I was out yesterday, and as such missed Lynn Margulis' blog tour stop at Pharyngula. For those who may not be familiar with Margulis, she's a professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and was the one who pushed the (now accepted) idea that chloroplasts and mitochondria in cells came about due to symbiosis. In the post announcing her impending arrival, there were lots of questions about her stance on HIV/AIDS. This is mostly due to a review she co-authored on Amazon of Harvey Bialy's biography of HIV denier Peter Duesberg. The review ends: "As both Bialy and Duesberg emphasize, let us see the research results of those who show that cancer is 'caused by an oncogene' and that 'AIDS is caused by the rapidly mutating HIV virus'. Please point us to the published evidence."
However, since this review was co-authored, it was uncertain how much of this was Margulis' view alone. She answers that at Pharyngula; I'm going to quote it in its entirety here because it's just so incredible:
What is an HIV/AIDS denier? Or HIV/AIDS denialist? Peter Duesberg is a fine scientist, I have read his book and examined some of the scientific papers upon which it is based. From the CDC (Center for Disease Control) in Atlanta I have requested the scientific papers that prove the causal relationship between the HIV retrovirus and the IMMUNODEFICIENCY SYNDROME commonly known as AIDS. They have never sent even references to the peer-reviewed primary scientific literature that establishes the causal relationship because they can't. Such papers do not exist.I have seen all four of the films made by Coleman Jones and colleagues in Toronto. Film #3 in the series is most telling. Although no strong evidence exists for any simple causal relationship what is clear is that the HIV claim is erroneous by the standards of microbiology and virology.
When I saw the glowing review of George Miklos, a colleague and a fiercely honest scientist, of Harvey Bialy's book on the scientific life of Peter Duesberg I bought and read Harvey's book. I have also read Celia Farber's superb article in the Lewis Lapham "swansong" issue of Harper's magazine, last March, I believe. Rebecca Culshaw's paper on why she quit AIDS statistical research and Dr. Geschachter's unpublished ms about African AIDS, accepted by the editor and then rejected both substantiated my reluctance to accept the glib "HIV/AIDS" term. I found all of these readings far more convincing than any literature proported to show a HIV-AIDS causal connection.
I heard a talk by a "medical scientist" from the Harvard Medical School at a meeting at Roger Williams Univ in Rhode Island from a supposed expert who attempts to design an HIV vaccine. He claimed the HIV virus mutates a billion times in 48hours. It became clear that the HIV virus has no clear identity. The HIV tests, nearly always positive for pregnant women, that vary significantly in the US, Europe and Australia are particularly disturbing. My son-in-law, James di Properzio spent several months researching this story for the Common Review (the Great Books Foundation in Chicago). His findings were consistent with Celia Farber's and after encouragement from the editor the board reviewed and rejected his draft.
"Science is the search for truth" said David Bohm, "whether we like it [the truth] or not. From my readings, discussions with knowledgable scientists close to the story, I simply conclude, as does Kerry Mullis, the Nobel Lauriate who wrote a foreword to Duesberg's classical work that there is no evidence that "HIV causes AIDS". I have no special expertise. I simply seek the evidence for scientific claims, especially when they have dire consequences for the science itself and the treatment..not just medical..of so many people.
I have observed that the closer one comes to the study of humans the shoddier the quality of the scientific evidence. Maybe that is one of the reasons that I work with bacteria and protoctists (the eukaryotic microorganisms and their immediate descendants exclusive of plants, animals and fungi). The vast majority of these are harmless to human health.Although I have written about the natural history of the anthrax bacterium, Beethoven's and Nietzsche's syphilis and the work of Hentry Taylor Ricketts with insect-borne pathgens (eg.g, ticks carrying Rocky Mt Spotted fever), in general I avoid the last 3 million years of evolution and any other studies thatrequire detailed knowledge of mammalian, including human, biology. Why? Because political bias, hearsay and gossip are inevitable whereas in the first part of the evolution story (from 3800 until 3 million years ago) politics intervenes far less obtrusively. In pursuit of the story of life and its effects on planet Earth one can be more honest if the earliest atages of evolution are the objects of study.
And this way I can lay low and not be "name-called" (i.e., "denialist") because I ask hard questions and require solid evidence before I embrace a particular causal hypothesis. Indeed, is not my attitude of inquiry exactly what science is about?
Of course, her "attitude of inquiry" is indeed what science is about, but how can one be a renowned scientist and be unable to search the biomedical literature for oneself? Or refer to other colleagues who are also well-respected in their fields in scare quotes as "medical scientists?" Indeed, in the chat transcript that followed PZ's post, Margulis makes her opinon of biomedical researchers even clearer:
No. I believe at all zoologists are intrinsically poorly educated in biology and that medical people are misinformed. This results f rom "field chauvinism". Lovelock aptly calls it "academic apartheid". Probably related to the budget categories and marketers that set them up.
I ask, who's the one hindering science, by assuming that entire fields of experts are "poorly educated" and "misinformed," and therefore allowing the evidence accumulated by those fields to be hand-waved away?
Comments
Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm
Posted by: Jerry | March 13, 2007 5:08 PM
So how about giving a link to the information Margulis asked for, on the HIV causality of AIDS?
You can kill trillions of bacteria in one experiment and not even have to fill out a form. There are tighter ethical guidelines on human experimentation.
Kary Mullis is seriously wacky. Margulis should find more reliable sources of information.
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 13, 2007 5:13 PM
I had always admired Margulis for her breakthroughs on the symbiotic origin of organelles. Discoveries like hers are what makes science truly awesome.
What a disappointment to see her making such ridiculous statements. "Such papers do not exist." "[A]ll zoologists are intrinsically poorly educated in biology...." Bah.
Reminiscent of Pauling and his descent into the woo of megadoses of Vitamin C. Very sad.
Posted by: qetzal | March 13, 2007 5:18 PM
I read all this stuff back in grad school in the mid 90s. I was wowed then, and read all the long reviews that Duesberg published on the subject. I haven't kept up with it at all, because I assumed that along the way there had been evidence a plenty to shut off this line of thinking.
I guess I'm shocked that there isn't a bibliography of papers as long as the blogroll proving it. The NIAID post is actually pretty pathetic.
Anyway, I'm not saying they're right, it's just surprising that the billions in grant dollars haven't produced something more than this. Then again, maybe they have, like I said, I haven't kept up with the sideshow whatsoever.
Posted by: Robert P. | March 13, 2007 5:20 PM
Yeah, I don't know what it is, but prominent scientists have a disturbing tendency to fall into pseudoscience when they wander outside of their own field.
Posted by: Orac | March 13, 2007 5:20 PM
Robert--searching PubMed with "HIV" as a keyword returns over 200,000 hits. The NIAID post isn't meant to cover all of them; it's a brief overview for those who aren't familiar with the literature, a jumping-off point for both discussing the positive evidence and countering the denialist statements. is there something specific you were looking for that wasn't touched on there?
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | March 13, 2007 5:26 PM
Um, Tara can you double check with PZ that that post was actually from her? Look at the wording/syntax-- thats not how scientists write. That looks like lincoln with gel in his hair.
Posted by: ERV | March 13, 2007 5:32 PM
I hesitate to say this, but I have thought Margulis was wacky for a long time. She's got some things right in spite of herself but still. On the AIDS issue, she's personally close to the principle actors from what I understand. Wasn't she at Berkeley with Duesberg and Bialy in the late 60s?
On the one hand, she's an icon and one of the best-known women in science. I also respect her contributions to our understanding of symbiosis.
On the other hand, how many popular books can you write using the same material? And how much should you politicize your science? I can't remember the name of the last Margulis book I read, no, wait, it was "Acquiring Genomes." It annoyed me so much, I didn't make it all the way through. Margulis seems to view other people as if they're bacteria. Students "infest" an apartment building in Cambridge, for example.
And she goes into this ridiculous tirade against "competition." The subtext is: "Stinking capitalist fascist male pigs are in control of science and especially evolutionary biology and they say animals compete with each other. They're wrong! Animals are gentle and kind and members of the Communist Party like I wish I could be (cue L'Internationale in the background)." Isn't it possible to provide counterweight without putting on a red armband?
I wonder if Margulis ever watched two guys in a bar competing for the attention of a woman (or vice-versa). Or better yet watched a couple of moose battling each other and risking death for the privilege of a mate? And she calls "competition" nothing but a "Neo-Darwinian" war cry?
Margulis gets on her self-advertised eco-friendly bike and rides into the red sunset, happy to see that the "student-infested" apartment building has finally been torn down and the happy unicorns are frolicking in a celebration of diversity and cooperation. Awwwwwww.
Posted by: Adele | March 13, 2007 5:36 PM
PZ's not raised any red flags, and the second quote was from the live chat. The visit was to promote this new venture of hers. Unfortunately, I have no doubt it's her.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | March 13, 2007 5:49 PM
**bangs head against keyboard**
Posted by: ERV | March 13, 2007 5:54 PM
Did I ever tell you guys about my theory for the evolution of single-celled organisms like blue green algae?
Well, you know they have a lot of genetic similarity to chloroplasts in plants right?
Yeah so anyway, I figure they probably escaped from the cells of their eukaryotic overlords sometime about a billion years ago.
If you look at the evidence this theory is very compelling.
My friends in the Perth Group are telling me that microorganisms and viruses are always inexplicably popping out of eukaryotic genomes and cells. It's really quite common...
At the moment my views are being oppressed by the powerful eukaryotic bias at the NSF who fear the inevitable calls for freeing the remaining captive plastids and, of course, for the payment of reparations to prokaryotes for the countless generations of eukaryotic oppression.
Posted by: Roy Hinkley | March 13, 2007 6:10 PM
Unfortunately, Prof. Margulis is not alone in evolving from being a respected scientist into a whackjob. Duesberg and Pauling have been mentioned in previous comments. I would add the following individuals to that list.
1. J. Allen Hynek, a former president of the American Astronomical Society who came to believe in visitations by interstellar travelers and alien abductions.
2. William Shockley, a Nobel Prize winner for the development of the transistor, who came to believe that persons of African decent were intellectually inferior to Caucasians.
3. Brian Josephson, a Nobel Prize winner for the discovery of the Josephson effect who has come to believe in ESP, PK, and cold fusion, among other fantasies.
Posted by: SLC | March 13, 2007 7:35 PM
I thought the HIV/AIDS denialists had shrivelled up long ago. Especially after people started getting treated for HIV and, uh, got healthier.
And while one might dismiss this as random crankiness, it has had tragic consequences in the real world -- for example in South Africa where there have been thousands of wasted lives because the government was obsessed with "alternative theories" of AIDS.
Posted by: Andythebrit | March 13, 2007 7:41 PM
As anyone that has had a paper rejected by a journal knows persistence in the face of criticism is a necessary trait in science.
Scientists that have made great contributions to science are often admired for their persistence in the face of criticism or even ridicule.
I think that having the xperience of facing undue opposition to your ideas and then eventually being vindicated makes you vulnerable to interpret opposition as just proof that you are correct.
Perhaps Fred Hoyle whose work on stellar synthesis was initially resisted before being accepted is a good example. In his later years he championed some fairly silly ideas such as the idea that HIV came from outer space and gave us the creationist logical fallacy of the century that compared evolution to a tornado in a junkyard.
Judah Folkman wrote "There's a fine line between persistence and obstinacy, and you never know when you've crossed it."
Well Duesberg has certainly crossed it. I think exactly the same characteristic that can contribute to being a good scientist can turn you into a crank.
Posted by: Chris Noble | March 13, 2007 7:43 PM
I will rally to the cause. FREE THE PLASTIDS!
Hoyle was also once on board a claim that the most famous fossil of Archaeopteryx was a fraud. Roger Penrose with his microtubules and quantum gravity is not quite in the same league. He's only wrong, not outrageously wrong.
Posted by: Mustafa Mond, FCD | March 13, 2007 8:03 PM
The problem, as I noted in this uber-thread is this:
HIV purports to kill CD4 cells. That is the sine qua non of the disease.
Yet, many other factors kill CD4 cells, too:
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.
These are all papers/letters in the mainstream scientific literature, so they cannot be dismissed. (Unlike the non-peer reviewed government fact "sheet" referenced by the first commentator.)
So, many other factors cause the exact same effect (depleted CD4 cells) as HIV.
So, each of the these factors must, if one is to be intellectually honest, ruled out, before claiming that the virus is the cause of any particular CD4 cell decline.
This is a massive "confounding" factor. Also, much of the AIDS literature suffers from "confirmation bias." Either the authors merely assume that HIV is the cause of AIDS or they clearly hope to find this relationship.
I found Dr. Margulis' comments to be quite interesting and provocative. I think highly of scientists who don't meekly follow the herd in any field. It would be much better if proponents of the viral cause of AIDS would state a priori what evidence would prove their own claim false, and then go about testing the claim.
Posted by: Barry A | March 13, 2007 8:04 PM
These are all papers/letters in the mainstream scientific literature, so they cannot be dismissed.
Nobody is dismissing these paper/letters. This is simply a strawman argument.
These cases are written up and published exactly because they are extremely rare. You know verey well that case of profound CD4 lymphocytopenia in the absence of HIV infection are extremely rare.
This has already been explained to you - March 12, 2007 01:20 AM. What is it that you fail to understand?
Posted by: Chris Noble | March 13, 2007 8:27 PM
I'll start paying attention to these denialists when they line up for blood transfusions from HIV positive donors.
Posted by: James | March 13, 2007 9:39 PM
It seems that the point made by Andythebrit is worth bringing up again - that anti-HIV therapy reduces AIDS sympoms and prolongs lives. Although it's important to keep an open mind and question scientific assumptions, it's also important to do it in a way that doesn't mislead others into behaviors that kill innocent people.
Posted by: jk | March 13, 2007 10:22 PM
"Stinking capitalist fascist male pigs are in control of science and especially evolutionary biology and they say animals compete with each other. They're wrong! Animals are gentle and kind and members of the Communist Party like I wish I could be (cue L'Internationale in the background)."
Exactly right. And she goes into these ridiculous tirades against the supposed culutral "anglophonic capitalist bias" that influences science. As I noted on my blog, this is another form of mental partition on the part of scientists. You have religious scientists on one hand, and a Foucault wielding POMO scientist on the other. It's depressing.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 13, 2007 10:25 PM
This is nuts. I spend too much time looking at HIV sequences and we couldn't possibly identify where different strains came from if this statement of hers was actually true:
This is nuts.
It appears from PZ's transcript that she doesn't believe that bacteria are separate species either.
Could this explain why no one believed her hypothesis about mitochondria and chloroplasts? Is this one of those classic cases of a wrong clock being right twice a day?
Posted by: Sandra Porter | March 13, 2007 10:44 PM
Hello Sandra.
Actually, it is interesting that you bring up sequencing. That issue was a major stumper for the court in Australia last week with the Andre Chad Parenzee case.
The judge is trying to understand how one can tell where different strains come from as well, considering the gene banks only look at about 11 to 16 percent of the entire 9600 genome structure of the reputed virus to compare. It is particularly troubling to the judge after the foremost researcher in Australia told him that up to 30 percent of the virus can drop out or be altered.
Just how do you run a gene bank based on analyzing 11 to 16 percent and surmising where the strain came from, when the variable is as high as 30 percent of the genomic structure of the entire supposed retrovirus?
What sort of sequencing science is that?
Well, at least you will have job security as long as the sequencing science remains as flakey as this!
Posted by: lincoln | March 13, 2007 11:03 PM
I heard a talk by a "medical scientist" from the Harvard Medical School at a meeting at Roger Williams Univ in Rhode Island from a supposed expert who attempts to design an HIV vaccine. He claimed the HIV virus mutates a billion times in 48hours. It became clear that the HIV virus has no clear identity
It's not clear exactly what the the "medical scientist" who I assume is Norman Letvin said in his talk.
HIV like other retroviruses and othe RNA viruses such as poliovirus and FMDV has a mutation rate of approximately 1 bp per genome per replication. With on the order of 10^10 virions being produced per day then there are billions of mutations per day.
I don't think Margulis knows much about RNA viruses. Viruses such as poliovirus and FMDV exist as quasispecies. Does that mean that these viruses have no clear identity?
Posted by: Chris Noble | March 13, 2007 11:06 PM
Andythebrit said "Especially after people started getting treated for HIV and, uh, got healthier".
It seems Andy has not kept up with the issue either, as 48 percent of those taking these drugs suffered extreme side effects such as liver failure, neuropathy, heart failure, kidney failure, and a host of nasty side effects including death. Fortunately less death than was presented with the high dosage AZT that all positives were given from 87 to 95, but plenty of death directly from the newer drugs as well.
The CDC estimates that most HIV positives do not take any medications for HIV at all, and in the last few years, many thousands in increasing numbers have been and continue to be abandoning the use of any ARV drugs.
Little wonder when a glimpse at most of the Long Term NonProgressors shows that what they almost all have in common is that they avoided the anti-HIV drugs!
Posted by: lincoln | March 13, 2007 11:38 PM
Andy,
Another interesting tidbit regarding the HIV drugs is that the former marketing rep of the largest West Coast HIV drug pharmacy company confided in me a few weeks ago that sales of various drugs sold to counter the toxic and often deadly side effects of the HAART and ARV drugs far outpaced the sale of the HAART and ARV drugs themselves, and were the mainstay of the companies sales to the HIV diagnosed community.
In other words, someone taking the ARV's would then be often be taking a half a dozen more various prescriptions of other drugs to counter the side effects of the ARV's!
Oh the wonder of the new and improved Fast Tracked FDA approved AIDS drugs. They should all carry the following warning:
ONE PILL MAKES YOU HAPPY. ONE PILL MAKES YOU TALL. AND THIS ONE, WELL, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT DOES AT ALL!!
Posted by: lincoln | March 13, 2007 11:58 PM
Chris wrote:
What is it that you fail to understand?
I fail understand how utterly blind, dogmatic and emotional some people get on the internet.
Let me explain to you a very simple argument:
1. CD4 cell decline is the sine qua non of the disease called AIDS.
2. Many things, other than HIV, cause CD4 cell decline.
3. Therefore, HIV is not necessary to cause AIDS.
Very simple. Please tell us that you understand this.
The next question, which I haven't yet evaluated, is whether HIV is sufficient to cause CD4 cell decline.
Quoting Dr. Zvi Grossman in Nature Medicine last year: " The pathogenic and physiologic processes leading to AIDS remain a conundrum."
Posted by: Barry A | March 14, 2007 1:17 AM
I have gotten the impression that Margulis is surrounded by individuals who are so awe-struck by her that it has developed into something which borders on a cult of personality. There are numerous cases in which individuals have made significant achievements only to be surrounded by individuals who can only tell them how brilliant they are - and who thereby lose the ability to look at their own conclusions self-critically. At a certain level, particularly among those who are innovative intellectuals, one needs people who are able to disagree with you if you are to remain tethered.
Moreover, I have gotten the impression that she has come to view herself as a victim of mainstream science even given her celebrity. Perhaps in part it is her grounding in the Marxist tradition. The rhetoric of this tradition is oftentimes at odds with objectivity and the ability to genuinely consider alternate viewpoints.
Given this, I am not all that surprised by her HIV denial. Unfortunate, but not that surprising.
Posted by: Timothy Chase | March 14, 2007 1:19 AM
Interesting. Some others said much the same thing - only a bit more directly. Maybe I should have checked before posting.
Posted by: Timothy Chase | March 14, 2007 1:24 AM
Barry,
You said "I fail to understand how blind, dogmatic, and emotional some people get".
Are you beginning to see the degree of blind fanaticism involved in the belief of HIV/AIDS?
The fascinating thing to me, is that this strange fanatic and cult like behavior revolves so intensely around this issue of HIV/AIDS. It is as if all of science rests precariously in the balance.
Notice the reverence with which Lynn Margulis, or even Peter Duesberg was held, until they themselves open mindedly looked at the issue of HIV and dared to have simply disagreed with "consensus".
Suddenly, Lynn Margulis falls from grace, in their eyes, and is immediately transformed into a babbling buffoon.
Same thing for Peter. Gallo himself called Peter the "greatest virologist in the world", until Peter had the sheer audacity to disagree with Gallo and the ruling virologists of the NIH!
Gallo can admit like he did two weeks ago in Superior Court testimony in Australia that he only found evidence of what he believed was HIV in a mere 40 percent of his AIDS samples, and Gallo can admit that 40 percent is not enough to call it the cause of a disease, and he can admit that he never found HIV in T Cells, but these entranced nonthinking zombies do not even stop for a moment, to pause at what this obviously implies.
Like zombies, they simply keep repeating the mantra, "HIV, The Virus That Causes AIDS". "Praise be unto Robert Gallo". "200,000 studies makes all HIV science unquestioningly true and irrefutable".
It is as if HIV causing AIDS must continue to be or the sun will burn out. It is as if somehow saying it enough times will continue to make it true, and the universe will remain in balance.
It is as if they must keep chanting it unto death or all of science will disintegrate as all germ theory, nay, all of science seemingly depends solely on Robert Gallo being correct that HIV causes AIDS.
And so it does! It really does! For the zombies anyway! But not for anyone else.
Posted by: lincoln | March 14, 2007 2:12 AM
This is not a logically sound argument. The first statement says that CD4 cell decline is necessary for an AIDS diagnosis. You have to claim that CD4 cell decline is sufficient for an AIDS diagnosis in order for your conclusion to be valid. (That's ignoring the correctness or incorrectness of such a claim.)
Posted by: Davis | March 14, 2007 3:37 AM
Bah. That should read "this is not a logically valid argument." Soundness refers to the truth of the premises, which I'm not qualified to comment on.
Posted by: Davis | March 14, 2007 7:51 AM
Posted by: ERV | March 14, 2007 8:10 AM
Most of the people posting seem to be thinking along the same lines as Margulis, that is, they want some strong evidence from molecular biologists that shows that HIV causes AIDS.
I'm not an epidemiologist, but it seems to me that you don't need strong biological(molecular) evidence for direct causation, as long as there is very strong statistical/epidemiological evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Of course, the theory could be called in to question if there was strong evidence to the contrary from another branch of science.(none of this is to say that there isn't strong biological evidence available, I'm just not doing my research)
I think that this is a case of a biologist who doesn't understand the fields of statistics or epidemiology enough to make a sound argument against the theory that HIV causes AIDS.
Posted by: Tim Noble | March 14, 2007 8:31 AM
CD4 cell decline is not the sine qua non of AIDS. The CD4 decline is an attempt to explain how we get from HIV to AIDS. Other mechanisms can easily take its place, as has already been suggested in the cases of KS and Dementia.
Once the CD4 'explanation' is in place, there's no need for the 'defining' CD4 decline in individual cases. Hence if one has HIV + defining disease + sky high CD4 count, one can still get diagnosed with AIDS.
Tim Noble,
I'm not an epidemiologist either, but that doesn't mean I cannot conceive of the possibility that scientists like Peter Duesberg and Lynn Margulis question the AIDS hypothesis precisely because of their profound understanding of the field of epidemiology and the nature of statistics.
Posted by: Pope | March 14, 2007 9:30 AM
SLC: You can add Peter Naur, the recent Turing Award winner to your list :(
Posted by: Peter Lund | March 14, 2007 9:41 AM
I think it would be more accurate to characterize CD4+ T cell decline as a convenient marker of disease progression associated with HIV infection, to point out that not all non-HIV associated CD4+ T cell decline is created equal (much of it is temporary and some of it is not associated with clinical disease) and also to note that with the exception of immunosuppressive drugs, the strength of the evidence supporting a causal relationship between other factors and CD4+ decline is no better and in many cases weaker than the evidence supporting a causal relationship between HIV and CD4+ T cell decline.
Posted by: Dale | March 14, 2007 10:01 AM
Lincoln, read my commments above. Margulis' problems began long before she made her asinine comments about HIV and AIDS.
Sorry, but some things are just immiscible (nice comment, Tyler). Religion and science, politics and science are two combinations that come to mind. We as scientists all need to remember this, regardless of what kinds of beliefs or persuasions we have outside the lab.
The potential interactions between two (or more) organisms are incredibly diverse. It's good to note this. But it's bad to exclude entire categories of interaction because you view them as too "capitalist" or "Neo-Darwinian" for your taste.
Posted by: Adele | March 14, 2007 10:27 AM
Lynn Margulis' descriptions don't exclude categories of interaction; they are criticisms of the explanatory models these interactions are made to fit.
Posted by: Pope | March 14, 2007 11:07 AM
No. Margulis admits she has no specific expertise in this area, and Duesberg botches epidemiology so much that even our first-year MPH students can pick his arguments apart. "Profound understanding of epidemiology" my arse.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | March 14, 2007 11:19 AM
I found Dr. Margulis' comments to be quite interesting and provocative. I think highly of scientists who don't meekly follow the herd in any field.
I agree, Barry, but as you or anyone else reading can see, the herd, here, is out in full force. I can't believe how transparent they are, in their insecurities, but the immediate character attacks on Dr. Margulis are absolutely pathetic. Once again, rather than dealing with the force of Dr. Margulis' straightforward comments on HIV's shortcomings, the members of this little peanut gallery eschew real discussion and stoop to character attacks doused in self-congratulation -- all for being "well-behaved little scientists". How ironic and how predictable.
Thankfully, the tide is truly turning and peanut galleries, such as this, may have a a short shelf-life. Can we revoke all of the advanced degrees obtained by all of these HIV proselytizers, who are posing as real scientists? I sure hope so.
The recent comments by Adele are particularly juvenile:
And she goes into this ridiculous tirade against "competition." The subtext is: "Stinking capitalist fascist male pigs are in control of science and especially evolutionary biology and they say animals compete with each other. They're wrong! Animals are gentle and kind and members of the Communist Party like I wish I could be (cue L'Internationale in the background)." Isn't it possible to provide counterweight without putting on a red armband?
Your attempt to capture the "subtext" of Dr. Margulis' position is thoroughly inadequate, Adele. It should be pointed out that in the very same post, you ask, "And how much should you politicize your science?", referring to Dr. Margulis, no less; yet, you then proceed to offer up this "subtext" quote, in which you engage in an extremely unfair politization of Dr. Margulis' position -- all of which is based purely on speculation and your intent to malign Dr. Margulis' character is clear. As if it even needs to be said, but it is really is pretty clear who the real scientist is, Adele. I'm not even sure, based on your comments here, that you'd be qualified to clean Dr. Margulis' office, much less offer a relevant criticism of her scientific views.
You manipulation tactics and those of your cohorts are truly disgusting, given the gravity of this situation.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin | March 14, 2007 2:20 PM
...and Kevin provides some comic relief! It's so refreshing to see Bozo the Clown do his cute little "cleaning staff are scum" goosestep routine after I've had a long day of mounting slides for IFA.
Posted by: Adele | March 14, 2007 3:12 PM
Not a shred of decency as Kevin points out. One little disagreement and the negative character assessments come flying out of their rectums. This hypothesis is a good example of speaking with one's arse:
"I have gotten the impression that Margulis is surrounded by individuals who are so awe-struck by her that it has developed into something which borders on a cult of personality. There are numerous cases in which individuals have made significant achievements only to be surrounded by individuals who can only tell them how brilliant they are - and who thereby lose the ability to look at their own conclusions self-critically. At a certain level, particularly among those who are innovative intellectuals, one needs people who are able to disagree with you if you are to remain tethered."
Pure speculation, nothing more.
"At a certain level, particularly among those who are innovative intellectuals, one needs people who are able to disagree with you if you are to remain tethered"
Can you read the words coming off your own computer??? She IS disagreeing with you and you and the cybersisters go completely untethered. Tethered? my arse also.
Posted by: pat | March 14, 2007 3:21 PM
One litle "disagreement" which happens to be total nonsense with a potentially disastrous impact on public health. Nothing to get excited about, right? Idiot.
Margulis is a crank. Cranks are highly useful to have around because, as her championing of the endosymbiotic theory (which, by the way, she was not the first to think of by a long shot) demonstrates, they occasionally are right about an idea which they then have the moxie to push against fierce opposition. But it's well to remember that they're wrong 99% of the time. And I suspect that if such cases were to be carefully examined by a hsitorian of science, it would be found that they are rarely if ever right about more than one big idea in the course of their careers.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | March 14, 2007 4:05 PM
Re pat and Kevin
I see that the whackjobs are out in force. All we need now is Hank Barnes to complete the triangle. I find Mr. Kevins' comments in particular quite amusing. Substitute evolution for HIV/AIDS and he sounds like Jonathan Wells.
Posted by: SLC | March 14, 2007 4:06 PM
The most depressing thing to me about Lynn Margulis coming out in support of Peter Duesberg's opinion on HIV and AIDS is that she clearly hasn't read any of his papers - at least not his recent ones. All one has to do is check a half dozen of his citations to be aware that he uses references inappropriately. Not just occasionally and inadvertently but consistently and, I assume, deliberately. She's not making a defense of the science but a statement of support for the person. That's her right of course but I still find it depressing.
Posted by: Dale | March 14, 2007 4:10 PM
SLC,
Nice to see that you also don't believe in surrounding yourself with people that disagree with you. You can add you name to this long list of non-innovative intellectuals. Thank you for the "whackjob", at least you will not be mistaken for a decent lad who has a point.
Posted by: pat | March 14, 2007 4:11 PM
Hank Barnes is here already, see "Barry A"
Posted by: Jonathan | March 14, 2007 4:12 PM
Margulis at least has produced something valuable to science and humanity unlike every self-proffessed defender of science on this blog. For that alone she deserves respect. That all you scientific underachievers-come-attack dogs lash out baselessly and gratuitously at her speaks volumes in her favor. Adele, our serial flamer, mentioned something about Bozo the clown on another thread.
Posted by: pat | March 14, 2007 4:20 PM
What, pat, did Margulis make the trains run on time?
Mao-gulis, I mean?
Posted by: Adele | March 14, 2007 4:26 PM
"(Margulis) was the one who pushed the (now accepted) idea that chloroplasts and mitochondria in cells came about due to symbiosis"
You obviously don't know anything about her and didn't read the contents of the post either but instead you went straight for Margulis' jugular. What have you contributed other than retarded highschool flamejobs and mopping the floor in an SIV research lab?
Posted by: pat | March 14, 2007 4:36 PM
You must be a neo-con Adele. Go to Fox TV, you might get a slot right after O'Reilley
Posted by: pat | March 14, 2007 4:37 PM
With a brain like his it is little wonder you haven't come up with anything useful.
Posted by: pat | March 14, 2007 4:42 PM
Re pat
"Margulis at least has produced something valuable to science and humanity unlike every self-proffessed defender of science on this blog."
The same thing could be said about the three individuals I named earlier, namely Shockley, Hynek and Josephson, in addition to Pauling. The fact that somebody was at one time a first rate scientist is no guarantee that they will remain so, that is unless Mr. pat thinks that vitamin C cures cancer, that black Americans are intellectually inferior to white Americans, that the earth has been visited by aliens from outer space who have abducted earthlings for medical research or that PK, ESP, and cold fusion are real phenomena.
Posted by: SLC | March 14, 2007 5:58 PM
She's not making a defense of the science but a statement of support for the person.
Right on.
And this is all we see from the denialists. An emphasis on the person, not the science.
Margulis talks about people having great reputations and unimpeachable intellects and all that. Miklos, Duesberg. Well, the person really shouldn't matter. Miklos and Duesberg can have hearts of gold, but if their science is crap, their science is crap. It doesn't matter how many medals they get.
But that's how denialists work. "I like this person, she's nice, therefore she's right."
For the rest of us on here, it's the other way around. "Margulis puts ideology ahead of science, or Margulis' statement on HIV is junk, therefore I don't like what she said." Or even for floor-swabbers like me, "I don't like her."
I've criticized Margulis because she lets politics influence her science. I have no problem with Margulis' right to have her political views. Sure, my partner had to stand in bread lines back in the USSR because of similar ideologues who thought everyone would work together in a socialist utopia, but Margulis isn't making policy so why should I care? I also have no problem with Bill O'Reilly or neo-cons spouting their hot air.
What I do object to is when the far left or the far right or anyone in between allows their political or religious convictions to corrupt or screw up science.
Posted by: Adele | March 14, 2007 6:02 PM
Galileo is an interesting case in point; he correctly surmised that his discovery of the jovian moons confirmed Copernicus' heliocentric model of the solar system. But when it came to his theories on what caused tides he was in fact quite wrong. It does not make him a fool or an idiot; it just means his theory on the cause of tides was wrong.
This applies to any one that is held to be a foremost scientist. They sometimes get it wrong. Einstein took decades to accept the model of a dynamic or expanding universe and held fast to his galactic constant. He is still revered for his work on relativity; people may think some of his other ideas foolish but no one thinks him a fool.
So just because someone believes in somtheing someone else holds to be wrong or foolish does not make that first person a fool. You don't judge a theory on someone's character so you don't judge someone's character on the basis of what they propose.
Posted by: Sascha | March 14, 2007 6:20 PM
Margulis at least has produced something valuable to science and humanity unlike every self-proffessed defender of science on this blog.
Since you seem to pulling assumptions out of your ass (like the idea that everyone who constitutes "humanity" shares your opinion of what is "valuable", if you don't get the subtext I'm saying you're a presumptuous cock). Why don't I pull out the assumption that you've contributed even less than any of us. Not every scientist has revolutionary theory that succeeds, and having a revolutionary theory under your belt doesn't make you an expert on everything and all your opinions authoritative. If you think that's the case, then you're just a kool-aid drinking moron, much like the rest of the denialists.
For that alone she deserves respect.
And in case you don't get the point of the post, we're especially disappointed in Margulis because we acknowledge that she is a respectable scientist. It's always saddening to see a brilliant mind descent into crankery like this.
That all you scientific underachievers-come-attack dogs lash out baselessly and gratuitously at her speaks volumes in her favor. Adele, our serial flamer, mentioned something about Bozo the clown on another thread.
Gee, I wonder why....
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 14, 2007 6:22 PM
My dear Lincoln, you certainly have botched your reading on this! You wrote:
"...
Actually, it is interesting that you bring up sequencing. That issue was a major stumper for the court in Australia last week with the Andre Chad Parenzee case.
The judge is trying to understand how one can tell where different strains come from as well, considering the gene banks only look at about 11 to 16 percent of the entire 9600 genome structure of the reputed virus to compare. It is particularly troubling to the judge after the foremost researcher in Australia told him that up to 30 percent of the virus can drop out or be altered.
..."
Which makes it so painfully obvious that you have not a clue what you are talking about. Our database (http://www.hiv.lanl.gov) now contains the complete protein coding regions or complete genomes of 2,068 primate lentiviruses. The molecular epidemiology of all this is indisputable, if you would just read some papers such as:
Leitner T, Escanilla D, Franzen C, Uhlen M, Albert J. Accurate reconstruction of a known HIV-1 transmission history by phylogenetic tree analysis.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Oct 1;93(20):10864-9.
PMID: 8855273
Van Heuverswyn F, Li Y, Neel C, Bailes E, Keele BF, Liu W, Loul S, Butel C, Liegeois F, Bienvenue Y, Ngolle EM, Sharp PM, Shaw GM, Delaporte E, Hahn BH, Peeters M.
Human immunodeficiency viruses: SIV infection in wild gorillas.
Nature. 2006 Nov 9;444(7116):164.
PMID: 17093443
Wolfe ND, Switzer WM, Carr JK, Bhullar VB, Shanmugam V, Tamoufe U, Prosser AT, Torimiro JN, Wright A, Mpoudi-Ngole E, McCutchan FE, Birx DL, Folks TM, Burke DS, Heneine W.
Naturally acquired simian retrovirus infections in central African hunters.
Lancet. 2004 Mar 20;363(9413):932-7.
PMID: 15043960
Troyer JL, Pecon-Slattery J, Roelke ME, Johnson W, VandeWoude S, Vazquez-Salat N, Brown M, Frank L, Woodroffe R, Winterbach C, Winterbach H, Hemson G, Bush M, Alexander KA, Revilla E, O'Brien SJ.
Seroprevalence and genomic divergence of circulating strains of feline immunodeficiency virus among Felidae and Hyaenidae species.
J Virol. 2005 Jul;79(13):8282-94.
PMID: 15956574
Posted by: Brian Foley | March 14, 2007 7:38 PM
Yeah, I'll confirm it: that was Lynn Margulis on the site and in the chatroom. <sigh>.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 14, 2007 8:51 PM
Margulis contemptuously dismisses not only decades of evolutionary ecology work, but the Modern Synthesis itself - as if the scores of scientists engaged in this research sprogram were deluded fools rather than involved in highly productive work that has helped explain phenomena from foraging to life history. Margulis goes much farther than Gould or Lewontin in this critique of neo-Darwinism.
The question is, are Margulis' politics, her views on biology, and her HIV revisionism all of one piece, or can they be disentangled?
Try this quote on for size:
"Free, independent science is going extinct, and that is perhaps the most serious hazard we face as science and technology have increasingly become instruments of oppression and destruction under corporate capitalism."
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/organic.php
Actually, the author of that quote is Mae-Wan Ho, another biologist who criticizes neo-Darwinism and 'reductionism.'
Like Margulis, Mae-Wan Ho is also something of an HIV skeptic who praises Duesberg, although she is not sold on the idea that there is never an HIV-AIDS link:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/AidsHIV.php
"I am entirely persuaded that recreational and toxic anti-HIV drugs as well as malnutrition can all undermine the immune system to produce immune deficiency syndromes. But I would certainly not like to exclude something like HIV that could target the immune cells directly..."
An intriguing parallel. So, to answer the question I posed about: I don't know.
Posted by: Colugo | March 14, 2007 9:09 PM
In their book "Science, Order, and Creativity, David Bohm and David Peat talk about three levels of communication: confrontation, discussion, and dialog. Dialog is the one where the different sides have open minds. The previous posts are, at best, disussion, and in some cases confrontational.
I read the Harpers article that came out a while back and was quite surprised and troubled by it. I thought the HIV-AIDS association was well-established and non-contraversial.
If the association is well supported, can you recommend some literature accessible (physically and intellectually) to general readers?
I heard Lynn Margulis give a plenary address to the New Hampshire Science Teachers Association at Phillips Exeter around 1986 or so. She was an excellent and articulate speaker (presented the Gaia hypothesis) with a natural sense of ease and confidence. You'd had to been a jackass to find fault with a presentation like that.
Sometimes science succombs to the power of personality. A famous example of such in the earth sciences is the Davisian downwearing model of landscape evolution vs. the backwearing model of Penck. Davis was the showman and orator, Penck was apparently more introverted. Davis was highly influential for decades. Penck was right.
Posted by: John | March 14, 2007 9:12 PM
Ah, Mr. Foley what are you doing here? Why aren't you in Adelaide where the prosecution experts, according to their statements under oath, don't know who you are or what treasures you guard.
The stakes have just been raised on the missing virus don't you know? You could get rich.
Tara or her behind, I'm not sure who signed, one does not have to be able to tell the sum of 2 + 2 to grasp the inherent limitations of your discipline. All one need do is read John Kaldor's testimony in said forum.
Posted by: Pope | March 14, 2007 9:13 PM
It would have been really sad and strange for someone else to fake being her. And this is of course not the first time she has stated that she believes HIV has not been scientifically studied.
http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/07/dr_lynn_marguli.html
for one example, from July 2006.
Posted by: Brian Foley | March 14, 2007 9:44 PM
Mr. Pope,
It's doctor Foley for you.
Why would anyone need me in Adelaide? And what do you mean by "guarding" the treasures? The database is free and open to the public.
Why do so many of you denialists hide behind fake names?
Brian
Posted by: Brian Foley | March 14, 2007 9:48 PM
My dear Brian Foley,
thank you for the some of the silliest garbage ever presented in defence of HIV, that is about gorillas, monkeys, and cats, and has absolutely nothing at all to do with full sequences 1) taken from, and isolated from HIV positive human beings, and that is what is claimed to be human immune deficiency retrovirus that is 2) contagious and is also proven to be, in some strange and as yet unknown way, 3) the cause of immune system or CD4 disfunction.
Nobody said complete retroviral sequences have not been determined for thousands of retroviruses. The question is what is it that has been sequenced, was it isolated from a human being, and is it indeed a human retrovirus that is contagious and is the cause of AIDS immune disfunction. Dohhhhh!
Stuff found in gorillas, and found in chimp crap, and found in cats has zero to do with this. This is an issue of what has been and currently is being compared at the Los Alamos HIV Gene Bank, that is derived from humans in HUMAN HIV COMPARISONS.
Unfortunately, you have not presented any papers on a full genetic sequence from a proven to be humanly contagious virion of a retrovirus that WAS repeatedly isolated from a cohort of 100% of HIV positive human beings and also proven to be the cause of immune deficiency.
You are also, Mr. Foley, painfully unaware of the sequencing comparisons that take place from genetic sequences that are and have been taken directly from human beings, otherwise you yourself would be well aware that the above was quite correct. What is presently called HIV, was cultured in a laboratory stew made of bits of cellular debris and DNA, and has 9600 base pairs. The Los Alamos Gene bank, however, does not use entire 9600 segment sequences in HIV comparison for the database. They only track partial sequences believed to be parts of the envelope.
So, please avoid boring us with gorilla dung, chimp pooh, and cat crap retroviruses while trying to convince us that this stuff has to do with HIV/AIDS, and had been isolated from beings diagnosed as HIV positive, and had been proven to be infectious HIV, and had been proven to be the cause of immune deficiency. Such is not the case, and I defy you to bring out the papers where it has. Present the papers to Mullis, Duesberg, and Margulis, and they will undoubtedly shut up. But until you do present such proof, sir, perhaps you should be the one to close the clap trap!
Mr. Foley, if you are so bright and knowledgeable about HIV, then please show us the paper that Dr. Margulis was asking for, that shows this retrovirus isolated in full from human sera, and show us the paper that proves it is contagious, and then show us the paper that verifies it causes immune disfunction.
Gallos paper showed 40 percent of AIDS cases presenting evidence of RT activity, which he would like us all to believe confirmed a contagious and deadly retrovirus. It was years later when he isolated or perhaps brewed up something and presented evidence of something with 9600 base pairs.
He never bothered to prove this is what was in other human beings, and never bothered to prove that it was the cause of immune disfunction. He also never bothered to prove it was contagious.
And please avoid telling us that there is an overwhelming mountain of 200,000 studies of evidence, that you just have to go through it all and take parts of this one to add to parts of another, and multiply by pi and divide by 200,000 and add it all together to prove that HIV is isolated and is the contagious cause of CD4 destruction and immune disfunction.
If the evidence was so overwhelming, there would not be any need for 200,000 studies that still conclude nothing that is sure.
If this simple prooving of human HIV isolation and causation were done, you blooming deaf and dumb fool, there would be no AIDS dissidents or what you call "denialists".
Until it is done, and is presented to the dissidents, you and everybody else who believes HIV is isolated from humans and is contagious, and is the proven cause of AIDS are the true and rightful heirs to the title of GRAND FLAT EARTHING DENIALISTS!