I was the guest on The Skeptics Guide to the Universe last week, a podcast of the New England Skeptical Society. The main topic of the discussion was HIV denial (specifically focusing on Christine Maggiore's story), but we also talked about antibiotic resistance (inculding peptide antibiotics) and skepticism in general. The host was Dr. Steven Novella:
Dr. Novella is an academic neurologist on full-time faculty at Yale University School of Medicine. He is the Author of Weird Science, a monthly column featured in the New Haven Advocate. He is the co-founder and President of the New England Skeptical Society, Associate Editor of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine , and a contributing editor of Quackwatch, a consumer advocacy website dealing with all types of health fraud.
It was a fun group and interview. The mp3 is here; my part starts about 1/3 of the way through. I said "um" and "y'know" too much, though...something I remind myself about when I'm doing lectures but wasn't thinking about too much here. Just a warning in case that's a pet peeve of yours.
- Log in to post comments
Tara,
I've been thinking more and more about your comments above.
Are you really accusing Bialy of specific things? I seem to remember (please do correct me if I'm wrong) you claiming that
*Bialy was harassing you.
*Bialy was trying to get you fired.
*Bialy was slandering you (calling you a racist and incompetent).
These are pretty serious charges. And clearly you and Bialy don't see eye to eye. But I don't see evidence of any of these things myself. And *regardless* of whether or not this is really what you intended to say, apparently a lot of people have put 2 + 2 together on their own and, in some places, are starting to make statements in which they take it as a given fact e.g. that Bialy is trying to fire you. And then you really are responsible, if you don't set the record straight.
If people are misinterpreting what you're saying, you should let everyone here know that. If not, I'm kind of confused why you don't just bring a lawsuit yourself (and if your charges were really true, you *would* have a serious lawsuit to consider, not some internet blogging copyright stuff). And, in this case, I'm *REALLY* confused why you don't seem to think you could be on the end of a lawsuit yourself.
The most disturbing thing about this myth is the motivation. Why exactly do conservatives feel it is important to insist that AIDS does not exist in Africa? Is it that the public might demand action if they know this fact? Is it that it might show AIDS afflicts non-gays? Is it that informing people that AIDS exists might afflict a conscience or two, making it more difficult to not fund AIDS programs? Ignoring the problem is certainly easier if you pretend it doesn't exist. Or is this deliberate campaign for apathy simply motivated by who's dying?
"Is it that it might show AIDS afflicts non-gays?"
That's my impression.
I'm a physicist. I'm looking for a rebuttal of the claims of HIV/AIDs denialists. I've done some googling. It seems easier to find denial of HIV/AIDS than the mainstream scientific viewpoint. Where is the clear exposition of the mainstream view?
There are a number of good sites, such as here, here, and here. But, yes, they're difficult to find, and not updated as frequently as I'd like.
OK, regardless of my stance on this issue, I find it appalling that discord on the nature of AIDS is being defined as a right vs. left issue, with the dissident camp being painted neatly into the hard-right corner and supporters of the mainstream view advertising themselves as "progressives". I must ask: At what point did progressives start lining up like such good soldiers to support prevailing paradigms? At what point were serious, credentialled people with valid questions shoved aside and labelled "denialists" and "murderers" for the sole purpose of hardening public opinion against them and rendering their arguments ineffective? If someone answered "at the beginning of the Iraq war", they'd probably be right. These loaded buzzwords, "denialist" in particular, serve the same manipulative, message-making purpose that "unpatriotic" served back in 2003. Here's the formula: 1)impugn character, 2)spread it around ad-nauseam, 3)watch negative prevailing viewpoint take shape, 4)advance agenda. Nobody wins here, but journalism and science most certainly lose. Language is reduced to an instrument of blunt trauma. I understand that, especially in contemporary American politics, issues need to be "framed" and memes need to be sharply defined if they are to gain any traction, but this is really to the detriment of both honest debate and accurate analysis. American progressives, in order to combat the onslaught of thuggish, Limbaugesque media, have become essentially, thuggish, lefty Limbaughs. I mean, come on, does anyone truly think that HIV=AIDS skeptics derive some kind of perverse pleasure from the knowledge that Africans are wasting away, or have some kind of agenda to annihilate gay people? This is about as true as saying that career scientists and public health workers are all greedy, big-Pharma pawns. Its bullshit. Here in Toronto where I live, a lot of people (both straight and gay) are quite open to some of the dissident points of view. Smart, inquisitive, creative, well read, primarily left-leaning people. Not "murderous, crackpot, junk-science reading, creationist, flat earth believing holocaust deniers." And incidentally, if I were trying to portray myself as open-minded or progressive, I'd take great pains to distance myself from "Quackwatch" and "Dr." Stephen Barrett. This site is, much like the initiative to Nevirapinize Africa, a wholly Bush-endorsed, right-wing venture.
Take care,
M.P.S
Matt & John P,
Dr. Smith directed you to gov't/private agencies that make their money off AIDS research. They support the current paradigm at all costs.
Here is a great piece by Dr. Culshaw, a Professor of Mathematics at University of Texas which elucidates the issue.
Two quick points: The far right (represented by Big Pharma and Bush Admin) and the far left (represented by AIDS activists and some doctors/scientists) have united to preserve the existing paradigm; to wit, that one, solitary virus (unknown before 1981), suddenly popped onto Planet earth and started killing people thru sex.
It is a bizarre confluence of financial and social interests, that is not a typical right/left battle.
Here is an edited version of a recent article in Harper's that has ignited a firestorm of protest.
For the record, I am not a "Denialist." The more research I undertake, though, the more I think AIDS is a multi-factoral disease, greatly exacerbated by the toxic, cancer chemotherapy drugs used to treat it.
Hank Barnes
John,
I wonder if you have gone here:
http://www.rethinkaids.info/documents/Specialist%20Literature/NIH%20Reb…
It is a rock solid rebutall fof the propaganda dr. Smith linked above.
This is not up for debate. It is a matter of your own reading of the two.
This site contains all ohe serious material anyone wishing to know the skeptics evidence.
http://rethinkingaids.com
Tara,
Thanks for the links, they are quite informative. I've also found some info on the "orac knows" blog pertaining to HIV AIDS denial.
Bialy,
I don't believe you. Count me solidly in the mainstream camp - HIV causes AIDS. You don't impress me favorably.
Dr. John Palkovic
PhD, physics and mathematics
Just found the AIDS Myth weblog. The "blogger" is a PhD and an MD. His PhD thesis was on the molecular biology of HIV. It looks like a good source of information.
AIDS Myth weblog.
Thanks for sharing that link Johm, it looks like a good resource.
Link from Bialy via Dean's World.
M.P.S wrote:
"I find it appalling that discord on the nature of AIDS is being defined as a right vs. left issue, with the dissident camp being painted neatly into the hard-right corner and supporters of the mainstream view advertising themselves as "progressives".
I concur. What I find interesting is the fact that AIDS has had a political dimension since the early 1980s when health officials wanted to close down the bathhouses in San Francisco and the Gay Community saw this as an attack on its lifestyle.
No other disease has been politicized to the degree that AIDS has been. Has anyone ever considered why this is the case? Has anyone considred that this politicization gets in the way of the scientific method?
This site seems to fall into the same trap. What does the occupant of the White House have to do with this disease? What does Left/Right politics have to do with this disease?
There is this implied assumption that having an administration that I agree with would do more in the quest to cure this disease. Since President Nixon declared War on Cancer 35 years ago, tens - if not hundreds - of billions of dollars has been spent on trying to cure the disease through the administration of liberals and conservatives.
Guess what? My father-in-law still died from bone cancer 7 weeks after his diagnosis a year ago.
If you want to criticize Bialy and Duesberg, do so on the merits (or lack thereof) of their arguments. Leave their politics out of the equation.
You just might find that you are wrong.
That's rich. First, as I mentioned, she's a mathematician. I don't know what her background is in infectious disease epi (I contacted her but she did not respond), and she obviously shows little understanding of molecular biology in her comments about PCR (by her logic, any microbe shouldn't cause us harm because they are so tiny). Additionally, she's received governmental funding for HIV research--I haven't. So why is her viewpoint less "biased" than mine, since she's part of the "AIDS establishment" and I'm not?
That's not the "paradigm" at all. Please quote one scientist who says it suddently "popped onto planet earth." Can you have a single post without including a giant strawman?
Scott,
I don't know what's going on over at Dean's World (I'm unable to comment there), but I've not noticed anyone here criticizing Bialy or Duesberg or others because of their politics--which I admittedly don't know or care about. I and others have focused on the science, while Bialy and Hank and others keep asserting that scientists such as myself are either simply stupid or part of a vast government/pharmaceutical conspiracy. Note that neither of them commented on the journal article I linked above--this is typical.
Tara
I refer to the first comment in this thread by Memekiller:
"The most disturbing thing about this myth is the motivation. Why exactly do conservatives feel it is important to insist that AIDS does not exist in Africa?"
The second comment:
"Is it that it might show AIDS afflicts non-gays?"
These are political statements. There are more in the Disgusted thread, but you get my point.
I believe that it is unfortunate that AIDS has become a political issue because politics gets in the way of scientific progress regardless if those politics are "liberal" or "conservative". ACT-UP does more harm than good, as does the Family Values Coalition on the Right.
BTW I hadn't known about the death of Christine's daughter, although HIV-Denial is at most an intellectual curiosity for me.
Parenthood trumps all arguments. If you are called "Mommy" or "Daddy" you had better be right - in everything. There is no room for error because no ideology or belief is worth sacrificing a child.
None.
Well, she must be wrong, then.
She has read far, far more papers on HIV than you, Tara. Hundreds. Hundreds and hundreds. Most on the infectious models of HIV. And written four. She's been a member of the HIV research community. I really don't see where you're in a position to judge, here.
No, that's not what she said. Read carefully. She was emphasising the fact that HIV is hard to find even during full-blown clinical AIDS. This isn't true for other microbes. (Otherwise, we wouldn't have identified them before the invention of PCR...think about it.)
The answer seems obvious -- she's going AGAINST the establishment. The whole point in identifying bias is that someone has something to gain (or not lose) by going with the establishment. But that's not the case, here. This could be very damaging to her career. She will probably have to leave mathematical biology and find another research area. She will probably alienate her advisor and colleagues. Writing the piece was hardly in her personal career interest.
Darin, I think you are missing the point. Dr. Culshaw expresses her views on the link between HIV and AIDS based on her understanding of mathematical modeling of biological systems. Dr. Smith expresses hers based on her understanding of epidemiology and microbiology. Both have expertise and both have 'biases', if that's the correct word, based on that expertise.
I said over on another board that I disagree with Dr. Culshaw's position because I don't believe that the inability to mathematically model the transmission or progression of a complex disease such as HIV/AIDS can necessarily be taken as evidence against a causal relationship between the two. I don't doubt Dr. Culshaw's sincerity nor do I question her expertise, but I disagree with her conclusions.
That's not what I said, nor what I suggested. I simply don't take someone at their word about infectious disease when I don't know if they have any background in it, and I've yet to see any evidence that she does. I'm not also saying I'm correct because I have extensive background in this area. If you look at these threads, the only ones arguing from authority are Bialy, Hank et al. I prefer to stick to the evidence. Highly degreed people can be wrong, and laymen can be right, so I don't argue by letters.
Please don't pretend to know me. You have no idea how many papers I've read on HIV. And I find it once again ironic that I'm insulted either as a member of "AIDS orthodoxy" or by not being one.
False. I've already given repeated examples of organisms that are rare or not present at all during clinical stages of disease. Repeating a mantra does not make it true. Second, you must realize, certainly, that we *are* identifying disease-causing organisms more and more by PCR techniques? So there are ones that are even more "difficult to find" than HIV, yet cause disease. Doesn't that severely undermine her point?
Let's look at Culshaw's quote:
One--while HIV may be difficult to detect in peripheral blood, other studies have shown it's still present at higher levels in lymph tissue. Surely she must be aware of that, going through her "hundreds and hundreds" of HIV papers. So she's arguing against a strawman here. Two--we don't find influenza virus in the blood "even using the most sensitive technology"--does this mean the virus isn't "relevant" in the first place? See why I doubt Culshaw's expertise in infectious disease and molecular biology?
If she leaves, that's her choice. Obviously the skills she's learned in mathematical modeling could just as easily be applied to another disease. Additionally, what do you think I have to gain or lose by supporting the HIV-->AIDS theory? I don't work on HIV. No one cares what my position is. I'm not winning any grant support or funding dollars by discussing this here. The only reason people in my department even know about these threads is because Bialy alterted them, so it's not as if I was currying favor with my bosses previously. You see bias everywhere; and hey, sure, sometimes it exists. But I find it laughable that people actually think I'm a part of some vast conspiracy, getting rich off of discussing the flaws in your understandings of HIV epidemiology and pathogenesis. Incredible.
Tara says:
*psst* Tara...here's this week's payment. $$$ ka-CHING! Thanks once again for being part of our little AIDS Orthodoxy Conspiracy and Corn Boil scheme...they'll never find us out!!
Did I just type that out loud? Uh-oh.
The code-word for next week is "halibut". I repeat..."halibut".
The answer seems obvious -- she's going AGAINST the establishment.
That would mean that no ID proponent can be biased, either. I'm not saying she is similar to them in any way, but the reasoning doesn't work.
Otherwise, we wouldn't have identified them [other microbes] before the invention of PCR...think about it.
The establishment also claims to have identified hundreds of new microbes from sea water by PCR. Most of them couldn't be identified by traditional microscopy or culture techniques. I guess that means that Pelagibacter ubique can't play much role in marine ecosystems, even though it is estimated to be "the most common bacterium in the world". It was only identified in 2002 and it's too damn small, anyway.
Who is responsible for the Pelagibacter hoax? Think about it!
But Tara's Ph.D. dissertation wasn't on HIV. Rebecca's was. That's *my* point.
Did you read the whole article? It appears not. She connected the lack of a mathematical model to the lack of a biological understanding of HIV infection.
The point she was making is this -- *IF* we really had good proof of how HIV kill T-cells (which a lot of people here seem to think we do have), then why would there be so much disagreement over how to model it? The very fact that there exist papers of mathematical modeling of HIV infection which disagree fundamentally on the mechanism by which HIV kills T-cells is proof that biologists really don't know that *ANY* of these hypothetical mechanisms really happen!! Because *if* they did, then those particular mechanisms would have settled into the common aspect of all models of HIV infection. Granted, there is a bit of room for variation and original ideas in mathematical modeling, but generally, esp. on a topic that's had $100 billion throw at it, there emerges some general consensus on how something should be modeled. Then the research focuses direction on refinements, improvements, and implications of the model. When a modeling research program has half a dozen different theories about how to model in the first place, it's a sign that there is known real proof for any of those theories in the first place.
You completely missed her other major point -- the different models led to different predictions. Thus, not all the predictions can be validated by empirical evidence. Thus, not all the models are correct. Thus, not all the biological explanations leading to the models are correct.
What part of the above don't you understand??
And *my* point, which perhaps you missed, is that one can have expertise in one field--mathematical modeling of disease--and be clueless in another--such as general infectious disease epi. You are correct that my PhD was not on HIV--it was on Strep pyogenes. I've also worked carrying out research on about 20 different viruses, and currently work with Strep suis, group B strep, E. coli, and influenza. I think my breadth of understanding allows me to view HIV in the wider context of infectious disease epi than someone who's only studied one small aspect of a single pathogen their entire career.
Additionally, if you want to merely argue from authority, then what about all those other HIV researchers--who have more publications than Dr. Culshaw under their belt--and who agree that HIV causes AIDS? Ah, right, they can just be dismissed as "the orthodoxy" with their "bias." Isn't it fun when everything can be brushed away like that?
Regarding models, again, Darin, surely you must realize that we see similar things with other diseases as well--models that contradict depending on original assumptions, etc. You say, "When a modeling research program has half a dozen different theories about how to model in the first place, it's a sign that there is known real proof for any of those theories in the first place." Or a sign that we're simply missing a piece of the puzzle? Or that someone's doing it wrong? Aren't those more likely explanations?
I do hope you address my points above, as well.
Tara, her very *CV* is evidence that she has some kind of background. Her research area is *mathematical biology*. Her dissertation was on HIV. She's written or co-written 4 papers on HIV. She's gone to HIV conferences and given half a dozen talks or more to HIV researchers.
I know no idea what kind of "evidence" you're looking for, if that isn't enough for you.
Then why are you so concerned that she has a Ph.D. in math instead of epidemiology?
I don't have to know you. Each of you got your Ph.D. in 2002. Rebecca's dissertation was on HIV. Yours wasn't. It's extremely unlikely that you've read more papers on HIV than her. That's nothing personal; it's just an observation. And I only brought this up because you said "First, she's a mathematician".
I would be skeptical of these, too. I've seen enough examples of fantastical ideas, proof by analogy, and other strange thinking that I'm becoming skeptical of anything from the 70s on. (I'm sure you're going to pounce on me for that.)
For example, with oncogenes, they just assumed that cellular genes with the same structure as viral genes would (of course) have the same function as those viral genes. THIS was the basis for an entire research program?? NO! I would stop and try to PROVE it has the same function, and if I couldn't, I'd conclude that they might not have the same function after all, and at the least don't deserve billions of research money. But then again, I'm "just another mathematician".
Trying to sneak one by me? You're right, we don't -- *in the blood*. But I think in the lungs, heart, liver, kidney...I don't think you need PCR in those places.
Rebecca's point wasn't that you need a "magnifying glass" to see HIV (i.e. "it's tiny"), it's that there's so little of it present, right where the battle with T-cells is supposedly taking place.
Oh, you *DON'T* think you have anything to lose, Tara?? Fine then, go ahead, say "HIV doesn't cause AIDS". You'll find out real soon whether people "care" or not. I have absolutely nothing to lose, yet tons of people seem to really care about my position. Get real.
No, we think the explanation is much simpler.
Uh-huh. Nice try. Tara was explicitly comparing Rebecca's position to her own -- "How come she can be part of the establishment and not be biased, but I am?" In other words, "Why doesn't the bias that's ascribed to me also apply to her?" And I answered that question.
Whether she has different bias is another matter. But that's not relevant to what Tara said.
No one's claiming that Pelagibacter ubique causes disease in humans.
Tara,
Please don't pretend to know me. You have no idea how many papers I've read on HIV.
I have an idea on many papers you've cited here -- 1.
Hank Barnes
p.s. Well, how many have you read on HIV?
Darin writes : Did you read the whole article? It appears not. She connected the lack of a mathematical model to the lack of a biological understanding of HIV infection. The point she was making is this -- *IF* we really had good proof of how HIV kill T-cells (which a lot of people here seem to think we do have), then why would there be so much disagreement over how to model it? The very fact that there exist papers of mathematical modeling of HIV infection which disagree fundamentally on the mechanism by which HIV kills T-cells is proof that biologists really don't know that *ANY* of these hypothetical mechanisms really happen!!
Clinical studies have shown time and time again that HIV infected people suffer from a progressive loss of T cells. Even within high risk groups like drug users or homosexuals, the clinical studies have shown that progressive loss of T cells occurs in HIV infected and not in HIV uninfected individuals. Drug use and certain sexual behaviours may be associated with a higher risk of acquiring HIV infection but the progressive loss of T cells and clinical symptoms of AIDS that follow are still largely restricted to HIV infected individuals. That's what has been observed and that's what orthodox science appears to agree on.
In addition, laboratory studies with HIV have shown a number of different ways in which HIV can kill T-cells.
But disease progression is not just a matter of HIV infecting T-cells but a complex interaction between the virus and the whole organism.
If disease progression can't yet be mathematically modeled then I would agree that suggests that researchers don't understand all the factors that control the process - but that doesn't change that the clinical studies have shown that HIV causes AIDS or that the laboratory studies have shown that HIV can kill T-cells.
Do you really believe that those two observations are merely coincidence?
Tara, I'm *not* arguing from authority. You're the one making ad hominem arguments (arguing against the person rather than the argument), so you force me to defend the person. I find it pretty laughable that you think Rebecca is somehow "possibly clueless" in infectious disease epi because she studied HIV infection, not HIV epi, yet you don't seem to have any problems with your minions here who have expertise in I-don't-know-what and most of whom don't have any specific expertise in epi either (at least not that you have).
It's true there's often a period when it's not clear at all how to model something, but believe me, speaking as (pure) mathematician who (nevertheless) has some exposure to the world of applied mathematics, things aren't modeled for 20+ years, with unlimited financial resources, and end up with no idea what the correct model is. When that kind of thing *does* happen, the mathematicians usually say, "Well, let's go back to the drawing board" and if it's bad enough, they might even suggest to the scientists that their understanding is completely wrong.
I don't think anyone is doing anything wrong. I'm sure almost all the mathematics is correct and rigorous. But it's the point I made above -- when you have several different models all giving different predictions, then they can't all be right. When you go to test their predictions, all but 1 (or at most) 2 will sufficiently agree with the results. And the other models we have been disproved. That's what we do in science. Then again, maybe I don't know what you think science is.
Evidence of training in infectious disease epi. See, thing is, I know many folks in the same research area. Many of them come into it with a biology background, and learn the math on top of that. Others come in as math undergrads, and learn some of the biology. Some are well-rounded, some are not. Her post suggests to me that she's one of the latter, since she makes suppositions and statements that people who are trained in these area would find, well, ridiculous, like the ones I pointed out.
Because Hank was trying to make an argument from authority. I think, if you're going to do this, at least use an appropriate authority. It's like this link I was sent to by someone by email--athelete denies AIDS. Is this supposed to convince me?? Arguments from authority are dubious at best, but even more so when the person arguing isn't an actual authority. Anyhoo, I expanded on this above already. Regarding papers--I don't keep any count of how many I've read. I've taken infectious disease epi coursework at 3 different universities and been interested in this stuff since I was a teenager. I've written papers and given presentations on it from various angles--historical, epidemiogical, molecular pathogenesis. "Hundreds" over the last 10+ years is probably an under-estimate, not that it matters.
Like I said, isn't it fun when everything can be brushed away like that? *shrug* You're free to think that. I suppose with that kind of attitude, any further discussion with you is pointless.
Um, no. It can't always even be found in the lungs during the final stages of infection, because influenza deaths are commonly caused by secondary infections--just like HIV/AIDS. I'm not "sneaking" anything, just showing that, again, you'd need to dismiss a lot of other diseases if the objections to HIV-->AIDS were universally held.
And of course you realize--and Dr. Culshaw must as well--that there are reservoirs of T cells in the body that aren't circulating in the blood?
Have you lost a job because of it? And intellectual honesty disallows me to make such a claim. (I'm not saying that all who do so are intellectually dishonest--but that by betraying my own views on the matter to lie about it would be).
Yes, I got that: all science since the 70s is suspect. Much simpler.
Dale --
If the epi clearly show HIV causes AIDS, and the laboratory studies have clearly *PROVED* that all these mechanisms of HIV pathogenesis really exist, then how come 15+ years of modeling and unlimited financial resources haven't been able to translate this *CERTAIN* understanding into a model?
Is HIV really this "mysterious"?? That it can evade the efforts of the smartest applied mathematicians in the world for 15 years??
Doesn't the incongruity of the situation make you a bit...I don't know...unsettled??
Sorry, I forgot, "HIV can do it. Yes, I believe." (genuflecting)
Now you misrepresent me. I've never said her arguments should be dismissed because she's a mathematician. It's the converse: because I find her arguments to be strawmen and misrepresentations of the literature, I subsequently doubt she has much background in or understanding of infectious disease epi. As I've said before, I don't care about letters or qualifications--I care about the evidence.
Regarding modeling--again, we've learned so much in 20 years that it's not at all surprising the newer models would conflict with older. Additionally, I find it incredibly strange that we're even discussing this, since models are based on our knowledge of biology, while you're trying to make it the other way around--based on our models, the entire biology of HIV must be wrong--throwing the baby out with the bathwater is an understatement.
No, not all science, Tara. Just biology.
Right. Duly noted. I guess there's one more to throw into the creationist comparison meter.
Darin,
Like I've said to Hank, if medicine finds a way to cure HIV without affecting AIDS; that I would find incongruous and unsettling. But as long as viral loads, CD4+ T cell counts and degree of T cell activation correlate with disease progression and as long as treatments that reduce viral loads improve symptoms, then no, I don't find it either incongrous or unsettling although I'm sure it's frustrating for patients and medics.
things aren't modeled for 20+ years, with unlimited financial resources, and end up with no idea what the correct model is.
Then why are people still arguing over how to model fish populations in the world's oceans? Not with "unlimited funds", true, but the problem should be simpler if anything.
A person with a PhD in mathematical modelling of fish stocks is not necessarily an expert in the biology of the fish species in question. Same goes for HIV. I don't know if Tara's expertise in that is "greater" or "smaller" than dr. Culshaws (I'd say that depends on the POW), but it shouldn't be dismissed outright.
Perhaps you feel that someone here dismissed dr. Culshaw the same way, but all we have from her is one essay which seems to contain some misconceptions (e.g. of PCR), and as far as I know she has not been harassed because of this discussion, so cut people some slack.
No one's claiming that Pelagibacter ubique causes disease in humans.
True, a wrong diagnosis there will probably not cause loss of life, but that argument cuts both sides.
That difference notwithstanding, shouldn't marine science be held to the same high standard? Why do we get to identify something solely by PCR in the sea but not in the human body? (Oh, I forgot, the biology is probably suspect anyway.)
Dale,
.. that I would find incongruous and unsettling
This is beyond nonsense, Dale. Incongruous and unsettling? What would you say to the millions of people who already took AZT? What would you say to all the surviving members who lost their loved ones from "AIDS"
Also, you write:
.. if medicine finds a way to cure HIV without affecting AIDS ...
What do you mean "cure HIV?" How does one "cure" a virus?
The argument is that the virus just simply ain't pathogenic and there are better explanations as to why people have deficient immune systems.
So, what evidence would you accept that demonstrated that HIV, as is, is not pathogenic?
Hank
Harvey Bialy writes:
Not up for debate? B#$%$@##!
The Denialist propaganda you linked to is most certainly up for debate.
It is full of misinformation, misdirection, deception and flat out lies.
Lets look at a few examples
Fig 1. Presents an electron micrograph showing some HIV with mostly cellular contaminants from this 1997 paper Bess et al. It is Fig 3 MN in the original paper. For some reason they choose to ignore the electron micrograph directly below it labelled CL4 that shows the entire field full of HIV particles with only a few vesicles.
This is simply deceptive.
In an effort to deny the correlation between PCR and antibody testing they cite the Perth Group:
Tara wrote:
I've written papers and given presentations on it from various angles--historical, epidemiogical, molecular pathogenesis. "Hundreds" over the last 10+ years is probably an under-estimate, not that it matters.
Okay, then out of these "hundreds" of papers over the last 10+ years, which, say 2 or 3, in your view, rigorously tested whether or not HIV was a pathogenic virus and concluded that it was?
I honestly want to read them with an open mind.
Wouldn't those landmark papers end all this fuss?
Hank B
page 72 Bialy book:
"Believe me if I could have come up with a single experiment that I might have done to disprove the hypothesis, I would have written a grant in a minute." (Duesberg)
next sentence:
"Since it is apparently true one cannot disprove a negative,
Peter was left with only to point out the inconsistencies and
lacunae in the virus-AIDs hypothesis". (Bialy)
I'm confused. Are you saying you lost a job, and you had people tell your supervisors you were racist and incompetent just because you hold the orthodox view on HIV/AIDS?
I think you're confused. A model is based on biology. When a model doesn't make accurate predictions, there must be something wrong (or severely lacking) in the biological assumptions behind that model (not "the entire biology of HIV"). If scientists aren't willing to reconsider or modify their assumptions behind a given model when it doesn't make accurate predictions, what's the point in having mathematical modeling in the first place?
Someone brought to my attention a major typo, which is extremely important:
---
page 72 Bialy book:
"Believe me if I could have come up with a single experiment that I might have done to disprove the hypothesis, I would have written a grant in a minute." (Duesberg)
next sentence:
"Since it is apparently true one cannot *PROVE* a negative,
Peter was left with only to point out the inconsistencies and
lacunae in the virus-AIDs hypothesis". (Bialy)
Hank Barnes: Okay, then out of these "hundreds" of papers over the last 10+ years, which, say 2 or 3, in your view, rigorously tested whether or not HIV was a pathogenic virus and concluded that it was?
How would you interpret these studies?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&li…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&li…
Oh, and this is new, could be interesting:
The Mechanism of HIV-1 core assembly: insights from three-dimensional reconstructions of authentic virions.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&do…
Hank writes: The argument is that the virus just simply ain't pathogenic and there are better explanations as to why people have deficient immune systems.
If the virus isn't responsible why then, correcting for other high risk behaviours, do the clinical studies as well as animal models with hiv derived viruses show that developing a deficient immune system correlates with HIV status and not with anything else?
Dale,
If the virus isn't responsible why then, correcting for other high risk behaviours, do the clinical studies as well as animal models with hiv derived viruses show that developing a deficient immune system correlates with HIV status and not with anything else?
This is almost a very good question, Dale.
Ya gotta snip out the presuppositions, though. It's your downfall.
If the virus isn't responsible [Snip], correcting for other high risk behaviours, do the clinical studies as well as animal models with hiv [Snip] show that developing a deficient immune system correlate with [Snip] anything else?
That is the making of a good, neutral question, unprejudiced by extreme bias towards the "viral" theory.
Do you agree with my snips? If so, we can begin to rock & roll!
Hank B
George Kaplan,
Heh! Don't worry about McKiernan --"disprove" or "prove", What's the difference?:)
He's normally a pretty good typist......
Barnes, Hank
GK:
my correction: my book copy says:
"Since it is apparently true that one cannot prove a negative, Peter was left only to point out the inconsistencies and lacunae in the virus-AIDs hypothesis". (Bialy)
Qt: Is that what the author intended to say ?
Hank,
I would agree to your snips if you can show me any convincing evidence that points to the existence of a factor other than HIV. Evidence that would account for all those clinical studies, animal models and laboratory studies.
Dale,
I would agree to your snips if you can show me any convincing evidence that points to the existence of a factor other than HIV. Evidence that would account for all those clinical studies, animal models and laboratory studies
Glacial progress! "I would agree to your snips" is the most important part. Disregard all that superfluous baggage.
Once the testable hypothesis is formed (your question, properly snipped), then, and only then we can review the evidence from the clinical studies, animal models, and laboratory studies.
Don't prejudge the hypothesis!
So, Yes or No, do you agree with my snips?
Barnes
Try again Barnes.
Bialy's own words triple-checked for authenticity and accuracy are:
Since it is apparently true that one cannot *PROVE* a negative, Peter was left only to point out the inconsistencies and lacunae in the virus-AIDs hypothesis. (Bialy p 72)
Hank,
Correcting for other high risk behaviours, do the clinical studies as well as animal models with hiv show that developing a deficient immune system correlate with anything else? If that is your question, no I can't agree to that. It's too vague Hank. The question must be posed to test a correlation with a specific something else. It's got to be specific because (a) there has got to be evidence that would make it a plausible hypothesis and (b) it has got to be something that hasn't already been tested.
If mathmeticians can't successfully model the flight of bumblebees it is not a reason to discard the theory that bumblebees fly.
Rather it indicates that the model is too simplistic.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040911/mathtrek.asp
Hank,
The HIV/AIDS theory would be falsified if HIV were shown to be an endogenous retrovirus.
You have claimed that HIV is an endogenous retrovirus. Here is your chance to make scientific history by actually coming up with evidence for your assertion.
Chris,
Sounds like a good challenge, I will do it. But, there is one condition:
Half the time, you are reasonable and offer good critiques. Unlike some (most?) folks here, you have read Dr. Duesberg's papers and, therefore, can intelligently discuss them.
But, the other half, you are merely playing "defense attorney" for a flawed paradigm.
So, my condition is that you have to review my argument "endogenous retrovrius hypothesis" with an open mind, and be willing to adopt it, if it stands up.
If you already have a concrete opinion on the matter, and simply want to shoot it down, well, what's the point?
So, if I have you're simple pledge of open-mindedness, then I'll do it. It make take a week or so.
Deal?
Hank Barnes
p.s. I don't know where to post it, I do have a rarely used blogsite, mebbe I'll do it there. or Dean's. Or here.
My favorite HIV denialist argument is the one where somehow not having solved all HIV problems with large funds, technology and time is somehow "evidence" that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. I just KNOW there is a logical fallacy that covers that cobag argument, what is it?
My favorite part is that it seems that armchair quarterbacks and armchair pundits only come in second and third to armchair immunologists that have no clue about how the immune system works or functions, or that having a virus that actually infects and perturbs cells of the immune system itself might massively complicate our understanding of how the virus functions.
So many cobags, so little time!
Hank,
Why not post it here? More than half of what you post has no relation to the original subject of the thread.
There is little point posting it on Dean's blog because I have been banned there and I am not likely to go crawling back.
Alternatively you could post it on the usenet group misc.health.aids.
MHA is an unmoderated newsgroup. Nobody will censor you there although if you can't come up with good reasons for denying the evidence that HIV exists and causes AIDS you will probably be called a Denialist.
Despite the assertions of people like Dean that I just mindlessly accept the orthodox position I do have an open mind in regard to alternative theories of AIDS. In my view none of the "rethinkers" have come up with anything like a coherent and complete alternative explanation. Most of the alternative explanations are mutually exclusive and contradictory. All of them require the denial of contradictory evidence.
None of the "rethinkers" apply the same level of healthy skepticism to their own theories. Instead of looking for evidence to refute their own theories they cherry pick the literature to find "supporting" evidence. Most of their activity involves not trying to argue for their own theory but criticising the "orthodox" theory. At the risk of offending "rethinkers" this puts them in the same category as Intelligent Design proponents and creationists.
Your assertion that HIV is an endogenous virus is one of the few positive statements you have made. I am highly skeptical of this assertion exactly because I have previously examined the evidence for it.
For instance this paper is frequently cited as evidence that HIV is an endogenous retrovirus.
These authors extracted human DNA from placental tissue and peripheral blood lymphocytes and used HIV PCR primers and reduced stringency hybridisation to search for endogenous sequences that have any similarity to HIV sequences.
The results are only a couple of sequences of 28 and 31 bps that are highly repetitive and have only a fairly low similarity with HIV sequences.
I have an open mind but the evidence is stacked against your theory. I welcome your attempt to support you assertions. It makes a welcome change from the negative campaign that is typical of "rethinkers".
Hank,
It's going on for two weeks now.
If you stopped trolling you would have time to write up your endogenous retrovirus theory.
The other possibility is that you have absolutely no intention of ever trying to support your claims with evidence. Your sole activity is to bluster and bully and hope nobody notices that you have no evidence to back you up.
<>
Wow, this is the most bizzarre dialog I've ever seen on a blog. Bar none. There exist very very few detailed and proven models anywhere in biology - e.g. the FDA does NOT require MoA in their applications. If they did >90% of current drugs would not be on the market despite billions spent on many of them. So I guess you shouldn't be taking statins or (God forbid) any psychiatric drugs since we have only the broadest understanding of the MoA. No detailed model stands up. Complex systems are uniformly understood at the simple causation level and then only after a long time are detailed models put together. Knowing causation does not require a detailed model - do you understand the theory of gravity? And yet I suspect you believe the sun will rise tomorrow just as the hunter gatherer did without a clue as the any details.
Indeed.
It's a pleasure to read this debate, even before examining the points raise in greater detail. I tried to get a response from Chris noble at Dean's World on the endogenous retrovirus issue. Perhaps he can acces that site for my comments. Since I have to get off this computer, I can only support Hank Barnes by stating at present that mechanism complementation in trans explains the failure to hybridize.
Cheers
Last year I seroconverted to HIV. I had always followed 'the rules', no drugs.. safe sex.... but late last year I did engage in drugs and unsafe sex but because there was no exchange of semen I thought I was fine. I was wrong. I had tested HIV negative only few months earlier (when I didn't do drugs). Since seroconverting I have met quite a few people who have told me they engaged in unsafe sex but because there wasn't any exchange of semen they thought they were fine, but another common factor with all these people was that they were also high. Because they were high they have refused to say anything and have even doubted what may have really happened. But I'm convinced, that there is strong connection between HIV and recreational drugs.
Seroconversion is the development of antibodies to the hiv virus previously present.
Those would be the same hiv viruses, the deniers cannot seem to locate.
It is necessary for the micro-organisms to be present for the antibodies to show up.
-
How about a temporary detante here? And a couple of points for both sides:
1. If a mathematician is going to model a disease process (whether it's HIV or Schizophrenia), IT WOULD BE NECESSARY for them to have advanced understanding of that disease and its literature. Therefore, I think it's safe to assume that Dr. Culshaw is well-versed in the literature on HIV pathogenesis, immunology, and microbiology -- otherwise she wouldn't be able to create mathematical models of HIV pathogenesis.
2. Tara is correct that there are numerous examples in the ID literature of diseases that took decades to understand in any sort of complex way, so the fact that we are still researching HIV pathogenesis, doens't necessarily imply that this research won't be fruitful just because of how long it's taking. The better question is "when" does one stop trying? And for what reasons? The length of time is irrelevant. This is one of the dissident arguments that is not particularly helpful, and Tara is correct to point that out.
3. Being a skeptic here is important, I think. After all, Gallo was slapped with misconduct charges for his original research, and the AIDS establishment now openly admits that Ho's 1995-6 mathematical models of HIV progression and triple-ARV therapy were wrong -- after all, they predicted the total eradication of the virus, and that didn't happen. The establishment seems to have a predilection for making very important, definitive claims before the evidence has all been collected. Ho's claims really heartened a lot of people. He is no hero in my book for providing false hope based solely on mathematical models, not real-world in vivo studies.
4. I've made it publicly clear that although I am often found aligned with the dissidents, I believe HIV plays a role in AIDS. There is a middle ground, and people should think about what that middle ground might look like -- where a very complex endpoint (AIDS) can only be fruitfully explained by a MULTICAUSAL model -- meaning, what if it was HIV, and recreational drug use, and other factors (genotypic differences in the host for example)? At this point, I find myself most comfortable in the middle. I rally against establishment-types who say the evidence is concrete -- it's not. I rally against the dissidents who say there is no evidence that HIV contributes -- I think that's wrong as well.
Scientific debates seldom end in an "either-or" conclusion -- things as complex as the human immune system's interactions with microbes are unlikely to be reducible to one cause. What should middle-grounders like myself be called?
How about a temporary detante here? And a couple of points for both sides:
1. If a mathematician is going to model a disease process (whether it's HIV or Schizophrenia), IT WOULD BE NECESSARY for them to have advanced understanding of that disease and its literature. Therefore, I think it's safe to assume that Dr. Culshaw is well-versed in the literature on HIV pathogenesis, immunology, and microbiology -- otherwise she wouldn't be able to create mathematical models of HIV pathogenesis.
2. Tara is correct that there are numerous examples in the ID literature of diseases that took decades to understand in any sort of complex way, so the fact that we are still researching HIV pathogenesis, doens't necessarily imply that this research won't be fruitful just because of how long it's taking. The better question is "when" does one stop trying? And for what reasons? The length of time is irrelevant. This is one of the dissident arguments that is not particularly helpful, and Tara is correct to point that out.
3. Being a skeptic here is important, I think. After all, Gallo was slapped with misconduct charges for his original research, and the AIDS establishment now openly admits that Ho's 1995-6 mathematical models of HIV progression and triple-ARV therapy were wrong -- after all, they predicted the total eradication of the virus, and that didn't happen. The establishment seems to have a predilection for making very important, definitive claims before the evidence has all been collected. Ho's claims really heartened a lot of people. He is no hero in my book for providing false hope based solely on mathematical models, not real-world in vivo studies.
4. I've made it publicly clear that although I am often found aligned with the dissidents, I believe HIV plays a role in AIDS. There is a middle ground, and people should think about what that middle ground might look like -- where a very complex endpoint (AIDS) can only be fruitfully explained by a MULTICAUSAL model -- meaning, what if it was HIV, and recreational drug use, and other factors (genotypic differences in the host for example)? At this point, I find myself most comfortable in the middle. I rally against establishment-types who say the evidence is concrete -- it's not. I rally against the dissidents who say there is no evidence that HIV contributes -- I think that's wrong as well.
Scientific debates seldom end in an "either-or" conclusion -- things as complex as the human immune system's interactions with microbes are unlikely to be reducible to one cause. What should middle-grounders like myself be called?
MB,
You make a good argument in general but I think you are taking it a little too far. Taking a middle position is fine when there is equal scientific evidence (or lack there of) on both sides. But, that is not true in the case of AIDS.
The vast majority of people that have an acquired immune deficiency also have HIV in their body. Only a miniscule number of people in the world have HIV in their body but don't progress to AIDs. This last number has been rising because of the introduction of effective antivirals.
It is like saying that smoking cigarettes doesn't cause lung cancer because there are people who smoke their whole lives and never get lung cancer. Or that seat belts don't save lives because there are people who use seatbelts that still die in car crashes.
HIV is the proximate/immediate cause of AIDs. Get rid of the HIV virus and the number of cases of AIDS would drop from the millions to the hundreds. There are other factors( both genetic and environmental) that can affect your chances of progressing to full blown AIDS but these factors alone almost never cause any kind of immune deficiency.
Finally, I would argue that scientific debate often does lead to an either or conclusion. Either the Earth revolves around the Sun or the Sun revolves around the Earth. Either a virus causes smallpox or it doesn't. Either HIV is the immediate and proximate cause of AIDS or it isn't. The data suggests that the later is true.
DDS
PS Gallo was slapped with misconduct not because his research was wrong but because of how he went about it.
PPS I do agree with this statement though "The establishment seems to have a predilection for making very important, definitive claims before the evidence has all been collected." I find this practice, especially by scientists, arrogant and useless. But, just because Ho made a bad prediction does not invalidate all of his (and others) other work.
Mark,
The mechanism by which HIV infection leads to AIDS and the various factors that may influence individual susceptibility to infection following exposure or to the rate at which AIDS follows infection - there are still a lot of questions to be answered there but some aspects of the HIV/AIDS debate really are "either-or".
Either HIV exists or it doesn't.
Either HIV is sexually transmissible or it isn't.
Either HIV is harmless or it isn't.
Ooops. I meant to write:
Either HIV is the immediate and proximate cause of AIDS or it isn't. The data suggests that the former is true.
DDS
I live at 63326 Commonwealth in Seattle. Been up here before?
Darin, I think you are missing the point. Dr. Culshaw expresses her views on the link between HIV and AIDS based on her understanding of mathematical modeling of biological systems. Dr. Smith expresses hers based on her understanding of epidemiology and microbiology. Both have expertise and both have 'biases', if that's the correct word, based on that expertise.
Either HIV is the immediate and proximate cause of AIDS or it isn't. The data suggests that the former is true.
Because they were high they have refused to say anything and have even doubted what may have really happened. But I'm convinced, that there is strong connection between HIV and recreational drugs.