Comments

1. #1 Lee

   March 6, 2010

   PPGG:

   http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm

   Start here.

2. #2 KevinS

   March 6, 2010

   PPGG,

   For the most part I have tried to base my arguments using solid published facts, for which Sadun has complimented me for. I will continue to do so in my reply to the PG. Whether you chose to accept these arguments or my examples from other viral systems (which some have deemed circular) is a matter of your own opinion. However, it cannot be ignored that denying the existence of HIV, and suggesting anti-retroviral treatments do much more harm than good pushes forward an agenda that rests on incomplete science at the very best. On my own blog I made a call for patience among CFS suffers to wait for the facts to come in about the association with XMRV. I think we would both agree that treating CFS patients with AZT would do more harm than good at this point. Now I am quick to support the status quo for the HIV virus while holding out judgment on another. The reason for this is because I have not seen compelling evidence to support HIV does not exist and have not seen compelling evidence that XMRV causes any disease or disorder warranting aggressive treatments. If I were truly in the pocket of “the establishment” I would support drugs for everything. For either case if I were presented with convincing findings that oppose my current view points, I would gladly change my opinion.

   I am a grad student, I like to run, and I have great cardiovascular statistics, you most certainly do not want me giving medical advice to a loved one with blood pressure problems just because I have achieved good cardiovascular health. I leave the medical advice for the professionals. In the medical community the existence of HIV is well accepted, the drugs have been reported to help. The claims advanced by members of the dissident community do not have the research, the facts, or long term studies to advise people not to start or continue their prescribed treatments. Anecdotal evidence from a few individual people who claim to be living happy and healthy lives without drugs is not enough to convince this scientist otherwise, nor should it be enough to convince anyone claiming to understand science. Therefore yes, the agenda dissidents support of telling people to break with medical convention without the proper study in my opinion is wrong and could have deadly consequences. That opinion is based on the available science. If we are both motivated about helping people then how about conducting a study (with proper controls) to prove your claims before advancing or allowing the advancement of medical advice by people who lack the credentials to provide it.

3. #3 NM

   March 6, 2010

   http://leederville.net/links/SullivanMar062010.pdf

   It is transparent that Val Turner did not make a point by point response to Kevin’s post because he is incapable of doing so (being an emergency room physician and not a molecular biologist). You can also tell that he knows this and is riled up. Hence he trots out embarrassing fictions like Montagnier says gp41 is actin and Gallo says no HIV is found in T cells. His desire to try and make Rakowicz-Szulczynska’s unconfirmed findings gospel is by itself sufficient to reveal he is no scientist.

4. #4 PPGG

   March 6, 2010

   Kevin,

   It might surprise you, but point well taken. It IS a problem that Dissidents go to the other extreme and condemn all HIV drugs as pure rat poison. And it is extremely dangerous to tell people generally to simply “flush the meds” without careful examination of each individual case.

   If this is the reason for you to enter the debate, I cannot disagree with you, but I must advise you that you have chosen the wrong target.

   I do not tell people to drop the meds, and neither does the Perth Group. We consider it very likely that the drugs can save lives in certain circumstances, although of course we have a hard time believing they work by “suppressing HIV”.

   The discussion you are having with the Perth Group (and me) on virus isolation is a purely scientific/academic one. It has no direct relevance to the question of what medicine an HIV+ individual should or should not take in a given set of circumstances.

   As for the rest, you do know, don’t you, that hands-on work is not the exclusive property of “Scientists”, whatever you mean by that word? Excorcists have hands-on experience. It is the rules of logic and Reason that make “Science” science.

   You can choose to disregard logic and philosophy of science, I know it’s not part of your training, but don’t expect not to be called on it. This is not Playskool. You are encouraged to seek all the help and advice you can get. You will find that the higher you raise the bar the more respectfully you will be treated – as opposed to the custom of this and all other “anti-denialist” blogs. You are intelligent enough to see that for yourself. The question is a psychological one: Are you willing to open your eyes to the crisis at the centre of Virology?

   Valendar Turner has already told you Robin Weiss conceded the point that you don’t prove the existence and properties of one virus by holding the existence and properties of other viruses hostage. Refute the point if you can.

   Of course we’ll give you all the time you need to research and formulate your answer to the Perth Group, and again nobody expects you to cover all the bases on your own. That’s the sort of courtesy you can take for granted in a scientific debate.

5. #5 Stephen Wells

   March 6, 2010

   The Perth Group web site says they’re still not certain if HIV exists. I’ve commented on this in post 48, 50, 52, with citations to the peer-reviewed literature; PPGG had no response except a lame gag about UFO sightings.

6. #6 NM

   March 6, 2010

   “That’s the sort of courtesy you can take for granted in a scientific debate.”

   It’s not a scientific debate, it’s a bunch of deluded people trying to persuade others they’re not deluded. The way they do this is by trying to define the terms as if they are in a position to do so, which they are not.

7. #7 Silvia

   March 8, 2010

   To PPGG,
   Just rapidly, the purpose of discussing other viruses is merely to dispel the impression generated by the Perth Group and Peter Duesberg that all viruses are the same, share the same biology and do their thing in the same manner. The PG and Peter Duesberg generalize about viruses to such a degree that it is evident that they have very little, if any, knowledge on the subject. They use generalizations as arguments against HIV and, as such, need to be called out. If Duesberg says HIV can’t cause AIDS because it has a long incubation period and all other viruses have incubation periods of a couple of weeks, I am perfectly justified in pointing out that his generalization about other viruses is simply incorrect and, hence, the argument is false. If I choose to use other viruses to illustrate how inaccurate those statements are, I am merely strengthening my statement in a perfectly legitimate manner.

   In any case, I would like you to explain to me a few things. So it seems to me that the Perth Group and Peter Duesberg attribute the AIDS epidemic to the following:
   1. Oxidative stress (caused by malnutrition, poverty, etc.)
   2. Poppers and recreational drugs
   3. AZT
   Please answer the following:
   1. Famine, abject poverty and disease have been a constant in human history. If oxidative stress alone were the cause of AIDS, how is it that AIDS has only emerged in the last century as a widespread epidemic?
   2. If poppers and recreational drugs are the cause of AIDS, please explain how individuals who do not use those items develop AIDS. Specifically, please explain how hemophiliacs and laboratory workers with no additional risk factors beyond exposure to HIV-contaminated material acquire the disease.
   3. If AZT causes AIDS, how is it that AIDS cases existed prior to the application of AZT in populations that did not use AZT?
   This is not intended exactly as a “challenge” although I do expect a response. My point is that if you want to present alternate theories you need to explain how they fit the epidemiological data. Although Duesberg and the PG spend a lot of time arguing about whether the data is sufficient to implicate HIV in AIDS they do not spend much time describing how their theories match the epidemiological data. If you wish to align yourself with such groups that encourage HIV+ individuals to give up their meds, I would hope that you have an answer for the above.

8. #8 PPGG

   March 8, 2010

   Hi Silvia,

   No, your point about Duesberg’s and the Perth Group’s simplifications about other viruses is not legitimate. First of all, Duesberg’s and the Perth Group are not identical, just like all members of an ethnic minority cannot be lumped together and stereotyped.

   Their positions and arguments are not identical either. You cannot broadly attribute all sorts of statements and positions to all Dissidents (or “denialists”, which is the propaganda word you have been fed precisely so you can lump everybody out of the mainstream together)

   Many of the points you attribute to the Perth Group above are hallmark Duesberg arguments. We do not consider Duesberg the leading dissident. That’s Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos. This assessment is based solely on original argument and logical rigour. As Dissidents we do not count peer-reviewed articles, the size of the lab or any other mainstream status symbols as knock-out arguments.

   Secondly, yes Duesberg is simplifying, and sometimes oversimplifying, when generalizing about viruses, but you are, I am afraid, completely missing his point in your criticism of his generalizations.

   Look, friend, Duesberg was a world-renowned expert on retroviruses, probably before you were born. When faced with e.g. his “fast replication, short incubation”, and his “disease occurs if high percentage of T-cells are lost” points, you can choose to believe that he is not aware of that which every lay person on the street is aware of, that there are viruses, including some of the viruses Duesberg made a career out of studying, that (seem to) have very long incubation periods, and which don’t cause disease by killing cells (like “oncoviruses”, yeah?).

   You can choose that, and proceed to set Duesberg “right” on all these points, or you can say to yourself: “Hmmm, it’s not really likely that Duesberg would have forgotten everything about his years of working with viruses, that could easily have landed him a Nobel Prize if he had continued as a conformist, so maybe I have missed the point Duesberg is trying to convey in the specific context of HIV theory and predictions”.

   What do you think?

   You’re welcome back to the Facebook thread if you want to disentangle and discuss any of the issues you mention, but to answer all of them here is a big mouthful. One issue one step at a time please.

9. #9 Stephen Wells

   March 8, 2010

   Argument from authority on aisle 108; mop and bucket please.

10. #10 Silvia

    March 8, 2010

    PPGG,

    I would like to agree with you that it seems unlikely that a smart man, like Duesberg, would make leave of his senses and forget basic virology. Unfortunately, the following presentation created by Duesberg contains examples of just the sort of inaccurate arguments I described above:
    http://www.duesberg.com/presentations/$bnAIDSQuiz.pdf
    (see pp.6-7) I guess maybe he can defend his statements on the basis that he refers to “conventional” viral diseases, but that begs the question: “what does conventional even mean in the context of something as varied as viral disease?”

    I must also disagree with you about Duesberg’s intent in using such generalizations. As is clear from his juxtaposition of “conventional viral diseases” with observations from HIV, he DOES use these oversimplifications (as you rightly called them) to justify his stance on HIV and lead people into believing that the science behind HIV causing AIDS is suspicious. Unfortunately, lay people are not necessarily equipped with the information or training to detect that these statements about “conventional viral diseases” are inaccurate. I do not believe that I am missing the point.

    Finally, I get the impression that you are aligned with the PG. Hence, I must ask you why you chastise me on the basis that I am not trusting the reasoning of a man who could have won a Nobel Prize? Ignoring the fact that I agree with the reasoning of many more scientists who actually have won Nobel Prizes e.g. Luc Montagnier and David Baltimore and other non-Nobel laureates who conduct original, peer-reviewed and published studies on HIV, I am sure I don’t have to point out that the PG has severed its ties with RethinkingAIDS and Peter Duesberg on the basis of “irreconcilable scientific and ethical differences” presumably related to the isolation question. If so, you personally have chosen to side with Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos who has not even earned a PhD or BA in the biological sciences. If you respect the achievements of Peter Duesberg and the meaning of his academic titles and chastise me for disagreeing with him on the basis of his superior academic achievements relative to mine, at the very least you should align yourself with him rather than the PG on the basis that his credentials outcompete those of Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos.

11. #11 PPGG

    March 8, 2010

    Silvia,

    As I said, it’s your choice if you decide that your general read-and-comprehend skills cannot be vastly improved on, but in that case I would advise you to stay in ERV’s sandbox and not attempt any more exchanges with the big boys. But fair enough, it doesn’t seem you need me to tell you that.

    Let’s examine your latest. Where did I say that Duesberg is right and you are wrong because of his academic achievements?

    The answer is I didn’t. To the contrary, I said I did not let his credentials influence my view of whose head is more scientific his or EPE’s (or yours).

    If you can’t even get that right, what makes you so certain you can deal with scientific arguments?

    What I further said was that, if you think you have caught an expert in committing one basic mistake after another, you might want to take a second look to see who really made the mistake. You’re obviously not going to do that. Instead you apparently think you’ve made a profound observation by saying ‘that begs the question, “what does conventional even mean in the context of something as varied as viral disease?”‘

    Well, read again, maybe next you’ll even come up with a few answers to that intriguing question.

12. #12 Stephen Wells

    March 9, 2010

    The irony involved in a denialist saying “If you think you have caught an expert making one basic mistake after another, you might want to take a second look” is staggering. Thinking that _almost all virologists_ have made a boneheaded mistake- that’s cool for PPGG, but thinking that the mighty Duesberg might be talking out of his ass- HERESY!

13. #13 onoyoudidn

    March 9, 2010

    If you can’t even get that right, what makes you so certain you can deal with scientific arguments?

    Perhaps if you were to trot out some scientific arguments, we might assess Sylvia’s ability to evaluate them.

    I’ve got some questions of my own, namely, why haven’t you answered any of Sylvia’s questions? Why do you continue on in your ad hominem fueled, make-work blatterings about this guy’s reputation and Proctor and Gamble or the Perth Group or whatever.

    Please allow me to reiterate Sylvia’s questions:

    1. Oxidative stress (caused by malnutrition, poverty, etc.)
    2. Poppers and recreational drugs
    3. AZT
    Please answer the following:
    1. Famine, abject poverty and disease have been a constant in human history. If oxidative stress alone were the cause of AIDS, how is it that AIDS has only emerged in the last century as a widespread epidemic?
    2. If poppers and recreational drugs are the cause of AIDS, please explain how individuals who do not use those items develop AIDS. Specifically, please explain how hemophiliacs and laboratory workers with no additional risk factors beyond exposure to HIV-contaminated material acquire the disease.
    3. If AZT causes AIDS, how is it that AIDS cases existed prior to the application of AZT in populations that did not use AZT?

    Also, I’d like to throw in my own question: why have you deliberately lied several times about the timeline regarding AZT’s rollout in the treatment of AIDs?

    Finally, who ever told you that you were one of the “big boys”?

14. #14 cooler

    March 9, 2010

    AIDS existed prior to AZT because the government needed a new epidemic. Dr. Gottlieb was one a deperate search to find people who probably Got Kaposis and PCP from their use of poppers and their enourmous drug use. He found a few, big deal,leave it to the CDC to hype a new virus. John Lauritsen has spoken about experiments where Poppers can cause all Kinds of AIDS like diseases in animals.

    http://paganpressbooks.com/POPBOOK.HTM

    Also AIDS was always overhyped pre AZT, because there was big money for Gallo’s failed retrovirus=cancer to become retrovirus=AIDS the CDC had a big interest in overhyping the epidemic so they could justify more funding. And post AZT, wellI mean here is a drug that is is chemotherapy in a pill, that was released by crooked trials that only lasted 4 months. I mean have they ever given a monkey the same years and years of high doses OF AZT that AIDS patients got in the late 80′s to see if long term use if this drug was safe?

    Silvia seems to harp about animal models but ignores the fact that they had to build a special retirement home for the over 100 chimpanzees infected with HIV.

    See “For Retired Chimps, A Life of Leisure
    By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
    Published: January 7, 2003″

    So what is Silvia Et al left with? Epidemiology ie correlation. Is there any study that even looks at people who are not on AZT, not hard core drug addicts, not terrorized with a diagnosis of death and not co infected with Lo et al’s mycoplasma even die from HIV? Duesberg claims they are none, besides corrleation doesn’t prove anything much. especially considering most HIV positve people are totally healthy, which caused the CDC to invent the 10 year latent period.

    Duesberg says the correlation is an artifact of the CDC’s defintion, Cervical cancer with an HIV positive test is AIDS, cervical cancer w.o antibody test is cervical cancer.

    As far as the O’brien paper Silvia cited, check the references used in his paper. As far as those 3 lab workers were any of these published in any detail anywhere? Did they end up dying or are they still alive? Deusberg claims they are just random anecdotes. This is the only reference that the Obrien paper cites about the 3 labratory workers, in the abstract it only talks bout 2 lab workers out of many that became HIV positive, it does not talk about AIDS progressing, AZT consumption etc in the abstract ( I do not have access to the paper.) Here is the reference obrien cites about the 3 lab workers.

    Risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) infection among laboratory workers
    SH Weiss, JJ Goedert, S Gartner, M Popovic, D Waters, P Markham, F di Marzo Veronese, MH Gail, WE Barkley, J Gibbons, and al. et

    Department of Preventive Medicine, New Jersey Medical School, Newark 07103.

    In the O’brien paper he cites the Darby study about HIV in Hemopheliacs. Did the study even control for AZT? So according to the study 4/1000 haemophiliacs develop AIDS pre HIV and 81/1000 developed AIDS post HIV. How does this moderate increase prove anything, especially since the study did not even control for AZT, not to mention the terror one gets with a positive test?

    What if haemophiliacs with a high sed rate or an xmrv positive test died at a rate at 81/1000 while those without it died at a rate 4/1000, would that prove an ESR or XMRV is lethal? Such vague correlations that don’t control for confounders don’t prove much. Most stat classes talk about these vague correlations don’t prove anything.

15. #15 cooler

    March 9, 2010

    Edit, here is another study that Obrien cites about the 3 lab workers. The abstract only talks about one hiv positive lab worker, nothing about AZT use or AIDS progression. I don’t have access to the paper.

    AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 1994 Sep;10(9):1143-55.
    Viral variability and serum antibody response in a laboratory worker infected with HIV type 1 (HTLV type IIIB).

    Reitz MS Jr, Hall L, Robert-Guroff M, Lautenberger J, Hahn BM, Shaw GM, Kong LI, Weiss SH, Waters D, Gallo RC, et al.

16. #16 cooler

    March 9, 2010

    Also the dentist David Acer that Silvia talked about, one of his patients Kimberly Bergalis testified during congress shortly before her death, she was in a wheelchair, lost her hair and seemed to be talking very slowly, I mean she looks like the victim of AZT chemotherapy, not HIV.

17. #17 Stephen Wells

    March 9, 2010

    Cooler, you’re going to have to do better than “AIDS existed prior to AZT because the government needed a new epidemic”. It’s like you’re not even trying to look like anything but a paranoid conspiracy nut.

18. #18 cooler

    March 12, 2010

    @stephen only a conspiracy but like you guys who can’t describe the experiments that justified AZT release, nor see how weak the references in the Obrien book report Silvia relied on are.

    @wicklund still waiting for the experiments where Montagnier disproved his prior work that HIV was not cytopathic.

19. #19 cooler

    March 12, 2010

    Meant to say conspiracy nuts like you guys! LOL!

20. #20 Stephen Wells

    March 15, 2010

    Notice how the idiot isn’t satisfied with just evidence that HIV is cytopathic (which you could get from any recent journal); no, we must have Montagnier, personally, undergo Maoist self-criticism. Piffle.

21. #21 Pete D

    March 15, 2010

    cooler – After reading the Darby and O’Brien papers and comparing your statement “So according to the study 4/1000 haemophiliacs develop AIDS pre HIV and 81/1000 developed AIDS post HIV” to the finding in those studies, I don’t see where you get teh 4/1000 develop AIDS pre HIV. Maybe I missed it…could you clarify this?

22. #22 cooler

    March 15, 2010

    Sorry I meant to say the Darby study said death rates in hemopheliacs was 8/1000 pre hiv and 85/1000 post hiv. Such a vague correlation that doesn’t control for AZT chemotherapy is useless. What if Hemopeheliacs with XMRV died at 85/1000 while Xmrv negative died at a rate 8/1000? What that prove causation, no it would not.

    “the annual death rate was stable at 8 per 1,000 during 1977-84; during 1985-92 death rates remained at 8 per 1,000 among HIV-seronegative patients but rose steeply in seropositive patients, reaching 81 per 1,000 in 1991-92. Among 3,830 with mild or moderate haemophilia, the pattern was similar, with an initial death rate of 4 per 1,000 in 1977-84, rising to 85 per 1,000 in 1991-92 in seropositive patients” Darby 1995

    @swells, noted that you’re too dumb to describe the experiments that proved HIV is lethal that justified AZT’s release in 1987.

23. #23 Pete D

    March 16, 2010

    cooler – the death rate was 10x higher for HIV-positive than HIV-negative hemophiliacs. Contrast that with the death rate in HIV-negative hemophiliacs vs the general public (only 2.69x higher). That’s pretty convincing. As for controlling for the use of AZT in the 1989 paper, there is specific mention that the rate of AZT use in hemophiliacs was very low at the time of the study.

    In a subsequent paper (Darby, AIDS 2004), death rates in HIV-positive hemopheliacs were found to have sharply dropped after the introduction of HAART. No evidence of deaths from HAART was found.