO?
#241 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Chris, you said:

“If anyone deserves to be in jail I would say it is the Perth Group”.

I must disagree with you Dr. Noble.

I would say that if anyone deserves to be in jail, it would be someone who allows HIV positives to falsely believe that he is a medical doctor or HIV specialist, without clarifying when such a person is publicly discussing such an issue.

Wouldn’t you agree?
#242 Chris Noble
February 27, 2007

Noreen wrote:First, Chris I already have AIDS and second science isn’t exactly beating at the doors of any non-progressors or persons like myself for any studies because then they would have to admit to the truth, that HIV is not what causes AIDS. If I read the CDC definition correctly, one may be classified with AIDS due to HIV+ test and CD4′s under 200, even without symptoms.

Here is one study that is actively recruiting non progressors.
Welcome to the HIV Elite Controller Study website

You are wrong to say that researchers are not looking for non-progressors. They are.

You are right in that you would not qualify as you already have AIDS and a high viral load.

I would still encourage anyone else that qualifies to participate in this project as it will potentially benefit people infected with HIV in the future.

If as you claim HIV does not cause AIDS then there should be hundreds of thousands of HIV+ people that should qualify for this project. In that case it would be imperative for everyone of them to make themselves known to these researchers.
#243 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Chris, you said:

“The fact that the journalist involved posted the article to a “rethinker” website.”

I would say, that the fact that the journalist listened to all of the testimony, and then finds himself leaning toward posting things on “rethinker” websites, says a lot for how the audience interpreted the results of the testimonies of the HIV experts!

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

You crack me up Chris.

By the way, are you a tipper, I mean, do you drink regularly? What about drugs?

Do you do any drugs, legal or otherwise, including smoke any?
#244 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Chris,

You said: “It is also clear that this appeal has little to do with Parenzee’s welfare and more to do with the Perth Group getting publicity and exposure. This is exactly what they have been trying to do for several years after completely failing in the scientific arena.

So now you believe that the trial in Australia is some kind of denialist conspiracy? Say What?????? Have you lost your goobers?

Are you perhaps suffering with AIDS dementia as well? You seem to be unable to answer my two little yes or no questions!
#245 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Robster, when you recover from your AIDS defining dementia and, right after you answer my two little questions, would you please explain what you meant when you said:

“Lincoln, again. AIDS defining illnesses don’t mean someone has AIDS”.

Your right, but only in part. Any of these AIDS defining illnesses in anyone that was diagnosed as HIV positive, successfully brands that person for the ENTIRETY OF THEIR LIFE, as HAVING AIDS!

Even if they recovered in a week, they are NEVER REMOVED from the count of people with AIDS.

So just what the hell did you mean by the nonsensical statement that you have just made, Robster, that AIDS defining diseases do not mean that one has AIDS?

Oh, excuse me, now I get it, Robster. Now I understand. Aids defining illnesses don’t mean you have AIDS, ONLY if you have NOT been branded and labeled and boxed and packaged and brainwashed and misdiagnosed into believing you have HIV!

DDddddddddddooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
#246 Chris Noble
February 27, 2007

lincoln,
it is a matter of public record that a number of “rethinkers” have been pursuing legal avenues to achieve their goals. They have been actively seeking test cases that they can use to promote their “alternative” theories.

If you want to call this a conspiracy then you are technically correct.
#247 lincoln
February 27, 2007

And HEY ROBSTER!

Guess what that must mean?????

That must mean that the ONLY TIME that an AIDS defining illness means you have AIDS, is if you have been branded, labeled, boxed, packaged, brainwashed, and misdiagnosed into believing that you actually DO have HIV!!!!

DDDDDDDddddddddddooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhHHHH
#248 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Golly Gee, and Jiminy Crickets there Chris.

Just 3 weeks ago you said:

“it just makes me sick. I think it is highly unlikely that the judge will even award the Perthies “expert witness” status. The whole thing is just a massive waste of time and money. I just hope that once they lose the appeal they’ll shut up. I somehow doubt it. My predictions is that “rethinkers” will appeal to conspiracy theories to explain the defeat”.

And now, Chris, you are the one appealing to conspiracy theories to explain why the trial, which you claimed the judge would not even hear, is going in favor of the rethinkers????

You do crack me up Chris. Are you HIV defenders ever Right about anything???

It sure doesn’t look like it does it. And just a couple of months ago you had jumped into Tara’s fray that asked if the Rethinkers were ever right about anything!

My oh my oh me oh my. The table certainly seems to be turning and spinning upside down to boot!
#249 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Hey Chris. Did you notice that you had said: “”it just makes me sick”.

Actually, I honestly think that you have been “sick” for a very long time. I would encourage you to find some help for your illness, although, with your stubborness and thick headedness, I doubt you will, and I personally, expect that you will most likely get even “sicker” in the future.

This is unfortunate, Chris, as you really are not going to do the world or your self any favor by doing so. And no matter what kind of an ignorant thick headed and stubborn fool you have been, or that you become in the future, God nonetheless still loves you as much as anyone else on this planet. Even if you are as yet unable to love your own self or love anyone else.

Although I would hope that you remember that there is always help available if you seek it. Emotional, mental, physical, and even spiritual help is available for all who seek it.
#250 Chris Noble
February 27, 2007

lincoln,
Is it true that HIV “rethinkers” have been actively looking for a legal case to test their HIV doesn’t exist/cause AIDS argument in a court of law for a number of years?

Is it true that these HIV “rethinkers” made contact with Parenzee’s defense and convinced them to mount an appeal based on the premise that HIV does not exist?
#251 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Chris, surely if you are saying it, it must therefore be true, as whatever Chis Noble says, should always be taken as the word of GOD.
#252 lincoln
February 27, 2007

But to answer your question, Chris, I do not know the details of how the case came to be.

All I know, is that it is the answer to one of my prayers, and I THANK GOD FOR IT, however it came to be!
#253 lincoln
February 27, 2007

And, Chris, if you had not been such a jackass to Val Turner and Eleni at the Perth Group, perhaps you could have simply asked them how the trial came to be, as I am quite sure they would have been more than happy to tell you. They are both very decent and honorable people.
#254 DT
February 27, 2007

Lincoln, as Robster hasn’t responded to these questions of yours, perhaps I can help.

1) Does high amounts of stress have an effect on the immune system? YES OR NO?

2) Would a diagnosis of HIV positive produce more stress in a patient’s emotional well being than someone who is diagnosed HIV negative?
YES OR NO?

1. High levels of stress do affect the immune system, but in a minor and non-specific way. Studies have shown slight impact on subjects – eg students undergoing exams had higher prevalence of upper respiratory tract infections, for example. In clinical terms the impact is trivial.

Howewer stress cannot cause a consistent specific depletion of CD4 lymphocytes to low levels. (If you have a shred of evidence to show it does, now is your opportunity to cut the nasty invective and post some data for a change).

2. A diagnosis of being HIV+ would cause stress, yes.
But I fail to see why this stress should be more significant than in anyone undergoing other similar stressful events.

You seem to be proposing this as a mechanism to explain the AIDS epidemic, which is utter nonsense.

Lets assume for arguments sake that stress did cause severe CD4 lymphopenia (which it does not). Can you show me the millions of cases of AIDS-defining illnesses that have occurred in divorcees, or bereaved relatives? Where is the AIDS epidemic in women recently diagnosed with breast cancer? Can we expect Eleni Papadopoulos to get AIDS because she has faced the strain of a court case?
#255 Shalini
February 27, 2007

[And no matter what kind of an ignorant thick headed and stubborn fool you have been, or that you become in the future, God nonetheless still loves you as much as anyone else on this planet. Even if you are as yet unable to love your own self or love anyone else.]

He’s not only a ‘rethinker’, he seems to be a religious preacher as well.

Now I get it.
#256 Shalini
February 27, 2007

[Again, I repeat, clinical relevance: Retroviruses that cause disease in horse, goats and sheeps, aren't relevant to any person, patient, doctor or normal human being.]

I don’t think our ‘rethinker’ will ever admit that he was wrong when he claimed that retroviruses don’t kill cells. Unless he wants to prove otherwise.
#257 Chris Noble
February 27, 2007

DT wrote: High levels of stress do affect the immune system

You do realise that lincoln will now be claiming that you admitted that stress can cause AIDS.
#258 Shalini
February 27, 2007

http://www.aidstruth.org/bad-science.php
#259 noreen martin
February 27, 2007

As a rethinker, we do love that this injustice is coming to trial. We love the fact that Gallo had to testify that only 40% of his original AIDS cases had HIV, 40%! So much for Koch Prosulates where 100% of the virus is required to in all cases. Guess the golden rules of medicine must be obsolete now. How can one harmless virus cause 30 different things when some of these diseases are caused by bacteria and fungus? There is not logical explanation for this unless one wants to go the pleomorphism route, which our modern medicine threw out years ago. It can’t have it both ways. Today our medicine is based on one form, right or wrong.
#260 Pope
February 27, 2007

“Is it true that HIV “rethinkers” have been actively looking for a legal case to test their HIV doesn’t exist/cause AIDS argument in a court of law for a number of years?”
Is it true that these HIV “rethinkers” made contact with Parenzee’s defense and convinced them to mount an appeal based on the premise that HIV does not exist?” (Chris Noble)

Dr. Noble, This happens not to be accurate, like almost
everything you write. But that’s beside the point. What interests me is that you’ve now hinted several times that the Perth Group should go to prison for seeking to make their point of view known publicly.

So wherein consists the crime?

With regard to “unobjective” journalists misconstruing What Peter McDonald wrote to Kary Mullis, why don’t you go ahead and give us the correct interpretation of the verbatim quote:

“Overall I think I share with you [Mullis] some scepticism about the jump from scientific observation to a deduction that HIV transmission and pathogenesis is set in stone and becomes a legitimate basis for criminal prosecution.”

Notice that McDonald says he SHARES the scepticism regarding HIV transmission and pathogenesis, not with some mainstream sheep who’s not quite sure if the latency period is 10 or 20 years, but with Denialist Mullis who categorically rejects that the “jump” from correlation to causation is warranted in the case of HIV and AIDS.
#261 noreen martin
February 27, 2007

Chris, how would pursuing “alternative” theories become labeled as conspiracy. We are only seeking the truth, why are you and others afraid of the truth? Do you have any monentary gain by holding your position?
#262 Shalini
February 27, 2007

[We are only seeking the truth, why are you and others afraid of the truth? ]

Isn’t it surprising that the dissidents keep frothing about their so-called ‘truth’ without any evidence to back up their claims?
#263 noreen martin
February 27, 2007

Well, if I’m not evidence, then I don’t know what is? How have I lived a year without the medicines, my doctors say that it can’t be done! And as far as evidence goes, the mainstream sure is lacking in that department.

Stress is extremely harmful to the human body, any MD should know that. Stress inteferes with the cortisol levels in the body and affects one’s health. This is why most of the time, they can convince HIV+ to take the meds, these patients are stressed-out with the fear of death hanging over their heads with the missed dosage of one pill. In many cases it works. Now, a new generation of highly-educated, HIV+ are refusing to be intimindated by these tactics and are finding out that in fact, they don’t need the meds or the doctors. I go to them for their sake,not mine, I want them to see how well I am doing and that there are hole in their theories.
#264 DT
February 27, 2007

With respect Noreen, the fact that you are still well despite having HIV infection is evidence of nothing. You are in a small minority. Your story does not prove HIV doesn’t cause AIDS anymore than my story of being infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis in the past but never having become unwell is somehow is proof that MTB does not cause consumption.

It is all to easy while lurking in rethinker web sites and blogs to become fooled into thinking you situation is the norm, whereas in fact there are millions worldwide who have experienced the opposite.
#265 noreen martin
February 27, 2007

DT, I claim AIDS, which I had. HIV, now that’s a whole different ballgame. Have you ever stopped to think why the AIDS statistics are so low in this country and so very high say in Africa? Doesn’t this seem unreasonable for a deadly virus? I have yet for the mainstream to explain why the most active, sexually group of the population doesn’t have the highest cases of AIDS. First, it was a 10 year latency period, now twenty, before long it will a lifetime. For thinking this is the norm, well, I would rather be abnormal and healthy than to be on harmful drugs when I don’t need to be on them.
#266 anonimouse
February 27, 2007

Have you ever stopped to think why the AIDS statistics are so low in this country and so very high say in Africa?

Uh, because drugs are readily available in the U.S. and not so much in Africa?

But hey, if you want to play Russian Roulette with your life, be my guest.
#267 Barry A
February 27, 2007

Hi Noreen,

Barry, what are you qualifications as you seem to have
a remarkable knowledge on the issues?

Thank you, but you are far too kind. I do have a PhD in a somewhat related field, but certainly not in biology. Playing the “credentials” game is an utter waste of time –I prefer talking to HIV+ patients (like yourself) who are bold enough to share their experiences.

I’d also love to hear from any HIV+ folks on this thread who do take the drugs/medication, and believe they have improved their health because of it. I find it ironic that the cheerleaders of the paradigm are quite vociferous in their views (and dismissive of opposing views), yet we rarely hear from anyone who has taken the protease inhibitors, nucleoside analogues and claimed major health benefits.

My knowledge (on this issue) surely isn’t remarkable. I recently had some free time, where I read Dr. Culshaw’s book, and examined the issue (just a bit). I liked her mathematical, logical mind. She made some good, powerful scientific arguments. Those arguments help explain the years of futility in AIDS science.

The word “futility” may be a little strong. Precisely, I mean the failure to develop a vaccine, which is how we eradicated polio and small pox, and a host of other viral diseases.

It just seems to me — connecting the dots — we have a deadly human retrovirus that is harmless to other primates, has a 10-year inactive, symptom-free, latency period, selectively targets gay men, and somehow dismantles powerful white blood cells through an “unknown” mechanism, without ever reaching high-titer.

Upthread someone noted that Dr. Grossman described it as a “conundrum.” To me, that is an understatement.
#268 robster
February 27, 2007

FSM above, lincoln. Can’t a guy go to bed? I signed off after my last comment, and haven’t been online (with spare time) until now. Are you really that attention starved? You will have a rough time the next few days with midterms.

As AIDS is defined, an HIV+ test AND and AIDS defining illness are required (or a CD4+ count lower than 200), which one can look at the list and see that they are not common. Your attempts to cast them as such are blatant misrepresentations of the truth. Whether one believes that they have HIV or not is immaterial to the clinical facts of their case. Beyond that, people got AIDS before the discovery of the virus, so your claim fails to meet the requirement of temporal progression.

As to stress and the immune system, yes, as DT pointed out, stress can affect the immune system, but not to extent that HIV does. Making such claims puts you in the camp with quacks such as Ryke Geerd Hamer and Scientology.

————–

Noreen,

The African AIDS epidemic is being caused by a different strain of HIV, with somewhat different epidemiological properties. Also, public health/prevention campaigns have not typically been pursued as actively in many parts of Africa as compared to the US.

HIV is not a harmless virus. That much is clear. It degrades the immune system, making it possible for opportunistic infections to occur.

About half of all new HIV cases occur in individuals under 25. Also, if someone starts having sex in their mid teens, AND IF they become infected with HIV, they normally don’t progress to AIDS until they are in their mid 20s. Slower progressors would show up between their late 20s to mid 30s. Sources available here. I know that your claim may make you feel better regarding your denialist stance, but like much of the denialsit beliefs, they aren’t based in reality.

That you are living healthfully now, despite having AIDS, is not proof that HIV does not cause AIDS. Nor is this is no predictor of your future health. As the case histories of HIV/AIDS patients who stop therapy are described, a symptom free period of time after stopping therapy is not uncommon. I will not, however, dance around the facts. Untreated AIDS patients do progress to serious illness faster than those receiving therapy. Those patients who halt therapy completely progress on average more quickly than those who remain on therapy.

I do not say this to be mean or spiteful, but to be truthful and honest regarding the science.

The statistics are not in your favor, and when/if you progress, the denialists will slander you in order to separate your story from their neat, anti-scientific beliefs. It has happened before, and will happen again. They are only interested in you as long as you fit their beliefs. After that…

I am glad you are having a symptom free life, but your story makes me sad.

Care to provide a citation regarding Gallo’s patients?

Best wishes.
#269 robster
February 27, 2007

Barry,

The word “futility” may be a little strong. Precisely, I mean the failure to develop a vaccine, which is how we eradicated polio and small pox, and a host of other viral diseases.

It just seems to me — connecting the dots — we have a deadly human retrovirus that is harmless to other primates, has a 10-year inactive, symptom-free, latency period, selectively targets gay men, and somehow dismantles powerful white blood cells through an “unknown” mechanism, without ever reaching high-titer.

From the isolation of the polio virus in 1840, it took until 1955 for the Salk vaccine to be developed. This arguement is a strawman. The lack of a vaccine for hep C is not evidence that hep C research is futile.

That HIV is species specific is not unusual for a virus. The latency period is not common, but also not unheard of. The virus does not target gay individuals, but it has been more commonly found in that demographic. The mechanism for HIV’s hijacking and destruction of CD4+ cells is not completely known, but we are moving forward on the topic. Just because you are (willfully) unaware of the research does not mean that it does not exist.
#270 robster
February 27, 2007

Sorry, the [i] tag closed prematurely. The second paragraph should also have been in italics.
#271 Pope
February 27, 2007

“The African AIDS epidemic is being caused by a different strain of HIV, with somewhat different epidemiological properties.” (Robster)

Robster, are their any special African strain properties we should know about? Feel free to elaborate.

In relation to that, I’m also looking at the list of AIDS defining diseases as you suggested. Are you saying none of these diseases/symptoms, like TB, are common among Africans?

Do you really need a special properties African strain to explain the extrapolated higher AIDS rate in Africa, or was that another lucid example of, to paraphrase David Ho, “it’s all in the virus stupid”
#272 noreen martin
February 27, 2007

Believe me, as sick and as close to death that I was, if I was going to succumb to AIDS, it would have happened by now. As you say, the lower the CD4′s are and the greater the viral load at the time of stopping the drugs, supposedly increases the fall that much faster. It hasn’t happened. In fact, I am much healthier even after all that I have been through. I believe that this quite well proves that the human body is remarkable and very capable of healing itself if given the proper ingredients in which to work with and if one has the proper mental attitude about it.
#273 DT
February 27, 2007

Barry,
I’d just like to touch again on your virus model. What you have simplistically represented is a model of how viruses replicate, but NOT how they produce disease.

Of course there will be some lysis of host cells in which the virus replicates. Only rarely is this direct cytotoxicity the predominant mechanism by which the host becomes ill. Virtually all viruses induce damage indirectly by immunopathogenic meachanisms such as triggering cytokine cascades, cytotoxic T cell activation and so on. Often the brunt of the damage is not even just on cells that express viral proteins but on other tissues or cells.

In fact if you can name half a dozen viruses out of all the human pathogenic viruses we know which cause damage through your direct lysis mechanism I would be surprised.

Most viruses have evolved fairly unique methods of causing disease and propogating themselves. Why on earth is it so strange that HIV seems to have exploited an unusual evolutionary niche? Ultimately we will see it evolve into a near harmless infection because of a combination of host genetic susceptibility adaptations and a reduction in HIV virulence. This is perhaps already happening, since there are strains of HIV that are less pathogenic than others, and hosts who possess innate immunity to a lesser or greater extent. This has already happened with animal retroviruses like SIV (but introduce them into a new susceptible population like macaques and hey presto you get monkey AIDS -and all without giving them steroids, stress, chemicals, anal semen injections, poppers, heroin, blood transfusions, oxidative stress, etc).
Do you have an explanation for the pathogenesis of immunodeficiency in macaques?
#274 robster
February 27, 2007

If I have time between studying, I will find a link to a page regarding the differences between HIV-1 and HIV-2.

The TB bacteria is endemic in much of Africa, but the incidence of clinical tuberculosis has increased, and death rates have risen in age groups that typically do not develop fullblown tuberculosis.
#275 noreen
February 27, 2007

For those interested in Robert Gallo’s testimony, go to Alberta Reappraisers, click under Andre Chad Parenzee appeal hearing.
#276 pat
February 27, 2007

“A diagnosis of being HIV+ would cause stress, yes.
But I fail to see why this stress should be more significant than in anyone undergoing other similar stressful events.”

You mentioned the stress of grieving parents or so and I fail utterly to see how this compares to a death sentence.
The stress here is the one suffered after having been handed a death sentence thus the drive to add counseling in association with any HIV test. HIV diagnosis is associated with a high incidence of suicide. Doktors who engage in death prophesies and mental health sabotage are, in my opinion, the first in line for a prison sentence. They should be more careful and honest in the case of HIV and simply admitt that they don’t really know, beyond simple extrapolation and speculation based on prejudiced moral pitfalls, how deadly it is. Were they to do this, HIV related mortality would drop even further. But that would have huge financial and political consequences; how do you sell handguns and the Patriot Act to the people unless you make them believe that the world is unsafe?
#277 robster
February 27, 2007

Pat, statistics and epidemiology are not prejudiced moral pitfalls. The evidence is not prejudiced.

Blaming AIDS progression on drug abuse, however, is.

Are you part of the Hamer cult of emotional shock as a cause of disease as well?

Extreme stress is extreme stress. It causes an increase in cortisol, but not enough to cause the immune dysfunction that HIV does.

If it did, individuals with severe anxiety disorder would develop AIDS.

They don’t.

The hypothesis must be rejected.
#278 DT
February 27, 2007

Pat, I doubt you would convince a grieving parent that their stress is somehow less prolonged than that of someone being diagnosed with an infection with a (currently) estimated survival of 35 years plus. Where did you get the idea HIV was an automatic death sentence, and why should it be less of a “death” sentence that breast cancer?

I constantly see happy, psychologically well-adjusted HIV-infected individuals getting on with their lives and not wallowing in anguish over their diagnosis. Some of the “worst” psychologically adapted individuals I have seen are people who have given themselves the “death” sentence of chronic fatigue syndrome. Never kills them though, or gives them PCP or cerebral Toxo though (funny that).

And no matter how severe the stress, as I have stated, the immunosuppression that it can cause pales into insignificance compared to what HIV can do.
#279 noreen
February 27, 2007

Robster, let a doctor tell you that you have an incurable disease and see how that makes your day. Most, cannot handle the stress and mental aspect of all this and if they accept this to be true mentally, well, it may become self-fulfilling.

Once, I received and email and the person was confused about the drugs. Contrary to what you may think, I never tell anyone not to take their drugs as that has to be their decision. This particular individual wanted to come off his meds and he told me that the first time he did, he had a panic attack. Believe me, I told him that he probably was not a good candidate to do this. Every one’s make-up is different and if one needs the mental aspect of the drugs, well that fine with me and should stay on them. I cannot chart a course for others nor do I try.
#280 Pope
February 27, 2007

“If I have time between studying, I will find a link to a page regarding the differences between HIV-1 and HIV-2.

The TB bacteria is endemic in much of Africa, but the incidence of clinical tuberculosis has increased, and death rates have risen in age groups that typically do not develop fullblown tuberculosis.” (Robster)

HIV 1 and 2 are not two different strains, but two different viruses.

If it’s any consolation, the name trickery used to fool me as well. It still fools DT, that’s why he calls the effects of SIV on lab monkeys “AIDS”.

When you’ve got something as vague as immunodeficiency in the presence of a virus of choice (which you make sure to name “immunodeficiency virus”, SIV, FIV, HIV 1-2 etc. ad infinitum if need be), then calls whatever diseases/symptoms that arise ‘AIDS’, voila you’re onto a winner in the form of an unfalsifiable, circular hypothesis, compltete with the usual endless supply of back-ups, so-called animal models in this case.

Robster, have you ever looked at Africa on the map? Have you ever looked at the problems other than HIV plaguing large parts of that huge and varied continent? Those who have, will know how utterly meaningless your blanket statement in support of “HIV special African strain” caused TB is.

Allow me to refer you again to

http://barnesworld.blogs.com/

Apart from the front page article on the Western antibody tests as applied to ‘Africans’ (South Africans in this case), you can scroll down a couple of articles to “The Achmat Indictment, Part II: Genocidal Complicity by the Media” for more. Or enter “Africa” in the search and find even more articles on Africa by Rebecca Culshaw among others.
#281 ERV
February 27, 2007

Robster– Subtype C is the subtype youre thinking of, and yes it has different epidemiological properties from the initially prevalent subtypes. Its actually a really interesting story, evolutionarily speaking, but I dont want to bore the Deniers with science.

*waves to Deniers* Defeated Voldemort to win 100 points for Hufflepuff yet?
#282 robster
February 27, 2007

Barnesworld? Thanks, but no thanks. Perhaps you could try out AIDSTruth. But fact is the denialist’s worst nightmare.

HIV-2 does cause an AIDS-like syndrome, is much more common in Africa, but yes, it was not the virus that I was thinking of.

Thanks, ERV for pointing out the subtype difference.

Pope, I think you need to look up “falsifiable.” Just because the denialists can’t prove HIV not to be the cause of AIDS does not make the theory non-falsifiable. The denialist hypotheses were demonstrated to be false, but they can’t get around to accepting it.

—————

Noreen, I’m glad you aren’t pushing the no-meds route. That some do this is extremely unethical.
#283 Barry A
February 27, 2007

Here’s a recent paper I enjoyed reading.

It’s by scientists at Cold Spring Harbor — where, I believe, Jim Watson, is chief.

The journal is Journal of Cell Biology, put out by Rockefeller Institute. Not the best, but squarely in the mainstream of publications.

So, nobody can question the credentials.

The article examines whether “fusion” is a potential mechanism for viral induced cancer.

Whether retroviruses cause human cancer is a subject of discussion. The claim that they do is based on epidemiological data (for a review see Mant et al, 2004), whereas the claim that they do not is based on the argument that the viruses fail the requirements imposed by Koch’s postulates (Duesberg 1987; Blaho and Aronson 1999; Talbot and Crawford, 2004). These postulates, as applied to cancer, argue that a candidate virus must be present in cancer, but not in healthy cells, must be isolated from the cancer cells, must cause oncogenic transformation if introduced into normal cells, and must be present in these cells once they are transformed. Indeed, if these standards apply, the proof that viruses are etiologic agents of human cancer falls short (see Mant et al, 2004). For example, only 1% of people infected with HTLV-1 develop cancer with no apparent correlation between carcinogenesis and the virus integration sites (Hanai et al 2004), whereas another small fraction of the carriers, develop a disease unrelated to cancer.

The next paragraph has a scholarly discussion on Koch’s Postulates, and whether or not they apply. Feel free to read it.

My initial take:

1. Cell “fusion” is a viable hypothesis on how viruses may cause cancer.

2. Has this mechanism been proposed to explain how HIV works?

3. The scientific fact that HTLV (Robert Gallo’s initial baby, the progenitor of the “AIDS” virus) causes cancer in only 1% of infected people, means that it doesn’t cause cancer in humans. Sorry. Perhaps the authors were too gracious to state this explicitly, but anyone can read between the lines.

The evidence is weak that it causes cancer. Naming it a “leukemia” virus is presumptious. Transforming this “cancer” virus into an “AIDS” virus is doubly presumptious.

Based on this paper alone, I see no problem in taking a second look at whether (not how) retroviruses cause cancer or any other disease in humans.
#284 Orac
February 27, 2007

I have consistently told anyone and everyone that I do not work in a HIV related field. This hasn’t stopped numerous people from accusing me of being a pharma-shill.

They’re just like alties, these HIV “dissidents” are. They sure do love the “pharma shill” gambit whenever criticized, and they seem to love the Galileo gambit even more, particularly in reference to their heroes like Peter Duesberg.
#285 Pope
February 27, 2007

Robster,

I’d appreciate if you could help me out with this concept of unfalsifiability. Let’s take a simple example if you don’t mind, so that I can better understand. How would I go about disproving the claim that only HIV causes AIDS (in humans)?
#286 Kevin
February 27, 2007

it is a matter of public record that a number of “rethinkers” have been pursuing legal avenues to achieve their goals. They have been actively seeking test cases that they can use to promote their “alternative” theories.

Hello Chris. I see that you are up to your dimwitted analysis again. Do you ever take a break? Are you being paid?

When a paradigm shift is “in progress”, the courts, or “legal avenues”, are usually the only public institution capable of providing an unbiased venue, one where independent thought still has currency. When the corruption reaches a tipping point, such legal challenges are to be expected. Once again, it’s a natural part of the process, and this phenomenon has been repeated throughout civilized history. You obviously didn’t complete your homework.

You really should read “Dogma and Doubt”; I’m not being facetious. It can help you escape the darkness and the insecurity of your perfect dogma. It really is full of wonderful insights into the dogmatic fervor that is so obvious to any objective observer when faced with the specious science supporting HIV. I don’t have a copy handy, but maybe I’ll post something from it later.

You never answered my previous question…do you or do you not understand why criticism of the HIV theory of causation is justified, particularly given the recent radical explanatory changes in the method of causation?
If not, please feel free to be as dogmatic in your reply as you feel is sufficient to bolster your confidence and your own fervor for what smarter people realize is a dying paradigm.

Kevin
#287 Chris Noble
February 27, 2007

When a paradigm shift is “in progress”, the courts, or “legal avenues”, are usually the only public institution capable of providing an unbiased venue, one where independent thought still has currency. When the corruption reaches a tipping point, such legal challenges are to be expected. Once again, it’s a natural part of the process, and this phenomenon has been repeated throughout civilized history. You obviously didn’t complete your homework.

Can you provide a single example of a scientific revolution occurred not by the presentation of scientific evidence to peers but through the courts?
#288 Kevin
February 27, 2007

High levels of stress do affect the immune system, but in a minor and non-specific way.

2. A diagnosis of being HIV+ would cause stress, yes.But I fail to see why this stress should be more significant than in anyone undergoing other similar stressful events.

DT, you are nothing if not a fraud.

Let’s see if I understand you…after saying that “high levels of stress do affect the immune sytem but (only) in a minor and non-specified way”, you then proceed to say that being HIV+ would cause stress, but you fail to see why it would be any more significant than similar stressful events. It should surprise no one that you are careful not to claim that being diagnosed HIV+ is a high level stress event.

First, what similar stressful events are you imagining. For example, what other “similar event” can you think of that not only condemns the patient to certain death but that also makes the patient a sexual pariah for the rest of his/her life (in the eyes of most, anyway). You’re a disingenious hack, DT! Perhaps, you could provide some data to support that very real reality.

The stress that comes with an HIV+ diagnosis is unprecedented. Patients are told that they are incurable, that there is no hope for recovery; that the only sanctioned treatment causes severe side effects adds nothing to the equation, right? All that before one even begins to address the shame associated with this “illness”. At least, with cancer, there is hope for a cure, and terminal patients are often treated by peers with newfound respect. Not so, with AIDS, especially in the gay community.

As for your general comments on stress, you miss the mark there, too. The effects of stress on the body are most likely extremely variable among individuals, and for you to speak so flippantly about it just further cements you as a dogmatic fool.

Elimination of stress was absolutely essential in my own battle with severe candidiasis and the associated immune dysfunction. I can only imagine how difficult it would have been had I been branded HIV+.

Kevin
#289 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Chris said: “Can you provide a single example of a scientific revolution occurred not by the presentation of scientific evidence to peers but through the courts”?

Yes indeed we can Chris, it just so happens that we are discussing one right here and now!
#290 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Thalidomide:

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the drug thalidomide caused an estimated 10,000 birth defects and thousands of fetal deaths worldwide. The affected babies typically suffered from phocomelia, a failure of the limbs to develop. These unfortunate children were cruelly referred to as “flipper babies.” Thalidomide had been prescribed to pregnant women to help reduce morning sickness, but tragically, it turned out to be toxic to developing fetuses.

Responding to a public outcry regarding drug safety, the U.S. Congress passed the previously unpopular Kefauver-Harris Act in October of 1962, which, among other things, mandated that all drugs undergo preclinical testing to demonstrate their safety and effectiveness. The FDA has interpreted these preclinical standards as a call for mandatory animal testing. This interpretation expressed the will of the bill’s sponsor, Senator Estes Kefauver, but was based on a misunderstanding of the science behind drug testing. The politician mistakenly argued that thalidomide had never been tested on animals and that it was this lack of animal testing that had led to its disastrous clinical use.
#291 Chris Noble
February 27, 2007

The dangers of thalidomide came to be known not because of any court case but because doctors like William McBride presented evidence that the drug was causing birth defects. It was this evidence that convinced his peers and stopped the prescription of the drug to pregnant women.

In contrast the Perth Group and other “rethinkers” have had ample opportunity to present their evidence and they have completely failed to convince anything other than an inconsequential number of doctors or scientists that their ideas have any validity.
#292 Shalini
February 27, 2007

[Well, if I'm not evidence, then I don't know what is? How have I lived a year without the medicines, my doctors say that it can't be done! And as far as evidence goes, the mainstream sure is lacking in that department.]

How does this prove that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS?
#293 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Pharmaceutical Litigation, Defective Drugs and Medical Devices
Each year, thousands of people die from or are seriously injured by prescription and over-the-counter drugs they believe to be safe. Patients trust these defective drugs will not harm them because they have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or been prescribed by doctors or pharmacists they know and trust. But unfortunately, many of these defective drugs are inadequately tested or have insufficient warnings on their labels. Ultimately, they can lead to serious health ailments, from high blood pressure to acute liver failure to permanent disfigurement.

COX-2 Inhibitors

Cholesterol Drugs

Erectile Dysfunction Drugs

Defective Medical Devices

Atypical Anti-Psychotics

ADHD Drugs

Other Defective Drugs
#294 lincoln
February 27, 2007

DT said:

“Do you have an explanation for the pathogenesis of immunodeficiency in macaques”?

I have an explanation DT, and we can try it out on you for further verification. Let’s put you into a small cage, and perform daily “Hail Mary” experiments up your anal cavity with SIV and anal microbicides, which by the way does not affect humans, and lets poke you and jab you with needles and other research instruments for several months, and then we will wait to see how long it takes for you to get ill, which should not take long. We will then have supposedly proved that SIV actually IS the cause of your illness, and we will pretend that it is not the effect of the stress that you have been put under, even though you will be the only human to have contracted AIDS thru SIV. And you will be held up as proof that SIV caused your disease, not any other co-factor.

When would you like to begin, DT, because I would like to see you Hail Mary’ed and anally reamed as soon as possible?
#295 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Hey everybody, CHECK IT OUT, DT has just verified for us that stress suppresses the ability of the immune system to recover from illness, and is therefore the cause of AIDS.

DT SAID, and I quote: “1. High levels of stress do affect the immune system”

DT SAID, and I quote: “2. A diagnosis of being HIV+ would cause stress”.

Thank you for explaining the cause of AIDS, there DT. We will now have to adjust all of the science books to attribute the finding that stress causes AIDS to you.
#296 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Thank you DT for clarifying stress as one of the leading causes of immune suppression and therefore AIDS.

Would you please clarify for us another question?

Does illicit drug abuse affect the immune system in negative ways or not?

Come on, DT, I dare you to answer the question and a simple yes or no instead of your but but but butts, would be most greatly appreciated.
#297 Chris Noble
February 27, 2007

lincoln wrote: Thank you DT for clarifying stress as one of the leading causes of immune suppression and therefore AIDS.

Who would have guessed that lincoln would misinterpret DT’s words?
#298 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Hello Chris. I fail to see it as any type of misinterpretation, Chris.

Just because it does not fit your HIV model does not make my statement a misinterpretation!

Stress either lowers the ability of an immune system to recover, and is therefore a direct contributor to immunodeficiency, or it is not.

As everyone, including yourself agree that stress absolutely is a cause of immunodeficiency, it is then absolutely a cause in the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, otherwise known as AIDS.

Pretty basic fact Chris, that you yourself have also agreed with:

FACT:

A SYNDROME OF ACQUIRED STRESS IS A CAUSE OF ACQUIRED IMMUNODEFICIENCY SYNDROME, or AIDS!
#299 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Hey DT, after you answer my question of whether or not illicit drug addiction contributes to suppression in healing from illness, then, if you would be so kind as to also answer this question:

DT, Would being disowned by ones family for being gay contribute to a gay man’s stress level?

Yes or no please.

DT???? Yes or no please.
#300 Kevin
February 27, 2007

“Can you provide a single example of a scientific revolution occurred not by the presentation of scientific evidence to peers but through the courts”

I’ll start out with a favorite quote from “Dogma and Doubt” since I’m sure you’ll never read it, Chris:

“Custom does not breed understanding, but takes its place, teaching people to make their way contentedly through the world without knowing what the world is, nor what they think of it, nor what they are. … Criticism arises out of the conflict of dogmas. The more perfect the dogmatism, the more insecure.” — G. Santayana

I would normally not take issue with insistence on “the presentation of scientific evidence” regarding matters of science; however, HIV is no longer only about the scientific evidence. It is a socio-political monster and your “peers” are no longer just scientists, Chris. This new brand of science lacks sufficient integrity; it derives much of its status and influence from the use questionable soci-political tactics, i.e. television adverts that use uninfected models as spokespersons for HIV meds is not only intentionally misleading, it’s indicative of the rancor behind the HIV monster. Public acceptance has become far more important than any truths derived from adherence to traditional scientific standards. That is why the 1984 press conference will live in infamy. This paradigm shift may be radical. As I’ve previously pointed out, the entire system in which medical research resides is morally bankrupt. This awakening will be a painful experience for all, and HIV will be but one, among many fantasies to bite the dust. Regardless, there are modern examples of court decisions that oppose the scientific consensus. How about Phen-fen or Vioxx? FDA-approved my ass! If anyone wants to see how thoroughly compromised our government is, check out the following website:

honestdoctor dot org (screw the lousy spam filter on this site)

However, precedence does exist, otherwise. One can easily use the popular example of the Copernican Revolution to see parallels. As new information surfaced, Ptolemy’s perfect cosmology was shown to hold insufficient explanatory value, and independent thinkers such as Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler were among the first to demonstrate why; yet, the leaders of the Catholic Church supressed all dissent. Does that sound familiar? As new information has surfaced, the HIV theory has been show to lack sufficient explanatory value, too, and those who have pointed out such shortcomings, such as Peter Duesberg, continue to be persecuted and professionally maligned by the leaders of the new church, the Church of HIV.

Of course, things move much more quickly nowadays. Back then, public opinion was slow to change, but that will not be the case with HIV. Legal challenges like the one in Australia will continue, and public opinion will be affected. When the masses wake up to the fraud that has been carried out against them in the name of corporate profiteering, well, who’s to say what will become of HIV’s “leading” pundits. Perhaps, they’ll be burned alive. I hope it doesn’t reach that point, for all our sakes, but it could if concurrent economic conditions deteriorate sufficiently. The greedy bastards have gone too far this time. With the housing bubble rapidly deflating and China’s economy showing weakness, this could unravel within a few years. By the way, Chris, how’s the housing market in Australia?

Regardless, you should add Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” to your reading list. It certainly applies to any evaluation of HIV and the coming paradigm shift (Kuhn created the term), but as I’ve pointed out, this revolution will reach far beyond the confines of Science.

Kevin
#301 lincoln
February 27, 2007

Hey DT, after you answer my question of whether or not being disowned by ones family and loved ones for being gay contributes to stress in gay men, and therefore contributes to suppression in healing from illness, then, if you would be so kind as to also answer this question:

DT, Would feeling helpless and hopeless, or wishing ones own self to be dead, contribute to a gay man’s, or anyone elses stress level, and therefore affect said gay man’s, or anyone elses, health or ability to recover from illness?

DT, Yes or no please. Would this affect ones health.

Yes or no please.

DT???? Yes or no please.
#302 lincoln
February 27, 2007

DT, perhaps you would also answer this:

Would going on a regimen of pills, wherein one is told “These pills must be taken at exact and certain times and must be taken absolutely every day, or one’s virus will mutate to be untreatable”, would this increase a patients stress level DT?

Yes or no please, DT.
#303 Kevin
February 27, 2007

[Well, if I'm not evidence, then I don't know what is? How have I lived a year without the medicines, my doctors say that it can't be done! And as far as evidence goes, the mainstream sure is lacking in that department.]

How does this prove that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS?

You are always demanding that others have something worthwhile to contribute, Shalini, but you don’t seem to be able to provide any insight beyond catty one-liners.

Regardless, read the following paragraph very closely for the answer to your question:

As a paradigm is stretched to its limits, anomalies — failures of the current paradigm to take into account observed phenomena — accumulate. Their significance is judged by the practitioners of the discipline. Some anomalies may be dismissed as errors in observation, others as merely requiring small adjustments to the current paradigm that will be clarified in due course. Some anomalies resolve themselves spontaneously, having increased the available depth of insight along the way. But no matter how great or numerous the anomalies that persist, Kuhn observes, the practicing scientists will not lose faith in the established paradigm for as long as no credible alternative is available; to lose faith in the solubility of the problems would in effect mean ceasing to be a scientist. — from wikipedia entry on “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”

Kevin
#304 lincoln
February 27, 2007

DT, perhaps you would answer just one more question.

DT, would the requirement of having ones blood work tests run regularly or semimonthly, increase the stress level of a patient whom was told they must continue to do this for the remainder of their life? And would the waiting period wherein the patient awaits the results, increase the stress level of the patient?

Yes or no please DT, you piece of drug and toxic dope dealing garbage! YES OR NO MR LEGAL DOPE AND TOXIC POISON PEDDLER.
#305 Shalini
February 28, 2007

[Well, if I'm not evidence, then I don't know what is? How have I lived a year without the medicines, my doctors say that it can't be done! And as far as evidence goes, the mainstream sure is lacking in that department.]

I said:
How does this prove that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS?

Kevin said:
[You are always demanding that others have something worthwhile to contribute, Shalini, but you don't seem to be able to provide any insight beyond catty one-liners.

Regardless, read the following paragraph very closely for the answer to your question:

As a paradigm is stretched to its limits, anomalies -- failures of the current paradigm to take into account observed phenomena -- accumulate. Their significance is judged by the practitioners of the discipline. Some anomalies may be dismissed as errors in observation, others as merely requiring small adjustments to the current paradigm that will be clarified in due course. Some anomalies resolve themselves spontaneously, having increased the available depth of insight along the way. But no matter how great or numerous the anomalies that persist, Kuhn observes, the practicing scientists will not lose faith in the established paradigm for as long as no credible alternative is available; to lose faith in the solubility of the problems would in effect mean ceasing to be a scientist. -- from wikipedia entry on "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"]

Again, I’ll repeat that the denialists can never give a straight answer to any of my supposedly simple ‘one liners’. If Kevin is correct in claiming that all my statements are ‘catty one-liners’, he would certainly be able to answer my SIMPLE question directly and accurately, wouldn’t he? The paragraph he quoted has nothing to do with HIV and AIDS.

After everything, I have still not seen any science from the denialist side.
#306 DT
February 28, 2007

How the people like Pope, Kevin and Barry must hate it each time Lincoln posts a diatribe. He can do more in one sentence to expose the “rethinkers’” cause as completely bogus than anyone from the orthodox camp can achieve in several paragraphs.

Oh, and Lincoln, before you ask, yes I agree that having egg on toast in the morning is stressful, and so is having to watch “Lost”.
#307 Pope
February 28, 2007

Shalini,

The reason why you’re not receiving an answer to your question is because you’re asking the wrong people. It’s not Noreen (or Mark, or a host of others constituting 20% of all HIV+, according to DT’s present count) who have claimed that if they don’t take their drugs regularly they will be dead shortly. It’s their doctors.

It’s not Noreen or Mark who have said that “antivirals work, therefore HIV=AIDS”, but learned ‘HIV scientists’. If you’re uncomfortable with Noreen’s response: “antivirals are not a necessary component of the equation, therefore HIV not= AIDS”, take it up with those who made up the original equation. It was last proclaimed at the court case in Adelaide, where it was also said that we shouldn’t let all the paradoxes of HIV science throw doubt on HIV=AIDS because paradoxes are the norm in science.

And on that note I’m eagerly waiting for Robster to educate me regarding my mistaken interpretation of the concept of falsifiability.
#308 pat
February 28, 2007

“Pat, statistics and epidemiology are not prejudiced moral pitfalls. The evidence is not prejudiced.
Blaming AIDS progression on drug abuse, however, is.
Are you part of the Hamer cult of emotional shock as a cause of disease as well?
Extreme stress is extreme stress. It causes an increase in cortisol, but not enough to cause the immune dysfunction that HIV does.
If it did, individuals with severe anxiety disorder would develop AIDS.
They don’t.
The hypothesis must be rejected.” -Robster

Can you explain how the Drug Hypothesis is prejudiced because I don’t get it. HIV/AIDS is “aquired” as in “you brought it upon yourself” through “butthole-surfing”, needle sharing or simply because you’re “too black”.

No, I don’t care much for Hamer although any good doctor will tell you that the first step to recovery is believing in it. Funny how I almost got lumped in there with Hamer- courtesy of Shubladendenken.

“Extreme stress is extreme stress. It causes an increase in cortisol, but not enough to cause the immune dysfunction that HIV does.
If it did, individuals with severe anxiety disorder would develop AIDS.
They don’t.”
This is non-sense. Not all smoking leads necessarily to lung cancer and HPV doesn’t necessarily cause cervical cancer etc. etc. so why would stress necessarily lead to AIDS?
Stress alone cannot cause AIDS (which no one is actually claiming) and many very respectable scientists (Montagner among others) would tell you HIV is not sufficient to cause AIDS. But you do re-inforce how nasty HIV is compared to other stressors…which leads to more (dis)stress.

“Pat, I doubt you would convince a grieving parent that their stress is somehow less prolonged than that of someone being diagnosed with an infection with a (currently) estimated survival of 35 years plus. Where did you get the idea HIV was an automatic death sentence, and why should it be less of a “death” sentence that breast cancer?

OK, you’re arguing out of all your orifices here. First off, a grieving parent’s health is not under threat from an “ugly-sex” virus and they don’t need life-long chemotherapy to treat their grief “infection”. Second, where have you been all these years? HIV/AIDS is to this day INCURABLE and is constantly advertised as DEADLY. But then, oddly enough, you arse argues against your mouth and you ask why it is less of a death sentence then breast cancer. Which way would you like it? Y can’t have both sides of the argument at the same time.

“I constantly see happy, psychologically well-adjusted HIV-infected individuals getting on with their lives and not wallowing in anguish over their diagnosis. Some of the “worst” psychologically adapted individuals I have seen are people who have given themselves the “death” sentence of chronic fatigue syndrome. Never kills them though, or gives them PCP or cerebral Toxo though (funny that).”

Here it depends on your understanding of “happy”. Happilly vomitting, soiling their pants and watching their faces morph away?

“And no matter how severe the stress, as I have stated, the immunosuppression that it can cause pales into insignificance compared to what HIV can do.”

And here, out of both ends at the same time, you argue against stress as a factor in immuno-supression all-the-while re-inforcing it as a factor by claiming how it all “pales” in comparison to HIV infection.
#309 noreen
February 28, 2007

Stress is just one component of AIDS, there are many others such as drugs, diet, past medical history and treatments, life-style habits, etc. This is why drugs nor a vaccination will not cure AIDS. The cure is so simple and will not rake in the dough that no one is interested in it. The truth has set me free as the good book says and you folks can contiune to argue about AIDS as for me, I have experienced it and know how it makes one feel, physically and emotionally. I know what works and what doesn’t. I have been on and off the drugs and know how to restore health, which is no great secret and others can do it too.
#310 Kevin
February 28, 2007

If Kevin is correct in claiming that all my statements are ‘catty one-liners’, he would certainly be able to answer my SIMPLE question directly and accurately, wouldn’t he? The paragraph he quoted has nothing to do with HIV and AIDS.

Did you even attempt to understand the paragraph I quoted? If you did, you’d see that it has everything to do with HIV and AIDS. I’m trying to teach you that thinking for yourself is not a crime, Shalini. You really can rise above your simpleton status, with a little effort.

Here’s the simple answer you crave:

Noreen and others like her are “anamolies.” Long-term non-progressors are “anamolies.” HIV-negative AIDS cases, such as myself, are “anamolies.” Let that sink in Shalini. Ready to continue? Not only are we anamolies but Noreen and I have both recovered our health only after abandoning the treatment protocol that is advocated by the current paradigm. It is very likely that others could recover their health too, if they were properly treated. As Pope as pointed out, the paradigm’s response to this collection of anamolous phenomena has not been adequate. Simply asserting that paradoxes, or anamolies, are the norm in science does nothing to address the import of individual instances of anamolies, and when numerous accounts of individual anamolies appear, well, it seems only reasonable to re-evalute the paradigm that labels them anamolous in the first place.

I hope this explanation is simple enough for you, Shalini. If not, then perhaps you are as dimwitted as some of your cohorts.

And on that note I’m eagerly waiting for Robster to educate me regarding my mistaken interpretation of the concept of falsifiability. —

Me, too, Pope.

Kevin
#311 Dale
February 28, 2007

If stress causes AIDS then how does one explain the significant fraction of AIDS patients (like noreen as I recall) who don’t even know they are HIV positive until they already have AIDS? Also, how does one explain why the HIV positive children of HIV positive mothers develop AIDS when HIV negative children of HIV positive mothers don’t? Stress, drugs, diet etc. may contribute to ill health but the one common factor among AIDS patients is HIV.
#312 Barry A
February 28, 2007

DT wrote:

How the people like Pope, Kevin and Barry must hate it each time Lincoln posts a diatribe.

Another false statement. I don’t hate it when Lincoln posts a diatribe. I wouldn’t post the way he does. It’s not my style. I’d prefer both sides to calm down and examine the scientific claims without pre-determined conclusions.

But the tone was set early by the host and her sneering attempt to associate the odd views of an obscure Gambian man with those who genuinely identify scientific problems with the “one virus” paradigm.

And, you, have set a poor example yourself, if you claim to be purely a seeker of scientific truth.

Any time the adults want to inhale, relax and take a whack at this “conundrum,” I’m game.
#313 noreen martin
February 28, 2007

I don’t think that HIV is a common factor but the bogus test is common to all who test positive. As I state in my upcoming book, if one has green eyes and now there is a test available for green eyes, then one will always test positive, if in fact one has green eyes. That would be a given, it doesn’t mean anything else nor does it mean that one is sick and dying because of it. Although, the way that one perceives the HIV test, the viral load and CD4′s is all important. It’s a revolving circle if one buys into these three items. One then gives control of how one feels and one’s life over to unimportant tests. No wonder the AIDS docs have gotten away with this for so long, they are using fear to their advantage and most, but not all patients, let them get away with it.
#314 Pope
February 28, 2007

Dale, there’s the old name trickery confusing you again. Stress doesn’t cause AIDS. Stress causes immunosuppresion, which lead to opportunistic diseases and perhaps death. “AIDS” is something you guys call those diseases if in addition there’s a positive HIV test.

Nobody said stress is the only cause of severe immunosupression; various other things, like malnutrition and drugs, can also do the trick.
#315 Barry A
February 28, 2007

I think Pope is right. The question isn’t, Does stress cause AIDS?

The question is:

What effect does stress have on your immune system?

A secondary queston might be:

What effect does X have on your immune system?

[X = poppers or meth or cocaine or Hep B vaccination or anti-biotics or retrovirus or sleep deprivation or malnutrition]

Of course, you could break down “immune system” to “CD4 cell count”, if you want to be even more specific.

Does anyone disagree with this *simple* re-formulation of the issue?
#316 Dt
February 28, 2007

Barry, I came into this discussion late in the day. Reading through it I have seen pretty consistent respect shown by both sides for the other.
With one exception. I don’t really mind if Lincoln wishes to call me a “piece of drug and toxic dope dealing garbage” or expresses his wish to see me “Hail Mary’d and anally reamed” or some of the other terms he has used. I just wish he would attempt to respond to validly-put points rather than spamming the thread with unconnected and incoherent ramblings which are devoid of any scientific merit. Even if you don’t “hate it” – a remark I made with a degree of irony – I am sure you don’t appreciate the impression they give the rethinker cause.

BTW – Perhaps you would you care to explain the pathogenesis of immunodeficiency in macaques infected with SIV?
#317 noreen
February 28, 2007

Barry, I would agree that all of these things play into determining a person’s immune sytem with the exception of CD4′s as many people, including athletes, have been know to have low CD’4′s. Mine two weeks ago were 86. It doesn’t bother me if they keep on dropping because I have no symptoms and that is what is important. As stated many times, it is the significance that one places on these numbers that is important. Some might have low CD4′s and stress themselves out worry about it, which cannot be helpful to one’s health.
#318 Pope
February 28, 2007

BTW – Perhaps you would you care to explain the pathogenesis of immunodeficiency in macaques infected with SIV? (DT)

DT,

We can all agree that Lincoln’s style is erm… his own, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t make valid points in between his hail Marys. So what’s wrong with the explanation he’s just given you of the observed immunodeficiency in “infected” macaques?
#319 lincoln
February 28, 2007

Poor little DT.

I have yet to see any answers from you on the few short simple questions I asked. And all that was required was a simple yes or no to any of them.

All you have done is avoid the obvious, and run away to cry. I would too if I were you. The truth sometimes hurts, poor baby!

For all who were unaware, DT is a drug rep for pharmaceutical companies. And a Godless, and seemingly ignorant one at that.
#320 Barry A
February 28, 2007

Hi Lincoln,

DT is a drug rep for pharmaceutical companies

I don’t want to be a scold or a school-marm, and I do think the host here set the unpleasant tone with her sneering a-scientific post about Gambian silliness, but….

In order for the discussion to benefit anyone, I do think we all should tone it down a bit, and I would be intellectually dishonest not to mention that some of your remarks probably went over the line, as well.

Whether or not DT is a pharmaceutical representative should be irrevelant. Whether someone is gay or not should irrelevant.

I think all commentators should strive deeply to recognize the importance of this scientific issue, leave their biases at the door, and evaluate the scientific evidence for and against any particular claim, without any personal attacks.

There should be one exception: People who have been diagnosed HIV+ or have ICL should be able to share their personal experiences free from any rancors or attacks. True, this would be considered “anecdotal” evidence, but nonetheless, most of us here share the same objective — that is, to reduce the suffering of people who suffer from the disease called AIDS.

True, a large majority believes that medications and testing is the best way to achieve this aim, but those in the minority, I believe, deserve a fair shake in making counter-vailing arguments based on evidence.
#321 lincoln
February 28, 2007

Hello Barry.

Point taken, and I do absolutely agree with you that people should take this issue with due seriousness, due respect for others who disagree, and due respect for all of our common humanity. I agree with you that this should be approached as much as is possible for any of us, from a point of non-bias. This requires those who enter these discussions to take note of their own bias, and therefore react accordingly to knowing that ones self is prone to bias.

However, we ourselves are, and we are dealing with real life human beings. We are all fallible human beings, including the host, and none of us are perfect, nor do we need to be. We simply all need to do our best, and think before reacting from a place of bias or emotionality. And listen before we react and deeply consider what we have just heard, before reacting from a place of bias, judgement, or emotionality.

Biases should be stated upfront instead of kept hidden. Those who do not wish to state their own bias, should certainly have it exposed by the others. This is the only way to keep integrity, honor, and respect in the discussions.

Surely if I was a pharma drug rep or researcher, I myself would want to be informed what people think of my products, so I could make decisions regarding these products free of later regrets. Unfortunately, not all humans have yet attained a level of integrity that even allows them to see their own biases, let alone admit them. As such, I do think it important, even crucial, to expose these hidden biases when they appear. Perhaps even the biased can still learn something from this that will benefit them in the future.

All of humanity is prone to error and correction. All of science and all of religion, and all of human belief is prone to error and correction. This is simply a part of human evolution, and although it can at times be painful to watch people hurting themselves through making mistakes, I for one, simply see this as a part of their own, and hence, all of our own growing and evolutionary process. Life, science included, is a process, not an event, and sometimes that process can seem to be a bit chaotic before it levels out to an even greater height and an even greater truth.

At this point in human evolution, it seems to me that all of us want integrity in our politicians. We want integrity in our religions. We want integrity in our corporations. We want integrity in our scientists and medical personel and establishments. And, we want integrity from other humans with whom we interact.

However, it is also a common human frailty, to want integrity in everybody else, without taking an honest assesment of ones own integrity, and seeing to it that ones own self is coming from such a higher level of self integrity.

As such, all of our selves and our society is currently facing this issue of integrity, as you can see that integrity, and the lack of it, is the fundamental issue of this entire issue of HIV/AIDS, as well as the fundamental issue of this thread.
#322 lincoln
February 28, 2007

And Barry, be not afraid, as I am sure you will note by all that I have posted, I am an expert surgeon at slicing out the cancerous cells of irrational emotionality and bias and and lancing the boils of non-integrity, and I have yet to lose a patient in the process, even though the operation may look scary to the unaware.

And all of our good friends here at Tara’s blogsite will recover from the operation!
#323 lincoln
February 28, 2007

Barry, You said:

“Of course, you could break down “immune system” to “CD4 cell count”, if you want to be even more specific”.

This could be dangerous to apply this as a yardstick of immune system health. The reason is that CD4 counts being lowered simply seems to be a result of various types, (not necessarily all types) of inflamation. This would explain why many Olympic athletes who work their bodies out to a point of extreme muscular breakdown and inflamation, test as having extremely low CD4 counts.

There have been various studies over the years that call into question, or call for eliminating CD4 counts as any measure of immune system health, as it can be quite misleading in many circumstances.
#324 lincoln
March 1, 2007

Reprinted from The British Medical Journal Online, September 2003:

Low CD4 Counts: A Variety of Causes and Their Implications to a Multi-factorial Model of AIDS

Amazing Grace!
#325 lincoln
March 1, 2007

From the Abstract:

Low CD4+ T lymphocyte counts (CD4 counts) are associated with a variety of conditions, including many viral infections, bacterial infections, parasitic infections, sepsis, tuberculosis, coccidioidomycosis, burns, trauma, intravenous injections of foreign proteins, malnutrition, over-exercising, pregnancy, corticosteroid use, normal daily variation, psychological stress, and social isolation. It is also possible that anti-HIV medications can lower CD4 counts when used for long periods, and the short term rise in CD4 counts that is associated with their use may be due to a variety of factors that are unrelated to any anti-HIV activity. Finally, there are a number of people who are completely healthy and who have low CD4 counts for no apparent reason.

From the Introduction:

Low CD4 T-cell counts are considered to be a marker of the progression of HIV infection and AIDS, and have been called the ‘hallmark’ of HIV (Balter 1997). Since HIV was first claimed to be the cause of AIDS in 1984, the CD4 count has been widely used to make treatment and diagnostic decisions, but the use of the CD4 count has been controversial, and recommendations regarding how to use them have changed many times over the years (Goldman 2000, Hughes et al. 1998, Choi et al 1993).

From Me:

And, ummmm, what was that about HIV killing T Cells again ya’ll???
#326 Barry A
March 1, 2007

Hi Lincoln,

Thank you for your response. Also, interesting article you cited at BMJ by Dr. Irwin. I will digest it and examine some of the cited papers.

It seems to provide evidence that many different factors can cause CD4 cell depletion, which would indicate that HIV may not be necessary to cause AIDS.
#327 lincoln
March 1, 2007

Barry. I don’t even know if we can go so far as to call it “depletion” of the CD4 cells.

These CD4′s may simply be turned “off” or affected in some other way that they are simply not registering in the counts as CD4 cells.

Or….Maybe they are just not answering the phone because they are busy attending to other business and do not have time to go for a joyride with the lab techs and know-it-all researchers. Who knows?
#328 DT
March 1, 2007

I think you will find that many things can upset the immune system. Some of these can do it to such an extent that the end result may be an opportunistic infection such as PCP (patients on potent immunosuppressive drugs or high dose steroids for example). Most of the conditions you refer to that may affect the immune system do not do so in such a profound manner, however, and are not associated with the profoundly and persistently low CD4 counts that are more typical of advanced HIV infection.

Examples of illnesses such as PCP in someone who is immunosuppressed for some reason but HIV negative is clearly not evidence that HIV cannot cause AIDS (merely evidence that there are other causes of immunosuppression). Studies have consistently shown that when groups of individuals with the same “risk factors” are studied – (eg gay men with similar lifestyles, drug users injecting heroin and using recreational drugs, factor VIII recipients etc) it is only those who are HIV positive who develop profound immunodeficiency and get “AIDS”. This indicates HIV is the crucial factor and is evidence against a multifactorial immune dysfunction hypothesis.

Another pointer against this is the epidemiological evidence – people have always had the stresses and illnesses you blame for causing immunosuppression and AIDS – but the pandemic of AIDS defining illnesses started only in the early 1980s and its spread mirrors exactly the spread and prevalence of HIV. Look at PCP, which was so unusual that before the 1980s any cases that occurred were usually written up. And yet hundreds of thousands of cases have occurred in HIV positive patients in the US since then.

More evidence against the “multifactorial” hypothesis comes from he realisation that for many people who are outwardly perfectly healthy, a blood test can still show very low CD4 counts. If low CD4 counts are only the consequence of illness or drugs, how are all the instances explained in HIV positive people who have had none of these? Many studies have also monitored CD4 changes over time in HIV populations – and consistently it is only after many years when the CD4 counts have dropped to very low levels do people become clinically unwell, ie. CD4 decline precedes illness.

The “BMJ article” you refer to is not a peer reviewed published article in the BMJ. It is another fictional account by Matt Irwin, whose evidence for his claims do not hold up under closer scrutiny. It is easy to generate a list of conditions that can cause a low CD4 count, but when one digs out the actual numbers the clinical significance evaporates. It is not unusual for severe illness to suppress counts below say 300, but how many references give numbers of CD4 counts of less than 50 in someone who is not HIV infected? Answer – none.
#329 DT
March 1, 2007

Captive macaques only develop Simian AIDS if they are SIV infected. Uninfected captive macaques who have been kept in the same laboratory conditions do not.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=7508724&dopt=Abstract

Macaques infected with previously determined non-pathogenic clones of SIV (who are kept in identical experimental conditions to your monkeys infected with pathogenic clones) do not develop SAIDS http://jvi.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/69/7/4198?ijkey=16b2bbf9f3ea680429c422504608582db978bd43&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

These are reasons to reject Lincoln’s hypothesis of stress and trauma in monkeys from being anally-raped as a valid simian AIDS model. Can someone offer a better one? Or why not just accept that SIV can cause simian AIDS?
And that HIV can cause human AIDS?
Why not accept this fact?
#330 noreen
March 1, 2007

Great article Lincoln, now if we could just get the AIDS doctors to read it. I want to steer the boat in another direction, if I may, to the issue of treatment. I will play the devil’s advocate and “assume” that HIV is the culprit. There are so many ways, which are non-lethal to treat HIV or any other virus for that matter.

Many may not be aware that in 1990 at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, doctors Kaali and Lyman discovered that via bio-electric medicine, they could disinfect bacteria, viruses, fungus and parasites. They in effect killed HIV well over 90% and received a patent. Did this make world-wide headlines, of course not. Did the fact that over 300 cases of AIDS were cured by ozone treatments, which were verified by ELISA, Western Blot and PCR testing make worldwide headlines? Not hardly.

Or how about last year when BYU developed CSA-54, a compound, which hunts down and kill HIV with the potential to do the same for influenza, smallpox, herpes and the bird flu(if it exists)and lastly where are the headlines for LDN, low dose naltrexone, a wonder drug, which is here now and not only helping AIDS persons but so many with other immune deficiency diseases? The answer to this is simple. These cures are not pushed because there is not tons of money to be made by the drug companies, in other words they don’t want patients cured.

Take LDN for example, a safe drug with no side effects, which prevents opportunistic diseases. This is a better choice of drugs for AIDS than the current drugs, which are linked to heart attacks, liver failure, nerve problems, disfigurement, anemia, diarrhea and more. Last fall, the Lancet stated that after 22,000 patients and over 10 years, the patients on the anti-virals didn’t live any longer than the patients who did not take them. I see no benefit to them when there is a better drug of choice with well-over, twenty years, safety record, which by the way was initially used on AIDS patients.

All of the above proves to me that it’s simply a matter of math or better stated money. Why would the drug companies push a drug that is $20.00 per month when they can sell anti-virals for $1,200.00 per month?
#331 noreen
March 1, 2007

DT, you saying that HIV correlates to AIDS in the 1980′s, well so do other things such as drug use, benzene found in sexual lubricants, poppers, etc. To me, these are more destructive to one’s immune system than a retrovirus. And for Matt Irwin not being peer reviewed need we bring up Gallo and his lack of following procedures?

I fail to see the need for only one cause of AIDS, take cancer for instance, there are numerous causes and co-factors. The only reason HIV is given all the credit is that some gave HIV the spotlight without the proof to back it up, now its a profitable embarrasment to all of us.
#332 Dale
March 1, 2007

On the other hand, noreen, why would the government and HMOs pay millions of dollars a year for ARVs if there were less expensive treatments available that were equally or more effective? None of these things have been shown to work in controlled clinical trials.
#333 noreen
March 1, 2007

A couple of days ago, the subject of Dengue fever was brought into the conversation. Not being up on this issue, I read what Chris referenced in Pub Meb, the last sentence stating, “The continued search to define risk factors in susceptible populations must be combined with the new techniques of molecular virology and innovative approaches in vaccine design to achieve the ulimate objective of developing a safe and effective vaccine…28 Nov. 2006″.

Going to my resources or the horse’s mouth, Special Issue The Bulletin Of The U.S. Army Medical Department, dated September 1945, I discovered the following:
Dengue is an acute infectious disease caused by a filtrable virus and transmitted to man by species of Aedes mosquitoes. Its onset occurs with fevers, malaise, headaches, etc. On the 6th or 7th day, there is a secondary fever and sometimes a rash develops. The book went on to say that as early as the second day of the disease, the white blood cell count begins to fall and by the 5th or 6th day, leukopenia may be marked. There is a relative lymphocytosis and a shift to the left of the neutrophils. The blood returns to normal during early convalenscene.

Also, the mortality rate is extremely low but convalescence may be prolonged. Prevention of dengue primarily was by control of the mosquitoes, protective clothing and insect repellent, pretty much common sense.
#334 Pope
March 1, 2007

Noreen,

Please don’t fall for the oldest trick in the name trickery book. Of course the spread of HIV and AIDS “mirror” each other perfectly since HIV is part of the definition of AIDS.

No HIV no AIDS per NIH definition. – And on that note we are still waiting for Robster to come back from his exams and tell us exactly what it is we don’t understand about the concept of falsifiability.

Apart from that, DT is even worse than Chris Noble who throws pub med at us with no attempt at formulating a coherent argument. DT formulates no coherent argument and in addition he doesn’t supply us with a single reference.

When something has been ‘consistently shown’ or found to be ‘persistently’ thus, or ‘indicates’ certain things, warrants certain ‘conclusions’, that’s when it’s time to pull out some references and quotations.

But ok, lets work with what we’re given:

There was no AIDS before HIV says DT. What does this assertion rest on apart from the already mentioned name trick that made HIV part of the definition of AIDS? Precious little that is not purely nonsensical. DT’s version was this:

“…it is only those who are HIV positive who develop profound immunodeficiency and get “AIDS”.” (DT)

In other words, the claim there were ‘no instances of AIDS before HIV’, resolves to the claim there were ‘no instances of “profound immunodeficiency” before HIV…

Then there’s the PCP argument. According to DT, PCP was almost non-existent before HIV and corresponds perfectly with the spread of HIV. That is of course not true. Conditions like PCP and KS correspond with certain risk groups such as popper users, who hardly existed before the seventies. In the West, TB is prevalent among IV drug users, whereas KS is not really a big hit among factor VIII recipients. The question is where’s the need for HIV to explain these phenomena? It would seem we’re back with that unique to HIV profound immunodeficiency. Even if HIV negative people do get PC occasionally they’re not “profoundly immunodeficient” in that special AIDS way DT tells us; and if they are, it doesn’t disprove that HIV causes AIDS, it only goes to prove that things other than HIV can cause immunosuppresion.

Why don’t we ask some of our expert witnesses such as Noreen if the doctor in determining if one has AIDS or not usually relies on an HIV test, or if he really suspends judgment until he has clinically determined that one is “profoundly immunodeficient” in a way that is profoundly different from all other known kinds of immunodeficiency?

Or let me put it differently, if one is HIV+, has cervical cancer but is otherwise not uniquely and profoundly immunodeficient, does one then not yet have clinical AIDS according to official guidelines?

Or to use another example already mentioned by Noreen and Lincoln, are Olympic athletes “profoundly imunodeficient”? Do they have AIDS? – Still standing by to learn about the concept of falsifiability.
#335 noreen
March 1, 2007

I agree, all of these undiagnosed HIV+’s are living normal lives until they take an HIV test and bingo now their lives are no longer normal and I believe the stress of this diagnosis is certainly detrimental to their well-being. How could it be otherwise? I wonder how many people would develop AIDS if we no longer had an HIV test and drugs and just treated symptoms?
#336 Dale
March 1, 2007

Pope,
“Olympic athletes” exhibit a transient drop in CD4+ cells following strenuous exercise. They do not show the steady decline over months to years that HIV+ individuals show. The need for HIV to explain PCP or KS or TB is that within the high risk groups that suffer these particular infections/cancer, the incidence is many fold higher in HIV seropositives than it is in seronegatives. HIV is the common factor. Moreover, HIV predicts the development of immunodeficiency while PCP or KS or TB are markers of existing immunodeficiency.
#337 Pope
March 1, 2007

DT,

The monkey argument is at least backed up. Unfortunately I have access to only the abstracts, which tell very little about the exact conditions the animals were kept under, how well they were matched (apart from age), the exact differences between what they’re inoculated with and how etc.

I don’t think anybody would argue that certain concoctions are more harmful than others when injected into neonates whose immune systems are not yet functioning. Otherwise we wouldn’t need vaccine trials. Beyond that the link the authors make to HIV/AIDS escapes me.
#338 Pope
March 1, 2007

Dale,

Does the doctor monitor the CD4 count for months or years before declaring that it’s HIV that causes the decline, or does he rely on the HIV test to tell him?

If one exhibits a pattern of steadily declining CD4 numbers over months, but is HIV negative, will one become diagnosed with AIDS (in the developed world)?

If one is HIV positive but shows no pattern of declining CD4 numbers does that override the verdict of the HIV test?

Nobody’s argued that a positive HIV test is not a good predictor of progression to disease; yellow fingers is a good predictor of lung cancer, extreme stress is a good predictor of immunedeficiency, AZT, especially in high doses, is an excellent predictor of ‘HIV-related’ fatalities.

The question is thus not if the incidence of HIV in cases of KS, TB etc. is an unreferenced “manifold higher” within the risk groups. The question is whether HIV is needed to explain the causes of death within those risk groups.
#339 Adele
March 1, 2007

Pope: Or to use another example already mentioned by Noreen and Lincoln, are Olympic athletes “profoundly imunodeficient”?
This oft-mentioned but rarely-read study from the early 80s shows that some long-distance athletes may have lower CD4 counts than the general population. The counts are still within a “normal” range and are rarely below 400.
Subsequent studies have confirmed that strenuous exercise can sometimes lower CD4 counts, although whether this translates into an effect on immune system function is disputed. Men seem to be more affected than women athletes. There is a higher incidence of minor viral and bacterial infections in long-distance runners. Anecdotally, I had many more colds when I was a long-distance runner myself, at least four or five a year in contrast to my average of between one and two per year since I stopped running competitively eight years ago.
So yes, some elite athletes are comparatively immunodeficient, but none are “profoundly” so with T-cell counts below 100 or even 200.
#340 Adele
March 1, 2007

On the monkey thing, I happen to work with macaques myself. I will not say where because I don’t want my children followed home from school by freaks. It has happened.
Every study includes a significant number of control animals. These animals are matched by age, sex, size and weight with the experimental animals. When experimental animals receive an injection of virus, control animals receive an identical volume of the solution containing the virus, just without any virus. The control and experimental animals have separate but identical environments usually in the same larger room. Temperature, humidity, light cycles and other variables are controlled. Tests (blood draws, behavioral tests) done on one group are done on the other group at the same time. Food and water supplies are identical. Interaction with techs and vets is closely monitored. The control and experimental groups may be blinded, that is they’re called A and B with no reference to virus, so no one working with the animals knows at first which group is infected.
“At first” because depending on the viral strain(s) used as inoculum, the infected animals become very sick very fast with AIDS-defining conditions. The uninfected animals do not get sick with these symptoms. They stay very healthy.
Give a researcher an unlabeled data set with blood draws from ten infected and ten uninfected monkeys, and s/he will consistently and accurately separate the members of the two groups. Give a pathologist slides from lung or some other infected tissue, and you’ll get the same result.
There is only one good explanation for why SIV+ and – monkeys have such drastically different health outcomes. And it’s not anal sex or poppers.
#341 Pope
March 1, 2007

Adele, I don’t doubt that the test conditions you describe are the agreed ideal ones. but I’m sure you’ll agree that it takes an expert going over all the records to even begin t determine if everything has been done properly.

I will not dispute either that that the researchers can identify what they’ve put into the monkeys in blood tests, or that some of the stuff is more lethal than other.

I concede that not many athletes make it under the 200 cut off range. But even when they, or others, do, it’s the test that defines them as “profoundly immunodeficient” in that AIDS-specific way, not the blood count itself.

I promise I won’t take it out on your kids if your work involves animal abuse.
#342 Adele
March 1, 2007

That’s nice of you Pope.
I will not dispute either that that the researchers can identify what they’ve put into the monkeys in blood tests
I actually just meant panels, not viral loads or antigen tests. You can tell from the CD4 count alone which animals got the SIV.
#343 Kevin
March 1, 2007

Dale,

Does the doctor monitor the CD4 count for months or years before declaring that it’s HIV that causes the decline, or does he rely on he HIV test to tell him?

Excellent question, Pope.

I suffered a “steady decline over months to years”, yet the doctors did not see fit to monitor my CD4 counts because my HIV tests were consistently negative. I did, however, have frequent CBCs done and they were often “abnormal” — usually with either extremely high or extremely low white blood cell counts, but the only tests my doctors frequently used were HIV tests. I now realize how that it was not only a thoroughly terrorizing approach, but also a highly unproductive way to go about treating someone who was already severely ill.

As you pointed out, Pope…“Of course the spread of HIV and AIDS “mirror” each other perfectly since HIV is part of the definition of AIDS.” Had I triggered a positive test, I’m sure that my doctors would have perfunctorily added my name to the AIDS register, with or without a CD4 count. After all, I was suffering from multiple AIDS-defining conditions. Without the advent of anti-retroviral therapy, they were essentially clueless regarding a treatment strategy. One oncologist I saw, suggested I was a false-negative and that I be treated as though I had HIV. No one ever mentioned ICL, and I’m not sure doctors outside of ICL-related clinical trials even know what it is. They are all too brainwashed to see the clinical anamolies of HIV for what they really are. They get most of their HIV treatment information from drug reps, I fear. During “my steady decline”, I was diagnosed with all of the following (though this list is not complete):

PCP
Recurrent Bacterial Pnuemonia — 6 times
Recurrent Salmonella
Shigella
Thrush
Esophageal Canididiasis
Histioplasmosis
Persistently Swollen Lymph Nodes

I am very healthy now, but it hasn’t been an easy road to recovery. It’s taken me almost two years of “careful living”, and the only doctor I’ve seen during that time is a dissident-friendly doctor. I eventually became quite educated to the dissident position on immunosuppression and thus discovered how incompetent most of my doctors really were, and it should be noted that I was receiving treatment by some pretty high-profile physicians at a large research hospital. Anyway, the dissident doctor was very critical of a “drug-for-every-ill” approach to medicine, which was kind of new to me but was what I was looking for at the time, considering that conventional drug therapies seemed to be only making me sicker. That said, he wasn’t irrational about it, which runs counter to the way that most of the apologist on here like to characterize doctors who incorporate alternative medicine into patient care. In fact, he was the first doctor, including all the many specialists who treated me, who would admit that my health was being severely compromised by candidiasis. He insisted that I allow treatment with high-dose Diflucan, even though I initially resisted since my other doctors had scared me into believing it was too risky to use long-term. He stressed that it was necessary and that he would monitor my liver funcitons carefully. Within a week, I felt better than I had felt in a decade. It took a lot longer, of course, for me to get completely well, but I knew from the beginning that I had finally found a knowledgeable physician. My first visit with him was over an hour long, and I was already an educated patient. Inicidentally, he no longer accepts most insurance plans since he believes that the associated red tape compromises treatment options.

Most doctors are really just glorified drug dealers, which I’m sure pleases DT and his employer, but for the rest of us, it’s detrimental to our health. All of the apologists on this site keep trying to convince themselves that HIV-negative AIDS patients are not important to understanding the clinical treatment of HIV+ patients, but that is most likely due to the supressed realization that there is very little difference in positive and negative, clinically. If DT, Dale, Shalini, and all the others are truely honest and if they can suspend their dogmatic reverence for a moment, placing themselves in my position, looking at the clinical facts, they’d gain insight into the numerous shortcomings of paradigm. It was real eye-opener for me, seeing the incompetence only grow with each visit to every so-called “specialists”.

Kevin
#344 DT
March 1, 2007

Pope:
“AZT, especially in high doses, is an excellent predictor of ‘HIV-related’ fatalities”

And guess what? Having had chemotherapy is a good predictor for death from lung cancer. So this is merely another fallacious argument.

“Then there’s the PCP argument. According to DT, PCP was almost non-existent before HIV and corresponds perfectly with the spread of HIV. That is of course not true. Conditions like PCP and KS correspond with certain risk groups such as popper users, who hardly existed before the seventies. “

Actually it is true. Prior to 1981 there were hardly any cases of PCP recorded in the medical literature. Its epidemiology essentially mirrors that of HIV prevalence.

The CDC states here that “The beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s shifted the incidence of PCP from a rare disease to a more common pneumonia. Clusters of PCP cases in homosexual men and intravenous drug users were one of the first indications of the HIV epidemic (2). PCP rapidly became the leading AIDS-defining diagnosis in HIV-infected patients. In the initial stages of the epidemic, PCP rates were as high as 20 per 100 person-years for those with CD4+ cell counts below 200 cells/µL (3). PCP was responsible for two thirds of AIDS-defining illnesses, and an estimated 75% of HIV-infected patients would develop PCP during their lifetime (4).”

PCP incidence declined after the introduction of cotrimoxazole as prophylaxis. I wonder why this was, considering some rethinkers feel cotrimoxazole use actually causes AIDS?

The CDC explain how “The advent of HAART has resulted in further declines in rates of PCP and other opportunistic infections” I wonder why that was too…? Couldn’t possibly be anything to do with the success of HAART, could it? Perish the thought!

“In the West, TB is prevalent among IV drug users, whereas KS is not really a big hit among factor VIII recipients”

TB is commoner in certain groups, one of these being drug users. You may need to read up about the medical consequenses of drug use before you make too many unsupported assertions, however. TB is far more prevalent and problematic in drug users with HIV.

Kaposi sarcoma is due to HHV type 8. Initially is was thought to be related to use of nitrites (poppers) but this hypothesis did not hold up under scientific scrutiny. Popper users who are not HIV infected do not get KS. HIV-infected men who use poppers (and other drugs) do not progress to AIDS faster than those who don’t. KS is prevalent in Africa (where it mirrors a higher HHV8 prevalence). Africans are not known for their use of poppers. Disseminated forms of KS correlate with HIV seropositivity.

The summary of this paper merits quotation in its entirety:
“The belief that HIV-1 infection causes AIDs has been questioned, and the suggestion made that to know the correct cause of AIDS the incidence of disease in patients with and without risk behaviours and with and without antibody to HIV-1 must be known. We describe findings in such a cohort. In 715 homosexual men followed for a median of 8.6 years, all 136 AIDS cases occurred in the 365 individuals with pre-existing HIV-1 antibody. Most men negative for HIV-1 antibody reported risk behaviours but none developed any AIDS illnesses. CD4 counts fell in anti-HIV-1-positive men but remained stable in antibody-negative men, whether or not risk behaviours were present. The hypothesis that AIDS in homosexual men is caused not by HIV-1 infection but by drugs and sexual activity is rejected by these data. HIV-1 has an integral role in the pathogenesis of AIDS.”
#345 Barry A
March 1, 2007

Kevin,

I chided a few people upthread for ignoring “clinical relevance,” when they referred to goat retroviruses or determining the immune deficiency of wild macaques –in a lab, of course.

Your story, however, is as remarkable as Noreen Martin’s above.

I hope you are doing well.

Clinically, it appears that you had “AIDS.” I doubt anyone could distinguish you from an AIDS patients.

But, since the HIV (antibody) test was negative, you didn’t have AIDS. Doesn’t that sound bizarre?

So, as I understand it, because you didn’t have AIDS, the doctors ignored CD4 cell counts and did not give you anti-retroviral drugs to fight a retrovirus that could not be detected by anti-bodies.

At least, not giving you anti-virals in the absence of a positive HIV antibody test, seems logical and reasonable.

It’s a wonder why, though, the doctors were unable to connect that dots — ie, the patient had clinical AIDS, but no HIV. Hmm. What does this say about HIV?

It’s as if they have converged the cause and the effect: HIV = AIDS. Period, end of story. If no HIV, then no AIDS.

Thank you for sharing your great personal story, and remain well!
#346 Pope
March 1, 2007

Adele,

I’m sure the resarchers would be able to distinguish infected form non-infected monkeys in a controlled lab setting in multitude of ways with near 100% certainty throughout. As you say, the monkeys very quickly become sick. That’s one of the things that distinguish them from humans infected with HIV in a non-controlled environment.

And yet, although everything appears admirably clear cut and unambiguous in your lab, I can only relate to what I read in the first abstract DT linked (the second study is freely available in full I’ve dicovered, but doesn’t mention CD4 counts) from a study that was obviously not performed in your lab.

Researchers used “viral isolation and SIV p26 antigenemia” to verify that the animals were infected. And it’s probably just as well they didn’t rely on the CD4 count because,

“Inoculated animals that died within a mean of 31 days (short-term survivors) had significantly lower numbers of CD4+CD29+ (helper/inducer) lymphocytes than did long-term surviving inoculated animals through 3 weeks PI. Numbers of CD4+ lymphocytes were no different when controls were compared to all inoculated animals through 4-5 weeks PI. The two inoculated animals surviving 216 and 423 days PI (long-term survivors) did demonstrate declining CD4+ cells, but only late in disease”

The two infected “long-term survivors” were thus not to be distinguished early on via their CD4 count.
#347 noreen
March 1, 2007

Kevin, you really had some nasty stuff and I too feel that you had AIDS without HIV. The only good thing is that you didn’t come up HIV+ but you too have proven that if one takes responsibility for one’s health, great improvements and remarkable recoveries may be made. It’s most unfortuante that the breed of doctors coming out of med school now, only know how to dispense pills and if one is honest with them and tell them all of the natural supplements one is taking, they look at you like your are crazy. They just don’t get it.
#348 Dale
March 1, 2007

Does the doctor monitor the CD4 count for months or years before declaring that it’s HIV that causes the decline, or does he rely on the HIV test to tell him?

I’m not an M.D. but as I understand it, most HIV positive individuals will have more than one CD4 count before being prescribed ARVs.

If one exhibits a pattern of steadily declining CD4 numbers over months, but is HIV negative, will one become diagnosed with AIDS (in the developed world)?

No, one won’t. And as a consequence of not being diagnosed with AIDS, one also would be unlikely to be prescribed HAART.

If one is HIV positive but shows no pattern of declining CD4 numbers does that override the verdict of the HIV test?

If one is HIV positive but has steady CD4 numbers > 300, one would be labeled HIV+ but would not be an AIDS case. However I expect one’s doctor would want to continue monitoring one’s T cell counts and general health.

Nobody’s argued that a positive HIV test is not a good predictor of progression to disease; yellow fingers is a good predictor of lung cancer, extreme stress is a good predictor of immunedeficiency, AZT, especially in high doses, is an excellent predictor of ‘HIV-related’ fatalities.

The difference Pope is that a vey small percentage of those with yellow fingers get lung cancer, and a very small percentage of those with extreme stress develop immune deficiency while a very high percentage of those with HIV develop immune deficiency.
#349 Adele
March 1, 2007

Pope, it does take some time for CD4 cells to decline significantly in infected animals. The amount of time varies due to different viral strains or dual inocula. If you look at a cross-section of the macaque SIV literature, progression to disease takes weeks to years depending again on which virus is used. Just as in the human population there is a strong component of inter-individual variation. In the laboratory setting, we can control environmental factors, and the monkeys are not smoking or drinking or doing drugs. The differences in progression like the long-term nonprogressing monkeys you mention are likely the result of genetic differences. Genomic studies are underway to identify what factors besides risk behavior can contribute to progression.
#350 Barry A
March 1, 2007

Open questions:

Let us assume one fact about Kevin’s symptoms and dianosis (or lack thereof) above: Assume his CD4 cell count was consistently less than 200.

Given he had (1) low CD4 cell count and (2) several opportunistic infections, but (3) no HIV, what would we conclude?

1. Perhaps, HIV was present, but not detectable due to test malfunction; or

2. HIV was absent, and some other factor [Factor X] causes CD4 decline and opportunistic infection. That, in and of itself, means that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS, true?

Also, it means that Factor X has to be ruled out in all AIDS patients, before determining that HIV is the cause of AIDS in these patients.

Also, before ruling out Factor X it might not be so wise to take anti-viral medications to target a virus that isn’t causing CD4 cell decline in the patient.

So, what are the factors that cause preferential CD4 decline, other than HIV?

Are we certain that HIV kills only CD4 cells (in an unexplained manner) and no other white blood cells? For example, does an HIV+ patient have only low CD4 cells, but normal neutrophils, eosinophils, basophils, monocytes, etc, etc?
#351 Kevin
March 1, 2007

It’s most unfortuante that the breed of doctors coming out of med school now, only know how to dispense pills and if one is honest with them and tell them all of the natural supplements one is taking, they look at you like your are crazy. They just don’t get it.

That’s exactly right, Noreen. I take a total of 11 different supplements daily. I also continue to do yoga and sinus irrigations daily. All of which were very important factors in my recovery. I tried lots of different things and I tried them in isolation when possible to gauge effectiveness. I would have no problem telling future doctors what supplements I take and why I take them, but I’m sure most would be nonplussed. That’s fine, but that doesn’t mean I will ever stop trying to educate them about the ones that I’ve found to be so effective. In all the years and including many different doctors, not one of them ever recommended sinus irrigation as a treatment option for my debilitating chronic sinusitis; yet, aside from eliminating the systemic fungal infection, nothing has had a more profound effect on my quality of life.

I hope you are doing well.
Clinically, it appears that you had “AIDS.” I doubt anyone could distinguish you from an AIDS patients.

Thank you. I really am healthy, now, but I certainly looked the part when I was at my sickest. I had dropped from 160 pounds to 130 pounds in less than a year. Nevertheless, I now weigh more than I ever have, a cool 175 (I’m 6’1″). I truly am as healthy as I think I’ll ever be and now that I know what was wrong with me — systemic candida — I don’t worry about getting opportunistic infections, anymore. I’ve only had one cold in the last couple years, which did not result in the usual bacterial sinus infection, either. I have also had one fungal infection of the skin — very painful but it cleared quickly with an OTC medication.

It is my belief that most full-blown AIDS patients are primarily suffering from advanced systemic candidiasis, which is very difficult to treat. I also believe that the initial positive response to ARVs is due to their widely reported anti-microbial properties, i.e. they are very effective at clearing the candidiasis initially, but it will come back if other therapies are not included since the side effects of ARVs, both short term and long term, do nothing to resolve the underlying immune dysfunction that allowed the candidiasis in the first place. In addition, popular adjunctive therapies like antibiotics and corti-costeriods often only add to the immune problems and are well-known to exacerbate existing fungal infections. My experience overwhelmingly supports that finding. Thus, the current treatment for both AIDS and the associated opportunistic infections is not only largely ineffective but, more likely, even detrimental to a full recovery. I realize that antibiotics are sometimes necessary (I’ve had pnuemonia numerous times); however, AIDS patients should be aggressively treated for fungal infections whenever the clinical situation allows, and antifungals are absolutely essential for immunocompromised patients who require antibiotic therapy.

…you too have proven that if one takes responsibility for one’s health, great improvements and remarkable recoveries may be made.

Exactly, Noreen. After going through all this, I first wanted to forget about everything that I had discovered, both the good and the bad. I had a new lease on life and just wanted a chance to live normally again. It was such a relief not having to worry about what or when my next illness would be, but I couldn’t do it. Other people need to know the truth. They need to be given realhope, especially HIV postives. They need to know that they can regain control of their health and that doctors and drug companies may not always have their best interests in mind. At first, I was consumed by anger after learning that the underlying cause of my illness was treatable, but I realized that that attitude would just make me ill, again. No matter what DT says, stress control is essential to overcoming severe illness, and I do mean essential.

Anyway…

Kevin

I know I’ve posted this link before but for those who haven’t seen it, it’s worth knowing about:

Candida Patient Database

Not every candida patient suffers severe illness, but many do and it is a growing health problem that is being ignored.
#352 noreen
March 1, 2007

Kevin, were you not on any anti-fungals for the yeast problem? I had thrush and it took over a month to get it under control even being on them. Have you considered taking LDN? I believe that it has been a life-saver for me as I have avoided colds,flu, and strep throat that other members of the family had.

Like cancer for instance, there are different phases that one goes through and getting angry is certainly one of them, which leads on to recovery. The “fighters” are the one who survive incurable diseases. I never accepted that cancer, AIDS or any or disease are incurable, it doesn’t enter my mind as I am too involved with living.
#353 Kevin
March 1, 2007

2. HIV was absent, and some other factor [Factor X] causes CD4 decline and opportunistic infection. That, in and of itself, means that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS, true?

Good post, Barry.

I think (1) is improbable, assuming a patient is tested as many times as I was. However, I believe that the tests are so non-specific that it might warrant a “who knows?”

As for (2), I obviously think that Factor X (candidiasis) is responsible for susceptibility to opportunisitic infection and that low CD4 counts may also be present but that such counts are not a necessary, nor sufficient component for susceptibility. I do wish I knew my CD4 counts as my symptoms progressed, but not so much so that I’m now willing to take a bunch of broad-spectrum antibiotics to find out!

Kevin
#354 noreen martin
March 1, 2007

Kevin, another question, did you have chronic fatigue. This I had off and on for over 25 years. I never connected the dots to AIDS until I saw a website that had the symptoms of both diseases listed side by side and they are a mirror image. I think Barry is right, many negative influences can lead to AIDS.
#355 Kevin
March 1, 2007

Kevin, were you not on any anti-fungals for the yeast problem? I had thrush and it took over a month to get it under control even being on them.

I was on anti-fungals a couple times but never for long enough to get completely well. The first time I had thrush I was given a mouthwash and Diflucan and got better within a couple weeks. The second time is when it spread to my esophagus, which was extremely uncomfortable. I was once again given Diflucan, but at a higher dose that time and I also used a nystatin powder too. I forget for how long but it was longer than two weeks. My overall health improved after that round, but I didn’t make the connection to systemic candida and neither did my doctors. Those were the only times I was given an anti-fungal by my HMO-doctors. Unfortunately, my chronic sinus problems resulted in me taking antibiotics very frequently. If I didn’t, I would get pneumonia and sometimes I did anyway. So, it was catch-22. The antibiotics would, in turn, cause the yeast problems to re-emerge, more severe every time. I finally became educated enough to break the cycle. When I was prescribed Diflucan by the dissident doctor, it was at twice the dosage and for a total of 16 weeks the first time. I took a few days break, here and there, to give my liver a rest, but the candida would come roaring back every time. I ended up taking the Diflucan for a total of 22 weeks, in all.

Now, that my health is better, I can use wormwood if I feel any of the candida symptoms returning. It’s pretty effective and far safer.

Have you considered taking LDN?

I don’t currently take it, but I have certainly considered it. Where do you get it?

Kevin
#356 Kevin
March 1, 2007

Kevin, another question, did you have chronic fatigue.

Yes, I could barely hang onto my job. I missed a lot of work.
#357 noreen
March 1, 2007

The low dose naltrexone website lists all of the compounding pharmacies and will list the one closest to you but nowdays, shipment is fast, no matter where you order if from. Believe me, I am probably the most anti-drug person that you will ever meet but yet I tell everyone who has an immune issue to check it out. If they gave awards for outstanding drugs, this one certainly deserves it!

It sounds like you have every thing under control now. Keep probiotics in your system, which I’m sure you do. Doesn’t Hulda Clark recommend wormwood?
#358 lincoln
March 1, 2007

Barry.

You said:
“Are we certain that HIV kills only CD4 cells (in an unexplained manner) and no other white blood cells”?

Considering there is presently no verified proof that HIV even kills CD4 cells, (even Bob Gallo just admitted in his testimony in Australia that he did not ever find HIV in patients T Cells), we are really making a leap to a grand assumption that HIV has anything to do with a decline in T Cells.

Please not that what is considered to be HIV is grown in immortal T Cell lines, and these t cells all seem to be thriving!
#359 Chris Noble
March 1, 2007

lincoln claims: even Bob Gallo just admitted in his testimony in Australia that he did not ever find HIV in patients T Cells

The defense lawyer partially quoted Gallo out of context.

The full quote is given here: I don’t know if I made this point clear, but I think that everybody here knows-we never found HIV DNA in the tumor cells of KS. So this is not directly transforming. And in fact we’ve never found HIV DNA in T-cells, although we’ve only looked at a few. So in other words we’ve never seen the role of HIV as a transforming virus in any way. The role of HIV has to be indirect.

Note that the ultimate source of the quote is a “rethinker” journalist John Lauritsen. There is nothing at all in anything that Gallo has written that supports the “admission”. Gallo reported as early as 1984 that their group found HIV DNA in T-cells. This had been repeated by many, many groups by the time of this meeting where Gallo was allegedly quoted.

As ususal the “rethinkers” also ignore the context. The meeting was to discuss the aetiology of Kaposi’s Sarcoma.

Gallo stated accurately that HIV DNA had not been found in the DNA of KS tumor cells. (The official report of this meeting has an addendum where it is stated that the DNA of a herpes virus, later to be known as HHV8, had been found in KS tumor cells). The context was the question whether HIV directly tranforms cells. The answer is no. It doesn’t transform KS cells. It doesn’t transform T-cells.

The only thing that Kevin Borick proved is that the defense is willing to mislead if it appears to support their case.
#360 lincoln
March 1, 2007

Chris,

Thank you for admitting: “The context was the question whether HIV directly tranforms cells. The answer is no. It doesn’t transform KS cells. It doesn’t transform T-cells.no such cite exists”.

And considering there is also no evidence that HIV is doing any cellular damage, it is all rather damning evidence that HIV is not doing anything at all, isn’t it Chris?

Unless, you have access to some mysterious paper that the rest of the world does not have or know about, that proves that HIV is doing any type of direct harm whatsoever, anywhere, in anyone’s cells!
#361 lincoln
March 1, 2007

Noreen.

Up above a bit, you mentioned something discovered at the Albert Einstein College, and you said:

“They in effect killed HIV well over 90% and received a patent”.

I myself find this claim to be very questionable, as to how they would know they had killed supposed HIV. Was this verified by the same flakey tests and PCR which cannot or identify what a minute particle that it is amplifying actually is, or were they using evidence of nonspecific-to-HIV reverse transcriptase activity, as is used to claim people have hiv, or that is used to diagnose people as HIV positive?

Most likely they used one or more of these unsubstantiated means. I call them unsubstantiated as there is no proven viral HIV isolation as of this day from human beings, which is why there are no specific HIV tests yet available, even after 25 years of this crap.

So obviously, to me at least, they have no idea what caused the changes they observed, or believe they observed.

I am also left with the same questions for the BYU thing where you wrote:

“Or how about last year when BYU developed CSA-54, a compound, which hunts down and kills HIV”.

Are we really so sure their evidence of what they supposed was HIV is correct?

I am rather unconvinced, as they are simply looking for various proteins that are “believed” to be unique, and “believed” to exist nowhere else and under no other circumstance in all of nature.

I, as well as a lot of others, say Pooh! These claims of killing HIV are major, and unsubstantiated assumptions, which is why there is presently the court case down in Australia.

For all we know, all they affected was some type of antibody or peptide shutoff, or perhaps affected cellular breakdown or oxidisation in some way, or maybe the processes they used simply interfered with the test to be able to detect these proteins.

I don’t think we really know!
#362 lincoln
March 1, 2007

Hey DT.

I was just wondering, since you never answered my questions with anything other than a remark that eggs on toast creates stress, if you, as a pharma rep, avoid answering questions, that doctors may ask, if your sales might be decreased had you answered them honestly and directly?

It is rather mind boggling to me, to find that most doctors get most of their updated information on treatment from overall biased and not necessarily knowledgeable or wise pharmaceutical company drug reps.

Should I ever forget, please remind me never to trust a doctors advice.
#363 Chris Noble
March 1, 2007

Thank you for admitting: “The context was the question whether HIV directly tranforms cells. The answer is no. It doesn’t transform KS cells. It doesn’t transform T-cells.no such cite exists”.

All I can say is thanks for admitting that you are completely incapable of reading and understanding.

HIV does not transform cells. It does not directly cause KS. There is evidence that another virus HHV-8 does. HHV-8 DNA is found in KS tumor cells.

HIV does not transform T-cells. It does not directly cause leukemia or any othe malignancies. There is evidence that HTLV-1 and HTLV-II can transform T-cells.

Likewise there is evidence that EBV and HPV can transform cells.

While HIV does not transform T-cells there is plenty of evidence that it causes the depletion of these cells.

Unless, you have access to some mysterious paper that the rest of the world does not have or know about, that proves that HIV is doing any type of direct harm whatsoever, anywhere, in anyone’s cells!

Duesberg cited this paper when he attempted to claim the Continuum prize.

A molecular clone of HTLV-III with biological activity

So “rethinkers” can hardly claim to be unaware of it.

For some strange reason Duesberg offfers the paper as evidence for the existence of HIV but fails to mention the cytopathic effects observed.

Note that Gallo et al used controls. Cell cultures transfected with HIV showed profound CD4 depletion. Controls did not.

It is not true to claim that HIV does not kill T-cells in vitro. This is not the dominant effect in vivo but it does occur.
#364 Pope
March 2, 2007

“In 1985, Gallo and his colleagues (Gallo et al., 1985) showed that in mitogenically stimulated lymphocyte cultures from AIDS patients or in cultures from healthy donors “infected” with HIV, there is a decrease in the total number of viable cells. However:

(i) the decrease in viable cells begins before a significant increase in reverse transcriptase activity (RT), that is, HIV expression;

(ii) the rate of cell loss remains the same even when the expression of HIV (RT), is maximum.

These suggest that the cause of the decrease in viable cells may not be HIV. Since then other researchers have shown that:

(a) “lymphocytes may be productively infected in the absence of cell death” (Hoxie et al., 1985);

(b) the presence or absence of the cytopathic effects is a function of the cell type (cell line), culture conditions (presence or absence of interleukin-2 (IL-2), presence or absence of serum, fibrinogen, fibronectin, alpha-globulin), and the origin of the HIV preparation (von Briesen et al., 1987; Ushijima et al., 1992);

(c ) early in 1986, Zagury, Gallo and their colleagues reported that: “T4 lymphocytes from normal donors infected by HTLV-III in vitro, as well as HTLV-III-infected primary T4 cells from AIDS patients, have been difficult to maintain in culture for longer than 2 weeks, and it has often been assumed that the virus has a direct cytolytic effect on these cells”. However, by avoiding PHA stimulation and by reducing the number of cells per millilitre of culture medium from 105-106 to 103-104, they were able to “grow the infected cells for 50-60 days” without cellular degeneration which, according to them, was due to “the lack of further antigenic stimulation and, presumably, the reduced concentrations of toxic substances released by the mature cells” (Zagury et al., 1986)”

http://www.theperthgroup.com/SCIPAPERS/ept4cells.html
#365 lincoln
March 2, 2007

Thanks Chris for the very good try.

But what you have really just shown us is Gallo’s desperation of trying to prove that he could cause cell death with his witches brew of mixed up, chopped up bits of cloned cellular material that he called HTLV-III.

“Numerous converging lines of study have ‘implicated’ HTLV-III”.

Pure desperation Chris, not unlike many of your own posts.

Perhaps you can show us something that has been isolated from a patient instead of mixed up in vitro of chopped up bits of cloned cellular material and endogenous retroviral DNA fragments.

And even at that, this paper that Amanda Fisher pretends to be proof of HIV caused cell death does not prove that whatever she and Gallo had in their molecular clone was definitely what was cytotoxic to cells.

This little feat has yet to be demonstrably proven in the 22 years since the paper you pretend is some kind of proof, and HIV has never been directly isolated from human T cells, and you sir, damn well know it or you would have shown us the evidence a long time ago.

I don’t know if you are aware of it, but the case in Australia is boiled down to a big question mark as to what exactly Gallo had cloned in vitro, and how exactly he had proven it to be a cause of T cell death, which he has never done. And just exactly what he used to verify this. Just because his cultures died, does not mean that anything was proved to have been caused by a virus isolated from any human being.

By the way, Chris. I would really really really like you to tell me why, exactly, you would like HIV to be real, and, why exactly, you would like it to be the cause of AIDS.

Could you please tell me why you want these two things to be real?
#366 lincoln
March 2, 2007

What I mean by that, Chris, is that I can certainly understand why Gallo wanted it to be real, and I can understand why Gallo wanted it to be the cause of AIDS. I mean, after all, he really wanted to be a hero and he really needed an AIDS virus to make him into one.

I can understand why DT would want it to be real and to be the cause of AIDS. I can understand why a lot of researchers would want it to be. I can understand why a lot of politicians would want it to be. I can understand why the media would want it to be.

But you, Chris, without your telling me, I can only tell you that I don’t understand, but I would very much like to.

So, Chris J. Noble, why do you yourself want HIV to be real? Why do you want a virus, especially Gallo’s claimed virus, to be the cause immune dysfunction in anyone, let alone in Gay men and Blacks? (after all, gays and blacks are about 97 percent? of the hiv diagnosed).
#367 Chris Noble
March 2, 2007

Pure desperation Chris, not unlike many of your own posts.

Perhaps you can show us something that has been isolated from a patient instead of mixed up in vitro of chopped up bits of cloned cellular material and endogenous retroviral DNA fragments.

It’s amazing how you can divine this without reading the paper.

The HIV DNA used for the infectious molecular clone was not found in uninfected cultures. It is not endogenous.

And even at that, this paper that Amanda Fisher pretends to be proof of HIV caused cell death does not prove that whatever she and Gallo had in their molecular clone was definitely what was cytotoxic to cells.

They used controls. In each case the cultures were treated exactly the same. The only difference was the DNA in the plasmid. Cell cultures transfected with plasmids containing HIV DNA showed profound CD4 loss. Those transfected with plasmids containing HTLV-I or no retroviral DNA did not. The only difference was the HIV DNA. Pure HIV DNA.

Cell cultures transfected with HIV DNA produced HIV antigens and infectious viral particles.

This little feat has yet to be demonstrably proven in the 22 years since the paper you pretend is some kind of proof, and HIV has never been directly isolated from human T cells, and you sir, damn well know it or you would have shown us the evidence a long time ago.

The evidence has been there for 22 years. The “rethinker” habit of putting your fingers in your ears and repeating “is not, is not, is not” does not make the evidence go away.

By the way, Chris. I would really really really like you to tell me why, exactly, you would like HIV to be real, and, why exactly, you would like it to be the cause of AIDS.

There is nothing that I would like more than for HIV not to exist and not to cause AIDS. Unfortunately, wishful thinking alone does not change reality.
#368 Pope
March 2, 2007

“It should be clarified: it is very normal that genetic material DNA, natural or artificially multiplied – when put onto cells is able to enter those cells, may integrate itself into the cells, chromosomes and eventually may be activated to produce its proteins …

As the group around Eleni Eleopulos et al. has shown neither (Duesberg} nor anybody else has shown that the genetic pieces of “HIV” used in the transfection experiments he cites were isolated out of a virus. Only if researchers were able to multiply from cells exactly that genetic material which previously had been isolated from a virus, only then the claim of virus detection would be valid: virus-isolation logically always goes first. Or may anybody postulate new viruses, sprinkling his or her genetic material onto cells, detecting this material in the cells and claiming a new virus? A repeated artefact remains an artefact. To call such re-detected DNA “infectious DNA” is conspicuously misleading.”

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/slreplypd2.htm
#369 Dale
March 2, 2007

“It should be clarified: it is very normal that genetic material DNA, natural or artificially multiplied – when put onto cells is able to enter those cells, may integrate itself into the cells, chromosomes and eventually may be activated to produce its proteins …

That is very true. What identifies HIV specific genetic sequences as coming from an infectious virus is the observation that having been put the DNA into cells, it directs the synthesis not just of single proteins, but of proteins and RNA that can assemble into more infectious virus. Random pieces of DNA, even DNA derived from HERVs, don’t have that property.

To isolate virus directly from patient blood or T-cells in the way you apparently would like to see it done, isn’t feasible – you would have to kill patients to get enough starting material to work with. And despite your assertions, it is completely unnecessary to demonstrate that HIV genetic sequences encode an infectious virus. It’s only non virologists who seem to think it’s some kind of “gold standard”.
#370 Pope
March 2, 2007

Dale,

These are not my assertions but those of various experts, if you don’t mind me calling them that.

Since we’re now onto isolation and gold standards, its HIV scientists from Gallo downwards that have proclaimed the “infectious clone” proof that they have discovered a unique, exogenous, pathogenic retrovirus, HIV. This is why much of the discussion centers around it.

Although everybody believes it is a necessary condition to fulfil, the rethinkers, virologists as non-virologists, do not think that to show that the “HIV genome” is infectious is suffient evidence for the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. Many things are infectious; the crucial point is to demonstrate through isolation, purification, chemical characterization etc. that Gallo and Montagnier did indeed discover and identify a unique, exogenous, pathogenic retrovirus. This before even beginning the discussion whether this virus plays any important role in AIDS.
#371 DT
March 2, 2007

Pope:
“AZT, especially in high doses, is an excellent predictor of ‘HIV-related’ fatalities”

And guess what? Having had chemotherapy is a good predictor for death from lung cancer. So this is merely another fallacious argument.

“Then there’s the PCP argument. According to DT, PCP was almost non-existent before HIV and corresponds perfectly with the spread of HIV. That is of course not true. Conditions like PCP and KS correspond with certain risk groups such as popper users, who hardly existed before the seventies. “

Actually it is true. Prior to 1981 there were hardly any cases of PCP recorded in the medical literature. Its epidemiology essentially mirrors that of HIV prevalence.

The CDC states here that “The beginning of the AIDS epidemic in the early 1980s shifted the incidence of PCP from a rare disease to a more common pneumonia. Clusters of PCP cases in homosexual men and intravenous drug users were one of the first indications of the HIV epidemic (2). PCP rapidly became the leading AIDS-defining diagnosis in HIV-infected patients. In the initial stages of the epidemic, PCP rates were as high as 20 per 100 person-years for those with CD4+ cell counts below 200 cells/µL (3). PCP was responsible for two thirds of AIDS-defining illnesses, and an estimated 75% of HIV-infected patients would develop PCP during their lifetime (4).”

PCP incidence declined after the introduction of cotrimoxazole as prophylaxis. I wonder why this was, considering some rethinkers feel cotrimoxazole use actually causes AIDS?

The CDC explain how “The advent of HAART has resulted in further declines in rates of PCP and other opportunistic infections” I wonder why that was too…? Couldn’t possibly be anything to do with the success of HAART, could it? Perish the thought!

“In the West, TB is prevalent among IV drug users, whereas KS is not really a big hit among factor VIII recipients”

TB is commoner in certain groups, one of these being drug users. You may need to read up about the medical consequenses of drug use before you make too many unsupported assertions, however. TB is far more prevalent and problematic in drug users with HIV.

Kaposi sarcoma is due to HHV type 8. Initially is was thought to be related to use of nitrites (poppers) but this hypothesis did not hold up under scientific scrutiny. Popper users who are not HIV infected do not get KS. HIV-infected men who use poppers (and other drugs) do not progress to AIDS faster than those who don’t. KS is prevalent in Africa (where it mirrors a higher HHV8 prevalence). Africans are not known for their use of poppers. Disseminated forms of KS correlate with HIV seropositivity.
#372 Dale
March 2, 2007

Pope,

Many things are infectious, as you say. However, among those infectious things, only two (HIV-1 and to a lesser extent, HIV-2) predict the eventual development of the clinical symptoms that characterize AIDS with such a high degree of certainty. Are you suggesting that medical science should ignore that correlation just because, even though it has been isolated and characterized by other techniques, it is impossible to isolate HIV by one particular technique that rethinkers have decided, for no scientifically valid reasons that I have ever seen explained, should be the “gold standard”?
#373 lincoln
March 2, 2007

Hey Chris. You said:

“There is nothing that I would like more than for HIV not to exist and not to cause AIDS. Unfortunately, wishful thinking alone does not change reality”.

But in another thread you tell us what you write is your “opinions that are my own”.

Chris do you really know the difference between reality and belief? For some people ghosts or maybe dracula is a reality and for others they are mere beliefs.

Do you believe yourself qualified to know the difference???

Why would you tell me that “There is nothing that I would like more than for HIV not to exist and not to cause AIDS”, but be unwilling to remotely allow yourself to believe that this is already the case?

You have yet to answer my question as to WHY you want HIV to be real or to be the cause of immune dysfunction.

Claiming you don’t want HIV to be real or to be the cause of AIDS, and then fighting like hell on these threads to try to prove that your opinions or beliefs or illusions or fears are real, and attempting to convince the rest of us of your beliefs and opinions, certainly makes you seem as if you are one of those people who even lie to your own self. Are you lying even to yourself Chris?

Now one more time, Chris, and try to be honest this time.

Why do you yourself want HIV to be real or to be the cause of immune dysfunction?

And furthermore, why do you want to convince the rest of us that your opinions and beliefs are “reality”, as you call it?

Have you ever been mistaken about something before, Chris?

Is there any possibility that you are mistaken this time?

One of us, Chris, either you or me, is absolutely right that HIV is or is not the cause of AIDS, and one of us is absolutely wrong.

Which one of us do you think has more integrity and honesty going on Chris?

You, or me?
#374 lincoln
March 2, 2007

Dale, You said:

“only two (HIV-1 and to a lesser extent, HIV-2) predict the eventual development of the clinical symptoms that characterize AIDS”

So Dale, if it is indeed “ONLY” two things, namely your believed in hiv1/hiv/2 that are predictors,

are you claiming that stress is NOT a symptom that characterizes immune dysfunction?

Are you claiming that drug abuse in not a symptom that characterizes immune dysfunction?

Are you claiming that antibiotics overuse is not a symptom of immune dysfunction?

Are you claiming that the various known and proven pathogens of TB mycobacterium are not a symptom of immune dysfunction?

Are you claiming that the various known and various isolated pathogens found wht the 29 “AIDS defining diseases” are not all symptoms of immune dysfunction?

Are you going to retract your silly statement that ONLY HIV/1 and HIV/2 are clinical symptoms of immune disfunction?

Or am I going to need to point out your most obvious of lies that you have stated as some kind of ULTIMATE-GOD-TRUTH?
#375 lincoln
March 2, 2007

Dale, you said:

“it is impossible to isolate HIV by one particular technique that rethinkers have decided, for no scientifically valid reasons”.

Well Dale, if it is impossible to isolate HIV, in order to prove its very existence, (which should certainly be THE MOST scientifically valid reason to do so, as every scientist would admit),

then the brighter and more reasonable among us would reach the obvious scientific conclusion that it is therefore NOT SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO EXIST, and remains in the realm of beliefs and opinions.

But, of course, I would expect that the simple logical truth of this would surely escape you, as you seem to prefer belief and opinion to proven and validated science.
#376 Dale
March 2, 2007

What I said lincoln was NOT that “only HIV1 & HIV2 are symptoms of immune dysfunction” but that of various infectious agents currently known that only HIV1 & HIV2 predict the development of the clinical symptoms that characterize AIDS.

However, if you want to get into a discussion of other non-infectious factors associated with immune dysfunction …

Nowhere is there any indication that 80% or more of individuals who suffer from stress or who have used/overused antibiotics or who have abused recreational drugs will become immunodepressed. But according to the literature I’ve read, 80% or more of individuals who are seropositive for HIV will. HIV causes AIDS is a useful hypothesis that makes useful and testable predictions as to who will get AIDS and how to prevent it. Show me data that better supports an alternative hypothesis and I’ll be happy to change my views.
#377 lincoln
March 2, 2007

Hey Dale,

You said:

“However, among those infectious things, only two (HIV-1 and to a lesser extent, HIV-2) predict the eventual development of the clinical symptoms that characterize AIDS with such a high degree of certainty”.

What are the clinical symptoms that characterize AIDS,

AND,

What are the other known and verified effectors that characterize these various syptoms?

Please explain yourself Dale, as this makes absolutely no sense to any rational person.
#378 lincoln
March 2, 2007

Dale, You said:

“Show me data that better supports an alternative hypothesis and I’ll be happy to change my views”.

Perhaps you would show me any sizeable American cohort of “AIDS” cases that is not also far more than 80% illicit drug abusers?

By the tone of what you have posted in these threads, I say you are lying that you “would be happy to change my views”. I don’t think you would be “happy” to do so at all!

Do you find yourself to be lying regularly to yourself and others Dale? How often do you lie?
#379 lincoln
March 2, 2007

Dale,

What I mean by “HOW OFTEN DO YOU LIE”?,

is, say, on a scale, say, of 0 to 100, with 100 being that everything that comes out of your mouth is a total and complete lie, down to zero, meaning that everything that comes out of your mouth is to be taken as the Highest Truth and Word of GOD.

Are you a total and complete liar, or do you just lie half of the time, or do you simply slip in an average of about 10 or 20 or 30 percent of what you say is lies.

Please clarify this so that I can apply your response to my future responses to you.

At the moment, I would say you are about 20%, and at times even as much as 30% percent honest?

Would you agree or not, and why?
#380 Dale
March 2, 2007

What are the clinical symptoms that characterize AIDS,
AND,
What are the other known and verified effectors that characterize these various syptoms?

Progressive reduction in blood CD4+ cells, inversion of normal CD4+:CD8+ ratio and other signs of abnormal T cell function including but not limited to chronic immune activation; eventual clinical signs of immune dysfunction as evidenced by opportunistic infections that, while they occur in immune competent individuals, cause more severe symptoms in the immune compromised.

Other known causes of similar immune suppression – certain types of cancer and use of immunosuppressive drugs (such as those used by organ transplant patients to prevent rejection)
#381 lincoln
March 2, 2007

Dale. You failed to answer the second part of my question:

What are the other known and verified effectors that characterize these various syptoms:

“Progressive reduction in blood CD4+ cells, inversion of normal CD4+:CD8+ ratio and other signs of abnormal T cell function including but not limited to chronic immune activation; eventual clinical signs of immune dysfunction as evidenced by opportunistic infections that, while they occur in immune competent individuals, cause more severe symptoms in the immune compromised”?

Are you claiming that other disease states and other phenomena do not have any effect on these “symptoms”?

Well I would hope not, because the books are full of such effects on HIV negative people! I would have to attribute such a claim back to the department of “Dale’s Lies”.
#382 Barry A
March 2, 2007

After extended back and forth with Lincoln,

Chris Noble wrote:

There is nothing that I would like more than for HIV not to exist and not to cause AIDS. Unfortunately, wishful thinking alone does not change reality.

Dale wrote:

Show me data that better supports an alternative hypothesis and I’ll be happy to change my views.

I think that these comments are very helpful (particularly Dale’s perfect formulation) for getting the scientific conversation back on track.

Up until reading the book by Dr. Culshaw, I must admit, that I really hadn’t thought about AIDS in any depth, except for a generalized desire to reduce suffering for those who had it.

True, the issue is complex, and nearly impossible to sort through in systematic fashion, without devoting a lot of time and energy.

I would start with the basics, trying to accurately formulate the competing scientific claims:

Scientific Claim 1:

A retrovirus, named HIV, transmitted primarily through blood or semen, attacks and destroys CD4 cells, by an unexplained mechanism. This disabling of a critical component of the immune system leads to opportunistic infections and death, if untreated.

Scientific Claim 2:

The causal link between the retrovirus => CD4 cell decline => opportunistic infections => death is unproven. Many different things cause CD4 cell decline; many different things cause opportunistic infections. Focusing narrowly on the retrovirus, to the exclusion of other possible factors of pathogenesis, is a mistake.

Feel free to improve upon the wording of these fomulations. The first step is to describe the claims accurately, not prove them. For example, I am unclear if proponents of Claim No. 1, would add that the reduction of CD4 Cells, leads to other immune dysfunction, that is unique to AIDS patients. But all suggestions/improvements are welcome.
#383 lincoln
March 2, 2007

Barry,

I would say you have purified the “overwhelming mountains” of evidence on both sides of the issue and have successfully isolated them down to five simple and honest and truthful sentences.

Should we tattoo these 5 sentences into Anthony Fauci’s forehead?

OR?

Should we set up a boxing ring and may the best man win?
#384 lincoln
March 2, 2007

Hey Chris, Dale, DDT, et al,

How bouts we flip a coin, and no two out of threes or threes out of fives?

One flip of the coin, and we can all get on with our lives?

And, then we have to figure out just where do we go from here?
#385 Pope
March 2, 2007

1) DT:

“Pope:
“AZT, especially in high doses, is an excellent predictor of ‘HIV-related’ fatalities”

And guess what? Having had chemotherapy is a good predictor for death from lung cancer. So this is merely another fallacious argument.”

Yes, DT you’ve got it; it’s just another fallacious argument about causation, of the type “HIV is a good predictor of immunodeficiency, therefore HIV causes AIDS”

2) DT:
“Then there’s the PCP argument. According to DT, PCP was almost non-existent before HIV and corresponds perfectly with the spread of HIV. That is of course not true. Conditions like PCP and KS correspond with certain risk groups such as popper users, who hardly existed before the seventies.” (Pope)

DT: “Actually it is true. Prior to 1981 there were hardly any cases of PCP recorded in the medical literature. Its epidemiology essentially mirrors that of HIV prevalence.”

What I meant is it’s not enough to say “PCP mirrrs the spead of HIV prevalence”. one must add PCP mirrors the spread of HIV/AIDS – in certain subgroups at risk of AIDS, gays in this case.

3) DT:

“PCP incidence declined after the introduction of cotrimoxazole as prophylaxis. I wonder why this was, considering some rethinkers feel cotrimoxazole use actually causes AIDS?
The CDC explain how “The advent of HAART has resulted in further declines in rates of PCP and other opportunistic infections” I wonder why that was too…? Couldn’t possibly be anything to do with the success of HAART, could it? Perish the thought!”

Of course PCP incidence will decline when one becomes aware of the problem and starts treating it. Nobody claims the AIDS drugs are not lethal, lethal to all organisms including bacteria, fungi and human cells.

3) DT:

“TB is commoner in certain groups, one of these being drug users. You may need to read up about the medical consequenses of drug use before you make too many unsupported assertions, however. TB is far more prevalent and problematic in drug users with HIV.”

My assertion was that TB is more common among IV drug users. I don’t see that I disagree with you or your reference in this, so I conclude your line about “unsupported assertions” was a characteristic attempt at a misleading cheap shot.

In your reference, I find this in support of your last sentence: “Although the number of cases of tuberculosis occurring in drug abusers since 1984 is not directly related to HIV infection, the resurgence of tuberculosis appears closely related to the HIV epidemic. The largest increases have certainly occurred in areas with the highest HIV prevalence. The recent outbreaks of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis among HIV-infected substance abusers in different geographic areas make drug users a difficult group to treat”.

I don’t see how that refutes either Duesberg or Perth.

4) DT:

“Kaposi sarcoma is due to HHV type 8. Initially is was thought to be related to use of nitrites (poppers) but this hypothesis did not hold up under scientific scrutiny. Popper users who are not HIV infected do not get KS. HIV-infected men who use poppers (and other drugs) do not progress to AIDS faster than those who don’t. KS is prevalent in Africa (where it mirrors a higher HHV8 prevalence). Africans are not known for their use of poppers. Disseminated forms of KS correlate with HIV seropositivity.”

Look, I’m not going to call you guys closet fascists or anything like that, but please dust off your old geography books from the long gone school days before you simply tell us stuff like “KS is prevalent in Africa”. Again, Africa is a big and varied place, my guess is what you wanted to say was that KS is endemic in certain parts of Africa. But until I know I really can’t comment on this kind of statements, unreferenced to boot.

With regard to Western KS cases, are you saying that higher incidence of KS among male homosexuals are also explained by HHV8 prevalence as well?

“However, the plethora of AIDS diseases was not, and still is not randomly distributed even among the different risk groups . For example, Kaposi’s sarcoma was exclusively diagnosed in male homosexual risk groups using nitrite inhalants and other psychoactive
drugs as aphrodisiacs (Newell et al 1984; Haverkos et al 1985; Selik et al 1987; Duesberg 1988; Haverkos and Dougherty 1988; Beral et al 1990)” http://www.duesberg.com/papers/chemical-bases.html
#386 Pope
March 2, 2007

“Pope,

Many things are infectious, as you say. However, among those infectious things, only two (HIV-1 and to a lesser extent, HIV-2) predict the eventual development of the clinical symptoms that characterize AIDS with such a high degree of certainty. Are you suggesting that medical science should ignore that correlation just because, even though it has been isolated and characterized by other techniques, it is impossible to isolate HIV by one particular technique that rethinkers have decided, for no scientifically valid reasons that I have ever seen explained, should be the “gold standard”? (Dale)

Dale,

I’m not saying science should ignore any correlation, that’s one of the main points. It may be that there is a correlation between HIV and the clinical symptoms of what you call AIDS. I happen to doubt the correlation is as
good as you apparently think. I certainly disagree that the correlation is good enough to hand out death sentences by.

Your simplified formulation again smoothes over how many scientic and political toes and heels were chopped to make the shoe fit. I hate to direct you to that awful website again, but here’s an account from one of the actual developers of the antibody tests dealing with just one aspect of the issue:

http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/01/rodney_richards.html

http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/02/rodney_richards.html
(Notice these are different URLs. The piece is in two parts)

The rethinkers are asking for an HIV particle – a whole particle directly from a patient. They don’t need, as DT suggests, to kill a patient in order to get enough material to propagate the thing in cell lines. Just one particle, from a purified selection for obvious reasons
#387 Barry A
March 2, 2007

Let us assume that I have fairly formulated the competing claims:

Scientific Claim 1:

A retrovirus, named HIV, transmitted primarily through blood or semen, attacks and destroys CD4 cells, by an unexplained mechanism. This disabling of a critical component of the immune system leads to opportunistic infections and death, if untreated.

Scientific Claim 2:

The causal link between the retrovirus => CD4 cell decline => opportunistic infections => death is unproven. Many different things cause CD4 cell decline; many different things cause opportunistic infections. Focusing narrowly on the retrovirus, to the exclusion of other possible factors of pathogenesis, is a mistake.

I would, then, ask proponents of Scientific Claim No. 1:

There are patients described in the literature who have depleted CD4 cell counts, in the absence of HIV, true?

Therefore, it logically follows that there are factors, other than HIV, that cause a decline in CD4 cell counts, true?

References:

1. Alterations in lymphocyte cell surface markers during various human infections.
–Williams et al, Am J Med. 1983 Nov;75(5):807-16.

2. CD4+ lymphocytopenia without HIV in patient with cryptococcal disease. Seligmann et al., Lancet, 1991,Jan 5;337(8732):57-8

3. Reduced CD4+ T cells and severe oral candidiasis in absence of HIV infection. Pankhurst et al., Lancet. 1989 Mar 25;1(8639):672.

4. CD4 lymphocytopenia without HIV in patient with cryptococcal infection. Jowitt et al., Lancet. 1991 Feb 23;337(8739):500-1

5. Acquired immunodeficiency without evidence of infection with human immunodeficiency virus types 1 — Laurence et al. Lancet. 1992 Aug 1;340(8814):273-4

6. Reduced CD4+ T cells and candidiasis in absence of HIV infection. Gatenby et al., Lancet. 1989 May 6;1(8645):1027-

7. Profound CD4+ lymphocytopenia in the absence of HIV infection in a patient with visceral leishmaniasis, Cozon et al. N Engl J Med. 1990 Jan 11;322(2):132.
#388 Pope
March 2, 2007

Dale, DT, Dr. Noble,

If any of you should choose to take Barry up on his challenge, please notice that the authors of the last study referenced by him seem to be familiar with the ‘uniquely “profound immunodeficiency” in the case of AIDS’ line, and have decided to deal with it right off the bat.
#389 lincoln
March 2, 2007

Dear Chris Noble, Dale, Robster, Wic, DDT, Tara, and all. If you wish not to take Barry up on his challenge, you might then consider becoming members of The Group For The Scientific Reappraisal of HIV-AIDS, by clicking on the link below, and signing your name to join the growing ranks of Rethinkers.

You will be joining an ever increasing number of scientists, researchers, doctors, politicians, and lay people from around the world, including distinguished Nobel Laureates and other leaders of our civilized world, in a global effort to end HIV/AIDS.

It is widely believed by the general public that a retrovirus called HIV causes the group diseases called AIDS. Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis. We propose that a thorough reappraisal of the existing evidence for and against this hypothesis be conducted by a suitable independent group. We further propose that critical epidemiological studies be devised and undertaken.

By signing the statement below one becomes a member of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis. Sofar, more than 2500 people have signed this list online. This list is an addition to the first list (1991-1994).

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE LIST
#390 lincoln
March 2, 2007

And, Just to be fair and unbiased,

Those with harder heads and cold hearts toward the Rethinkers, and warm and bubbly hearts toward Robert Gallo and John P. Moore and Tony Fauci may click below to join the Durban Declaration!

CLICK HERE TO JOIN THE DURBAN DECLARATION
#391 lincoln
March 2, 2007

Yah know, sometimes, I just crack myself up!

Thank you all for the endless hours of amusing entertainment.

Yours in Good Spirits,
Abraham Lincoln
#392 Adele
March 3, 2007

Lincoln’s comments includes this: Many biochemical scientists now question this hypothesis.

Lincoln is saying HIV scientists are not credible, no matter how many tens of thousands of them there are or what their credentials are because science is not a democracy.
But dissidents are credible as proven by sheer numbers and credentials on this list of 2500+ people.

I looked at the list. Less than a third of the signers are MDs or PhDs in science. I didn’t see anyone I recognized from HIV AIDS research. A lot of signers especially the more prominent ones watered down their position with comments. Like Gerard Pollack who says AZT should be debated more and I think that’s hardly a denialist stance.

Compare this list and the Durban Declaration. I can’t sign Durban even though I study SIV and HIV because I don’t have a PhD in science. Even Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos couldn’t sign Durban. We can both sign the Reappraisal list. We can sign it as many times as we want under different names too.

The Durban Declaration is monitored and fact-checked and only people with genuine relevant degrees (PhD in science or MD) get to sign it.

Who are those many biochemical scientists I wonder Lincoln? That guy in Mexico can’t even figure out how to do an ELISA properly and brags about it on his website. Giraldo is even worse and he’s just a technician, hes not licensed to practice medicine in this country. What about Walter Gilbert whose still on the list years after he saw how wrong some dissident ideas were and spoke out publically. How can someone get off the list?

Lincoln your list is full of holistic therapists and PhDs in anthropology and students and journalists and businesspeople.
#393 Barry A
March 3, 2007

Pope and Lincoln,

If you wish not to take Barry up on his challenge..

Not to be a stickler, but I don’t view this necessarily as a “challenge.” I intend to scrutinise the Clam No. 2 as hard as I scrutinise Claim No. 1. No pre-determined outcomes either.

I’ve even dusted off my old Epidemiology: principles and methods by MacMahon and Pugh (1970)!
#394 Adele
March 3, 2007

Barry, T-cell counts can be depressed by a lot of things and you guys already talked about a lot of them.

Viral infections
Fungal infections
Bacterial infections
Immunotherapy
Some other therapies
High stress
Intense exercise
Some heart problems
Some cancers

This doesn’t mean HIV doesn’t cause CD4 decline. Healthy people who get HIV almost always have CD4+ losses sooner or later even if they don’t have OIs or therapies first. Healthy monkeys who get pathogenic SIV almost always have CD4+ losses.

The reasoning here reminds me of a story. A guy gets shot in a bad drug deal. There’s blood on the ground all around the body. A witness says the guy was shot and describes how. The police detective sucks on a pencil, furrows his brow, and replies, “hell no, there’s a lot of ways blood can leave the body. Getting shot was just a symptom of the blood loss not its cause. I see a hundred cases like this every year and every time the so-called bullet is just what I call a passenger. What do I always see? Drugs. Always drugs. Poverty. Always poverty. Stress in other words. And stress causes nosebleeds. This guy died of a goldarn bloody nose.”
#395 Pope
March 3, 2007

Barry,

that’s ok. I appreiate your motives. You will soon enough see that it WAS a challenge to some; in fact I trust you’ve seen that already just above…

Adele, it does you credit as a scientist that arguing by analogy isn’t your strong point. The question was, is a bullet always the necessary and sufficient cause of death by blood loss or could a knife wound have caused the same kind of “profound and prolonged” bleeding?

It looks to me like you’ve just conceded that point, and so it’s your opinion HIV free AIDS is a scientific fact.
#396 Adele
March 3, 2007

Pope it does you credit as a religious man that arguing, period, is not your strong point.

A knife wound, getting beat with a baseball bat, a botched operation and a bad nosebleed can all cause profound and prolonged bleeding. But when you see a fatal gunshot wound, you don’t think nosebleed.

When my ten monkeys have profound CD4 loss and get really sick weeks, months, or years after inoculation with a pathogenic SIV strain while the uninfected monkeys in the next cage over have no CD4 loss and are healthy, I can rule out high stress, excess aerobic exercise, immunosuppressive therapy, lymphatic cancers, radiation, and all the other causes I listed before. It’s SIV and AIDS.

Pope of course there’s HIV-free lymphocytopenia. Do you know how many cases? Then tell us how many of these are ICL? Do you know how hard it is to recruit ICL patients for a study? Do you know why? Because there aren’t many. You’re lucky to find fifteen or twenty people and then even some of those won’t fit the definition.

Many things CAN lead to CD4 loss. Not many things DO lead to CD4 loss. Untreated HIV is one. IT leads predictably to CD4 loss in most almost all infected people. You don’t like it, I don’t like it. But its true.
#397 Adele
March 3, 2007

The argument goes if stress can cause loss of T-cells then HIV doesn’t cause loss of T-cells.
It’s like if having a rabies vaccine can cause a false positive on HIV test then the HIV test obviously doesn’t test for HIV.
Cute but kinda amateurish.
#398 Pope
March 3, 2007

Adele,

I may have misunderstood Barry, in which case I apologize for referring to his “challenge”, but it seemed to me we had started over and were proceeding with much smaller steps than my religious flights of fancy.

The first small step, as I understood it, was to examine if there are cases that fit the description of AIDS without HIV.

Just one single confirmed such is enough to expose the name trickery that made HIV part of AIDS as an a priori matter.

Thus, at this point we don’t need to question whether HIV and SIV can cause CD4 cell loss, or make sick.
#399 Barry A
March 3, 2007

Adele wrote:

T-cell counts can be depressed by a lot of things ..

This doesn’t mean HIV doesn’t cause CD4 decline

Of course it doesn’t — didn’t imply that it did. But when examining ANY scientific proposition: (X is the sole cause of Y), you have to ask and answer 2 things:

1. Does something other than X cause Y?
2. Does X cause something other than Y?

I think we can all now agree, based on the science, that CD4 cell depletion is not a result (effect) unique to HIV (purported cause).

This has implications, though, based on “confounding variables,” which I will discuss later.

For example, if you lived in a Japan in the 1940s and later developed leukemia it could be caused by HTLV, a virus that purportedly causes cancer, but you may have suffered exposure to the radiation fall-out the atomic bomb detonated in Hiroshima). You would have to address the confounding factors.
#400 Chris Noble
March 3, 2007

lincoln whined: Why do you yourself want HIV to be real or to be the cause of immune dysfunction?

Your constant assertion that because I have examined the evidence and have concluded that this evidence overwhelmingly supports the theory that HIV exists and is responsible for the specific pattern of immune suppression seen in AIDS that I somehow want to believe this to be true is simply rhetorical nonsense. Your arguments are an indication of a complete lack of integrity. Please address the evidence rather than pursuing pointless speculation about my motivation.

So far I am supposed to be an alcoholic, drug addicted, self loathing, megalomaniac, homophobic closet gay who secretly desires for some secret personal reasons that HIV exists and causes AIDS. If this really helps you avoid examining the evidence that I have presented then you are welcome to live in your delusions.

Please accept that if you voice your own delusions about HIV and AIDS in public then you are almost certain to be criticised. Please do not take these criticisms personally. Deal with the science and evidence.
#401 Kevin
March 3, 2007

The reasoning here reminds me of a story. — Adele

Your story is a poor analogy. First, any common observer can see that the circumstances of a gunshot wound are nearly opposite to the circumstances of HIV=AIDS. Therefore, your story’s “lesson” is worthless, in this case. A gunshot wound is clinically unmistakeable. Hell, even a medically untrained detective could make a correct diagnosis. You are unfairly trying to characterize rethinkers as bumbling detectives by using a simple and transparent analogy. That’s deceitful. Stick to the facts, Sherlock.

Lastly, you say that “everyone” with HIV suffers T-cell loss but that is easily falsifiable. In the US alone, there are an estimated million HIV carriers, yet out of that million, there are only a few thousand HIV-postive AIDS patients in any given year. That certainly leaves room for many, many possible patients who excape your “everyone” claim. Just because you believe that everyone who tests positive will necessarily become T-cell deficient does not make it so. That’s what you have to prove, Adele. Even it there are a few thousand who fit that description, there are many more who do not–to say nothing of the increasing number of HIV-negative patients suffering from severe immune dysfunction that may or may not correlate well with T-cell losses. We’ll continue to be only selectively informed on that potential correlation as long as people like yourself, Adele, ignore other relevant co-factors. Propagation of such ignorance may be necessary to bolster your own faith in HIV, but for people like me, the ones who do not fit your correlation, well, I’d prefer that scientific inquiry into the matter be carried out with integrity and rigor.

Kevin
#402 Kevin
March 3, 2007

I looked at the list. Less than a third of the signers are MDs or PhDs in science.

That just shows you how few mainstream scientists there are who value integrity above job security and/or personal glory.

Compare this list and the Durban Declaration. I can’t sign Durban even though I study SIV and HIV because I don’t have a PhD in science.

Credentialism has fallen out of favor, Adele, really it has…at least with independent-minded intellectuals. Do you know why? Credentialism is an even less reliable tool today than in the past. In the current environment, all PhD-level research involving HIV is being heavily funded by corporations that have significant interests in the outcome of that research. This is a conflict of interst that science can no longer afford to accommodate. For proof of just how damning these connections are, check out the following two websites:

List of PhD researchers in situations that likely compromise professional decisons.

This is what can happen when a high-level PhD researcher refuses to compromise.

Kevin
#403 Chris Noble
March 4, 2007

Kevin, you are completely misrepresenting Adele’s point.

She was responding to the standard “rethinker” tactic of producing a list of scientists that dissent from manmade global warming/evolution/HIV etc. The basic “rethinker” tactic is to create the impression that a) there is a controversy in this field and b) the current “paradigm’ is in crisis.

The Durban Declaration and the Steve Project are responses to this tactic. Lay-people reading popular literature and “rethinker” websites can easily get the false impression that there is in fact a legitimate controversy. There isn’t. There exists a scientific consensus on each of these issues. This consensus is not established by some political process but arises through the very processes that are central to the scientific project- the presentation of evidence to fellow scientists and the evaluation of this evidence.

The portrayal of the vast majority of scientists as being either a) following the consensus out of ignorance b) only concerned in keeping their research positions or c) paid shills of the pharmaceutical companies is just a selfserving delusion that enables people to ignore reality.

In reality scientific recognition goes to people that make discoveries that go against the current understanding of science. Every scientist would rather be an Einstein or a Galileo than the vast majority of scientists that make the majority of small but vital contributions to science. If you have ever been to a scientific conference or followed rivalries between different groups you would know that the scientific community is not the giant flock of sheep as portrayed by “rethinkers”.

If “rethinkers” really want to overturn the science behind HIV/AIDS then they will have to produce some science that is capable of convincing scientists. Writing popular books directed at lay-audiences or pursuing test-cases in courts will not achieve these aims.

You cited Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” and suggested I should put it on my reading list. It’s been on my bookshelf for several years. The term “paradigm” has to be one of the most abused words in post-modern times. Kuhn must be turning in his grave with the use/abuse that has been made of his work. Anybody whose theories are rejected by the vast majority of scientists appeals to Kuhn’s ideas in order to explain their lack of success. In reality the vast majority of theories that are rejected are rejected because they are not supported by the evidence. It should also be noted that nowhere in Kuhn’s book does he support the use of the legal system as an alternative to actually doing science. Scientific revolutions are not done in courts.
#404 Pope
March 4, 2007

The Durban Declaration was produced in response the ass whoopin’ AIDS Inc. received in South Africa. Rethinkers produced their list in response to the Durban Declaration.

These things are unfortunately necessary because the ‘Establishment’s’ first and last lines of attack or defence are always “you are a fringe nut, you are alone, isolated, everybody says you’re crazy – we’ll have you fired!”.

Dr. Noble’s contention that the sort of ‘consensus’ Kevin and others are referring to is not political in nature but grows out of the finest traditions of pure as driven snow self-correcting science is so naive and transparent that I think it warrants no further comment.

Dr. Noble is absolutely right, however, that ‘paradigm’(in Kuhn’s sense) is a word that has been thrown around far too lightly in these debates, to the point that we have almost lost sight of its original meaning. It is now mostly to their detriment when rethinkers use it.

In the face of this kind of propaganda war waged by those who have all the money, all the major access to the media, rethinker’s must do what they can to reach out and create some sense of unity.
#405 Pope
March 4, 2007

hmmm… Looks like 3rd. paragraph somehow ended up bottom.
#406 pat
March 4, 2007

“She was responding to the standard “rethinker” tactic of producing a list of scientists that dissent from manmade global warming/evolution/HIV etc. The basic “rethinker” tactic is to create the impression that a) there is a controversy in this field and b) the current “paradigm’ is in crisis.”

Cheney’s tactic is to claim that there is no civil war in Iraq.

“If “rethinkers” really want to overturn the science behind HIV/AIDS then they will have to produce some science that is capable of convincing scientists. Writing popular books directed at lay-audiences or pursuing test-cases in courts will not achieve these aims.”

Everyone on either side writes books for the lay people, so what? When laws are being written down because of science or when science tries to make the law, then the courts have every right to wigh in. Reality here or there, science is a democracy. It is concensus driven. Besides, scientists should not weigh in on legal debates; it is out of there pay grade and area of expertise.
#407 pat
March 4, 2007

“She was responding to the standard “rethinker” tactic of producing a list of scientists that dissent from manmade global warming/evolution/HIV etc.”

Are you trying to make her look like a global warming denialist, ID proponent? Why don’t you just come out and also call her a holocaust denialist?
#408 Sascha
March 4, 2007

Actually science and law do not necessarily serve the same purpose. Law serves a regulatory purpose; it defines the boundaries of human behaviour and relationships beyond which these are considered harmful to individuals or the public in general. The law also defines the the nature of certain behaviours and relationships within those boundaries and consequently the related rights and duties of the every member of society.
Science on the other hand only attempts to describe the reality of nature; the only boundaries that science knows are those that are observed. Reality does not depend on the consensus of the observers; only the perception of that reality may achieve a consensus.

Science is observational and descriptive; law is prescriptive and declarative. Science describes what is and law prescribes what should be. We do not choose our reality but we certainly choose our legal reality. As such law is reality by consensus; whatever society chooses to define as law becomes a legal reality. It need not reflect reality as it would be described by science.

Law is very much dependent on science. Science often tells us what is harmful and should thus be suppressed. But law also finds much of its justification in morals and ethics that do not necessarily have a scientific basis. You can not empirically prove that all humans are created equal and have inalienable rights. But our ethical and moral beliefs hold these to be self evident truths. On the other hand you can prove that hitting some one can cause physical damage and on that basis laws proscribe assault.

When the courts recognized the claims of HIV infected persons in their appeals for remedy against the various organizations responsible for the blood supply, they recognized the legal existence of HIV. Medical consensus was that HIV is a virus that is carried in the blood and semen of infected people and that in most cases it causes AIDS and leads to the death of the infected person. When presented with the factual evidence and the expert testimony the judges could only decide whether it was sufficient to warrant a conviction. The judges did not rule on the reality of HIV itself in scientific terms.

The precautionary principal plays an important role in dealing with HIV infection in criminal law. The medical consensus and the factual evidence warrants treating the willful or negligent transmission of HIV as constitutive of assault and causing bodily harm. Some jurisdictions allow charges of attempted manslaughter and even murder. According to the precautionary principle a high probability of HIV infection leading to severe health problems, and evidence to the contrary lacking, is sufficient cause for action. The consequences are to serious for the victim.

Whether the medical establishment is unanimous or not in their appreciation of the effects of HIV on the body or even as to its very existence is irrelevant. A consensus is sufficient. It may very well be that one day we will realize that our understanding of HIV was as wrong as the early nineteenth century belief that cholera was caused by miasma. But until then we have to assume that HIV causes AIDS and ultimately leads to death in most cases. We also have to assume that HIV is transmitted with the bodily fluids of the carriers. It would be terrible if we accepted Duisberg’s theories and it turns out that he was in fact wrong. What do you tell people then? Oups?
#409 Kevin
March 4, 2007

It would be terrible if we accepted Duisberg’s theories and it turns out that he was in fact wrong. What do you tell people then? Oups?

Why is that potential mistake any more terrible than the currently accepted mistakes? Could it be that your irrational faith in knowledge by consensus results from your inability to honestly consider the many human tragedies for which the current consensus is fully responsible. The tragedy of high-dose AZT is a good place for you to start your reality check, Sascha, but there are plenty of other “Oops” that you could currently tell people about, if that’s your concern. In fact, assuming you are interested in an honest consideration of the matters you discuss in your post, you will want to know about Guinea Pig Kids, a documentary that shows the enormous tragic potential of the current seriously-flawed theory.

Kevin
#410 pat
March 4, 2007

“It would be terrible if we accepted Duisberg’s theories and it turns out that he was in fact wrong. What do you tell people then? Oups?”

Well we say “Oups” all the time but apart from that I think your interpretation of the legaleze is correct and it should and cannot be any other way. Parenze is a slam-dunk for the prosecution simply because this one guy took it upon himself to not only to re-write science but also to go and apply his newly found understanding of HIV to his sex life and to top it off he pulls a chauvinist stunt by thinking his sexual partners not worthy of his newfound wisdom. I can only imagine the terror those women went through, especially the one who now has to live with this HIV branding. HIV+’s still have the obligation to divulge their status to their sex partners because they just might not share the view that HIV is a load of crap and would like to be able to make that call themselves. Parenze is, at the very least, guilty of gross disrespect and should be bi…-slapped and at the worst he is indeed guilty of negligence causing bodily harm.
#411 Kevin
March 4, 2007

Whether the medical establishment is unanimous or not in their appreciation of the effects of HIV on the body or even as to its very existence is irrelevant. A consensus is sufficient.

No, it isn’t. Science is not performed in a vacuum, Sascha. Your post was full of absolutist booshat. Your view is the one that eschews reality for idealism. Even though I agree that legal proceedings are not the optimum method for establishing the validity of scientific claims, the effects of scientific claims on our collective liberties and on public health, in general, are hardly irrelevant matters that can be left completely to a highly politicized scientific community for validation. That just doesn’t work and HIV is the perfect example of how tragic the results of such negligence can be. Sometimes, it takes legal challenges to get the public to take notice of bureaucratic machinations run amuck, and public health issues are particularly vulnerable to politicization.

You need to wake up.

Kevin
#412 pat
March 4, 2007

Kevin,
How exactly do you expect the law to react in the case of HIV? The law is obliged to go with the scientific “consensus”. If the law chose to side with, for ex. Dusberg on the case of HIV and it turned out he was wrong then there would be hell to pay in the echelons of law enforcement but as lond as they go with scientific consensus, it is science which is held responsable. The AZT “Oops” is definitly a science “Oops” and not a legal “Oops”, that would be “Guantanamo”.

Sascha doesn’t need to wake up, it’s not about him, he merely outlines in broad strokes what the legal reality is. “It need not reflect reality as it would be described by science.”
#413 Sascha
March 4, 2007

The tragedy relates to the precautions that we can take in relation to what is believed to be a fairly serious threat. Were we to accept that Duisberg is right and forego the use of condoms, clean needles for drug users and screaning the blood supply for HIV and other virii and then discover that HIV is in fact real and that it does lead to AIDS; that would be a tragedy.
You’re right about other tragedies that may in fact be caused by erroneous consensus; when applied to AZT and other possibly highly toxic or otherwise untested drugs the precautionary principle might have us use these sparingly if not at all. In cases where people were subjected to its application without informed consent being given you have a clear case of malpractice and possibly even criminal assault.
My comments were in response to Pat’s contention that science is consensus driven. I disagreed. I don’t know that HIV causes AIDS and that it is deadly and that is sexually or otherwise transmitted or that it even exists. I don’t have the scientific background to assess for myself the evidence pro and contra and decide who is right. But I do know that I would be ethically deficient if I – in the face of what today is still an overwhelming agreement – decided to say to hell with it and act as if I had never heard of HIV.
Faith in knowledge by consensus is not irrational; it is actually quite rational. The more people search for a cause and the more people come to the same conclusion, the higher the probability that that conclusion reflects reality. Of course it may turn out to be wrong all the same. We may have not had the basic knowldege to properly comprehend the problem. But as a rule of thumb it turns out to be quite reliable.
Sufficiently reliable for individuals and society to use it as means of making policy decisions.
#414 Sascha
March 4, 2007

Sorry Kevin, missed your previous discussion of my other point.
Law is by definition very absolutist. It is what we like to call in legeleze the “last resort”. Law is a gross and innefficient means to regulate society. It has a hard time dealing with finer points, it can only serve as a final arbiter of human behaviour. Ideally we should always attempt to act without recourse to the law.
Public policy is not law. It finds its justification in the law and its limits are constrained by the law. But it is policy; a means of achieving certain goals. Law protects us from policy by setting limits to what governments can and can’t do. Our fundemental liberties are protected by law and not by policy.
You’re right that it very often takes a judicial decision to confirm a right or a liberty. Civil rights is an example. When policy blatantly violates a persons rights a court must then intervene to give remedy.
#415 Sascha
March 4, 2007

Pat.
In fact it is not a slam dunk for the prosecution. Due process demands that the prosecution prove all the constitutive elements of a charge. In this case it has to prove that harm was caused by the accused behaviour. That being said, as long as we have most of the medical establishment confirming that HIV infection leads to serious health problems then the judge would have a hard time rejecting that testimony.
The judge is not bound to follow any theory. Expert testimony is stillonly testimony, but it carries a higher valus in the strict limits of what it is meant to verify.
But I agree that Parenzee had a duty to inform of his serological status.
#416 Kevin
March 4, 2007

Sascha doesn’t need to wake up, it’s not about him, he merely outlines in broad strokes what the legal reality is. “It need not reflect reality as it would be described by science.”

You misunderstand my gripe with Sascha’s viewpoint, Pat. He outlines what the legal reality is like, in a perfect world, which is an important distinction. However, his post has far loftier aims than the simple claim that laws should be obeyed. Hell, I agree with that sentiment, entirely, but that is where my agreement with him, on this matter, ends. For example, I do not believe that legal decisions regarding matters of science are irrelevant. As is very often the case, legal means are often the last opportunity to correct wrongs that have been committed against members of society, where otherwise no corrective action would have been taken. Science is not immune to this type of correction.

I, too, agree that Parenzee should be prosecuted for acting negligently and for, in essence, breaking the law, but what law exactly has been broken? That is what must be established and, in this case, that requires the evidence for the science supporting such a claim to be examined. I do not believe that he has committed attempted murder because I do not believe the scienctific claims supporting HIV are well-founded. Thus, his defense is about more than mere legal negligence, which is why Sascha’s naive understanding of consensus is so unacceptable. According to Sascha views, a legal challenge to the consensus would be hard to justify. Yet, when the consensus is wrong, laws are subject to change, or at least, I hope that’s still the case. Those changes rarely happen on their own. Someone must challenge the consensus, first, and that someone may break more than one law in the process.

We don’t live in an ideal world, and neither do scientists, no matter how isolated one believes “the lab” to be. If you want to accurately describe the world, you have to experience it. Scientists included. Objectivity may be the ideal goal for all science, but it is certainly not the norm in HIV science.

Kevin
#417 Kevin
March 4, 2007

Kevin, you are completely misrepresenting Adele’s point.

I think I demonstrated that she was, in effect, misrepresenting herself, by using a purposely misleading analogy to malign the very real concerns addressed by rethinkers. Were you offended that yet another apologist was exposed, Chris? I know that misrpresentation is your hallmark.

The term “paradigm” has to be one of the most abused words in post-modern times. Kuhn must be turning in his grave with the use/abuse that has been made of his work.

Just because a term has become “cliche” does not mean that its original meaning has lost relevance. The religiosity of modern science and its frequent deviation from acceptable standards of inquiry is what would have Kuhn rolling over in his grave.

As Sascha’s uwittingly insightful post demonstrates, many scientists are holding onto to HIV simple because they do not want to accept the consequences of its failure. Sascha proves that point, exquisitedly:

It may very well be that one day we will realize that our understanding of HIV was as wrong as the early nineteenth century belief that cholera was caused by miasma. But until then we have to assume that HIV causes AIDS and ultimately leads to death in most cases.

I’m sure Kuhn would find nothing wrong with such “have to” moments in Science. What do you think, Chris, since you’ve obviously long-digested Kuhn’s work?

I repeat:

But no matter how great or numerous the anomalies that persist, Kuhn observes, the practicing scientists will not lose faith in the established paradigm for as long as no credible alternative is available; to lose faith in the solubility of the problems would in effect mean ceasing to be a scientist. – from wikipedia entry on “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”

Kevin
#418 Sascha
March 4, 2007

Kevin
I was outlining the legal reality in the “real world”. Law is by definition perfect otherwise it could not be applied. Were it imperfect, any judge would dismiss the charges in an instant and we would not have to answer to any of our actions. That is what is meant by absolutist. Law is or isn’t. there is no grey area. The facts then tell us whether a law has been broken or not. Lots of grey area there.
Legal decisions are of course not irrelevent to science, but they cannot decide the science in lieu of the practitioners themselves. A judge can rule thet there is insufficient evidence that HIV causes harm for him to convict, he might even rule that there is insufficient evidence that HIV exists but that would not change the science. Science is observation of our cosmos. What a judge says about that is irrelevant.
I agree that courts convicting of attempted murder or manslaughter are over-reaching. It fits in with a development of harsher sentencing demanded by society and in particular victims defense organisations. Remember that the awards given to victims of infected blood supplies were based on the grieveous bodily harm that were the consequences of these infections. It works both ways.
#419 Sascha
March 4, 2007

Hey Pat!
Still there? I’m having a hard time getting used to this posting business. I can’t type fast enough.
#420 lincoln
March 4, 2007

Pat,

My own take on Chad Parenzee and the legal/scientific aspects of this is different from your own. I see that you consider Chad to be guilty of at least gross disrespect and at worst guilty of negligence causing bodily harm.

If this were true, then one should be held legally accountable for sneezing or coughing without, as should, according to your interpretation, be required by law, as indeed this cough or sneeze could result in pneumonia and death.

Show me where anyone is held legally responsible for spreading deadly hepatitis, tuberculosis, ebola, or any other disease by not warning the people they come in contact with.

Perhaps, with this line of thinking, we could return to the world of 2000 years ago, wherein one who had leprosy was required to walk the streets shouting “unclean” “unclean” to all who would come their way.

If the science of HIV is wrong, then Chad is also a victim, and it is the duty of the court, and all of us, to protect him, and his God Given rights to freedom and pursuit of happiness as well.

And then there is the legal foundation of INTENT.

Did Chad INTEND to cause anyone bodily harm? If Chad has his own doubts or misgivings of HIV science, then an intent to cause harm cannot be. If Chad believes that maybe HIV causes harm, and maybe it does not, then his intent to cause harm cannot be.

For Chad or anyone to intend “with intention to do bodily harm to another”, then and only then would Chad Parenzee be guilty of a crime, and the law can and should see it in no other way or light, regardless of what “some” or even a “consensus” of scientists believe to be true.

Furthermore, if Chad believes that only GOD can determine when another will pass from this life, then he would also certainly believe that if another person gets HIV, from him or anybody, and dies from it, then this is meant to be and is GODS will, not his. Certainly in this light, Chad would see it as GODS will that he had gotten it, and therefore it could only be GODS will that anybody else had gotten it.

Most of Mankind has an extreme egoic fear of death, and most men are incapable of seeing a greater divine power at work. As such, a considerable portion of most of mankinds time and energy is spent in running or trying to squelch or remove all of their percieved causes of fear of ultimate and unchangeable death. Most could not conceive that the time of ones death is set at the time of ones birth, but for those that perceive reality from such a level of being, it is quite a reality for them. And whether or not such as this is ultimate truth, is for none of us to be able to know. One thing I am sure of, is that all will agree that eventually this planet we call earth will oneday dissappear and return to cosmic dust.
#421 Kevin
March 4, 2007

My comments were in response to Pat’s contention that science is consensus driven. I disagreed.

We agree on more than I first understood, but your original statement seemed to be an attempt to legitimize science as “consensus”, but your more recent comments have been clearer. However…

Faith in knowledge by consensus is not irrational; it is actually quite rational.

I should have been clearer on this point, myself. Faith in the current medical consensus is not only irrational, but highly dangerous. I had faith in this very consensus, and almost died. I found the answers to my own health problems in the minority opinion and many others have too. I don’t question the consensus opinion regarding most other contemporary scientific claims, i.e. global warming seems to be a real problem. That said, the considerable financial stakes surrounding HIV research have created an un-objective environment for consensus building.

Public policy is not law. It finds its justification in the law and its limits are constrained by the law. But it is policy; a means of achieving certain goals. Law protects us from policy by setting limits to what governments can and can’t do.

Public policy does not influence lawmakers and judges in the same way, and that’s a good thing. This distinction is equally important to understanding what governments can and can’t do. Otherwise, what does one do with a laws founded on unsound policies?

Kevin
#422 Sascha
March 4, 2007

Kevin
I would not dream of interfering in someone’s decisions concerning his personal health care. And you have every right to come to your own conclusions concerning the information that health practitioners give you. You must do what you think is right and no consensus from anyone is necessary for you to take action. there is no justification for forcing someone to follow a therapy he does not believe in.
When your decisions affect other people you have to take that into account though and possibly err on the side of caution. Public health policy is frought with difficult decisions based on insufficient information and unforseen consequences.
Who decides what is the best policy? Judges are very wary of weighing in on policy decisions. If courts became the arbiters for all government policy than no one would dare take a decision for fear of a lawsuit.
It is when the abuse is manifest that a judge can then render a verdict and thus force a change in policy. The difficulty is determining what is manifest. In the case of HIV I personally don’t believe that there is enough evidence to prove that health policy based on the consensus is manifestly wrong.
Science on the other hand doesn’t know the strict rules governing evidence we have in the courts. Any time now someone might come up with a new hypothesis based on only the flimsiest of evidence. Others might then attempt to disprove his hypothesis by recreating the first experience. Overtime more resaerch will bring more insights and possibly invalidate the hypothesis. But there will be no judge to determine what is right or wrong. The arguments could go on for centuries without a clear settlement.
In the meantime the rest of us are left with deciding public policy that is needed now and not a century hence.
So we assume the consensus to be valid representation of reality and base our decisions on that consensus. This system hasn’t fared to badly over the past few millenia. We have obviously made mistakes and most of them were honest mistakes. That is why I said that following the consensus is generally a safe bet.
But your right in saying that it can backfire miserably and cause untold harm.

Sascha
#423 pat
March 4, 2007

“If this were true, then one should be held legally accountable for sneezing or coughing without, as should, according to your interpretation, be required by law, as indeed this cough or sneeze could result in pneumonia and death.

Show me where anyone is held legally responsible for spreading deadly hepatitis, tuberculosis, ebola, or any other disease by not warning the people they come in contact with.”

I concede here also that this is true. Other infectious disease carriers have never been challenged in court before (to my knowledge).
Yes, Sascha, I’m here. I didn’t quite get this:
“My comments were in response to Pat’s contention that science is consensus driven. I disagreed”
I think we misunderstand. Science is driven by evidence but because the”truth” is so elusive, it has to be agreed upon by consensus, thus the law goes by the scientific consensus. the will of the majority of scientists. no?
#424 Sascha
March 4, 2007

Pat
Yes, our perception of reality is consensus driven to some degree. And the law largely follows the opinions of the consensus. It actually stands to reason, a judge who would find for the plaintiff in a case he brought against the US government for conspiring with aliens to aid abet in his abduction would be out of a job very quickly. For the general consensus is that aliens may exist but they do not abduct humans.
Now before you jump on me like a band of howling banshees, I’m not comparing the merits of the one with the merits of not believing HIV exists or causes AIDS. I merely used an exagerated example to illustrate a point.
There have been cases brought against individuals for transmitting other infectious deseases. The earliest example of someone with being charged with transmitting an infectious desease in Switzerland, for example, tokk place in the late 40′s when a man cherged with rape was also found guilty of grievious bodily harm as well as willful transmission of an infectious agent because he infected his victim with gonorrhea.
Mostly we find the convictions based on transmission of infectious agents concern epizootics. When farmers negligently or willfuly infect domestic animals.
#425 lincoln
March 4, 2007

Hey Chris!

As regards the advice you just gave me:

“Please accept that if you voice your own delusions about HIV and AIDS in public then you are almost certain to be criticised. Please do not take these criticisms personally. Deal with the science and evidence”.

Methinks ye doth protest too much, Chris J Noble!

I am not sure if you were directing that advice to me or to your very own self. In case is was to me, may I suggest that you stand in fron of a mirror and repeat those words to yourself about a hundred times?

There is an old saying that “one preaches what one’s own self most needs to learn”.
#426 lincoln
March 4, 2007

Chris, you said:

“So far I am supposed to be an alcoholic, drug addicted, self loathing, megalomaniac, homophobic closet gay who secretly desires for some secret personal reasons that HIV exists and causes AIDS”.

Well, Chris, are you?

And if you are, please don’t tell the world right here on this blog, but do tell someone, because if you are, I would like you to know that help is availble if you should wish to seek some help in putting away the bottles and the drugs. Emotional help is also available for dealing with mental and emotional psychoses which are usually the result of undealt with childhood emotional traumas and disturbances. And if you are a closet gay, I would encourage you to love yourself exactly as you are, regardless of what anyone else thinks of you, and understand that you, Chris Noble, gay or straight, are still a divine and loved child of GOD, and you are meant to be here, and gay or straight, you are equally loved by your creator, as such a creator does not create you to be who and how you are, and then withhold divine love from you. Only men hold such meaningless and destructive and judgemental beliefs.

So carry on Chris, and hold your head high. You too, Chris, are smart enough, good enough, and tough enough to deal with all of these issues and any others that may ever confront you in your life.
#427 Chris Noble
March 4, 2007

Pope wrote:The Durban Declaration was produced in response the ass whoopin’ AIDS Inc. received in South Africa. Rethinkers produced their list in response to the Durban Declaration.

The “rethinkers” list started in 1991, 9 years before the Durban Declaration. It would be informative to see how many of the original signatories still question the link between HIV and AIDS. Some signatories have in the meantime died from AIDS.

The meeting that took place in South Africa is an example of the complete opposite of how science should take place. It is an example of how a small minority of contrarian scientists managed to use political means to influence the president of South Africa. This is lysenkoism at its worst.

The “rethinkers” had completely failed in the scientific arena and chose instead to go straight ot the president bypassing all normal procedures. The consequences of this travesty are only now begiining to be addressed.
#428 Chris Noble
March 4, 2007

Kevin cited Thomas Kuhn:But no matter how great or numerous the anomalies that persist, Kuhn observes, the practicing scientists will not lose faith in the established paradigm for as long as no credible alternative is available; to lose faith in the solubility of the problems would in effect mean ceasing to be a scientist.

Firstly, the so called “anomalies” that are described by “rethinkers” are mostly nothing of the sort. Duesberg claims that all viruses cause disease within weeks or not at all, that viruses cause disease solely by cell lysis, that antibodies mean immunity, that sexually transmitted diseases are randomly distributed etc. If these are really anomalies for HIV/AIDS then they are also anomalies for the whole of virology and epidemiology. In reality they are not anomalies but an false simplistic representation of the evidence.

Anyone with any knowledge of other pseudosciences will also know that “gravity rethinkers” find imaginary anomalies in modern physics and “evolution rethinkers” find imaginary anomalies in modern biology.

The second point is that scientific revolutions occur when and only when a credible alternative is provided. In Duesberg’s original “rethinker” article he only expressed doubts about the role of HIV in AIDS. Actually he said that HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS. It was only later after pressure from “orthodox” scientists that he produced his own alternative. However, his alternative is not credible. There have been several articles that have throroughly dealt with Duesberg’s theory. It is simply not supported by the evidence. Duesberg cherry picks data to fit his hypothesis and ignores data that refutes it. His own theory is plagued by anomalies that he fails to address.

There are a myriad of alternative hypotheses, many of them mutually exclusive. None of them have any solid evidence. More importantly they all ignore conflicting evidence. None of them even deserve the description of a theory.

This will of course anger people like pat who prefer not to be comapred with creationists but the situation is quite similar. The creationist program is primarily about denying modern biology. Creationists do not provide any credible alternatives to evolutionary theory. They keep on going on about evolution being a theory in crisis – full of anomalies – but they completely fail to provide a credible scientific alternative.

HIV “rethinkers” will be taken seriously if and only if they produce an alternative theory that better explains the evidence or at least has the promise of better explaining the evidence.

You can cite from “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” as much as you want. It won’t help you. There has not been a scientific revolution that has occurred without a credible alternative explanation being first put forward.
#429 lincoln
March 4, 2007

Chris, You said:

“The “rethinkers” had completely failed in the scientific arena and chose instead to go straight ot the president bypassing all normal procedures”.

This is not true. If you read Harvey Bialy’s book:

Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS: A Scientific Life and Times of Peter H. Duesberg

you will find the true story, of how President Mbeki himself had called Peter Duesberg’s lab, and asked for David Rasnick. They were on the phone for about 20 minutes, and Dave got off of the phone with a huge smile, and told Peter the news. Harvey himself was there when this occured.

You might consider reading some of the actual history of the dissident movement with your mind open and your mouth closed, so that your words in the future will be of integrity and truth.
#430 Pope
March 4, 2007

So as not to get into a too easy to win discussion about normal procedures vs. science per press conference and endless strings of mutually exclusive theories, I’d like to ask Dr. Noble and Lincoln why Syphilis is not an AIDS defining disease?
#431 Chris Noble
March 4, 2007

Both Anita Allen and Anthony Brink claim credit for informing Mbeki about the “rethinker” movement.
#432 lincoln
March 4, 2007

Chris, you said:

“Firstly, the so called “anomalies” that are described by “rethinkers” are mostly nothing of the sort. Duesberg claims that all viruses cause disease within weeks or not at all, that viruses cause disease solely by cell lysis, that antibodies mean immunity, that sexually transmitted diseases are randomly distributed etc. If these are really anomalies for HIV/AIDS then they are also anomalies for the whole of virology and epidemiology. In reality they are not anomalies but an false simplistic representation of the evidence”.

Chris, I do think you are actually getting warm to a higher truth. But you seem incapable or unwilling of taking this very line of thought to a yet higher level of understanding.

You are able to recognize others “false simplistic representation of the evidence”, but seem unable or unwilling to recognize your own exact same false simplistic representation of the evidence.

At any rate, Chris, my own up front observation and experience, is that there are elements of truth in what you put forth up above, as certainly disease does not break out in everyone exposed to any pathogen, to the same degreee or within a set time frame.

And this is where one either percieves strictly a world of physical happenstance, or, for those who are willing and able, who look beyond and beneath the strictly physical realm, to the unseen seeming “cause of the seeming cause”.

This is the interface, the meeting place of the seen and humanly detectable and the humanly unseen and undetectable. This is the realm of experiential understandings which transcend the limits of human sight and physicality. This is closer to the realm of the newer science of quantum physics and ultimate understanding of humanity.

What everyone can very well perceive, but not scientifically prove, if one wishes to open their minds to it, are the obvious emotional and consciousness expanding elements of levels of emotion and consciousness. One will repeatedly find, in the case of illnesses that we call “AIDS”, as well as in other diseases, human beings far more often than not, suffering from intensely painful emotions of extreme shame and self loathing, feelings of guilt and self condemnation, feelings of apathetic helplessness and hopelessness, feelings of extreme hate and anger, feelings of extreme fear and paranoia.

If you had the willingness, or had ever taken the time to personally and deeply know people who have died or sickened of what you call AIDS, as well as many other human illnesses, you will find these people to continually deal with the emotionally painful levels of consciousness that I just described to you. You will begin to see a pattern of these experiential feelings involved with most illness and sickness. You will see that these states of being also quite often go hand in hand with destructive life choices of drugs, alcoholism, sex addiction, choosing to accept a toxic medication, inability to get up enough energy to do take the next required step to stay alive, etc.

Shame, guilt, fear, anger, hatred. These are called the “emergency emotions” in clinical psychology. They are highly stressful emotions. Repeatedly or constantly delving into these “emergency” emotions, results in human sickness. This has been observed, and is well known, and universally accepted for many centuries.

You can deny this if you choose, but it does not change reality. And it does not mean that there are also not “anomolies” that do not even fit this realm of understanding, however, it is most certainly obvious to all rational people that the above factors are quite dominant in most all illness and disease.

Chris, I know you are bright enough to acknowledge these facts if you wanted to, and I also know you to be stubborn enough not to acknowledge them if you choose not to. But, Chris, you are who, and how, you are.

At any rate, if you yourself do not appreciate the above observation, I am sure others reading this will appreciate being reminded of the common sense of it all, and it may therefore benefit others, even if this “unprovable” information is rejected or not appreciated by you, or your ego.

Either way, Chris, whether or not you “get it” does not change ultimate truth, now does it?
#433 Kevin
March 4, 2007

The first small step, as I understood it, was to examine if there are cases that fit the description of AIDS without HIV.

Just one single confirmed such is enough to expose the name trickery that made HIV part of AIDS as an a priori matter.

First, I’d like to say that your recent contributions to this blog have been nothing short of excellent, Pope.

As a living example of a confirmed case of HIV-negative AIDS, it was the “HIV part of AIDS as an a priori matter” that first caused me to take a second look at HIV=AIDS. Had my doctors confidently diagnosed me as an ICL patient and had they competently explained the difference between ICL and HIV/AIDS, I would have continued to accept the consensus opinion, I suppose. That of course did not happen. In fact, the very opposite was the case. As I’ve noted previously, my experience suggests that patients in similar situations are more likely to encounter imcompetence rather than confidence, and that’s due largely to the insufficient explanatory value of the HIV model of causation.

Other worthy comments from you that I would like to see “believers” such as Chris Noble and DT address are:

“The rethinkers are asking for an HIV particle – a whole particle directly from a patient. They don’t need, as DT suggests, to kill a patient in order to get enough material to propagate the thing in cell lines. Just one particle, from a purified selection for obvious reasons.” — Pope

This really is the crux of HIV’s undoing. If we continue to allow HIV researchers carte blanche in claiming that it is unreasonable to expect a whole HIV particle to be cultured directly from an afflicted patient, the question of HIV’s infectivity will forever remain a predetermined mystery. Contrast that with the high standards demanded by research associated with other, less politicized, public health concerns, and you’ll see why accountability is seriously lacking in HIV research. For example, the predicative value of our knowledge regarding the pathogenesis of various bacteria demonstrates perfectly where our knowledge of the same phenomenon in viral agents is exponentially inferior. To say it another way, the clinical symptoms of an acute bacterial illness can very easily be verified by their subsequent resolution with appropriate antibiotic treatment. We can even demonstrate mutations in the organism, without appealing to mysterious and esoteric explanations as in the case of HIV. The demonstration of bacterial mutations can even be narrowed to resistance to particular antibiotics. HIV’s supposed mutations are fanciful illusions, by comparison. We are no where near that level of sophistication in our understanding of retroviral pathogenesis, and the most obvious indication of this failing is captured by observing how the clinical presentations of HIV/AIDS often conflicts with the clinical predictions we’ve relied upon to direct our inquiries. That is an unacceptable state of affairs.

I’m not saying science should ignore any correlation, that’s one of the main points. It may be that there is a correlation between HIV and the clinical symptoms of what you call AIDS. I happen to doubt the correlation is as good as you apparently think. I certainly disagree that the correlation is good enough to hand out death sentences by.

Very well said.

________________________________________

Barry A’s excellent contributions are equally appreciated by most of the bloggers here, as well, I would think, except for perhaps Chris Noble, DT, and Dale. How else does one explain their avoidance of Barry A’s very astute characterizations of the most logical beginnings for evaluating HIV as both a necessary and a sufficient cause of AIDS. So, I hope no one minds that I try to get this conversation back on track by revisiting Barry’s insightful additions to this discussion:

First, let’s look again at the two competing claims…

Scientific Claim 1:

A retrovirus, named HIV, transmitted primarily through blood or semen, attacks and destroys CD4 cells, by an unexplained mechanism. This disabling of a critical component of the immune system leads to opportunistic infections and death, if untreated.

and…

Scientific Claim 2:

The causal link between the retrovirus => CD4 cell decline => opportunistic infections => death is unproven. Many different things cause CD4 cell decline; many different things cause opportunistic infections. Focusing narrowly on the retrovirus, to the exclusion of other possible factors of pathogenesis, is a mistake.

Now, I’m very curious to hear from the usual suspects over in Camp Apology as to whether or not they agree that both claims have merit, as presented. I happen to agree with Barry:

I think we can all now agree, based on the science, that CD4 cell depletion is not a result (effect) unique to HIV (purported cause).

If anyone disagrees that these two claims fail to capture the clinical picture, then the onus is on you to explain why. What say you, Camp Apology?

Kevin
#434 lincoln
March 4, 2007

“Both Anita Allen and Anthony Brink claim credit for informing Mbeki about the “rethinker” movement”.

I hope Mbeki rewards them with medals of valor, as I certainly believe they should be commended, if this is indeed true.
#435 lincoln
March 4, 2007

Grief, and an extremely painful feeling of loss, should also be added to the list of “emergency emotions” that often characterize and precurse states of illness and disease.

By the way, common std’s such as syphillis, gonorhea, chlamydia, etc, are often found to accompany people with hidden or obvious feelings of sexual guilt and sexual shame. The more astute among us can verify this very easily.
#436 lincoln
March 4, 2007

Chris, my explanation to you of the effects of the “emergency emotions” and the effects of “levels of human consciousness” now fulfills your request:

“The second point is that scientific revolutions occur when and only when a credible alternative is provided.”

and you said:

“HIV “rethinkers” will be taken seriously if and only if they produce an alternative theory that better explains the evidence or at least has the promise of better explaining the evidence”.

You are welcome to take the rethinkers seriously any time you like, although with a strong and usually unyielding ego such as yours, I do not have undue expectations that you yourself are currently able or willing to do so.
#437 Chris Noble
March 4, 2007

lincoln writes:Chris, my explanation to you of the effects of the “emergency emotions” and the effects of “levels of human consciousness” now fulfills your request:

I was asking for a credible alternative.

By all means get to work on your “emergency emotions” theory of AIDS/syphilis/gonorrhea/chlamydia….. When you’ve got the details worked out do some experiments and present the results. Do what Einstein did. Convince the scientific community. Try convincing Harvey Bialy for starters.
#438 Kevin
March 4, 2007

So we assume the consensus to be valid representation of reality and base our decisions on that consensus. This system hasn’t fared to badly over the past few millenia. We have obviously made mistakes and most of them were honest mistakes. That is why I said that following the consensus is generally a safe bet.
But your right in saying that it can backfire miserably and cause untold harm.

I want to apologize to you for my hasty critique of your first post, Sascha. Though I do disagree with some of your analysis, we agree more than we disagree. I mistakenly interpreted your position as being a defense of science by consensus. I also thought you had been following the discussion from the beginning and thus found your more general approach to the discussion to be an attempt to mislead, but I now realize that you were earnest in your general discussion of the intersection of science and the law. You’ve since made yourself clear, and your argument is far superior to what anyone else on this blog has claimed with regards to the legal implications of the Paranzee case.

____________________________________________________________

On the other hand, Chris Noble’s most recent posts are full of cheap shots and completely lacking in sincerity. When challenged by the material, he frequently resorts to the lowly tactic of characterizing HIV rethinkers as being akin to creationists.

HIV rethinkers have offered numerous credible alternative theories. The details of which have personally benefitted me in my own recovery. The scientific evidence is currently lacking, not because these alternative theories lack merit, but because they haven’t been properly studied. Of course, Chris knows this, that is we he has not weighed in on the basic principles laid out by Barry A.

Kevin
#439 lincoln
March 4, 2007

“Try convincing Harvey Bialy for starters.”

I would not even try with Harvey, he is 100 times more stubborn than the stubbornist of the posters on this thread. He is hopelessly old school! His immediate response would most likely be:

“you IDIOT”
“you f’ing la la land moron”
“go sleep with a swami”

And if this is how he talks to old Honest Abraham Lincoln, well, you can just imagine what any others are in for that might discuss such a proposition!

Looks like I will just have to learn how to be more accepting and tolerant of the consensus, on both sides of the fence.
#440 Chris Noble
March 4, 2007

On the other hand, Chris Noble’s most recent posts are full of cheap shots and completely lacking in sincerity. When challenged by the material, he frequently resorts to the lowly tactic of characterizing HIV rethinkers as being akin to creationists.

What material? Unsupported claims that AIDS is caused by Candida Albicans?

The tactics used by HIV “rethinkers” are similar to those used by creationists. I and other people have pointed this out before.

Lists of “dissenting” scientists.
Cherrypicked data.
Quote mining
….

HIV rethinkers have offered numerous credible alternative theories. The details of which have personally benefitted me in my own recovery. The scientific evidence is currently lacking, not because these alternative theories lack merit, but because they haven’t been properly studied. Of course, Chris knows this, that is we he has not weighed in on the basic principles laid out by Barry A.

The “rethinkers” have offered several “alternative” hypotheses but none of them are credible because they are already directly refuted by the available evidence. Ignoring the evidence does not make your pet theory credible.

In another parallel HIV individual “rethinkers” have mutually exclusive theories about AIDS. Some believe that HIV exists but is harmless. Some believe that it doesn’t exist. Nevertheless like intelligent design proponents and young earth creationists they all join together under the big tent of HIV rethinkers for strategic reasons.
#441 lincoln
March 4, 2007

But beyond Harvey Bialy, there is no way currently accepted by science to verify that any such thing as “emotions” even exists. Emotions are yet to be scientifically measureable or verified. Yet we universally agree that all of these emotions exist.

Such is the core of the reason that science itself is of limited use to the human experience.
#442 Kevin
March 4, 2007

The “rethinkers” have offered several “alternative” hypotheses but none of them are credible because they are already directly refuted by the available evidence.

You want to talk about credibility, Chris? You should be careful in your word choice. The HIV hypothesis doesn’t seem to do anything directly. Remember? The availabe evidence is currently being molded to fit an indirect explanantion. Nevertheless, any halfwit with a basic understanding of logic can recognize the circular reasoning used to remedy HIV’s shortcomings in light of an unbiased evaluation of the “available evidence”–not to mention, any such conclusion that is included as part of the available evidence, as is the case with HIV, is significantly lacking in credibility, prima facie.

“Nevertheless like intelligent design proponents and young earth creationists they all join together under the big tent of HIV rethinkers for strategic reasons.”

Once again, you leave little room for doubt as to your own true character as an unctuous philistine.
#443 Pope
March 5, 2007

It is not easy to have a conversation about HIV with someone who has never even paused to think what the
word(s) mean. Dr. Noble’s lack of this most basic requisite for intelligent communication, an understanding of the semantic contents of the keywords used, offers another opportunity to remark on the name trickery which so confuses our degreed friend.

Duesberg, Perth, Lanka, even Harvey Bialy, all agree there is to date not found such a thing as a human immuno-deficiency virus; that is, a virus which causes “profound humnan immunodeficiency”. Thus, the disagreement is entirely on the side of HIV scientists, who will constantly change position on such mutually exclusive postions as what type of virus HIV is, how many genes it has, if it sufficent cause in itself or needs cofactors, exactly which defining diseases it causes, etc.

Speaking of which, has Dr. Noble no answer to why Syphilis is not on the list of AIDS defining diseases? Is syphilis not a potentially deadly disease prevalent in the original risk groups, which can lie dormant and undetected awaiting cellular immune dysfunction?
#444 Pope
March 5, 2007

That should of course read ‘retrovirus’ for ‘virus’
#445 Chris Noble
March 5, 2007

More Papal bull:Duesberg, Perth, Lanka, even Harvey Bialy, all agree there is to date not found such a thing as a human immuno-deficiency virus; that is, a virus which causes “profound humnan immunodeficiency”. Thus, the disagreement is entirely on the side of HIV scientists, who will constantly change position on such mutually exclusive postions as what type of virus HIV is, how many genes it has, if it sufficent cause in itself or needs cofactors, exactly which defining diseases it causes, etc.

Duesberg and Bialy both believe that a virus currently known as “HIV” exists. You can call it whatever you want but it exists. It takes a liar or a sophist to claim that there is agreement between Lanka and Duesberg/Bialy. You can play any word game you want but it won’t make your claim anything more than bullshit.

You are flat out lying when you claim that there exists any controversy about the classification of HIV or the number of genes that it has. These are all very old issues that were completely resolved after the virus was sequenced.

It is clearly a lentivirus and has 9 genes. Give me an example of a scientist (other than Duesberg/Bialy etc) that currently claims otherwise.
#446 Pope
March 5, 2007

I see Dr. Noble has once again reverted to a vocabulary with which he is more familiar.

Perth, Lanka, Duesberg, DeHarven, Harvey Bialy have always agreed there exists an entity (a few different entities actually) that is called HIV. Just like the HIV scientists did for a long time, and may well do on future occasions, they currently have different theories about where it comes from. But this is hardly the main issue. Or would Dr. Noble tell us it’s unscientific to disagree on the details?

Those HIV scientists who initially proclaimed isolation and pathogenic culpability of HIV were in disagreement about its number of genes and what family it belonged to when the first antibody tests were already in the patent office. Is that the kind of responsible science Dr. Noble wish to contrast with rethinkers?

But tell me, Dr. Noble, what is the scientific reason fo rhaving Cervical Cancer on the list of HIV diseases but not Syphilis?
#447 Chris Noble
March 5, 2007

Stop bullshitting.

Lanka denies that any virus that causes disease in humans exists.
The self-styled perth Group deny that HIV exists.
Duesberg attempted to claim the Continuum award by demonstrating that HIV exists.
The Continuum staff didn’t give him the prize and still denied that HIV exists. The majority of the Continuum staff then died from AIDS.
The Perth Group has even stated that if HIV exists it fulfils Koch’s postulates and they would have to accept that it causes AIDS.
Duesberg claims that HIV exists, has been sequenced and can’t cause AIDS because retroviruses don’t kill cells.

To try to portray the various mutually exclusive “rethinker” theories about AIDS as being consistent is nothing but bullshit.

In 1984 Gallo was still wrongly claiming that what he called HTLV-III was closely related to HTLV-I and HTLV-II. The virus had not been fully sequenced at that stage. The extra accessory and regulatory genes in HIV do not play any significant role in antibody tests that detect antibodies to gag, pol and env proteins.
All of these issues were determined some 20 odd years ago.

Contrast this with HIV “rethinkers” who still cannot convince each other as to whether HIV exists or doesn’t
#448 lincoln
March 5, 2007

Chris said:

“Contrast this with HIV “rethinkers” who still cannot convince each other as to whether HIV exists or doesn’t”.

It makes no difference whether it exists or not to the rethinkers, when ALL of the rethinkers DO AGREE that it IS NOT THE CAUSE OF AIDS!

Hey Chris, can you prove that ghosts do or do not exist?
Dohhhhhhhhhhhhh!
#449 Chris Noble
March 5, 2007

lincoln wrote:It makes no difference whether it exists or not to the rethinkers, when ALL of the rethinkers DO AGREE that it IS NOT THE CAUSE OF AIDS!

Yes it does matter. The Perth Group state that if HIV exists then it causes AIDS.

You can try as hard as you can but this is not some trivial disagreement.

Honestly, Duesberg and the Perth Group have had more than 20 years to convince each other about the existence or non-existence of HIV.
The fact that they choose to ignore these differences and focus upon the common “enemy” gives an indication of their combined integrity.

In the same way Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents differ profoundly about the age of the Earth, common descent and the nature of science but they choose to join forces against Evilution.
#450 Pope
March 5, 2007

Dr. Noble usually likes to throw around references, perhaps he could give us the quote and context where Perth say that if HIV exists it causes AIDS, so we can get to the bottom of what was meant. I have only seen it once in a random email somewhere; I hope that’s not the kind of evidence Dr. Noble customarily hangs his scientific hat on.

In the meantime, here’s what Perth have said in their official article specifically addressing the issue – note the interjection: “in terms of a putative exogenous retrovirus.”

“If the data do not prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of HIV then, in terms of a putative exogenous retrovirus, there can be no “observations…to provide strong support for the official theory”.

And again:

“Demonstrating that HIV has not been isolated is not an “existentialist” debate.”

http://theperthgroup.com/POPPAPERS/lastdebate.html

If Dr. Noble still does not understand that when the Perth Group says HIV doesn’t exist, they mean HIV has not been proven to exist as a unique exogenous retrovirus, I think we should just let him have the day and move on.

Lanka says very much the same as Perth. He furthermore sees a problem with the current definition of animal and human (retro)viruses. Again what the different rethinkers and scientists think about entities other than “HIV” is hardly the central issue.

HIV scientists often say (last in the Parenzee court case), that if HIV, AS DEFINED BY THEM, doesn’t exist it follows that no other viruses exist either. Lanka, in other words, is squarely in the mainstream on this issue.

Is Dr. Noble going to keep us suspended forever with regard to Syphilis and Cervical cancer? Perhaps in view of the fact that its co-discoverers, Montagnier and Gallo, after 24 years are still at odds with regard to HIV pathogenesis, Dr. Noble thinks the best evidence he has for the causal connection between HIV and AIDS is the possible points of disagreement between various Denialists?
#451 DT
March 5, 2007

Re cervical cancer:
I for one was against its inclusion in the list of AIDS-defining conditions, for some of the reasons that have been mentioned. I would NOT define a woman who has cervical cancer, and then goes on to get a new HIV infection as having “AIDS”.

I would however define as having “AIDS” a woman who was HIV infected and then went on to develop aggressive cervical cancer because of advancing immunosuppression (which is a factor for development and progression of cervical cancer).

I hope you can all see the difference between these 2 different scenarios. My disputing of this classification is NOT evidence I am a rethinker, or evidence that HIV does not cause AIDS (by way of pre-empting Lincoln [some hope]). It clearly does.

I think the term AIDS is redundant and confusing, preferring to think of this stage as being HIV infection with advanced immunodeficiency sufficient to result in the development of significant opportunistic infections and tumours. So I also have problems with a couple of other infections on the “AIDS” list like TB. This could easily predate HIV acquisition in an endemic country, and initially at least the individual would not be severely immunodeficient. (However, with concurrent infections they would fare very badly).

Regarding syphilis, it would not make either the CDC’s list or my list. It clinically manifests similarly in HIV negatives and positives (with the proviso that slightly longer treatment is recommended). It also is not really a disease of reactivation with immunodeficiency – virtually all cases are new infections, or chronic progressive infections.

All the AIDS-defining illnesses are merely surrogate clinical markers for severe immunodeficiency (or meant to be). Arguments between scientists/doctors about which one should or should not be on the list cannot change the facts about HIV causing the immunodeficinecy in the first place. (For rethinkers to point to differences in opinion about this as evidence against “AIDS” is ridiculous). One could in theory propose other new infections to be on the list, like anal cancer, or leishmaniasis. These would be more appropriate for inclusion than would syphilis.
#452 Adele
March 5, 2007

DT, great comment. I was about to write something on AIDS vs. lymphocytopenia myself.

AIDS as it is defined currently must include retroviral infection, HIV in humans, SIV in non-human primates. This distinguishes AIDS from other immunodeficiencies.

No one claims that other causes of immune deficiency do not exist, no one says that other immunodeficiencies cannot present alongside AIDS or contribute to it, but HIV alone does cause immunodeficiency in most infected individuals.
#453 Dale
March 5, 2007

Pope,

re Perth Group’s position on HIV and AIDS

http://rethinkaids.info/GalloRebuttal/OtherOpinions/PerthGroup.pdf

see Item 40
#454 DT
March 5, 2007

Right. Just for those who will not bother to follow the link:
If one accepts that “HIV” and “HIV” antibodies exist, then one has no choice but to also accept that Koch’s postulates have been fulfilled which means that HIV is the cause of AIDS.
This exposes the underlying paradox for the Perth group – they cannot accept anything that is evidence for HIV’s existence, since to do so would undermine their entire raison d’etre.
#455 Barry A
March 5, 2007

Hello Kevin,

Thank you for your kind words. Your personal story as well as Noreen Martin’s are still in my mind. The problem is that I’ve been side-tracked a bit with some work-related projects. But, I will return either later today or tomorrow.

So, that I don’t forget the ground I’ve covered:

Scientific Claim 1:

A retrovirus, named HIV, transmitted primarily through blood or semen, attacks and destroys CD4 cells, by an unexplained mechanism. This disabling of a critical component of the immune system leads to opportunistic infections and death, if untreated.

and…

Scientific Claim 2:

The causal link between the retrovirus => CD4 cell decline => opportunistic infections => death is unproven. Many different things cause CD4 cell decline; many different things cause opportunistic infections. Focusing narrowly on the retrovirus, to the exclusion of other possible factors of pathogenesis, is a mistake.

I didn’t receive any critique of the claims, so I will continue thereon based on the assumption that they are fair and adequate to each side.

I think it was Adele who noted that CD4 cell depletion is caused by many things other than HIV, so (I think) we all now agree, based on the science, that CD4 cell depletion is not a result (effect) unique to HIV (purported cause).
#456 Kevin
March 5, 2007

Arguments between scientists/doctors about which one should or should not be on the list cannot change the facts about HIV causing the immunodeficinecy in the first place. (For rethinkers to point to differences in opinion about this as evidence against “AIDS” is ridiculous).

How is it ridiculous to demand that scientists and doctors demonstrate that the list of “AIDS-defining” illnesses be a “clinical reality”. The key term here being AIDS-defining. You can’t have it both ways, DT and Adele. If you are going to classify patients as having AIDS, partly based on the clinical manifestation of particular diseases, then you need to prove that each and every AIDS-defining illness is indeed caused by HIV infection and not some other explanation. You haven’t done that. In fact, by including cervical cancer, simply for the sake of boosting female patient numbers, the AIDS establishment has revealed that it is far more concerned with self-preservation than with describing the “clinical reality.”

You may find the burden of proof requirement ridiculous, but I find it to be a necessary part of real science.

No one claims that other causes of immune deficiency do not exist, no one says that other immunodeficiencies cannot present alongside AIDS or contribute to it, but HIV alone does cause immunodeficiency in most infected individuals.

Once again, Adele, no matter how many times you repeat this empty mantra to yourself, it does not make it true. You still need to prove the causal mechanism behind HIV, to distinguish it from the other causes to which you allude. Do you really not realize why assuming one’s conclusion is not acceptable?

Kevin
#457 Dale
March 5, 2007

Kevin
If you are going to classify patients as having AIDS, partly based on the clinical manifestation of particular diseases, then you need to prove that each and every AIDS-defining illness is indeed caused by HIV infection and not some other explanation. You haven’t done that. In fact, by including cervical cancer, simply for the sake of boosting female patient numbers, the AIDS establishment has revealed that it is far more concerned with self-preservation than with describing the “clinical reality.”

You appear to be laboring under a misconception regarding what “AIDS-defining” means in the context of HIV and AIDS. An AIDS-defining illness doesn’t necessarily need to be caused by HIV. These are illnessses that occur at higher frequency among HIV positive than among HIV negative individuals. Most are also illnesses whose appearence in an HIV positive individual correlates with worsening immune status. As far as cervical cancer goes – according to CDC statistics from 1993 (the first year of including cervical cancer on the list of AIDS defining illnesses for women), approximately 2% of female AIDS cases were classified as AIDS because of invasive cervical cancer. That doesn’t ‘boost’ female patient numbers by much.
#458 Chris Noble
March 5, 2007

kevin wrote: Once again, Adele, no matter how many times you repeat this empty mantra to yourself, it does not make it true. You still need to prove the causal mechanism behind HIV, to distinguish it from the other causes to which you allude. Do you really not realize why assuming one’s conclusion is not acceptable?

It is ironic that you accuse everone else of repeating empty mantras.

It was recognised that smoking caused lung cancer before the mechanisms were known. There is still no consensus about the exact mechanism now.

Not all lung cancers can be attributed to smoking and not all smokers develop lung cancer. In this trivial sense smoking is neither a sufficient nor necesary cause of lung cancer.

Are you a lung cancer “rethinker” too.

Several different viruses and bacteria can cause pneumonia. Often the only way to tell the difference is via another technique such as serology/nucleic acid testing/culture. The exact mechanisms of the pathogenesis of these microbes are still being researched.

It should be a firm rule. If you have an argument against HIV causing AIDS then see if it also applies to other viruses or bacteria. If it does then you have either recognises that there may be some false assumptions in your argument or reject the whole “germ theory of disease”.
#459 DT
March 5, 2007

Kevin,
“The key term here being AIDS-defining. You can’t have it both ways, DT and Adele. If you are going to classify patients as having AIDS, partly based on the clinical manifestation of particular diseases, then you need to prove that each and every AIDS-defining illness is indeed caused by HIV infection and not some other explanation.”

You are completely missing the point. AIDS-defining illnesses can occur in instances where there is severe immunodeficiency. When this is the result of HIV infection (and not another cause such as chemo drugs/steroids/malnutrition etc) then the disease by definition is “AIDS”.

I have explained my dislike for the definition and terminology of AIDS.

Perhaps you would be more comfortable considering another virus, such as Hepatitis B rather than Chris’ cancer model?

HBV can cause chronic hepatitis, leading to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. The precise mechanisms by which this happens are still being investigated. Does HBV infection always cause cirrhosis? NO. Are there other causes of cirrhosis? YES.

By denialist logic, HBV does not cause cirrhosis.

Do you concur with this view? Please let us know.
#460 Chris Noble
March 5, 2007

I didn’t receive any critique of the claims, so I will continue thereon based on the assumption that they are fair and adequate to each side.

False assumption.

Claim 1 is a fairly clumsy and incomplete description of the standard position.

Claim 2 is not a claim in itself. It is just an attack on claim 1. It does not provide an alternative explanation for AIDS with testable predictions.

It is a standard “rethinker” tactic to assume the position of the grand arbiter of science and insist that everyone else has to “prove” the validity of the standard position to you. In truth nobody can “prove” anything to somebody that is not capable of evaluating the evidence or willing to admit it.

If you really want to debate then pick one of the numerous mutually exclusive “alternative” theories of AIDS causation and attempt to support it with evidence.

To quote Thomas Kuhn: “To reject one paradigm without simultaneously substituting another is to reject science itself”

The only way that the “orthodox” theory of AIDS causation will be overturned in a scientific revolution is if the “rethinkers” actually rethink an alternative explanation that better fits all of the data. So far none of their alternatives even come close to explaining a fraction of the data. Instead they focus on an entirely negative campaign of trying to pick holes in the HIV/AIDS connection. This is why Denialism is a more accurate if more offensive description for their program.
#461 Pope
March 5, 2007

DT, I share to some degree Adele’s enthusiasm for your comment explaining the meaning of AIDS defining diseases. howevr I still find Kevin’s objections valid.

Firstly, for HIV = AIDS to be other than a purely semantic construct, there’s a perceived need for some ‘defining’ clinical manifestations. Two independent claims seem to be made:

1. There’s a higher incidence of the particular disease among HIV+ people

2. The form of the particular disease is different, more severe, more difficult to cure, etc.

If this is so, the doctor should be able to diagnose AIDS reliably independently of the antibody test. But this is not the case. if one has Invasive Cervical Cancer with a negative test, one simply has Invasive Cervical Cancer. On a positive test one has AIDS. No degree of invasiveness, severity or recurrence overrides the test.

The second point is, if “HIV disease” is a complete breakdown of the immune system, why does it not aggravate all microbial diseases? It would seem that, especially in the case of other STDs, one has simply decided to reverse the causal chain and say, “there’s a higher risk of HIV due to syphilis or Gonorrhea infection” to the exclusion of, “there’s a higher risk of gonorrhea and syphilis due to HIV infection”.

For instance, a typical article on STDs and HIV reads as following:

“A SHARP rise since 1987 in the incidence of syphilis and a form of gonorrhea that is resistant to penicillin has prompted concern among health officials that education programs promoting safe sex are not working and that the spread of AIDS among heterosexuals may also rise.

Officials are concerned by the rise in syphilis and penicillin-resistant gonorrhea because ”if someone is getting syphilis they are doing something that could have given them HIV,” said Dr. Thomas Peterman, chief of the viral studies section in the Federal Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta. HIV, or human immunodeficiency virus, is the organism that causes AIDS.”

If Syphilis and Gonorrhea had been on the list of AIDS defining instead of AIDS “causing” diseases, I very much suspect this article would have begun something like, “HIV-related drug resistant syphilis is on the rise…”
#462 Chris Noble
March 5, 2007

Pope wrote:If this is so, the doctor should be able to diagnose AIDS reliably independently of the antibody test.

This would only be true if the condition never occurs in HIV- patients. All of the AIDS defining conditions occur to some extent in HIV- people.

Some of them like KS and PCP are extremely rare in HIV- patients without obvious causes of immune suppression such as antirejection drugs after organ transplants or chemotherapy.

KS was seen to be some 30,000 times more common in HIV+ people than HIV- people. From this alone it is possible to conclude that it is almost (but not 100%) certain that someone with KS (and no other obvious cause of immune suppression) in the US has AIDS and is HIV+.

For other AIDS defining conditions the realationship between HIV status and the increased incidence of the disease is not as strong.

“Rethinkers” start from the false position that the CDC definition is supposed to be ironclad. It isn’t it was and is primarily a surveillance definition. It is designed to enable the authorities to obtain an accurate estimate of the number of people that have AIDS caused by HIV.
#463 Chris Noble
March 5, 2007

The second point is, if “HIV disease” is a complete breakdown of the immune system, why does it not aggravate all microbial diseases?

If men are descended from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?
#464 Pope
March 5, 2007

Unfortunately, just as it looked likewe were having a dialogue with DT, the semantically challenged Dr. Noble returns to confuse him anew.

Firstly, what the Denialists here are arguing for right now is that HIV is not the SOLE cause of AIDS. Every analogy you have given, from lung cancer down, is a concession of this point, so don’t expect us to disagree with you there. I’ll take DT’s latest as illustration, adding ‘HIV’, ‘AID’, ‘S(yndrome)’, and ‘AIDS’ in brackets where appropriate to show we absolutely agree:

“HBV [HIV} can cause chronic hepatitis [AID], leading to cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma [S]. The precise mechanisms by which this happens are still being investigated. Does HBV [HIV] infection always cause cirrhosis [AIDS]? NO. Are there other causes of cirrhosis [AIDS]? YES.

By denialist logic, HBV does not cause cirrhosis.

Do you concur with this view? Please let us know” (DT)

No, DT, by Denialist logic, what this analogy shows is that HIV is not the only cause of AIDS; neither does HIV necessarily = AIDS

Dr. Noble, just as I had praised you for objecting to the imprecise and inappropriate uses of the word ‘paradigm’, you come right back and use it as a straw-man. Where does it say in the Science 101 syllabus that one cannot criticise a prevalent theory without laying out another?

Besides you know very well that your repeating ad infinitum that the alternative theories “don’t explain a fraction of the data” doesn’t make it so. The alternative theories possess better explanatory and predictive power than your constantly mutating favourite.
#465 Pope
March 5, 2007

“Pope wrote: If this is so, the doctor should be able to diagnose AIDS reliably independently of the antibody test.

This would only be true if the condition never occurs in HIV- patients. All of the AIDS defining conditions occur to some extent in HIV- people.” (Chris Noble)

Dr. Noble admits, then, that a patient is not diagnosed with AIDS on background of the unique character of the symptoms, but on background of the HIV test?(unless the patient is from the African continent)

“The second point is, if “HIV disease” is a complete breakdown of the immune system, why does it not aggravate all microbial diseases? (Pope)

If men are descended from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?(Chris Noble)”

I take it Dr. Noble doesn’t have answer to the question this passage was part of.
#466 Chris Noble
March 6, 2007

Dr. Noble, just as I had praised you for objecting to the imprecise and inappropriate uses of the word ‘paradigm’, you come right back and use it as a straw-man. Where does it say in the Science 101 syllabus that one cannot criticise a prevalent theory without laying out another?

Since when is quoting Thomas Kuhn a strawman? Kuhn carefully defined what he meant by paradigm. It is the postmodernists and new age kooks that abuse the term in an effort to bolster their own nonsense.

There isn’t a lot about the philosophy and history of science in Science 101. “Rethinkers” imagine that they are the instigators of a scientific revolution and that the mainstream theory of HIV/AIDS is a theory is crisis. The point is that unless you provide an alternative theory that better explains the data then you are just emitting a lot of hot air. Einstein didn’t spend his time whining about the faults in Newtonian physics or pursuing court cases.

Besides you know very well that your repeating ad infinitum that the alternative theories “don’t explain a fraction of the data” doesn’t make it so. The alternative theories possess better explanatory and predictive power than your constantly mutating favourite.

Just repeating ad infinitum that alternative theoies possess better explanatory power and predictive power than the standard theory doesn’t make it so. Which alternative theory are you atlking about. Pick one and attempt to defend it. But of course you aren’t going to do that because sitting back and demanding that somebody “prove” something to you is much simpler. It is a silly “rethinker” game. It’s like trying to “prove” evolution to some redneck that demands that scientists change monkeys into humans before his eyes.

I take it Dr. Noble doesn’t have answer to the question this passage was part of.

My response was meant to give you a few clues. Your “question” included the premise that AIDS is a complete breakdown of the immune system. The immune system is not a single entity. CD4 cells are one part of the immune system. Different parts of the immune system have different levels of importance in the immune response to different pathogens. All of the AIDS defining diseases are characteristic of CD4 depletion.
#467 lincoln
March 6, 2007

Hey Chris! Could you bring your expert answers to the following questions one more time? I am not sure you understood your answers.

1) Would a diagnosis of the impending death sentence of HIV positive test results produce extreme stress in a patient’s emotional well being?

2) Would a person diagnosed as HIV positive be likely to suffer the emotional impact of feeling apathetic ‘hopelessness and helplessness?

3) Does feeling hopeless and helpless have a stressful and suppressive effect on one’s immune system?

4) Would feeling helpless and hopeless, or wishing ones own self to be dead, contribute to a gay man’s, or anyone elses stress level, and therefore affect said gay man’s, or anyone elses, health or ability to recover from illness?

5) For gays, Would being disowned by ones family for being gay contribute intensely to a gay man’s stress level?

6) Would going on a regimen of pills, wherein one is told “These pills must be taken at exact and certain times and must be taken absolutely every day, or one’s virus will mutate to be untreatable”, would this increase a patients stress level?

7) Do high amounts of stress have a depressive effect on the immune system?

If the answers to the above were YES, then; FACT:

A SYNDROME OF ACQUIRED STRESS IS A CAUSE OF ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME, or AIDS!

Furthermore:

1) Does illicit drug abuse affect or suppress the immune system?

2) Does malnutrition suppress the immune system?

Then both of these are also causes of AIDS, is that correct Chris?

—————————————————-
Low CD4 Counts: A Variety of Causes and Their Implications to a Multi-factorial Model of AIDS

From the Abstract:

Low CD4+ T lymphocyte counts (CD4 counts) are associated with a variety of conditions, including many viral infections, bacterial infections, parasitic infections, sepsis, tuberculosis, coccidioidomycosis, burns, trauma, intravenous injections of foreign proteins, malnutrition, over-exercising, pregnancy, corticosteroid use, normal daily variation, psychological stress, and social isolation. It is also possible that anti-HIV medications can lower CD4 counts when used for long periods, and the short term rise in CD4 counts that is associated with their use may be due to a variety of factors that are unrelated to any anti-HIV activity. Finally, there are a number of people who are completely healthy and who have low CD4 counts for no apparent reason.

From the Introduction:

Low CD4 T-cell counts are considered to be a marker of the progression of HIV infection and AIDS, and have been called the ‘hallmark’ of HIV (Balter 1997). Since HIV was first claimed to be the cause of AIDS in 1984, the CD4 count has been widely used to make treatment and diagnostic decisions, but the use of the CD4 count has been controversial, and recommendations regarding how to use them have changed many times over the years (Goldman 2000, Hughes et al. 1998, Choi et al 1993).

Therefore: The causal link between the retrovirus => CD4 cell decline => opportunistic infections => death is unproven. Many different things cause CD4 cell decline; many different things cause opportunistic infections. Focusing narrowly on the retrovirus, to the exclusion of other possible factors of pathogenesis, is a mistake.

Is that correct Chris?
#468 lincoln
March 6, 2007

Also, Chris, does stress depress the CD4 count?
#469 lincoln
March 6, 2007

Hey Chris, you said:

“All of the AIDS defining diseases are characteristic of CD4 depletion”.

Could you please answer the question as to whether or not STRESS ITSELF is evidenced to SUPPRESS CD4 T Cells???
#470 Pope
March 6, 2007

Dr. Noble wrote: “Since when is quoting Thomas Kuhn a strawman? Kuhn carefully defined what he meant by paradigm. It is the postmodernists and new age kooks that abuse the term in an effort to bolster their own nonsense.”

Since Dr. Noble maintains it was not a mistake when he equated criticism of the HIV/AIDS hypothesis to a paradigm shift, I can only conclude he considers HIV/AIDS a paradigm unto itself. May I suggest to Dr. Noble that his favourite microscopic, barely alive entity has grown out of all proportion in his feverish brain. Quite a few microbes have been mistakenly assumed to exist or be pathogenic without the scientific world order coming to an end when the truth was discovered.

I read with interest that HIV has defined for us what an opportunistic disease is. I accept that the examples I gave are not among them.
#471 Barry A
March 6, 2007

Scientific Claim 1:

A retrovirus, named HIV, transmitted primarily through blood or semen, attacks and destroys CD4 cells, by an unexplained mechanism. This disabling of a critical component of the immune system leads to opportunistic infections and death, if untreated.

and…

Scientific Claim 2:

The causal link between the retrovirus => CD4 cell decline => opportunistic infections => death is unproven. Many different things cause CD4 cell decline; many different things cause opportunistic infections. Focusing narrowly on the retrovirus, to the exclusion of other possible factors of pathogenesis, is a mistake.

I received a protest about the phrasing of these 2 claims by Chris Noble.

Please propose alternative claims that you believe would be more fair and accurate.
#472 DT
March 6, 2007

“The alternative theories possess better explanatory and predictive power than your constantly mutating favourite.” – Pope

It sounds like you are doing a “Lincoln” on us, Pope. How about we ask you to look at the “Stress Theory” that he espouses, using a similar yardstick by which you view HIV.
#473 Pope
March 6, 2007

DT wrote:
“It sounds like you are doing a “Lincoln” on us, Pope. How about we ask you to look at the “Stress Theory” that he espouses, using a similar yardstick by which you view HIV.”

With pleasure, DT, with pleasure. By the yard stick of HIV, Lincoln has yet to produce EM photographic evidence of his putative stress virus since it is only reasonable to assert that disease must be caused by a physically tangible pathogen. In view of this, I hardly have to say that lowered CD4 count and viral load do not seem to correlate very well in Lincon’s Acquired Stress Syndrome (ASS).

Although the ASS theory of AIDS is intrinsically multifactorial, it’s too narrowly focused on the worldwide pandemic in a minority gay subculture confined to major Western cities. This means it relies too heavily on concepts such as shame and self-loathing. Everybody knows that Africans have no shame, and the same goes for monkeys and infants. Thus, like so many rethinker theories, the ASS theory of AIDS is too narrow in all its multifactorial simplicity compared with the elegant HIV/AIDS hypothesis which has already factored in Third World shamelessness to explain how the pandemic can be homosexual on one continent and heterosexual on the next. I conclude ASS may be a factor in AIDS, but it can only be a co-factor since it takes at least two to tango.
#474 pat
March 6, 2007

LOL!
#475 Kevin
March 6, 2007

Einstein didn’t spend his time whining about the faults in Newtonian physics or pursuing court cases.

It’s clear, Chris, that you are as poor at arguing by analogy as your pal, Adele. Einstein’s “revolutionary” work certainly did not have the social import for the masses that human health concerns do, i.e. his work was not used to justify corporate profiteering to the detriment of human health.

It sounds like you are doing a “Lincoln” on us, Pope. How about we ask you to look at the “Stress Theory” that he espouses, using a similar yardstick by which you view HIV. — DT

First, it should be noted that Chris is apparently not the only unctuous philistine contributing to this discussion. Your attempts at misrepresentation are equally nauseating, DT. It is also clear that your repeated attacks on Lincoln are motivated largely in response to his exposing you for the hack that you are, or was he mistaken, and you really don’t work as a pharmaceutical rep? Or, maybe Lincoln’s passion about this topic brings you to unsettling realizations about your own passionless contributions?

While I don’t fault Lincoln for arguing from a more emotional point of view, your accusation that Pope’s recent comments spring from the same emotional source is patentedly false. You are obviously too meek to offer a solid counter argument to Pope’s recent insights. Neither you nor Chris have proven yourself capable of contributing intelligently to the discussion. This is proven by your unwillingness to genuinely address the very salient points that have been recently presented by Pope, and others. Instead, you both offer only petty retorts that are really quite worthless.

That said…

Let’s, once again, get this discussion back on track and take look at the quote from Pope that you attempt to misrepresent, DT. Anyone who assesses the claim without bias will see that your response was significantly inferior to the merits of the original claim. First the quote:

“The alternative theories possess better explanatory and predictive power than your constantly mutating favourite (HIV).”

The explanatory value of various alternative theories have been demonstrated in this thread previously, but those contributions were unduly derided by the aforementioned disingenious contributors, Chris Noble and DT, most likely, because they realize that such examples of real explanatory value will further expose the truth about the very real explanatory shortcomings of HIV as demonstrated in Barry A’s Second Claim. One can only assume that that also explains why Chris Noble has yet to provide Barry with an “alternative wording” for the claim, one that he finds “more accurate.” Regardless, let’s review Barry’s original claim:

Scientific Claim 2:

The causal link between the retrovirus => CD4 cell decline => opportunistic infections => death is unproven. Many different things cause CD4 cell decline; many different things cause opportunistic infections. Focusing narrowly on the retrovirus, to the exclusion of other possible factors of pathogenesis, is a mistake.

It is a HUGE mistake to focus narrowly on a retroviral cause as even a simple example from one alternative theory easily demonstrates…

What is one of the most common first diseases that virtually all AIDS patients develop?

Thrush.

What is one of the most common diseases caused by Candida in HIV-negative patients?

Thrush.

So when Chris Noble smarmily whines about “unsupported claims that AIDS is caused by Candida Albicans?”, are such claims really unsupported? As Barry A’s simple claim denotes, the causal link between HIV and CD4 loss is unproven, and the recent attempt to retrench HIV’s causal mechanism as “indirect” makes that very clear. On the other hand, the causal link between various environmental factors, as explained by alternative theories, has been virtually ignored by researchers; yet, these environmental connections are undeniable. I’m almost died because of this incompetence, and I’ll be damned if I let a disgruntled pharmaceutical rep and an obsessive-compulsive sycophant continue to spread lies, to the contrary.

Kevin
#476 Kevin
March 6, 2007

You are one hilarious Pope. May God protect you from ASS…
#477 DT
March 6, 2007

“Your attempts at misrepresentation are equally nauseating, DT. It is also clear that your repeated attacks on Lincoln are motivated largely in response to his exposing you for the hack that you are, or was he mistaken, and you really don’t work as a pharmaceutical rep?”

I quote Pope directly – where is the misrepresentation?

If anyone is guilty of misrepresentation it is you – I have never made “repeated attacks on Lincoln”. I merely pointed out (once) that everyone on this thread showed respect for the other side’s positions except for Lincoln, who completely unprompted, rained down a stream of vile invective upon me, which some of you seem to find amusing, and merely a sign of his “passion”.

Your ability to put whatever spin you desire upon evidence is duly noted. Typical denialist fare, I must say.
#478 Chris Noble
March 6, 2007

It is not up to me to put into words the “rethinker” claim. I am not going to attempt to make sense of the plethora of mutually exclusive “rethinker” claims.

All I am asking is for the “rethinkers” to come up with one rigorously defined alternative explanation of AIDS that explains all the data. So far different “rethinkers” have posted several different hypotheses that variously include “emergency emotions” or antibiotics as the dominant cause of AIDS.

Pick one and attempt to defend it. What exactly are you arguing?
#479 Barry A
March 6, 2007

Ok, it looks as though Chris Noble is not interested in amending the claims (which is fine), so I intend to proceed with the claims as currently phrased:

Scientific Claim 1:

A retrovirus, named HIV, transmitted primarily through blood or semen, attacks and destroys CD4 cells, by an unexplained mechanism. This disabling of a critical component of the immune system leads to opportunistic infections and death, if untreated.

and…

Scientific Claim 2:

The causal link between the retrovirus => CD4 cell decline => opportunistic infections => death is unproven. Many different things cause CD4 cell decline; many different things cause opportunistic infections. Focusing narrowly on the retrovirus, to the exclusion of other possible factors of pathogenesis, is a mistake.

Adele upstream listed the following items that cause CD4 depletion:

Viral infections
Fungal infections
Bacterial infections
Immunotherapy
Some other therapies
High stress
Intense exercise
Some heart problems
Some cancers

I have found other items in the peer-review literature, and cited them above, involving case reports and case series where patients had low CD4 cell counts, but no evidence of HIV. For example, this paper in the NEJM.

Based on this scientific evidence, I do not think it is highly controversial to state that several things other than HIV, can cause CD4 cell depletion in humans.

I call these “things” Factors 1-10.

So, here are three questions:

1. Does this evidence support Claim No. 1 or Claim No. 2, or neither or both?

2. For every single patient deemed HIV+ who has a low CD4 cell count, shouldn’t Factors 1-10 be ruled out, before concluding that the HIV caused the low CD4 cell count in any particular patient?

3. How would one distinguish the cause of CD4 cell depletion in a patient who was HIV+ and had another potential causative agent, say, Factor 3?
#480 lincoln
March 6, 2007

Oh, DT. Why didn’t you just tell me that your feelings were hurt. I apologise. They say you always hurt the ones you love. And I really do love you. Even if I do think your a bit wacky sometimes, your opinions are always welcome. What would life be without contrast?

Your friend always,
Abe Lincoln
#481 lincoln
March 6, 2007

Hey Chris. Here is the one that I pick as the direct cause of all adult AIDS cases. Jesus said it 2000 years ago:

“As a man thinks, So he IS”, and, “According to your faith (belief, even if your belief is in your fear) it shall be given unto you”.

Children are a different case, however, as they are susceptible to the projections of beliefs of adults.

Care to prove me wrong on this?
#482 lincoln
March 6, 2007

Just for instance, consider for a moment that you are out on the patio of a coffee house on a dimly lit street, and it is very late at night.

Across the street from you, up walks a very unkempt and disheveled person. He looks over at you from the other side of the street.

If you are on the level of shame, you might look at him and think to yourself, that even he is better and more deserving than your own self.

If you are on the level of guilt, you might look at him and think that he is a bad person and should be put in jail.

If you are on the level of fear, you might want to run to a phone and call the police because you are sure he is coming to rob you.

If you are on the level of anger, you might want to go kick his butt for not getting a job and taking care of himself.

If you are on the level of pride, you might think to yourself “I am better that piece of crap”.

If you are on the level of rationality, you might see the perfect subject for testing out drugs or doing a study on.

If you are on the level of love, you might want to invite him over for a cup of coffee and to share his life stories.

If you are on the level of enlightenment, you might look at him and see another you, learning to transcend the need for material things.

In all of these circumstances, what changed?

Surely the guy across the street didn’t change. The only thing that changed was in how you perceived him.

The same goes for looking at anything, including the issue of HIV and AIDS.

What you see there depends on the level of consciousness that you look at it from!

You are all more than welcome to view it from another perspective any time you like.
#483 Pope
March 6, 2007

Dr. Noble,

As soon as you have told us how the major rethinker theories on AIDS are mutually exclusive, we’ll start picking and choosing between them.
#484 Barry A
March 6, 2007

Here’s an interesting letter in NEJM by Macy et al (1988)– Abnormal T-Cell subsets in normal persons.

They found that 5% of healthy persons seeking life insurance had abnormal CD4 cell counts.

“In a subgroup of patients, the low T-cell numbers or ratios appear to be stable findings.”

“In the absence of major abnormalities on a physical examination, it is not worthwhile to attempt to find a specific cause for the abnormality of T-cell subsets..”

So, there is a baseline for CD4 depletion that has zero impact on health.
#485 Dale
March 7, 2007

3. How would one distinguish the cause of CD4 cell depletion in a patient who was HIV+ and had another potential causative agent, say, Factor 3?
One would most likely prescribe ARVs and if signs of immune suppression were ameliorated in conjunction with a reduction in viral load, one would most likely conclude that the immunosuppression was most likely due to HIV.

In a subgroup of patients, the low T-cell numbers or ratios appear to be stable findings.”

I don’t have access to the paper but if this is an accurate representation of the findings I would say the key word here is stable. Which implies these are individuals with low CD4 counts over long periods of time; not, as is seen in HIV infected individuals, a progressive depletion of T cells.
#486 Kevin
March 7, 2007

3. How would one distinguish the cause of CD4 cell depletion in a patient who was HIV+ and had another potential causative agent, say, Factor 3? — Barry

One would most likely prescribe ARVs and if signs of immune suppression were ameliorated in conjunction with a reduction in viral load, one would most likely conclude that the immunosuppression was most likely due to HIV.
– Dale

How again would this prove that ARVs are acting against HIV, and not any of the other causal factors recently listed by Barry? When I was sick with chronic fungal infections and recurrent bacterial infections, I might very well have benefitted from short-term treatment with ARVs, but because I was HIV test-negative, that was not considered an option. A better evaluation of the true benefits of ARVs would be to give them to ALL AIDS patients, regardless of HIV sero-status. To further evaluate ARVs and HIV’s role in causing AIDS, researchers could also use a control group that includes patients of mixed sero-status, whose treatment was more conventional, i.e. a group of patients with fungal and bacterial infections that are treated with anti-fungals and antibiotics, primarily. Even a third group could be included — a group that is treated with antifungals but not antibiotics, since they may play a causal role (they certainly did in my case). Adjuctive therapy using alternative treatments could also be implemented with this group. After all, it is that combination only that worked in my case, and I do not believe my case to be exceptional. Of course, such an extensive, unbiased study is not likely to happen as long as pharmaceutical companies control the direction of HIV research, mostly because it would require researchers to set aside their predetermined conclusions about HIV’s causal role. Regardless, real science will once again be required if we can ever hope to develop effective treatments against AIDS, not because it is caused by a ever-mutating retrovirus, but because its causes are multi-factorial and particular cases will require different treatment strategies.

Kevin
#487 Kevin
March 7, 2007

2. For every single patient deemed HIV+ who has a low CD4 cell count, shouldn’t Factors 1-10 be ruled out, before concluding that the HIV caused the low CD4 cell count in any particular patient?

Bingo, Barry!

HIV has always been assumed to be the cause of AIDS, and that is why when physicians are faced with an AIDS patient who is HIV-negative, they are utterly cluesless as to how to proceed. One can only wonder why it never occurs to them to treat the symptoms and disease conditions that are actually present. Perhaps, they would discover that by aggressively treating candidiasis, or any other AIDS-defining illness, and by NOT telling each patient that there condition is terminal, well, perhaps they’d find that recovery from AIDS is quite possible.

Of course, one cannot help but to think of all the lost revenue from actually curing patients. It hardly seems fair to the pharmaceutical companies. After all, transitioning HIV/AIDS from a sure-fire death sentence to a less severe and more manageable “lifestyle” disease has proven to be awfully hard work.

Kevin
#488 lincoln
March 7, 2007

Dale said:

“One would most likely prescribe ARVs and if signs of immune suppression were ameliorated in conjunction with a reduction in viral load, one would most likely conclude that the immunosuppression was most likely due to HIV”.

DALE!!!!!!!!!!!!

“Most likely”? conclude that the immunosuppression was “Most Likely”? due to HIV?

Dale, oh Dale, oh Dale. Thanks for the explanation of how we know ARV’s are working, in lieu of any of them being tested against placebos.

New Rule of Dale to be sent to the FDA for all drug effectiveness studies:

“In order to ensure safe and effective drugs, we will check ALL drugs for placebo effect, EXCEPT HIV ARV drugs, because even if the effect is placeboic, a placebo is proven just as effective at raising T Cells and reducing what may or may not be a “viral load” in HIV treatment, so placebo effect or not, give them silly HIV diagnosed gays and blacks and drug addicts a pill, any old pill, as a cure-all for ASS caused immunodeficiency syndromes”!
#489 lincoln
March 7, 2007

Dales Rules for HIV and ASS treatment:

“Give em a pill, any old pill! Give em dozens of pills! Calms their nerves, reduces effects of ASS stress, and therefore they don’t get scared sick and scared to death, and therefore, it makes it look like us doctors and scientists know what we are doing, but shhhhhh-don’t tell em we haven’t a clue, cause that is an NIH Top Secret”!
#490 lincoln
March 7, 2007

New Poll Results Just Released:

NINE OUT OF TEN HIV DOCTORS PREFER CIRCUMCISED AFRICAN SHLONGS over other leading brands!
#491 lincoln
March 7, 2007

I propose a NEW LAW.

Everyone should be mandated by law to be checked for HPV.

All boys, 13 years and older, should be prosecuted as adults and put in jail if they knowingly spread HPV without warning the girls, as HPV is shown to maybe, perhaps, but who knows, be the cause of cervical cancer in some women.

If such laws against knowingly spreading disease are good enough for gays and blacks as regards supposed HIV infection, then they are good enough for all!
#492 lincoln
March 7, 2007

Report by Gus Cairns, AIDSMap News,Friday, March 02, 2007

The rate at which an untreated HIV-positive person’s CD4 cell count is declining is a poor predictor of the risk of AIDS or death in individual patients, the Fourteenth Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections was told this week.

A study published last September (Rodriguez) caused some consternation in the scientific community by questioning the link between HIV viral load and CD4 decline.

Rodriguez found that although in broad terms high, medium and low baseline viral loads predicted high, medium and low rates of CD4 decline over the succeeding six months, when it came to individual patients their baseline viral load only predicted between 3-9% of the variability of CD4 decline.

He explained this by suggesting that there were many other factors which led to CD4 decline other than direct viral attack by HIV and commented that his findings “challenge the concept that the magnitude of viral replication is the main determinant of CD4 cell loss.”

Mathemetician Dr. Rebecca Culshaw weighs in on this report here.
#493 lincoln
March 7, 2007

Regarding my post: “I propose a NEW LAW”.

What with equal rights for women and all, obviously, girls, 13 and up, knowingly transmitting HPV to boys should obviously receive equal jail time as boys.

Or better yet, for anyone testing as HPV, Lock em all up and let God sort em out!

Don’tcha think?

What a CrAzY world!
#494 Barry A
March 7, 2007

A few more comments about CD4 cell depletion, fluctuation and causality

In Malone et al, JAIDS (1990) , measurements taken from HIV+ patients were repeated by one laboratory within 3 days, showing: “minimum CD4+ cell count of 118 cells/mm3 and a maximum CD4+ cell count of 713 cells/mm3.”

This sounds like pretty great variability to me.

In Science, author Jon Cohen noted that CD4 cell counts can “vary widely between labs or because of a person’s age, the time of day a measurement is taken, and even whether the person smokes.” (Science, 1992.)

There seems to be a lot of factors that influence CD4 cell counts.

The fact that many different things (Factors 1-10), other than HIV, cause CD4 cell depletion was tacitly acknowledged by the CDC in its definition of AIDS in 1985:

I. One or more of the opportunistic diseases listed below…; and

II. Absence of all known underlying causes of cellular immunodeficiency (other than LAV/HTLV-III infection) and absence of all other causes of reduced resistance reported to be associated with at least one of those opportunistic diseases.

My bottom line:

I think the literature establishes several different causes of CD4 cell depletion, other than HIV. CD4 cell depletion occurs in healthy people, varies drastically in HIV+ people, and is caused by numerous conditions identified above by lincoln and Adele.

The implication is that these other causes (Factors 1-10)need to be ruled out before determining that a particular patient’s HIV infection is the cause of his particular CD4 cell decline.

I think I’m ready to move on to the next part of the two competing claims:

1. What physiological effect does CD4 cell decline have on the body?

2. Does HIV cause CD4 cell decline in vitro, in vivo (lab animals) and/or in vivo(humans) and How can we tell?
#495 Roy Hinkley
March 8, 2007

Barry,

What do you make of this passage from the Malone abstract you cited?

“A significant CD4+ cell count diurnal increase of 59 cells/mm3 was detected between 0800 h and 2200 h from the WR-1-5 [HIV+ ed.] patients (p = 0.018), although this diurnal change was significantly blunted (p = 0.028) as compared with the 506 cells/mm3 CD4+ cell count diurnal increase observed from the HIV(-) healthy controls.“
#496 Peter Barber
March 8, 2007

Kevin, Barry A, lincoln, re. Rodriguez et al.:

A friend of mine is an consultant in infectious diseases who looks after several dozen people with HIV and AIDS. I’m heading over to her house for dinner tonight, so I’ll ask her about those sources of variability in CD4 counts and how that is controlled for, if at all. She will undoubtedly have read that article.

It is quite plausible to maintain that HIV is the causative factor, but that independent variables such as pre-existing disease and genetic variability complicate the relationship between viral load and CD4 decline. Way back in the mists of time (i.e. half-way back up this post’s comments) Chris Noble mentioned the so-called ‘HIV elite controllers’ whose resistance to HIV is not fully understood. And if it is begging the question to use that example to support my assertion, then how about heart disease?

There is a clear relationship between a diet high in saturated fats and myocardial infarction. But just as in Rodriguez et al., a comprehensive record of grocery receipts is not the whole story. Until assays for cholesterol were routinely available, we couldn’t explain why one Pizza Hut-loving couch potato might live to 80 while another died at 50. Even then we didn’t know why some people had persistently high cholesterol until commercial PCR and immunoassay kits helped reveal mutations in the LDL receptor gene. And since then researchers have not only found 700 variants of that gene, and also demonstrated that certain variants of other genes such as apolipoprotein B-100 also contribute to the risk. This lack of knowledge did not invalidate the causal relationship between diet and heart disease.

I would like to point out that even though Rodriguez et al. questioned the link between viral load and CD4 count depletion rate, it was published in no less than JAMA, and reported in AIDSmap, as “orthodox” an HIV/AIDS advocacy organisation as you could wish (see HIV basics).
#497 Pope
March 8, 2007

“Rodriguez et al. questioned the link between viral load and CD4 count depletion rate”

The amusing thing, as Dr. Rebecca culshaw has recently pointed out on that website I would not advise any sself-respecting HIV/apologist to visit, is that,

“The rate at which an untreated HIV-positive person’s CD4 cell count is declining is a poor predictor of the risk of AIDS or death in individual patients the Fourteenth Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections was told this week”.

“This means that medium term CD4 decline – the quantity Rodriguez said was poorly predicted by viral load – is itself a useless predictor of progression to AIDS, because it is so immensely variable. In fact it is so difficult to calculate the gradient of a medium-term CD4 decline which may in fact feature short-term, abrupt increases and decreases such that the average statistical error in the calculation is 55 cells – almost equal to the average annual decline. In a quarter of the observations, the error of the slope is greater than the measurement of the slope itself,” Mellors said.. ”

http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/03/dear_dr_culshaw.html
#498 DT
March 8, 2007

Leaving aside what Rodriguez actually said for a moment (it may be found here), it would appear from the CROI presentation that Mellors has analysed his own data in a similar fashion.

The AIDSmap report states:

“He measured baseline viral load, CD4 and CD38 counts and also baseline CD4 decline, as defined by the decline in cells per year from the time patients joined the study to mid-1988.

He found that baseline viral load predicted 46.1% of the variability in time to AIDS, CD38 count 40.1% and CD4 count 29.4%.

When the baseline measurements were combined, their predictive power became stronger. Viral load and CD38 count together predicted 58% of the variability in time to AIDS, viral load and CD4 count 54% and CD4 and CD38 count 43%.

But the medium-term baseline CD4 decline was a very poor predictor: it only predicted 2.9% of the time to AIDS.

Why was this? Mellors found that although the medium-term CD4 decline averaged 65 cells a year, it had a huge range. The inter-quartile range was nine to 130 cells, in other words, about half of the CD4 declines measured were either greater than 130 cells or less than nine cells (or could even be increased in some cases).”

This shows that on an individual basis, CD4 changes are too variable to base accurate predictions on. This is tantamount to saying to someone with diabetes that having a high (or low) sugar at a particular point, or having certain changes in their sugar levels, are poor predictors of how bad their diabetes will become. This does not mean diabetes does not exist, or that glucose metabolism irregularities and insulin resistance are not the underlying cause of the problems, merely that random sugars are poor reflections of that one individual’s risk. As a group, there is no doubt that the correlation between CD4 and progression to AIDS is quite tight, however. They just need better markers of what is going on.

The report continues…..

“These results reaffirm the key role of viral replication as reflected by viral load in the pathogenesis of AIDS,” he [Mellors] added.

In other words, baseline viral load is a strong predictor of the long term CD4 decline which leads to AIDS.

Andrew Philips comments on the Lau paper: “If you wish to predict time to AIDS over a long period and can only measure one thing, you might want to measure viral load. But if you want to know the risk of AIDS within a year, you’d need to know the CD4 count.”

It appears a series of viral load measurements is a better prdictor in the long term (“A single viral load measurement was only moderately predictive of the time to AIDS or death (23%) but a series of viral load tests was strongly predictive (61%). “

Oh, finally it was nice to read the quote from Rebecca Culshaw that the “failure to develop an adequate model of HIV infection does not mean that such a model does not exist, nor does it disprove that HIV causes AIDS”, even thogh I may disagree about her about what an adequate model might be.
#499 Kevin
March 8, 2007

Oh, finally it was nice to read the quote from Rebecca Culshaw that the “failure to develop an adequate model of HIV infection does not mean that such a model does not exist, nor does it disprove that HIV causes AIDS”, even thogh I may disagree about her about what an adequate model might be. — DT

Engaging in a little “quote-mining” yourself, eh DT? Wonder what your pal Chris Noble will have to say about that? Kettle meet pot.

Let’s look at Dr. Culshaw’s comment in context. In fact, the very next sentence (which you curiously omit) illustrates that context:

Yet after 20 years of intense effort resulting in failure, it does suggest that alternative models based on non-viral hypotheses of AIDS progression may merit study.

Thus, her comment–taken in context–seems to be in agreement with what others here are asking: why are we still trying to make the facts fit an obviously inadequate theory to the exclusion of non-viral hypotheses that apparently offer better explanatory value and that do not require data manipulation.

Earlier in this thread, you denied that you engage in misrepresentation, but anyone can see that your recent attempt to mischaracterize Dr. Culshaw’s sentiment was nothing, if not a blatant misrepresentation.

Kevin
#500 Barry A
March 8, 2007

A few people have made good comments and asked good questions (like Roy Hinkley above).

The problem, though, is that I don’t want to get derailed from evaluating both claims , and it’s hard to ascertain who is asking questions in good faith, and who is not.

So, my new position is, if you accept my rough descriptions of the 2 competing claims, then Yes, I will get to your questions.

Scientific Claim 1:

A retrovirus, named HIV, transmitted primarily through blood or semen, attacks and destroys CD4 cells, by an unexplained mechanism. This disabling of a critical component of the immune system leads to opportunistic infections and death, if untreated.

and…

Scientific Claim 2:

The causal link between the retrovirus => CD4 cell decline => opportunistic infections => death is unproven. Many different things cause CD4 cell decline; many different things cause opportunistic infections. Focusing narrowly on the retrovirus, to the exclusion of other possible factors of pathogenesis, is a mistake.

Pope & Kevin,

That Culshaw piece cited is very interesting. She’s a smart lady, even if I end up not fully agreeing with her. But I respect her sober inquiry, and intend to follow up on it.
#501 Dale
March 8, 2007

I suppose Barry that my objection to your wording of your two claims is that it implies a couple of things that I wouldn’t agree with. First your wording implies that HIV disease is nothing more than CD4+ decline and that all CD4+ decline is equivalent. CD4+ decline in HIV disease is a measure of immune status. Transient CD4+ decline in, for example, atheletes is a measure of something else altogether. Second, the wording of your second claim implies that a causal relationship between CD4+ decline and factors other than HIV has been established to a greater degree of certainty than the causal relationship between CD4+ decline/immune status and HIV. The only factors for which I’m fairly certain that is true (such as some cancers, chemotherapy or immunosuppressive therapy for autoimmune disorders or to prevent organ transplant rejection), are factors which I expect would play a prominent role in a patient’s history and therefore would be taken into consideration before designating HIV as the major or only cause of a particular patient’s immune deficiency.

I disagree with you about the Culshaw piece. Although I found the introduction a reasonable summary of the current state of HIV modeling, I was disappointed to see that Dr. Culshaw didn’t do anything more than make a suggestion. Does her suggestion enable HIV disease progression to be modeled more accurately than current models? Who knows? Perhaps her suggestion has already been tried and rejected. I would note that human immunology has, in the past decade or so, moved away from thinking of matureT-cells as being either Th1 or Th2, primarily because it has become clear that human T cells are far more complicated than that.
#502 Barry A
March 8, 2007

Thanks, Dale.

Please feel free to offer alternative claims, worded in a way you think is more fair.
#503 Dale
March 8, 2007

Competing claims: 1. HIV is an infectious agent that causes acquired immune deficiency.
2. HIV is neither infectious nor causes AIDS.

Claim 2 could be divided into (i) HIV is infectious but non pathogenic. The clinical symptoms labeled AIDS are the result of a combination of non-infectious factors including lifestyle, malnutrition and ARVs. AIDS in Africa at least is not a single entity but a new name for a collection of previously described diseases. (Duesberg) (iii) HIV is not infectious because it is not a virus. The various phenomena ascribed to HIV (DNA sequences, antibodies, antigens) are the result of cellular processes that are the cause of immune deficiency. (Perth group)
#504 lincoln
March 8, 2007

Dale,

In your rewording above, are you currently disavowing the orthodox position that HIV attacks CD4 T cells?

You left out any mention of such in both of your rewordings on both sides of the issue.
#505 lincoln
March 8, 2007

I should say, Dale, that you seem to be currently, in your rewordings, disavowing that CD4 cells attack, suppress, or have anything at all to do with HIV or AIDS. Is this so?
#506 Chris Noble
March 8, 2007

Dale wrote:Competing claims: 1. HIV is an infectious agent that causes acquired immune deficiency.
2. HIV is neither infectious nor causes AIDS.

It is a mistake framing the “debate” in this manner. Claim 2 is just “not 1″. It isn’t really a competing explanation. It is a mon-explanation.

What are the competing explanations for the causation of AIDS?

1. HIV is an infectious agent that causes acquired immune deficiency.
2. HIV is an infectious agent that causes acquired immune deficiency by inducing selenium deficiency.
3. HIV is an infectious agent that causes acquired immune deficiency but vitamin c is a more effective treatment
4. HIV is an infectious agent that causes acquired immune deficiency but intravenous ozone is a more effective treatment.
5. HIV is an infectious agent that causes acquired immune deficiency only when other cofactors are present.
6. HIV is an infectious agent that causes acquired immune deficiency but iatrogenic spread via dirty needles is the dominant means of transmission in Africa.
7. HIV is an infectious agent that causes acquired immune deficiency but was created in a conspiracy to wipe out gays and blacks.
8. HIV is a harmless passenger virus that just happens by remarkable coincidence to infect the same risk groups that get AIDS.
9. HIV does not exist. AIDS is caused by oxidative stress that just happens by a remarkable coincidence to produce proteins and RNA/DNA that have an uncanny resemblance to other lentiviruses.
10. AIDS is caused by antibiotics.
11. AIDS is caused by corticosteroids.
12. AIDS is caused by AZT.
13. AIDS is caused by Factor VIII.
14. AIDS is caused by stress.
15. AIDS is caused by malnutrition.
16. AIDS is caused by undiagnosed Treponema pallidum.
17. AIDS is caused by HHV6
18. AIDS is caused by benzene in lubricants.
19. AIDS is caused by alcohol
20. AIDS is caused by nitrites
21. AIDS is caused by heroin.
22. AIDS is caused by semen.
23. AIDS is caused by cocaine
24. AIDS doesn’t exist
25. Not only does HIV not exist but neither do any human disease causing viruses.
26. The whole “germ theory of disease” is false.

Other people can add to the list. Not all of the above claims are mutually exclusive but many of them are.

It is not unreasonable to expect “rethinkers” to select one claim (or a small number of consistent claims consistent with Occam’s razor) and attempt to provide evidence to support the claims. To just argue “not 1″ is just a sign that you have no valid credible alternative.
#507 Kevin
March 8, 2007

Competing claims: 1. HIV is an infectious agent that causes acquired immune deficiency.
2. HIV is neither infectious nor causes AIDS.

Wow, Dale. Your “new and improved” statements sure are simple. Why, what’s one to do if he is not born into the belief that the world revolves around HIV? Praise, Jesus. I’ll tell ya what…one might entertain a completely counter belief system as accurate. Picture it: an otherwise healthy twenty-something male suffering severe immune dysfunction, yet not a trace of HIV. What’s a doc to do?

Please Dale, DO tell us all how a case such as mine fits into your new and improved worldview? And try not to be so simple this time. Here’s a hint: you’ll need to offer an explanation that captures the intrinsic difference in the PCP that I endured and the PCP that afflicts the “real” AIDS patients. If you choose to invoke the powers of HIV, I’d appreciate it if you could explain the causal mechanism in your explanation. That’s not too much to ask, is it?

Kevin

(Btw, I wouldn’t look to Chris Noble for inspiration, for his last post demonstrates that he is clearly overwhelmed by such complexities.)
#508 lincoln
March 9, 2007

Chris.

As soon as you take Occam’s razor to the multitude of AIDS defining diseases that HIV is somehow responsible for, and show us just ONE SINGLE SOLITARY THING that HIV does FOR SURE, we will be glad to trim down the 101 multifactorial causes as well.
#509 Dale
March 9, 2007

Kevin,
The hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS does not and never has implied that all immunodeficiency must be caused by HIV. Therefore your particular case is not relevant to the question of whether HIV causes immunodeficiency.

Chris,
I agree that claim 2 is in essence a negation of claim 1.
#510 Chris Noble
March 9, 2007

lincoln, you know the one thing that HIV predominantly does is infect CD4 cells and cause CD4 cell depletion (HIV dementia is another manifestation of HIV disease).

The list of AIDS defining conditions are to differing degrees all directly related to CD4 depletion.
#511 lincoln
March 9, 2007

Hi Chris.

Chris, you said:

“lincoln, you know the one thing that HIV predominantly does is infect CD4 cells and cause CD4 cell depletion”

I do? I don’t think so. I know that you and lots of other people believe it does, but I am not to be counted among the faithful in this belief

Are you sure about this infection of CD4 T cell stuff Chris? Cause I can’t find any cites on something that was isolated and proven to be HIV ever being isolated from a human CD4 T cell, and strangely enough, Bobby Gallo admitted down there in your neck of the woods just a couple of weeks ago that he had not ever isolated HIV from human T Cells that was infectious to other T Cells.

Can you show me a cite where anyone has proven that HIV has actually been isolated from any human T cell or that any human T cell has actually been killed by HIV? Just because the count is low does not mean they are dead or killed off. They may simply be turned off or something.

And by the way, Chris, speaking of HIV dementia, can you show me the cite where HIV has actually been proven to be causing any type of cellular damage whatsoever in any brain cells? I am talking about cellular level damage here Chris. Not just evidence of RT or scrambles of proteins thought to be HIV found in various brain tissues. I am talking about a whole HIV retrovirus that is contagious to other cells here buddy.

And no computer animated stuff, OK Chris? I know how difficult it can be for you to separate your computer animation work from reality sometimes, but please give it your best.
#512 Paul King
March 9, 2007

You attack the dissidents but almost daily their predictions, one by one, are proven right.

Magic Johnson now test negative, Tommy Morrison is alive and well, the hetero epidemic never happened, HAART is now known to account for 48.2% of ‘AIDS’ deaths.

You may call it ‘luck’. I call it science.

(I doubt you will allow this to post – censorship is the tool of the ‘AIDS’ establishment).
#513 Pope
March 9, 2007

First I had to explain to Dr. Noble what ‘HIV’ actually means, now it seems I have to do the same with AIDS.

If Dr. Noble wants to be taken seriously, he would do well to understand that ‘AIDS’ is just a name a convention; it doesn’t necessarily correspond to a real object out there. Hence when we’re discussing whether there is such a thing as AIDS (HIV + defining disease) one cannot just assume its existence in all one’s formulations. Dr. Noble’s inability to think outside this question begging circle is the first casualty of belief in HIV/AIDS – and there’s a good reason for this.

So to proceed without the word ‘AIDS’, rethinkers say it is implausible to maintain that only one pathogen (HIV) is responsible for all cases of profound immuno-deficiency. Dr. Noble responds by saying to prove the HIV hypothesis wrong come up with a single other pathogen that’s responsible for all cases of profound immuno-deficiency. Would Dr. Noble also demand of a polytheist or an atheist that if he wishes to prove the Christian God didn’t create the universe, he should come up with an argument to support that Allah or jehova can explain the phenomena currently attributed to God?

In the meantime, I’m becoming increasingly educated. First I was taught how HIV defines opportunistic diseases for us, while teaching us that what we call the ‘immune system’ is in fact completely unrelated bodily responses to various stimuli, and that HIV does not ravage the ‘immune system’, only one component of it. Now Dr. Noble has proceeded to the next lesson on how HIV disease is related to the isolated component of the immune system it doesn’t ravage after all.

“[What] HIV predominantly does is infect CD4 cells and cause CD4 cell depletion (HIV dementia is another manifestation of HIV disease). The list of AIDS defining conditions are to differing degrees all directly related to CD4 depletion.” (Chris Noble)

One wonders what these “different degrees” are supposed to mean. Is it like the viral load – CD4 count – progression to AIDS and death correlation, sometimes weak, sometimes strong, sometimes there sometimes not there? Or is it an invisible correlation in individual cases that manifests itself when we apply certain statistical trickery? And what about Dementia being “another manifestation of HIV disease”? Is that “another” as in a non-CD4 related manifestation that, let me guess, ‘we don’t quite understand yet’?
#514 DT
March 9, 2007

I wondered if a bit of “tit for tat” quote mining might annoy the rethinkers. I see it did. I won’t lose any sleep over it.

I should now take things a step further and, rethinker-style, plaster the news all over the web (with added invented extras) saying Dr Culshaw now supports the orthodox position on HIV/AIDS.

She will then specifically reject my claim and give a detailed explanation of exactly what she said and how it cannot possibly support the orthodox position on HIV/AIDS.

I will then, rethinker-style, completely ignore this and continue to misquote her liberally for ever more, proclaiming her as a champion of the orthodox view.

I will also go even further, and start to attribute to Dr Culshaw several other unprovenanced statements that suggest she supports the orthodox position.

I do however have a bit more integrity than this, so I won’t do any of those things. Which is a lot more than I could say for the “rethinkers” who constantly refer to people like Padian, Rodriguez, Montagnier etc.
#515 Barry A
March 9, 2007

Thanks, Dale.

You proposed as competing claims:

1. HIV is an infectious agent that causes acquired immune deficiency.

2. HIV is neither infectious nor causes AIDS.

These have the benefit of conciseness (which I love). Before I read Dr. Culshaw’s book, I would have accepted them in full. I still think they are pretty good.

But, the problems are with the terms “immune deficiency” in the first, and “AIDS” in the second. Both are too vague and capable of being misunderstood.

If HIV infected all or most of the different types of white blood cells and caused a generalized immune deficiency, I would agree fully with the wordings of your claims.

But, here is the CDC definition, which I don’t think has been changed since 1993 (Feel free, anybody, to cite a more updated version, if I am incorrect).

In it, it states:

The CD4+ T-lymphocyte is the primary target for HIV infection because of the affinity of the virus for the CD4 surface marker.

So, in a nutshell, any claim to evaluate the evidence for and against the viral hypothesis must make specific mention of CD4 cell counts. CD4 cell depletion is the sine qua non of the disease called, AIDS. We all agree that opportunistic infections are unhealthy and should be treated accordingly. (e.g, Bactrim for PCP). But what differentiates the opportunistic infections from “AIDS” is the virus=>CD4 decline mechanism (and potentially the body’s immune response)

But, stripping away of the CD4 cell counts and causation thereof, ignores a critical component of the science.

I’m sure all of us can agree that the viral theory of AIDS must be falsifiable and most likely is falsifiable. But, in my mind there is a 3-step definition of AIDS: Roughly, (1)Presence of HIV =>(2) CD4 decline (~200 cells/mm3) => (3) 1 or more of several opportunistic infections.

There may even be a 4th internal link (HIV causes an immune response which leads to depletion of CD4 cells and other immune problems).

But, to evaluate this claim, I have begun by focusing on the 2nd link: (1) What causes CD4 cell decline?

As detailed above, there are several items, independent of HIV, that do cause CD4 cells to decline.

This, of course, doesn’t mean that HIV doesn’t cause CD4 cell decline. (Sorry for double negative). This, though, logically, would be the next inquiry.

But, anyway, I think my original wordings of the competing claims are sufficiently clear, reasonable and fair to each side, so I’m gonna proceed with the claims as I outlined above.

Scientific Claim 1:

A retrovirus, named HIV, transmitted primarily through blood or semen, attacks and destroys CD4 cells, by an unexplained mechanism. This disabling of a critical component of the immune system leads to opportunistic infections and death, if untreated.

and…

Scientific Claim 2:

The causal link between the retrovirus => CD4 cell decline => opportunistic infections => death is unproven. Many different things cause CD4 cell decline; many different things cause opportunistic infections. Focusing narrowly on the retrovirus, to the exclusion of other possible factors of pathogenesis, is a mistake.
#516 lincoln
March 9, 2007

DT, You said: “I wondered if a bit of “tit for tat” might annoy the rethinkers”.

I am a rethinker and I was not at all annoyed.

I was just wondering if you really have a tat on your tit or are simply offering your tit for a tat?

If so, could you describe it? I am referring to describing your tat, not describing your tit. Although you are welcome to do that as well, if you like, provided it is from a scientific perspective.

I personally, as a rethinker, don’t have any tats on my tits, and don’t know any rethinkers that do, but I often enjoy them on others.

Getting tits tatted seems to be a very in thing these days.

A friend of mine, again, not a rethinker, just got an interesting tat on his A.S.S., and I am not referring to his Aquired Stress Syndome.
#517 Dale
March 9, 2007

Barry, I was trying to be concise. Should you prefer, I’ll modify claim 1 as follows: HIV is an infectious agent that leads to a progressive decline in CD4+ T cells, inversion of the normal CD4+: CD8+ ratio, chronic immune activation and other perturbations in immune function that result in an eventual state of immune deficiency which is associated with a many fold higher than normal incidence of certain opportunistic infections and viral associated cancers. Focusing money and effort on the study of HIV is justified from a public health perspective by its infectious nature and its association with significant morbidity and mortality.

As far as claim 2 goes, it may not be appropriate to redirect the focus of study to CD4+ T cell alterations in peripheral blood in the absence of HIV infection for several reasons. Although CD4+ Tcells are a major target of HIV infection, they aren’t the only target. HIV has been shown to infect other cell types (such as macrophages and microglia cells) that also express the proteins that serve as virus receptors on their cell membranes. The contribution of non T-cell, HIV infected cells to different aspects of HIV disease doesn’t seem to be completely clear at least in the literature I’ve read but I don’t think they can be ignored. Moreover, functional measures of immune status also suggest that not all immune system changes that occur during HIV disease progression are reflected in declines in peripheral blood CD4+ T cell counts. Thirdly, recent studies have suggested that a massive loss of CD4+ T cells that occurs in the gut immediately following HIV infection may play an important role in the pathology. It isn’t clear that any of the other factors associated with T cell declines in the blood are also associated with T cell declines in the gut. So while CD4+ T cell decline in peripheral blood is a convenient marker of HIV disease progression, it clearly isn’t the whole story. Which is why I think that while studying other factors that can cause CD4+ T cell decline may be useful, it will be important to distinguish between factors that cause transient cell declines and those that cause chronic declines and between factors causing declines with no apparent clinical consequences and those causing declines associated with increased sensitivity to oppportunistic infections. The major problem that I see with trying to look at non HIV causes of clinically relevant CD4+ T cell declines is that for the most part, patients suffering such declines are only identified after they are already immune deficient.
#518 lincoln
March 9, 2007

Dale.

Are you capable of picking a simple claim and sticking to it, or do you prefer us to jump through hoops and barrels and rings of fire in an attempt to understand what it is that you believe HIV actually does?

You missed your true calling. You really should have been a politician! You would have made an excellent president in defining what the definition of “is” is, or you could have been a secretary of state explaining to the press why we need to be in Iraq.

Your simplifications and clarifications of Barry’s quite to the point and understandable competing claims are getting more and more complicated and less and less clear and more and more obscure, and less and less specific in every word you wrote for your Claim Number 1.

And I completely missed any point you were trying to make in your addressing of Claim Number 2. There must be a point there somewhere, but God only knows what it is.

Chris was unable to do so, but perhaps you Dale, will show us just ONE SINGLE SOLITARY THING that HIV does FOR SURE, instead of the use of obscure wordings such as “leads to” and “associated with” and all of your other maybe could be’s.

You are also welcome to declare and proclaim to us that HIV is absolutely the cause of AIDS simply because you say so, as the fairly elected president of the HIV/AIDS fan club. That perhaps would be the simplest and most honest and truthful of your own claims for Claim Number 1.
#519 Barry A
March 9, 2007

Dale,

I don’t agree with lincoln’s comments or tone, but I do think the claims that you have modified are too convoluted. How could someone falsify Claim 1? It has numerous internecine, overlapping, causal links.

In any event, I will, however, modify my claim 1 to read, as follows:

Scientific Claim 1:

A retrovirus, named HIV, transmitted primarily through blood or semen, causes CD4 cell depletion through an unexplained mechanism. This disabling of a critical component of the immune system causes opportunistic infections and death, if untreated.

and…

Scientific Claim 2:

The causal link between the retrovirus => CD4 cell decline => opportunistic infections => death is unproven. Many different things cause CD4 cell decline; many different things cause opportunistic infections. Focusing narrowly on the retrovirus, to the exclusion of other possible factors of pathogenesis, is a mistake.

Ok, after 500+ comments(!), I think it’s time to look at the evidence for and against these 2 claims, as stated. No more quibbling.
#520 Dale
March 9, 2007

How could someone falsify Claim 1?

Cure HIV infection or reduce its incidence by preventing perinatal transmission and show that it has no effect on the incidence of AIDS-defining diseases.
#521 Dale
March 9, 2007

Hit the post button before I was finished. I might similarly ask you Barry – how do you test claim 2, let alone falsify it?
#522 Barry A
March 9, 2007

how do you test claim 2, let alone falsify it?

Well I’m just evaluating the claims, I’m not testing them yet or falsifying them. My rudimentary thoughts are as follows:

1. Epidemiologically: Large cohort study with patients with “AIDS-defining diseases.” See if there are excess rates of HIV infection.

The early definitions of AIDS seemed to be mostly concerned with 2 “AIDS-defining” diseases, Kaposi Sarcoma and PCP. But, then the list expanded to include 29 or so. I’m wondering what was the scientific basis to include, say, cervical cancer, as an AIDS-defining disease, but not, say breast cancer? Did they find excess rates of HIV in women with cervical cancer?

2. Biochemically: Show in AIDS patients that CD4 cell decline is only caused by HIV, and that “AIDS-defining” diseases are only caused by CD4 cell depletion.

This is harder, because I understand that according to the Rodriquez et al paper, people have claimed that the “non-viral mechanism” is an immune response that targets CD4 cells and other components of the immune system, for which it would very difficult (at least beyond my skills) to control.
#523 Chris Noble
March 11, 2007

Barry writes:Well I’m just evaluating the claims, I’m not testing them yet or falsifying them. My rudimentary thoughts are as follows:

How can you evaluate claims without testing them?

Both of the points you make are about testing you “Scientific claim 1″.

1. Epidemiologically: Large cohort study with patients with “AIDS-defining diseases.” See if there are excess rates of HIV infection.

The sort of analysis you are talking about has been done. For example Kaposi’s Sarcoma was found to be 30,000 times more common in people infected with HIV than uninfected people.

The early definitions of AIDS seemed to be mostly concerned with 2 “AIDS-defining” diseases, Kaposi Sarcoma and PCP. But, then the list expanded to include 29 or so. I’m wondering what was the scientific basis to include, say, cervical cancer, as an AIDS-defining disease, but not, say breast cancer? Did they find excess rates of HIV in women with cervical cancer?

Why are you asking questions like this? A simple literature search would provide you with the answer.

2. Biochemically: Show in AIDS patients that CD4 cell decline is only caused by HIV, and that “AIDS-defining” diseases are only caused by CD4 cell depletion.

Both of these points do not follow from the standard model of HIV/AIDS. There is nothing that says that the only cause of CD4 loss is HIV. That’s a bit like insisting that human CO2 emissions must be the only cuase of accelerated global warming.

What can and has been done is to demonstrate that HIV infection is the single factor that accounts for the majority of CD4 depletion in AIDS patients.

A study by Ascher et al Does drug use cause AIDS? compared the predictive power of drug use and HIV infection as determinants for AIDS.

The cohort included HIV+ and HIV- and light/no drug use and heavy drug use categories. If drug use was a significant factor in determining who got AIDS then you would expect a does response ie. more AIDS cases in the heavy drug use category than in the light/none category. In fact no difference was seen. This rules out drug use as a significant cause of CD4 loss and AIDS. The only factor that was predictive was HIV status. There was no AIDS in the HIV- group (AIDS diagnosis was made without consideration of HIV status).

Each of the “alternative” causes of AIDS can be tested. What is necessary is that “rethinkers” should pick one or at minimum a few of these causes and attempt to demonstrate that they can account for the AIDS cases that are observed. Instead “rethinkers” go for the easy and lazy approach of attempting to pick holes in the relationship between HIV and AIDS.

There is also no reason why it is necessary that all AIDS defining illnesses are seen only in the presence of CD4 depletion. Low CD4 counts are a strong risk factor for all of the AIDS defining illnesses (minus HIV dementia). With some the relationship is very tight. PCP is almost exclusively seen in people with severe CD4 depletion.

High blood pressure is a risk factor for heart disease. There is no reason to insist that all heart disease has to occur in people with high blood pressure.
#524 lincoln
March 11, 2007

Chris,

I could swear that you have been told this about a dozen times before, but perhaps just one more time and you will understand its meaning:

Correlation is not proof of causation.

Fungus that grows mostly on dead trees is not proof that the fungus ever killed a tree.

Bits of protein sequences believed to be HIV or RT activity in some sick people or in some people with low CD4 counts is not proof that HIV causes illness or low CD4 counts.

As I said before, as soon as you trim down your list of 29 causes and/or cd4 counts and/or viral load counts, so that we may know which AIDS group you are referring to, ie: Africans or Western gays, we will be happy to oblige with a simpler list of obvious causations.

How about picking Africans with TB, as that encapsulates 80 percent of the African Cases? We would be glad to offer poor nutrition-hygiene-water, perhaps combined with apathy and high stress.

If you do not like that one, then how about picking American gays with KS? We would be glad to offer poppers use, combined with high stress and internalized shame.

If you do not like that one, then how about picking American Gays with recurrent Thrush/yeast infections. We would be glad to offer drug abuse and antibiotics overuse, and lives of stress and internalized shame.

Or we can just go along with Barry’s HIV positive diagnosis along with low CD4 counts, and Barry and others would be glad to again share with you the number of effectors of CD4 counts that are proven to effect HIV negatives CD4 counts as well.

These choices together should cover about 90 percent or more of your so-called HIV/AIDS cases.
#525 Barry A
March 11, 2007

As an aside, I dusted off an old Immunology book from 1991 by Benjamini (UC Davis) and Leskowitz (Tufts).

A few interesting quotes:

1. “It is now firmly established that AIDS is caused by HIV.” (Page 224.)

2. “While cell death can result from HIV infection, asymptomatic newly infected individuals exhibit a depletion of CD4 cells in spite of the finding that only 1 in [1,000] or 1 in [10,000] CD4 cells carries the virus.” (Page 225)

Hmm. There’s no citation for this assertion, but this seems like extremely low viral titer.

Here’s my favorite 2 quotes, though:

3. “By far the most common cause of immunodeficiency disorders in developed countries is secondary to the use of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer therapy. Many of these agents are toxic to bone marrow cells and to T and B lymphocytes.” (Page 223)

“The first promising drug against AIDS is azidothymidine (AZT), which was originally developed as an anti-cancer drug. AZT, an inhibitor of reverse transcriptase, is highly toxic, especially to bone marrow cells.” (Page 230).

Is a “chemotherapeutic agent” somehow different from an “anti-cancer” drug?

Aside from the human drama and tragedy involved (never want to lose sight of the AIDS patients like Noreen, Mark, and Kevin, to some extent), this is like peeling back the layers of an onion.
#526 Chris Noble
March 11, 2007

As I said before, as soon as you trim down your list of 29 causes and/or cd4 counts and/or viral load counts, so that we may know which AIDS group you are referring to, ie: Africans or Western gays, we will be happy to oblige with a simpler list of obvious causations.

I’m getting tired of your continuous misrepresentations lincoln.

You know exactly what the standard model of HIV/AIDS is and yet you continue to build strawmen.

HIV causes CD4 depletion. This is the single common factor in all cases of HIV/AIDS. There is no 29 different causes.
CD4 depletion dramatically increases the risk of a number of opportunistic infections.
The particular opportunistic infection will depend on the prevalence of each of these pathogens in the particular risk group.

How about picking Africans with TB, as that encapsulates 80 percent of the African Cases? We would be glad to offer poor nutrition-hygiene-water, perhaps combined with apathy and high stress.

There are numerous studies that demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that people coinfected with HIV and TB have much, much worse outcomes than those with just TB.

If you do not like that one, then how about picking American gays with KS? We would be glad to offer poppers use, combined with high stress and internalized shame.

You haven’t read the Ascher et al study I posted. The idea that poppers cause KS has been investigated. Out of the the heavy popper users that were HIV- none got KS. Only the HIV+ patients got KS.

You can keep on going with your extended list of alternative causes of AIDS but you end up with a model that predicts everything and nothing. There is barely a person alive that does not have at least one of the factors that you list. However the vast majority do not develop AIDS.

Compare this with HIV. The vast majority, close to 100%, of people infected with HIV go on to develop AIDS. The vast majority, close to 100%, of people diagnosed with AIDS (irrespective of HIV status) have HIV.

You can repeat the mantra that correlation does not equal causation as much as you want but as long as you only provide your own correlations that are much weaker than those for HIV you are not proving anything except wishful thinking.

Add to this the fact that HIV just coincidentally happens to infect the very same subclass of cells that are depleted in AIDS. The level of immune activation caused by HIV infection also predicts the progression to AIDS. The SHIV/macaque model and the HIV/SCIDhu mouse model demonstrate that HIV cause CD4 depletion in vivo.
#527 DT
March 11, 2007

It is rather revealing that not one of the rethinkers wishes to pick up the challenge of primate lentiviruses such as SIV or SHIV.

Very good models exist for these as Chris has stated, clearly showing causality, with experimental infection inducing profound CD4 changes, rises in viral titre and clinical immune deficiency equivalent to AIDS. Antiretroviral therapy can reduce viral load and correct CD4 depletion. Mouse models have confirmed these laboratory outcomes for HIV.

It is a simple step to translate these findings to their direct human equivalent.

Causation has been proven for HIV, despite the chorus of wails from deniers who refuse to accept evidence.

Can any of the denialists explain the immunopathogenesis of macaque AIDS (forgetting Lincoln’s extremely lame effort suggesting that the monkeys were sad and lonely)?
#528 DT
March 11, 2007

And apart from the Asher paper, here is another study showing that poppers have absolutely nothing to do with Kaposi’s…

“Men with and without Kaposi’s sarcoma did not significantly differ with respect to number of sexual partners, history of certain sexually transmitted or enteric diseases, use of certain recreational drugs (including nitrite inhalants), or participation in certain specific sexual practices. “

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2296976&dopt=Abstract
#529 lincoln
March 11, 2007

Hey Chris and DDT,

Just because HIV negatives who used poppers once in a while and in lesser amounts did not all get AIDS does not mean that poppers are not a causative factor in those that did use poppers regularly and in high dosage!

Your Ascher paper is a piece of propaganda and trash instigated by and paid for by Tony Fauci of the NIH to trash Peter Duesberg, because Peter Duesberg’s claims that drug abuse was a leading cofactor in AIDS were gaining ground. Fauci and all of HIV/AIDS funding was completely threatened by this!

Furthermore, Ascher certainly did not make any distinctions in dosages of poppers or in dosages taken of any illicit drugs between the groups in those that did or did not get KS. Don’t you think this would be crucial to know? Dohhhhhh!

Don’t you think dosages taken, and how long or often they were taken are absolutely important variables in a study of drug effects on the immune system? Will either of you tell me why this crucial aspect of Ascher’s supposed study was not taken into “high” account? (no pun intended)

He also did not take into account any stress factors. Obviously those diagnosed as having HIV would have been far more stressed?

Next of all, how truthful were any of his study volunteers regarding their own drug use?

Please explain the reasoning of why dosage, stress, and honesty of the volunteers was unimportant to the outcome of the results, dear Doctor Chris and DDT!

I detect in both of you, what must be either your affinity for, or your approval of inhaling poppers, otherwise known as video head cleaner, leather cleaner, carb cleaner, amyl or butyl nitrite.

Or perhaps you both think that sniffing and snorting chemical solvents such as poppers, or even perhaps sniffing gasoline or maybe even sniffing glue is somehow beneficial to ones immune system?

If you think so, then by all means go snort all the poppers and gasoline and glue that you like!

I am sure the many drug addicts that continue to snort this stuff will all appreciate both of your endorsements of such.
#530 lincoln
March 11, 2007

And, Chris and DDT,

if you both believe that this stuff is so nontoxic and healthy, then, Dr. Noble and DT, please do both enjoy yourselves and go for it your own selves. Perhaps DDT could even get approval to represent and sell nitrite inhalants, gasoline, and glue to doctors as some type of health improving medication and get all doctors to dispense it.

Either way, you are both welcome to snort as much poppers as you want personally. Don’t let me steer either of you away from your desires. By all means, do not take my connection of poppers sniffing to AIDS as any sign that I am urging either of you away from doing this. Please do enjoy sniffing it, encouraging the use of it, or encouraging the sales of it all you like. You both certainly have everything it takes to decide what is right for you.

But I would hope you are not advocating the use of this to others in the general public, or reading these threads, though I realize Doctor Chris Noble’s approval of, and DDT’s well known affinity for all types of drug use, whether it is proven deadly toxic, mutagenic, or not.
#531 lincoln
March 11, 2007

Will you both explain to us how come even popper snorting HIV negative guys get KS?

18. Friedman-Kein AE,Saltzman BR,Cao Y,Mirabile M,Li JJ,Peterman TA. Kaposi’s sarcoma in HIV negative homosexual men. Lancet 1:168,1990.

Butyl nitrites were officially banned by the Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100690), but manufacturers responded by selling chemical variants as ‘room odorizers’ and marketing them under such names as ‘Rush’, ‘Ram’, and ‘Locker Room’. Then, in the 1990 Omnibus Crime Control Act, mainly in response to the concerns of Rep. Mel Levine of California, Congress outlawed the manufacture and sale of all alkyl nitrites. Once again the chemistry was reconfigured, and by 1992 nitrites were back on the market, sold as video head cleaner, polish remover (‘Just like the old daze!’ ad copy in a gay magazine trumpeted), carburetor cleaner (‘The good stuff’) and leather stripper (‘Not an overpriced ‘headache in a bottle’ like those other brands’) (Wilson. 1994b).

‘The use of poppers is increasing across the board in the big cities’, the antipoppers activist Hank Wilson claimed, in an interview in the summer of 1994. ‘It’s in the air in the San Francisco clubs. I personally stopped going to the sex clubs about 18 months ago because the air got so bad’ (Wilson, 1994c).

Wilson’s boyfriend, who always used poppers with sex and had KS, died last year of AIDS. Wilson himself was diagnosed with AIDS in 1987, but looks to be in good health (he steers clear of AZT).
#532 lincoln
March 11, 2007

Dr. Noble and DDT, I am not telling you what to do, but you might want to look at the toxicological effects of nitrite inhalants before you go running off to sell them to doctors or recommend them to patients:

Mirvish, S., J. Williamson, D. Babcook & S. Chen, 1993. Mutagenicity of IsoButyl Nitrite Vapor in the Ames Test and Some Relevant Chemical Properties. Environmental and MolecuLu Mutagenesis 21: 247252.

Or, if you can put Dr. Asher, the Duesberg Trasher’s stuff down long enough to read on some of the obvious connectedness of Poppers to KS:

http://www.ehponline.org/members/1994/102-10/haverkos-full.html

But either way, a love for, or appreciation of snorting poppers and doing other drugs would certainly explain both of your wacky viewpoints that you have both espoused on these threads!
#533 lincoln
March 11, 2007

Chris wrote to me:

“There is barely a person alive that does not have at least one of the factors that you list”.

So Chris is now of the opinion that almost every person alive is a drug addict or overusing antibiotics or suffering the stress of a diagnosis from a terminal disease, or is suffering from malnutrition-poor hygiene-contaminated water supplies, or suffering from internalized shame of homosexuality?

Keep sniffing that stuff Chris.

Obviously, you are getting brighter and more coherent all of the time with each and every snort you take and word you write!

You know, Chris, and DT, as there is very little that either of you are adding to the discussion that I find to be enlightening to anyone, I doubt that I will have any further inclination to respond any further to what I see as your posts of ignorance and insincerity and non-integrity.

Although, don’t let my lack of further desire to interact with either of you keep you from posting further, as you are both more than welcome to babble away all you like and you are both free to think and say and do and believe whatever you want.

Yours, Lincoln!
#534 Chris Noble
March 11, 2007

Just because HIV negatives who used poppers once in a while and in lesser amounts did not all get AIDS does not mean that poppers are not a causative factor in those that did use poppers regularly and in high dosage!
Your Ascher paper is a piece of propaganda and trash instigated by and paid for by Tony Fauci of the NIH to trash Peter Duesberg, because Peter Duesberg’s claims that drug abuse was a leading cofactor in AIDS were gaining ground. Fauci and all of HIV/AIDS funding was completely threatened by this!
Furthermore, Ascher certainly did not make any distinctions in dosages of poppers or in dosages taken of any illicit drugs between the groups in those that did or did not get KS. Don’t you think this would be crucial to know? Dohhhhhh!

Have you read the paper that you are attempting to dismiss?
Ascher reported a relative risk factor of 1.83 for KS in the heavy popper usage vs the light/none popper group. However thiis is a confounding variable. None of the HIV- patients developed KS.

Will you both explain to us how come even popper snorting HIV negative guys get KS?
18. Friedman-Kein AE,Saltzman BR,Cao Y,Mirabile M,Li JJ,Peterman TA. Kaposi’s sarcoma in HIV negative homosexual men. Lancet 1:168,1990.

Have you read this letter?
Friedman-Kien describes a rise in the prevalence of a benign form of KS in HIV- homosexual men compared to the dramatic rise in aggressive KS in HIV+ homosexual men. Since the publication of this letter the pathogen responsible for KS, HHV-8, has been discovered.

The prevalence of HHV-8 was and still is to a lesser degree much higher in homosexual men in the US. A higher incidence of KS is expected. In addition HIV infection dramatically increases the risk of developing KS. HAART is also an effective treatment for KS.

If you bothered to do a literature search under Friedman-Kien’s name you would find a number of articles that he has published since this time.

Even Harry Haverkos has accepted the role of HHV-8 and HIV in the causation of KS although he still appears to believe that popppers might play some role.

Have you read any of the literature on KS that hass come out in the last two decades? You appear to be stuck in the “rethinker” time warp in 1987.
#535 Chris Noble
March 11, 2007

Will you both explain to us how come even popper snorting HIV negative guys get KS?
18. Friedman-Kein AE,Saltzman BR,Cao Y,Mirabile M,Li JJ,Peterman TA. Kaposi’s sarcoma in HIV negative homosexual men. Lancet 1:168,1990.

When lincoln was perusing this edition of the Lancet he would have presumable read this article.

Kaposi’s sarcoma among persons with AIDS: a sexually transmitted infection?

Table 2 shows a number of cases of KS in AIDS patients in different risk groups including heterosexuals, IV drug users, transfusion recipients and haemophiliacs. This refutes the “rethinker” myth that these risk groups do not get KS.

Here’s a quote: Thuse the overall risk of Kaposi’s sarcoma in patients with AIDS is at least 20 000 times greater than that in the general population and 300 times greater than that in other immunosuppressed populations

And another: The occurence of Kaposi’s sarcom iin children and eledrly people with aprenterally transmitted HIV and in one-tenth of AIDS patients in Africa, where poppers are not used, suggests that poppers cannot account for the pattern of occurrence of Kaposi’s sarcoma in AIDS patients.
#536 Barry A
March 11, 2007

Sifting through the plethora of back and forth, I find these 2 claims by Mr. Noble to be good and clear:

1. HIV causes CD4 depletion. This is the single common factor in all cases of HIV/AIDS

2. There is nothing that says that the only cause of CD4 loss is HIV.

The first is perfect and needs no modification. A great, crystal clear claim. The second could probably be re-worded as:

2. CD4 cell loss has many causes, other than HIV.

Not wanting to stray too far, but the logical, scientific deduction from these two sentences is this:

If a patient tests HIV antibdy positive, and has a low CD4 cell count (~200-500/mm3), then one would need to rule out the other causes of CD4 cell decline, before stating that the HIV was the cause in fact of the CD4 decline in question, right?

Medically speaking, this would be a “differential diagnosis.”
#537 Chris Noble
March 11, 2007

Barry, differential diagnosis is for one person. This is different to establishing the cause of a sudden appearance of a specific syndrome of severe immune suppression.

Researchers evaluated a number of possible causes for this immune suppression. Known causes of immune suppresion including, chemotherapy, anti-rejection drugs etc were already excluded by this stage. A number of other factors such as drug use were considered and rejected because there was not a consistent relationship. The one factor that can explain all AIDS cases is HIV.

In addition to the tight correlation between HIV and AIDS there is direct evidence from animal models that SHIV and HIV can and do produce the exact type of immune suppression seen in AIDS.

I really fail to see where you are going with your insistence that all CD4 depeltion in each individual AIDS patient has to be proven to be due to HIV.

Do you apply the same levels of proof to other pathogens?
#538 Barry A
March 12, 2007

Barry, differential diagnosis is for one person.

Yes. We’ve had Kevin, Noreen, and Mark tell us about their individual stories. Lincoln has discussed some his friends/lovers. People are what matter, not abstractions.

This is different to establishing the cause of a sudden appearance of a specific syndrome of severe immune suppression.

Severe immune suppression is broader than CD4 cell decline, which, on average, remains asymptomatic for 10 years.

Known causes of immune suppresion including, chemotherapy, anti-rejection drugs etc were already excluded by this stage.

True, the first part. But “excluded”? By whom?

The one factor that can explain all AIDS cases is HIV.

False statement. I noted numerous cites above that show “clinical” AIDS without HIV.

1. Alterations in lymphocyte cell surface markers during various human infections.
–Williams et al, Am J Med. 1983 Nov;75(5):807-16.

2. CD4+ lymphocytopenia without HIV in patient with cryptococcal disease. Seligmann et al., Lancet, 1991,Jan 5;337(8732):57-8

3. Reduced CD4+ T cells and severe oral candidiasis in absence of HIV infection. Pankhurst et al., Lancet. 1989 Mar 25;1(8639):672.

4. CD4 lymphocytopenia without HIV in patient with cryptococcal infection. Jowitt et al., Lancet. 1991 Feb 23;337(8739):500-1

5. Acquired immunodeficiency without evidence of infection with human immunodeficiency virus types 1 — Laurence et al. Lancet. 1992 Aug 1;340(8814):273-4

6. Reduced CD4+ T cells and candidiasis in absence of HIV infection. Gatenby et al., Lancet. 1989 May 6;1(8645):1027-

7. Profound CD4+ lymphocytopenia in the absence of HIV infection in a patient with visceral leishmaniasis, Cozon et al. N Engl J Med. 1990 Jan 11;322(2):132.

In addition to the tight correlation between HIV and AIDS

Tight correlation is not causation.

I really fail to see where you are going with your insistence that all CD4 depeltion in each individual AIDS patient has to be proven to be due to HIV..

Because of the consequences of the treatment are so severe.

Do you apply the same levels of proof to other pathogens?

Yes.
#539 Chris Noble
March 12, 2007

Barry,
profound CD4 lymphocytopenia in the absence of HIV infection is extremely rare. It is so rare that if you do find a case that you can get it published. We are talking about 100s of cases in 20 years compared to the millions seen with HIV infection. Obviously to the individuals with ICL4 it is important but on the global scale it is insignificant.

Unexplained opportunistic infections and CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia without HIV infection. An investigation of cases in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control Idiopathic CD4+ T-lymphocytopenia Task Force.

This study yielded just 47 possible HIV- cases out of over 200,000!

“Despite intensive surveillance efforts, few persons with opportunistic infections or unexplained lymphocytopenia without HIV infection have been identified over the past decade.”

In most of these cases the nature of immune suppression can be distinguished from that caused by HIV. CD4 depletion in ICL4 is typically transient while a steady decline is seen in HIV/AIDS.

I am sorry, but to dismiss the role of HIV in AIDS because a fraction of a fraction of a percent of all cases of profound CD4 lymphocytopenia do not involve HIV is just plain silly.

Not all cases of hepatitis involve Hepatitis B or C. That doesn’t mean that it is not possible to say that Hepatitis B and C cause hepatitis.

Because of the consequences of the treatment are so severe.

Denying that HIV can and does cause AIDS does not help. Your concerns can be better addressed by attempting to establish why a small minority of people with HIV infection do not develop AIDS, when the best time if at all to start HAART and to find better less toxic therapies.

Yes.

I am sorry, but I don’t believe you. If you applied the same pathological level of “proof” to other pathogens then you would also be denying the whole “germ theory of disease”.
#540 Pope
March 12, 2007

Barry,

I’m afraid You won’t get any further along this path, unless you’re simply studying the mind of Dr. Noble and his denialist opponents, among whom you’ve now been placed and will continue to be placed no matter how neutral you attempt to be. The reason for this name caling should be clear to you by now: the HIV/AIDS edifice is so fragile that its defenders don’t feel they can afford to give even the “fraction of a fraction of a percent” of an inch Dr. Noble talks about. If you pull out just one HIV-free AIDS case from their untold thousands you’re pulling out the cornerstone from under the entire construction. Merely getting it into your gead to look for such a case makes you a denialist.

You must make up your own mind whether there exists a “fraction of a fraction of a percent” of HIV-free AIDS cases, because you will, for very good reasons, never get an admission that it’s even possible.

You won’t get much further trading studies either. There’s been an army of researchers labouring unceasingly to produce the kind of studies Dr. Noble and others will throw at you ever since the mid-eighties when it became the first Commandment of research funding that HIV causes AIDS.

As I’ve said previously, the correlation between so-called HIV and so-called AIDS has been manufactured for decades. It IS, therefore a strong correlation. Studying how the correlation came about and how it is maintained is what’s interesting at this point.
#541 Adele
March 12, 2007

Pope gets one thing right.
I’m afraid You won’t get any further along this path
But he gets the reason wrong.
You must make up your own mind whether there exists a “fraction of a fraction of a percent” of HIV-free AIDS cases, because you will, for very good reasons, never get an admission that it’s even possible.
The denialist insistence on “HIV-free AIDS” is unfortunate since AIDS by definition involves HIV. Why not just say HIV-free immune suppression?

Noble makes many good points that are grounded in the literature. His opponents including Barry dispute almost all of them. Even something as innocent as his claim that hepatitis B and C cause hepatitis is disputed by many denialists. They deliberately misquote one study from Justice et al at Pittsburgh to say protease inhibitors cause liver disease in HIV positive patients. Denialist is not a hate word, it is an accurate description of this mindset.
#542 pat
March 12, 2007

“The denialist insistence on “HIV-free AIDS” is unfortunate since AIDS by definition involves HIV. Why not just say HIV-free immune suppression?”

So HIV/AIDS is by “definition” a perfect corrolation.

“Denialist is not a hate word, it is an accurate description of this mindset.”

using words such as “denialist” is unworthy of scientists (and Ladies and gentlemen in general) since their vocation is the search for the truth. It should not be hard for intellectuals such as yourself to admitt that the truth behind HIV is indeed still evading us. The mechanism of this disease is still, TO THIS DAY unresolved and the only thing which points to HIV being the culprit is its corrolation, which by your own admission is perfect corrolation by definition. The only thing that seperates AIDS from general immune-suppression is the definition. An honest scientist would perhaps say that we are “pretty damn sure” about HIV/AIDS but would certainly refrain from taking cock-sure positions seeing they haven’t figured the thing out and by extention would also refrain from piling into character assassination of those who honestly disagree. No one should be allowed to get away with calling people such as Duesberg a “denialist”. This man happens simply to be in scientific disagreement with most of his collegues. He is by definition IN DISAGREEMENT, not IN DENIAL. I am afraid that you and many others are perhaps the “denialist” because you deny your own doubts, which you should have, as scientists…at least until you have SEEN what this bug actually does. “Denialist” is passive agressive and thus, by its usage in the context of any discussion about HIV/AIDS, is indeed a hate word. It is dishonest and distracting from the subject of the disagreement as it turns the discussion away from the message and makes it about the character of the messenger. Some of you might have heard the one about not shooting the messenger but it is certainly not practiced much in this particular circle of “savants”. I do direct my tirades at science because it is scientists I am supposed to trust and not the average joe-blogger but unfortunately for me a lot of that trust gets destroyed everytime scientists take absolutist positions when their own science tells them they can not. Take Rodrigez for example (with apologies to Wic. Oh, and if Wic should choose to take a position on this perhaps he will make it about the content of my post and not about me) He writes in his conclusion this sentence:
“Other factors, as yet undefined, likely drive CD4 cell losses in HIV infection” Here he is expressing scientific doubt about the actual effect of HIV on CD 4 loss. One must always keep questioning ones own convictions lest one looses sight of the road and this is for all, not only scientists. I strongly urge you to brush up Socrates and the Oracle of Delphi. Socrates concludes he is the wisest only insofar as:
“that what I don’t know, I don’t think I know.”
We don’t KNOW that HIV causes AIDS, we THINK it does…which leaves lots of room for doubt and most importantly agreeable disagreement.
#543 Kevin
March 12, 2007

Barry, differential diagnosis is for one person. This is different to establishing the cause of a sudden appearance of a specific syndrome of severe immune suppression. — Chris igNoble

It’s only different for those foolish caregivers who have already made up there minds about a “diagnosis”. Barry’s point is spot-on, and I, like many others, would have been spared a lot of pain and suffering had my bumbling doctors used the logic of differential diagnosis to address each of my health problems as they occurred. As is the case with most AIDS cases, there may be a sudden noticeable decline in health, but the diagnosis of a “syndrome”, as you put it, is a bit premature and should only be made after several immune episodes occur, which usually requires years, or in the least, months. Therefore, your wording is typically self-serving, i.e. “establishing the cause of a sudden appearance of a specific syndrome of severe immune suppression” is an incongruous, if not meaningless, statement since the method by which HIV “causes” a “sudden” “syndrome” has not been proven.

Once again, Chris, you happily distort the clinical reality and affirm your predisposition to assign blame to HIV without first demonstrating the method of causation — all of this in lieu of actually treating the acute symptoms. It’s criminal. As someone who suffered so because of such ignorance, I am completely nauseated.

Kevin
#544 Kevin
March 12, 2007

A number of other factors such as drug use were considered and rejected because there was not a consistent relationship. The one factor that can explain all AIDS cases is HIV.

All AIDS cases, Chris? Are you sure that you stand by that statement?

For the jury to consider, I offer:

I had “AIDS” and the only consistent relationship that I had, with any of the factors under consideration including HIV, was frequent use of antibiotics. You may be satisfied with the notion that such factors were properly considered and properly rejected, but I am living proof that there may be more to consider. I am now in excellent health and I’ve gotten to this point, only after eliminating the “drug use”, along with improving my nutrition, etc, essentially, by following all of the recommendations made by rethinkers.

Your “one factor” to explain “all AIDS” cases is laughably incomplete.

Kevin
#545 Adele
March 12, 2007

I’m not wedded to the term denialist, shall we call you intellectual superheroes instead? From now on I will. It doesn’t change the fact that whatever valid points you have derive entirely from the work of actual skeptical scientists all but one or two of whom are convinced that HIV causes AIDS. Denying this as Duesberg does means that you are in denial.

Duesberg is probably the best equipped intellectual superhero and so he should see his errors. He has to ignore or distort data to preserve his viral world view and he does that on multiple occasions. Maybe he does it unconsciously but it doesn’t look like it to me. It’s really sad for the whole intellectual superhero movement.
#546 Adele
March 12, 2007

Yes, HIV/AIDS is a perfect correlation. So is Hepatitis B-induced hepatitis, Pneumocystis-induced PCP, etc.
HIV is NOT found in all cases of immune suppression, but is found in AIDS.
Heptatitis B is NOT found in all cases of hepatitis, but is found in those caused by Hep B.
Pneumocystis organisms are NOT found in all cases of pneumonia, but is found in PCP. There is no such thing as Pneumocystis-free PCP or HIV-free AIDS.
#547 Kevin
March 12, 2007

Yes, HIV/AIDS is a perfect correlation. — Adele

Is that right, Adele? Then you should have no trouble answering the following:

How perfect do you think HIV’s correlation to AIDS would be if the cause of death listed for HIV-positives was recorded based on the acute illness from which they actually died, and not simply listed as the nebulous “complications fue to AIDS”?

What does that say about your perfect correlation, Adele? Can you not see the problem here? If I had died from PCP, my cause of death would have been listed as “PCP”, but if I had been HIV-positive and died when I had that pneumonia, my death would most certainly have been recorded as “from complications due to AIDS” or the even more nebulous, “from complications due to advanced HIV disease.”

It’s real easy to maintain such a perfect correlation employing duplicitous techniques. I think Pope was right when he said, “Studying how the correlation came about and how it is maintained is what’s interesting at this point.”
__________________________

“Denialist” is passive agressive… It is dishonest and distracting from the subject of the disagreement as it turns the discussion away from the message and makes it about the character of the messenger.

Nice post, Pat.

At first, I thought I just had imcompentent doctors, but after reasearching and learning about the details of the rethinker position, I came to realize just how thoroughly bankrupt, both scientifically and morally, the apologist position really is. The constant character assassinations are evidence to that effect and completely out-of-line with the practice of good science, as you’ve well-described, Pat.

Kevin
#548 noreen
March 12, 2007

There have been some good points made by the rethinkers above. I have a pinced nerve causing me great pain and yet the attending physician is concerned about my CD4′s. What does that have to do with the price of rice in China? It’s all part of the problem. Anytime a HIV+ or AIDS person has anything, it is immediately blamed on the “virus”. And whether one believes in HIV or not, there are certainly better treatment options than the anti-virals. I would encourage anyone who wants to know about them to purchase my book at iuniverse entitled, Surviving AIDS & Cancer. Incidentally, my blood reports are remarkedly better after stopping the anti-virals than being on them.
#549 Pope
March 12, 2007

“The denialist insistence on “HIV-free AIDS” is unfortunate since AIDS by definition involves HIV. Why not just say HIV-free immune suppression?” (Adele)

So HIV/AIDS is by “definition” a perfect correlation?
(Pat)

Haha… Yes why not indeed say HIV-free immuno-suppression and get it over with?

There you all have it in plain sight, the meme. With defenders like Adele who needs rethinker superheroes to prove that HIV/AIDS is an unscientific construct.

HIV causes AIDS because HIV causes AIDS per definition. Not even a tortured macaque can argue with that.

But although Adele has already given the whole game away for all to see, my point was, as Kevin notes, that I think it’s well worth the effort to study the many ways the correlation between HIV and AIDS has been manufactured apart from the semantics.

I’ve already linked the article by Rodney Richards regarding the HIV tests on ‘You Bet Your Life’. Another excellent article showing how the science goes hand in hand with the semantics is Neville Hodgkinson’s “The Circular Reasoning Scandal Of HIV”

http://www.immunity.org.uk/nh_circular.htm
#550 Chris Noble
March 12, 2007

More papal bullThe reason for this name caling should be clear to you by now: the HIV/AIDS edifice is so fragile that its defenders don’t feel they can afford to give even the “fraction of a fraction of a percent” of an inch Dr. Noble talks about. If you pull out just one HIV-free AIDS case from their untold thousands you’re pulling out the cornerstone from under the entire construction. Merely getting it into your gead to look for such a case makes you a denialist.

It has been the “orthodox” scientists that have gone out of their way to attempt to find cases of CD4 lymphocytopenia without HIV infection what you describe as “HIV-free AIDS” cases. After an extensive search only a few cases that bear a resemblance to the disease seen in HIV/AIDS have been found. This should tell you something. They are the exceptions that prove the rule. Yes, there are a few cases of immune suppression that looks like AIDS without HIV infection bbut they are no more proof that HIV does not cause AIDS than a few people surviving a jump from an airplane without a parachute are proof that the theory of gravity is false.

The basic “rethinker” argument boils down to the assertion that if there is less that a 100% correlation between a pattern of acquired immune suppression resembling AIDS and HIV infection that this casts the whole theory into doubt. This is simply stupid.

The relationship is extremely close to 100%. There are a very few cases of immune suppression that resemble HIV/AIDS where the cause is not known.

Many of the “rethinkers” here keep on repeating the calim that the only evidence for HIV causing AIDS is correlation. This is bullshit.

If you can manage to forget the near 100% correlation between HIV infection and the particular pattern of immune suppression seen in AIDS then you still have to explain the amazing coincidence that HIV infects the very subset of T-cells that are depleted in AIDS.

You can be as skeptical as you want but you aslo have to come up with plausible explanations for the correlation and the coincidence that HIV infects CD4 cells.

We also have animal models. SCIDhu mice are mice with a human immune system. They have human CD4 cells. Infect them with HIV and lo and behold CD4 cell depletion is observed. Amazing coincidence? SHIV is basically HIV with some of the proteins responsible for the tropism of the virus changed so that they will infect macaques. If you infect macaques with SHIV then lo and behold you see CD4 depletion. Amazaing coincidence?

So far none of the “rethinkers” here or elsewhere have managed to come up with plausible explanations for these amazing coincidences. So far all we have are pathetic ad hoc excuses like claiming that the scientist who do these experiments are stupid, ignorant or just lying. Lincoln invents scenarios where stress causes the macaques to get SAIDS and ignores the controls not infected with SIV or SHIV that do not get SAIDS.

The important aspect is that “rethinkers” do not provide viable alternative theories. All they do is attempt to dismiss or deny the evidence that HIV causes AIDS. In this respsect they are not skeptics or rethinkers. They aren’t rethinking anything. The only thing that they do is deny.
#551 DT
March 12, 2007

Barry, Chris asked you whether you applied the same levels of proof to other pathogens as you do to HIV. You said “Yes”.

So how do you “prove” the following (since when the disease is present the correlating infective agent is clearly not the only possible cause)?

Pneumococcus -> pneumonia?
Meningococcus -> meningitis?
E. coli -> UTI?
Rhinovirus -> URTI?
Hepatitis A, or B, or C, or D, or E, or F, or G -> hepatitis?
Coxsackie -> myocarditis?
Herpes simplex -> encephalitis?
Haemophilus -> otitis?
(I could go on….)

Perhaps you could pick just one single example above and demonstrate for us why you think the pathogen does not cause the disease.
#552 DT
March 12, 2007

Barry, you say:
“False statement. I noted numerous cites above that show “clinical” AIDS without HIV.”

You then give a very short list of a few published cases of AIDS-defining illnesses occuring in people with low CD4 counts who are HIV-negative.

Please give this a moment’s thought….

Why do you think a single case report of, say, Cryptococcus in an HIV negative individual gets published in a medical journal?

Is it because:
(a) It is so unusual as to merit publication as a clinical rarity? or
(b) It is so common the authors couldn’t be bothered writing up a series of all 2000 cases they have seen to demonstrate how common it is, and hoped the journal would accept that a single case would be quite sufficient (which their peer reviewers fortunately did)?

Please answer truthfully now…
#553 Chris Noble
March 12, 2007

More papal bull:HIV causes AIDS because HIV causes AIDS per definition. Not even a tortured macaque can argue with that.

Either you haven’t read the Ascher paper I cited or you are simply being disingenuous.

The AIDS diagnosis in that study was made without respect to HIV status. There is no circular reasoning. Nevertheless, none of the HIV- subjects got AIDS whether they were heavy popper/drug users or light/none drug users. Only HIV positive subjects got AIDS (diagnosed without respect to HIV status).

The review aricle on ICL that I cited intensively examined all cases of immune suppression resembling HIV/AIDS and could only find a handful that were not infected with HIV out of more than 200,000.

The correlation exists whether you like it or not. It won’t go away if you use specious arguments about circular reasoning. It demands an explanation which “rethinkers” fail to provide. Even the Perth Group agree that there is a correlation between testing HIV+ and getting AIDS. They go on to say that if they accept the existence of HIV then they are forced to admit that HIV causes AIDS.

The only alternative explanation that they give is that somehow oxidative stress that supposedly causes AIDS also causes the human genome to spontaneously rearrange to from sequences that resemble lentivirus genes which then produce lentivirus proteins and generate antibodies. This is simply an ad hoc, implausible theory saving manoeveur.
#554 lincoln
March 13, 2007

To me, as a gay man, whom has been deeply affected by the HIV or NOT HIV issue, I could not care less what many of you think. I know what I have experienced with so many people that I have known and loved.

It seems to me, that this issue takes us right to the edge of the mind/body connection. My experiences in the gay community with those so diagnosed or those who suffered death by what is called AIDS was a major wake-up call to instigating my own search for highest truth.

The mainstream does not seem to me to have very solid science on it being as simple as acquiring a virus that somehow, yet unknown, causes ones immune system to fail to function.

What I have seen, is the emotional toll on the HIV diagnosed, leading to extreme stress from apathy and constant nagging fear, that seems to take the largest toll on gay mens health. Add to that the effects of some of the most toxic drugs such as AZT, and you have the disaster we saw 10 years ago wherein those given high dosages of AZT lasted for 8 months to a year and a half on average.

What is the physical effect of believing that one’s self has a virus that will slowly take your life? What effect does the belief itself have? In my experience, the effect of the belief is far greater than the effect of any viral challenge! The constant fear, and feeling like a leper that can never love or have sex again can drive one mad, and leave one so rattled that ones immune system is failing to thrive.

Add to that the fact that gays were and sometimes still are loathed by their family and churches. All of this takes a great toll on ones desire to live and ones will to live. Without a desire or will to live, how long will one last?

Oftentimes, finding oneself to be gay, can be so traumatizing and devastating, that many gays often have deep rooted death wishes wherein they themselves simply wish to die to escape from the often emotionally devastating feelings that can often be a major part of many gay mens lives. What part in illness does a personal death wish play?

Add to that the self destructive behaviors of drug and alcohol abuse and often sex addiction that many in such a stressed population succumbs to, and add to that the overuse of antibiotics for all of the std that ones sexual addiction can lead to.

The antibiotics leave ones system wide open to fungal takeover once the gut flora are so disturbed or decimated by antibiotics.

And add to that the very medications that destroy cellular reproduction, which is crucial in many parts of the body such as in the gut.

It is obvious to me, that the issue of AIDS in gay men is not a simple virus, but far more complex and involving emotional and seemingly even spiritual factors as well, as gay men are most definitely cutoff from spiritual well being or spiritual relief, as they are so often rejected by religions.

And in Africa and many poor parts of the stressed and overpopulated world, without hygience, clean water, and good nutrition, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand why disease and illness flourish in such conditions. Without addressing these basic conditions necessary to support life, what good will toxic pills do?

Not a simple issue at all. Perhaps this is why no simple medication has ever worked either. Especially when the pills offered are well known for toxicity to the liver, kidneys, heart, as well as the cause of lipodystrophy, neuralgia, and many other intense and often deadly side effects.

I do not know or care what others take on all of this is, but to me it is most assuredly not just a simple issue of a simple virus that is at the crux of this issue.
#555 Pope
March 13, 2007

I’ll reproduce the central point in Neville Hodgkinson’s piece, so we all know what we’re talking about

“There is an association between testing HIV-positive and risk of developing Aids. This is the main reason why scientists believe HIV is the cause of Aids. But the link is artificial, a consequence of the way the test kits were made.

It never proved possible to validate the tests by culturing, purifying and analysing particles of the purported virus from patients who test positive, then demonstrating that these are not present in patients who test negative. This was despite heroic efforts to make the virus reveal itself in patients with Aids or at risk of Aids, in which their immune cells were stimulated for weeks in laboratory cultures using a variety of agents.

After the cells had been activated in this way, HIV pioneers found some 30 proteins in filtered material that gathered at a density characteristic of retroviruses. They attributed some of these to various parts of the virus. But they never demonstrated that these so-called “HIV antigens” belonged to a new retrovirus.

So, out of the 30 proteins, how did they select the ones to be defined as being from HIV? The answer is shocking, and goes to the root of what is probably the biggest scandal in medical history. They selected those that were most reactive with antibodies in blood samples from Aids patients and those at risk of Aids.

This means that “HIV” antigens are defined as such not on the basis of being shown to belong to HIV, but on the basis that they react with antibodies in Aids patients. Aids patients are then diagnosed as being infected with HIV on the basis that they have antibodies which react with those same antigens. The reasoning is circular.” (Hodgkinson)

Since this illustrious beginning it has just been a matter of the ‘natural evolution’ of the tests. The PCR viral load tests that are said to confirm the antibody tests are being ‘refined’ in much the same way. That is, one tests the PCR kits against people one has decided have AIDS. If it comes up negative, the manufacturer sets about’improving’ the test to make it more sensitive (inclusive). Through this constant improvement using the target group AIDS patients or the antibody tests as the gold standard, one will necessarily achieve better and better correlation regardles of the ontological status of the putative virus or the real causes of AIDS.

There’s been some talk about animal models here lately. This is also a circular argument. One looks around for a virus in any animal that seems to produce the goods using the same standards of isolation and purification that was introduced for HIV. If none is found, one resorts to cross species infections in the lab with different viral fomulae until one succeeds in making the animals sick. That virus is then called an ‘Immuno-deficiency Virus’, its effects are called ‘AIDS’ and voila! you have an animal model.

This feat is supposed to prove HIV and nothing else causes AIDS in humans.

Firstly we see it is argument by analogy. Secondly we see the conclusion is yet again part of the premise, since these animal models never set out to challenge the HIV/AIDS hypothesis. One has simply decided in advance that if one manages to make the animals sick by infection with one’s virus of choice those animals have AIDS per definition. If the animals get sick from something non-viral, it is not AIDS regardless of symptoms. if they don’t get sick, one changes either the formula or the host.
#556 Chris Noble
March 13, 2007

There’s been some talk about animal models here lately. This is also a circular argument. One looks around for a virus in any animal that seems to produce the goods using the same standards of isolation and purification that was introduced for HIV. If none is found, one resorts to cross species infections in the lab with different viral fomulae until one succeeds in making the animals sick. That virus is then called an ‘Immuno-deficiency Virus’, its effects are called ‘AIDS’ and voila! you have an animal model.

Who are you trying to convince with this tripe?
Certainly not people that have read the literature that you are trying to dismiss.

I will concede that some of the “rethinkers” are sincere in their believes however mistaken they may be but it is difficult to believe that you are anything else than a troll.
#557 Shalini
March 13, 2007

[This is also a circular argument.]

And yours is merely a straw-man argument.
#558 pat
March 13, 2007

Thank you Adele for your honesty and divulging that you actually mean to be disparaging. You fully believe that Duesberg KNOWS he is wrong but for some dishonest reason insists he is right (perhaps to sell books?)

“If you can manage to forget the near 100% correlation between HIV infection and the particular pattern of immune suppression seen in AIDS then you still have to explain the amazing coincidence that HIV infects the very subset of T-cells that are depleted in AIDS.”-Chris

It does appear that your are the last person on this planet to believe HIV infects and directly kills CD4 cells. Apart from you perhaps, no one can explain how a retrovirus that only infects between 1 in 500 to 1 in 10’000 cells kills them all. You seem to not care at all that: “Other factors, as yet undefined, likely drive CD4 cell losses in HIV infection” To you this means HIV infects and kills CD4.

“You can be as skeptical as you want but you aslo have to come up with plausible explanations for the correlation and the coincidence that HIV infects CD4 cells.”-Chris

“We also have animal models. SCIDhu mice are mice with a human immune system. They have human CD4 cells. Infect them with HIV and lo and behold CD4 cell depletion is observed. Amazing coincidence? SHIV is basically HIV with some of the proteins responsible for the tropism of the virus changed so that they will infect macaques. If you infect macaques with SHIV then lo and behold you see CD4 depletion. Amazaing coincidence?”

Just by reading what you wrote I would propose that this coincidence is, as you say, manufactured: “SHIV is basically HIV with some of the proteins responsible for the tropism of the virus changed so that they will infect macaques”

That is like pouring cyanide into beer to prove that alcohol kills.

Just for the record:
“In people, HIV leads to Aids but chimps have a version called simian immune deficiency virus that causes them no harm. Humans are the only animals naturally susceptible to HIV.”- http://www.iolhivaids.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=1598&fArticleId=3264521

So of all the Immune Deficiency viruses out there only HIV is harmfull to its natural hosts; all others need to be re-engineered to cause illness. This is like rivers flowing uphill and taking the path of greatest resistance. Re-engineering foreign viruses to prove the deadliness of another instead of wondering WHY all these “cousins” are harmless in the first place. Perhaps because you can’t sell ARV’s to creatures who don’t naturally have bank accounts.
#559 Dale
March 13, 2007

Re-engineering foreign viruses to prove the deadliness of another instead of wondering WHY all these “cousins” are harmless in the first place. Perhaps because you can’t sell ARV’s to creatures who don’t naturally have bank accounts.

… or perhaps because the chimp population has co-evolved with SIV for a sufficient period of time that genes associated with resistance are now predominant. Chimps are mostly LTNPs.
#560 Adele
March 13, 2007

Pat, I don’t mean to disparage anyone. I’m just saying you can’t selectively quote from the literature like Duesberg without knowing what you’re doing. You can’t understand basic chemistry and say a mouse study with AZT uses concentrations comparable to what AIDS patients got in the late 80s, when the mouse actually got as much PER KILOGRAM of body weight as the entire dose given to the humans. You don’t truncate a sentence from some study you’re quoting so it has a completely different meaning, and then claim you just didn’t see the last part of that sentence. You can’t meticulously misrepresent data, leaving out the details that screw your point, without doing it on purpose. Duesberg has done all of this. If you want chapter and verse I’ll give it to you eventually but I’m busy and this isn’t worth my time.

Lincoln:
The antibiotics leave ones system wide open to fungal takeover once the gut flora are so disturbed or decimated by antibiotics.
It’s interesting. Recent work on gut associated lymphoid tissues where most t-cells are shows it gets wiped out w/in days of HIV infection. A big finding. When someone’s on antibiotics before getting infected it seems the immune system activation isn’t as drastic so the person’s peripheral T-cell decline isn’t as sharp. Maybe antibiotics aren’t so bad after all.
#561 Kevin
March 13, 2007

I will concede that some of the “rethinkers” are sincere in their believes however mistaken they may be but it is difficult to believe that you are anything else than a troll.

To the contrary, Chris, I certainly don’t think our Pope is a troll. If anyone is a troll, it is you. You’ve been trolling every online forum that deals with this issue for years and when someone exposes your weak arguments you resort to name-calling. Although one can find numerous examples in this thread, you’ve left quite a trail of evidence on various sites which support that fact.

On the other hand, Pope’s analysis is usually straight-forward and free from character attacks. That’s because his contributions are based on truth. You, however, can not make such a claim for you don’t appear to care about the truth, so long as HIV’s status is assured. Once again, you’ve left quite a trail of evidence in support of this character flaw, too. You constantly refer to “the literature” as though it were the ‘holy word’ of god, even though it has been sufficiently demonstrated that much of “the literature” is based on circular reasoning and therefore, of suspect value.

With that in mind, I found the following from Pope’s quote to be of particular signifigance:

Through this constant improvement using the target group AIDS patients or the antibody tests as the gold standard, one will necessarily achieve better and better correlation regardles of the ontological status of the putative virus or the real causes of AIDS.

Without a gold standard, even the correlation that many rethinkers are willing to afford to HIV is of suspect value. After all, it is very important to have a clear understanding of each individual correlative when trying to establish a mutual relationship — to say nothing of the infinitely higher standards for establishing causation. Consequently, the charge of circular reasoning, levied by Hodgkinson, is not a singular charge, it can be levied justifiably against the “science” supporting HIV at nearly every juncture.

Btw, if Adele is a typical representative of the scientists manufacturing and/or studying SIV, I think one can justifiably question the import of that research, prima facie. Of course, there are many other reasons to reject manufactured diseases like SIV and the following from Pope provides insight into at least one such reason:

Secondly we see the conclusion is yet again part of the premise, since these animal models never set out to challenge the HIV/AIDS hypothesis.

Once again, it is very difficult to conduct “good science” when an outcome is so conspicuously predetermined.

Kevin
#562 Adele
March 13, 2007

Pat, you mentioned T-cells. About 60% of T-cells maybe more, in the gut are infected and 80% die.
Back to Duesberg: at least you get the peripheral blood numbers approximately right–1 in 100 to 1 in 10,000 infected. See, Duesberg always picks the end of the estimate he likes the best. So he just says 1 in 10,000, then it becomes fewer than 1 in 10,000, then other people take it and run.
#563 Pope
March 13, 2007

The correlation between HI-virus (by culture) and patients has never been strong. In Gallo’s initial study HIV could be cultured from 36% of the AIDS patients and 86% of ‘pre-AIDS’ individuals.

It was therefore decided that antibodies, identified the way described by Neville Hodgkinson, were proof of current infection. This guaranteed a much better correlation between AIDS patients and HIV than the virus itself (by culture) could deliver. The correlation was never between HIV and patient, but between antibodies and patient.

But in the early years this produced a far too high correlation between antibodies and healthy individuals, also known as false-positives.

A strictly interpreted WB helped minimizing this problem. Unfortunately the opposite problem then arose; a poor correlation between positive antibody test and patients diagnosed with clinical AIDS, also known as false-negatives.

This problem was solved by adopting less strict antibody test criteria for patients already symptomatic with AIDS defining conditions than those applied to asymptomatic individuals. In other words, one simply applied different test standards to different groups of people to achieve the desired correlation.

By 1993 it seems some kind of equilibrium had been established between scoring the maximum number of patients with clinical AIDS positive on the antibody test while not having a unacceptably high number of healthy false-positives. This delicate balancing act of course means that the interpretive criteria for a positive antibody test differ between countries and labs around the world. Small price to pay for a strong correlation between antibody and AIDS in the marked absence of the virus itself.

Those remaining false-positives individuals, as defined by the antibody-clinical AIDS correlation, who don’t succumb to Lincoln’s Acquired Stress Syndrome, are now pronounced ‘elite controllers’, ‘genetic deviants’, or held forth as proof of the miraculous effects of the new ARV cocktails

For the false-negatives, necessarily a much smaller group, since antibody tests aim at inclusiveness, there’s ICL.

And if none of this satisfies, there’s always the circular logic of the definition which makes HIV part of AIDS to fall back on.

There’s Dr. Noble’s perfect correlation between HIV and AIDS for you.

[I have not bothered referencing, since most of this info is found in Hodgkinson's and Rodney Richard's articles, which I have already referenced above]
#564 lincoln
March 13, 2007

The defenders of HIV causing AIDS, seem to all have gone to the same school of scientific research as Robert Gallo.

This school is of the belief that by simply writing or shouting something often enough somehow makes it true.

Well, as Robert Gallo is finding out, it does not make it true.

Perhaps some of weaker minds and intimidated spirits can be led into believing anything. But not all of the people in the world have such weak minds, although I would tender it to be the majority.

It had long ago been said that All of the people can be fooled some of the time, and some of the people can be fooled all of the time, but

All of the people can NOT be fooled all of the time.
#565 Adele
March 13, 2007

Amazing, you intellectual superheroes! That’s the best you can do? Going back 25 years to a paper before HIV was even named, the only good way of looking for it was coculture, and (shock!) less than 100% of patients had virus culturable under the imperfect conditions used at the time?
Speaking of “writing or shouting something often enough.” The intellectual superhero movement needs a database of all their quotes and a random generator. That way, you guys could comment without effort and use your time for something else. Like maybe reading a virology textbook.
#566 noreen
March 13, 2007

I love Dr. Rebecca Culshaw’s quote, “The rate of CD4 decline is not a predictor of AIDS. See why I quit HIV?”
Everyone knows that I have AIDS, maybe Chris Noble or others from the mainstream point of view can explain how I am extremely healthy with CD4′s at 86?
#567 Chris Noble
March 13, 2007

Adele wrote:Speaking of “writing or shouting something often enough.” The intellectual superhero movement needs a database of all their quotes and a random generator. That way, you guys could comment without effort and use your time for something else. Like maybe reading a virology textbook.

They have actually done some of this. The random generator bit is still at the manual stage although it is difficult to tell with some of them.

AIDS quotes

I have found a lot of instances where the “rethinker” has simply copied and pasted from these out of context quotes without actually reading the articles from which they are taken.
#568 Chris Noble
March 13, 2007

Noreen, with all due respect your personal example is hardly support for the “rethinker” position.

According to your own testimony your CD4 counts have been steadily falling over time. The rate of CD4 depletion appears to be doing a very good job of predicting future loss so I would not attempt to get consolation from Culshaw’s soundbite.

On average low CD4 counst are extremely good predictors for risk of opportunistic infections. The lower the CD4 count the higher the risk. Having low CD4 counts does not mean that you currently have an opportunistic infection anymore than high blood pressure means you have heart disease.

High blood pressure has no symptoms. You feel perfectly healthy. It is ridiculous however to deny that high blood pressure is the strongest risk factor for heart disease. Likewise there are no direct symptoms from low CD4 counts just a higher risk of opportunistic infections.

I sincerely hope that you remain well for many, many years however denial is not the best solution. I hope that if you do come down with opportunistic infections in the future that you rethink all of your options. It is certainly your choice to do whatever you think is best.
#569 noreen
March 13, 2007

My options are working just fine and that is LDN which would be a better drug of choice for all immune deficient persons. It is a wonderful drug which is keeping me and many others alive and healthy but unfortunately it will only bring the drug companies $20.00/month vs. 1,200/month from anti-virals. Is it any wonder that this drug is not being pushed. Oh, by the way, it does not have any side effects unlike the AIDS meds. So, you tell me who is in denial!
#570 lincoln
March 13, 2007

Random quote generator “ON”.

It’s not even probable, let alone scientifically proven, that HIV causes AIDS. If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There are no such documents.”

The HIV-causes-AIDS theory is one hell of a mistake.

Years from now, people will find our acceptance of the HIV theory of AIDS as silly as we find those who excommunicated Galileo.

Where is the research that says HIV is the cause of AIDS? There are 10,000 people in the world now who specialize in HIV. None has any interest in the possibility HIV doesn’t cause AIDS because if it doesn’t, their expertise is useless.

People keep asking me, ‘You mean you don’t believe that HIV causes AIDS?’ And I say, ‘Whether I believe it or not is irrelevant! I have no scientific evidence for it.’ I might believe in God, and He could have told me in a dream that HIV causes AIDS. But I wouldn’t stand up in front of scientists and say, ‘I believe HIV causes AIDS because God told me.’ I’d say, ‘I have papers here in hand and experiments that have been done that can be demonstrated to others.’ It’s not what somebody believes, it’s experimental proof that counts. And those guys don’t have that.

If you think a virus is the cause of AIDS, do a control without it. To do a control is the first thing you teach undergraduates. But it hasn’t been done. The epidemiology of AIDS is a pile of anecdotal stories selected to the virus-AIDS hypothesis. People don’t bother to check the details of popular dogma or consensus views.
#571 Roy Hinkley
March 13, 2007

I find the irony of Lincoln’s most recent post,… delicious!

“People don’t bother to check the details of popular dogma or consensus views.

“Years from now, people will find our acceptance of the HIV theory of AIDS as silly as we find those who excommunicated Galileo.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/galileo/science.html

One day lincoln you really should dig into the fundamentals of what you ‘know’.
#572 DT
March 14, 2007

Galileo, huh?

The old denialist canard – Galileo was right and people disbelieved him. because people ridicule the denialists’ ridiculous concepts about HIV, they must therefore be correct – logical fallacy at it’s best.

I find the irony of quoting Lyn Margulis’ late husband on the topic equally delicious:

“The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the clown.”

Lincoln, you guys are the Bozos.
#573 Adele
March 14, 2007

Chris tells us
I have found a lot of instances where the “rethinker” has simply copied and pasted from these out of context quotes without actually reading the articles from which they are taken.
They should be more careful, or they’ll look like Bozo.
Since Noreen quoted Superheroine Culshaw, it’s only fair to look at erv’s site: endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com
for another taxpayer-funded knee-slapper from the University of Texas at Tyler.
#574 ERV
March 14, 2007

They should be more careful, or they’ll look like Bozo.
Since Noreen quoted Superheroine Culshaw, it’s only fair to look at erv’s site: endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com
for another taxpayer-funded knee-slapper from the University of Texas at Tyler.

To be fair, I should say something about having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent…
Thanks for noticing!
#575 FIRSTBLOOD
June 1, 2007

Yo Abby this is off topic a bit here but YOU of all of the “Dogmatists” here at Tara Smiths blog spot realize that Galileo was a D I S S I D E N T?

and…………..that the “Flat Earthers” were the Scientific/Religious Bozoz like yourselves?

cmon Help me out here Abb we got give Chris Noble the News Flash!
#576 FIRSTBLOOD
June 1, 2007

Tara Smith! I am so disappointed in you.

Associating “Witch doctors” and Voodoo with Denialism shame on you! are you into witch craft?
#577 St. Pete of St. Petersburg
August 3, 2007

Allow me first to say I am very ignorant on this subject. I have several questions but after reading the above statements I feel more than aprehensive. It’s easy to pick apart what a person says and frame them a fool. Everyone needs to feel smart, everyone needs to feel heard, and saddly everyone at times needs a kicking dog. It seems to me that even the best of us at times kicks each other to be heard and the smarter the dog we kick the smarter we feel afterward. In some cases as I’ve read your emotions overcome your judgement. Try hard in your debates to leave your emotions at the proverbial door.

I tattoo for a living and lately I have tattooed friends who have HIV and were too afraid to enter the usual studio. I am honored they trust me and my cleanliness. I never put much thought into HIV or AIDS until recently and ofcourse the more I ponder the more questions I have. They do not seem intersted in maintaining a conversation with me on the subject so out of politeness I keep my questions to myself. Especially since these seem like dumb questions to ask.

Is it true that a French pharmacutical company introduced HIV into African villigers during the great Polio vacsination by using the kidneys of chimpanzees which were infected with SIV? Have they made any headway in curing SIV in chimps? Have any lawsuits been brought against said French company?
Is it true they have identified the DNA sequence that keeps people who have HIV from developing AIDS? If so, why can’t they duplicate this sequence and administer it to those who have been infected with HIV? (this is part of a rumor that the wealthy can afford this “cure” – for a lack of a better word.)

Alright pick it apart. With out any help I’m sure I sound foolish enough though. If I have offended anyone I am trully sorry and I apologize.
#578 cooler
August 3, 2007

You should see the film hiv fact or fraud on google to see a good summary of the dissident scientists like Duesbergs views.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5064591712431946916

There are other microbes out there that are probably a lot more dangerous, like mycoplasma incognitus, Dr shyh ching Lo, a brilliant scientist who is the cheif of infectious pathology at the armed forces discovered it and it sickened/ killed every animal he injected, this doesnt happen with hiv, its found by PCR in AIDS, CFS etc and was part probably part of the bioweapons program. This book is riveting on the subject.
http://www.projectdaylily.com/
#579 Michael
August 3, 2007

Hello Pete, and welcome to the “healthy scepticism required to understand HIV or AIDS”.

There have been so many conspiracy theories about HIV, and none of them are provable. It is usually useless to even consider them, when simple human error in mistaken beliefs and the foibles of human ego go so much farther as explanations in explaining why people get ill with what is called AIDS.

For a beginner lesson on the dissident side of the issue, I would recommend you read a short and simple book that was recently released called “Science Sold Out” by Rebecca Culshaw, available on Amazon. You can read it in an hour and a half.

In the book, she explains the reasons for strongly suspecting that the theory that HIV causes AIDS is considered highly flawed.

As a member of the gay community for 30 years who has seen the “AIDS Epidemic” close up, my own sincere beliefs are that of mass hysteria combined with high stress, such as the stress of an HIV diagnosis, contribute greatly to Psychosomatic Stress that induces a lowering of functioning of the thymus gland, which therefore depresses immune function, leaving one vulnerable to whatever opportunistic infctions are common in the individuals environment.

Drug addiction, sex addiction with its associated std’s and followed by lots of antibiotic use, and the toxicity of the AIDS drugs are highly contributory to health problems of those diagnosed as HIV. But the greatest contributor seems to me to be stress. The diagnosis can give one a deadly amount of stress all by itself.

Primary AIDS opportunistic infections vary completely from group to group. None of the susceptible groups get anywhere near the same infections or illnesses.

HIV tests have been proven to be highly flawed. There is much money at stake both pharmaceutically, and research wise.

Many many billions of dollars, which can influence thinking and science greatly when following only a certain path of belief is required if one is to make their living in the field.

But again, these are simply my own views after researching this myself for many years and with my own extensive experiences with those affected, including my lovers and many friends.

Certainly the orthodoxy is not doing anything intentionally to harm, but the fear and paranoia that go hand in hand with the subject of HIV/AIDS can cloud the thinking and judgement of the most level headed thinkers or researchers.

But this does not necessarily make them wrong, so see what all sides have to say, and think for yourself.

Educate yourself on all sides of the issue. You can do a search for “AIDS dissidents” on the internet and find enough to keep you occupied for 3 lifetimes on both sides of the issue.

Again, think for yourself, doubt ALL you read and hear on all sides, avoid judgement and your own bias, and later, with more information to guide you, then decide for yourself what your own truth is, as that is all that really matters for you!
#580 jk
August 6, 2007

hi
i am intererest be on sundays services hop me back
for any thing in around durban.
i leave in cato crest around there i thought you should be able to offer any help i requier from you about to get through in worship.

orthodox
#581 Kyle
September 20, 2007

Wow, all this talk about HIV really makes me happy that I am in a faithful relationship with one woman and don’t use drugs. Also, that Lincoln guy is crazy…
#582 allysa alanis
November 7, 2007

well im happy they are working on aids and those people desever the grat efter wat the u.s. is doing

and kyle is rigth dont use drugs they will make it worst

National Geographic SocietyIn partnership with

Advertisement

Science Blogs

Search National Geographic

While all the HIV “dissidents” are milling around….

Comments

Post a comment