Regular readers may recall me previously discussing Rebecca Culshaw (for reference, threads can be found here and here). She's a PhD mathematician who wrote two articles discussing her departure from her prior research, which focused on mathematical models of HIV infection. I pointed out in one comment that her training is in math, and not biology, and that from her articles, she showed a very poor understanding of not only basic biological techniques (such as the polymerase chain reaction) but infectious disease epidemiology in general. Other HIV deniers responded that, because she did mathematical modelling, of course she had to have training in these areas. I think quotes from her recent interview again show otherwise:
Zenger's: What were the factors that actually decided you that what we have been told about AIDS cannot be true and that HIV cannot be the cause of it, certainly not the way the mainstream says it is?Culshaw: There were a lot of different deciding factors, to be honest with you. It was more an accumulation of information, some of it scientific but some of it political and sociological. I'll start with the scientific evidence first. When I read some of Peter Duesberg's stuff, I had never known what the difference was, really, between a virus and a retrovirus. I didn't realize, for example, that our cells can produce retroviruses but they can't produce real viruses -- well, not "real viruses," I don't mean.
Zenger's: Meaning the difference between an endogenous and an exogenous virus.
Culshaw: Yes, thank you. Good.
Note that, according to Culshaw's own timeline, this is at least well after she was into her Master's research on HIV models, since she says that the first time she found out about the virus myth group was when she picked up a copy of Spin magazine while on her way to a conference to present a talk. So even though she was already well into her own research modelling HIV, she didn't understand the difference between an exogenous and an endogenous retrovirus.
It's things like this that make scientists tear their hair out. Culshaw claims that "it was not the mathematical models themselves that caused [her] to doubt HIV, but rather the scientific literature on which the models are based." So clearly, she must know more than HIV virologists who've spent their careers studying the cell biology, pathogenesis, immunology, epidemiology, etc. of the virus. But even in this current interview, her interviewer is the one who has to set her straight regarding some very basic viral biology. This is the reason why I discussed how arguments from authority should be taken with a great deal of salt. Having knowledge in one area doesn't make you an expert across the board.
The rest of the interview is largely a collection of HIV-denial talking points, but there are a few parts that are interesting. I know mathematicians often get stereotyped as being a bit too uptight and logic-focused, and not having much understanding of how experimental science operates. Culshaw, unfortunately, seems to fit that stereotype:
As mathematicians, we're trained to be very, very skeptical of our own theories. If you come up with some model or some idea that works for basically everything you've observed, you state it as a conjecture and then you try to prove it. But you never, ever, ever say, "Well, I've seen all these examples, and it works for all these examples, therefore it must be true." You can't do that. You would never finish your course, let alone get anything published.
Another thing is that if you have a theory, and you come across one counter-example that flies in the face of that theory, then you have to throw it out. You cannot use it again. It seemed to me, like with the HIV theory, not only were they using a bunch of examples but they were throwing away every counter-example that they found. I understand that medicine and biology are not as rigorous as mathematics, and there might be a little bit more room to move when it comes to proving things, but it seemed that they came up with this theory, and when it didn't fit the observations, it wasn't the theory that's wrong, it was the observations. That's counter-natural. That's not the way science should work.
The problem is that there aren't any counter-examples that "fly in the face of the theory," and that biology is simply a lot messier than mathematics. As I've mentioned many times, if Culshaw's objections were applied universally to all infectious disease research, we'd have many more germ theory deniers out there. At least they're consisent.
- Log in to post comments
And if I may ask, what serious implications to public health does in understanding in HIV science pose if I may ask? since every decision is backed up with empirical findings and observations, and are subject to revision with new breakthroughs AS OPPOSED TO YOUR BELIEFS that are base on ....
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/08/interview_with_hiv_rethinker_…
and
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/08/interview_with_hiv_rethinker_…
END TIMES said
QUOTE
Very good, Seth. So this 2 week thread is now complete. On to other things.
Bottom line is apparently this - until HIV/AIDS doubters can scientifically prove their point, we really do have to go with the rather vast consensus in the greater scientific community (which includes all sorts of related science, much of which is not dependent on the good will of Big Pharma to be able to proceed with their work) that, indeed, HIV is sexually transmitted and that it does cause AIDS. It is pointless to think or argue otherwise, unless you happen to be a scientist who is doing research that does prove otherwise.
ENDQUOTE
Indeed.
I haven't found any original work supporting the HIV-dissenting position. Until then, the tried and tested is the most viable option. Otherwise people will be blindly taking vitamins as a miracle cure for AIDS and worse, thw likes of Zuma who think that HIV is a fiction of imagination, will go forth to spread his "love"
you'll get my drift
Its 4AM here in Australia....time course experiment. I need to find some shut eye.... Sorry bout the badly-structured sentences.
Sleep well viji,
and good dreams to you. This issue and the various viewpoints are not worth losing a precious moment of needed sleep over. Life and the science of life are an evolving process, not an event. And the process shall continue with or without any of us. Undoubtedly, We will talk again when you are more awake and rested.
Bon nuit.
Lincoln wrote,
Can I suggest this link? You can find thousands of articles here. A tiny fraction of articles have already been listed in this thread, and you can have a nice read.
I don't think you will find any articles that you would consider unbiased, though. They all support the HIV/AIDS link. From what I can tell, if you disagree with something, it must be biased.
So does ibuprofen. Caffeine is pretty damn nasty as a powder. Nicotine used to be used as a pesticide (blackleaf 40), and a pack of cigarettes has enough caffeine to kill a person if it were delivered as a single dose. All things are poisons at the right dose. Camptothecin is too dangerous to use as an anticancer drug on its own in humans, but modified forms can be used. They aren't pleasant, but they have decent antitumor activity. Name a chemical, and I can find a dose or condition in which it will be toxic. Cox2 inhibitors would probably never gotten a bad name if they had been formulated at a lower dose or used on occaision instead of continuously.
Calling a drug toxic and dangerous, while alarming, can be very misleading.
"and a pack of cigarettes has enough caffeine to kill a person if it were delivered as a single dose."
sorry, nicotine. Need to go get some caffeine...
You are quite correct Robster, all things, even drinking water are toxic in excess. HOWEVER, when is the last time you saw a bottle of ibuprofen, a cup of starbucks choice java, or even a pack of cigarettes with the following label as is found on a bottle from SIGMA of 25mg or more of AZT, also known as Retrovir, and also known as Zidovudine. It is currently a main ingredient in most "HIV Drug Cocktails".
Just when is the last time you bought a bottle of ibuprofen or a cup of coffee with a label such as THIS:
"TOXIC. Toxic by inhalation, in contact with skin and if swallowed. Target organ(s): Blood bone marrow. If you feel unwell, seek medical advice (show the label where possible). Wear suitable protective clothing."
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/azt.htm
Note the skull and bones on the label; the warning for a deathly poison (Bottle contains only 100 mg, humans are prescribed 300 to 1500 mg a day).
AZT was given for 10 YEARS as the SOLE MEDICATION in doses of 1200mg to 1500mg to primarily GAY MEN, BLACKS, Intravenous drug abusers, and a handful of Hemophiliacs, and a smaller handful of PREGNANT MOTHERS!
And, Mr. Toxic Boy, knower of all virology and toxicology, this very 10 year period happens to be the period of THE HIGHEST AIDS DEATHS, as 1995. The people recieving this drug survived an average of 8 months to ONE YEAR! The death rate only came down as Doctors killed off their patients, and as many in the gay community refused to use the drug, and as the newer, AIDS drugs came on line, which are now resulting with the majority of deaths of the individuals taking these newer medications who are now dying PRIMARILY of LIVER FAILURE while taking them.
Robster, viji, et al, go take an ibuprofen, have a cigarette, and a cup of coffee, and wake UP!
THIS IS Government Sponsored TERRORISM! THIS IS GENOCIDE! THIS IS SUICIDE! THIS IS Government sponsored and Doctor initiated IATROGENIC MURDER!
Wake Up, Robster et al. You are all sleepwalking!
Do you intend to wait until they are coming for YOU or Someone in Your family, or YOUR LOVED ONES?
It will be too late!
THIS HAS BEEN A 25 YEAR LONG HOLOCAUST OF PRIMARILY GAYS AND BLACK HETEROSEXUALS! AND YOU ARE SPONSORING IT!
And now that you know this FACT, if you ignore it for just one, little, moment, longer, and you do nothing to turn this around or stop it, THEN YOU TOO ARE A MURDERER!
DEAL WITH IT!
Robster wrote:
"We've been over this before. Go back up and read the cited articles."
Oh come on, Robster! You didn't cite any articles, and you know it. For the simple reason that these articles don't exist. The only papers that are ever quoted have been written by at least a dozen authors, and are based on the fundamental belief that HIV exists and causes AIDS.
"I'm surprised you didn't ask when I stopped beating my wife. I have seen no convincing evidence that HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Produce the evidence."
WHAT?!! HIV must be the cause of AIDS because you haven't seen evidence that it is not? (Let me catch my breath)
Well, I guess the planet Pluto must be made of cheese then, because I'm sure you haven't seen any evidence that it's not. (grumble) And I, Wilhelm Godschalk, have to produce evidence that HIV is NOT the cause of AIDS?? You know what chutzpah is, don't you? And by the way, when DID you stop beating your wife?
Clever rhetorical trick. Lump in illegal drugs with ARVs.
Toxicologists rely on, among many things, statistics and projections of risk."
Can you explain the difference between illegal drugs (crystal meth etc.) and legal drugs such as AZT to my liver?
If toxicologists rely on statistics and risk projections, they are not doing their job. Leave those things to the epidemiologists. Focus instead on effects chemicals have on human metabolism and detoxification mechanisms of the liver. That would be real toxicology. But you seem to be firmly integrated in the paradigm: "Produce any data you want. As long as the interpretation points to HIV".
"Wilhelm, that you don't accept or understand the concept of mutations and viral resistance (especially when the error rate of retroviruses is highly documented, search reverse transcriptase and proofreading) does not impress me. Rather, it shows a refusal to keep up with the scientific literature and knowledge base."
This wording reminds me of Chris Noble. Did he dictate this paragraph to you? I have explained time and again that this pet theory of frequent mutations by RNA viruses is just hot air. Most RNA viruses are genetically stable. There may be point mutations occurring, but they don't lead to viable infectious virus particles. Mutation is just an excuse for sloppy research, producing irreproducible results.
And viral resistance to drugs is baloney. There is nothing to get resistant to. How many times must I repeat that a virus is NOT a micro-organism?
Yes, I do read the modern literature, whenever my stomach is not queasy. Most of it is hogwash that has to be thrown out after Hatchet Day.
But your reaction des not come as a surprise to me. After all, you don't even have a clear understanding what toxicology is.
Wilhelm wrote:
I'm a toxicologist, not a medic (though I went through med school). However: my wife is a paediatric intensivist, and also worked with HIV+ patients in Soweto some years ago. One of our best friends is an infectious diseases consultant who looks after dozens of patients with HIV. Most of our friends are, in fact, doctors - and those who know doctors will know they 'talk shop' at every opportunity, so whether I like it or not I hear plenty of discussions over the dinner table about their patients' progress.
What Wilhelm tells me about the management of HIV+ patients (with or without AIDS-defining conditions) bears little resemblance to the accounts I hear from my wife and medic friends. I hope he will excuse me if I place more trust in their opinions than his.
"lincoln",
I think the hazard warning you quote is from a Manufacturer's Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) not the patient information leaflet. It sounds alarming, until you realise these are a stock phrases which appear (with minor variations, e.g. the target organ) on thousands of MSDSs. We could play a great game with scary quotes from MSDSs, for instance:
Nasty stuff - and it can cause liver failure in moderate overdose! Can you believe this stuff is sold in kiosks as a headache remedy?
Mr. Peter Barber. I am quite certain that you are quite excused by Dr. Godschalk. He is quite congenial and nothing if not understanding.
All posts posted by you, will be considered quite special by me at least, as I am considered by some to be an expert of quickly percieving the inner beauty and qualities of most men, as is often exposed through hours of tedious psychology to others less astute.
At times Mr. Barber, particularly upon looking at your very own website blog, reached by clicking on your "Peter Barber" name, I do detect that perhaps you come from, what would it be called, well, let's say rather priveledged stock. True? I also detect that you have perhaps had a sheltered and protected and nurtured life. True? Certainly no cockney accent has ever wafted or rolled off of your tongue, and has seldom disgraced your ears. However sir, I quite often find, that those among us with upbringings such as yours, have a tendency to come across to others, as, what would be the word? Let's just say a tad "haughty". Not unlike a mere pretense of real sophistication or pretense of real world experience or understanding of the realities of the human drama. No sir, very few Mother Theresa's living in the ghetto's of Calcutta personally bathing the lepers and outcasts sir in this crowd. In my vast experiences of dealing with many of those sheltered and protected and overly nurtured individuals that I usually find, personally, to be what I might call haughty, I also quite often find a general naivete of the real world experience, and often, oh, how I do hate to use the word, shallowness. Yes there you go, I have said the word, shallowness. Perhaps a Shallowness of thought. Often not quite as sophisticated regarding reality as perhaps a mud puddle decorated with a patina of faux gold flashing. Now this is not however, what I would consider you to be. Not at all, as I am sure you are much more sophisticated than this. However, as I do not know you at all, anything could be possible. I merely remark that I do however feel certain impressions, whether correct or not. My perhaps mistaken perceptions in the case at hand, is often seen by me in the light of perhaps haughty and sheltered, but guilded, shallowness. Oh well, pardon me. Nothing meant by this at all sir. Do carry on, sir, and how is it all now that you have left Glasgow behind, and transplanted yourself to that at one time barbaric land down under. Oh do tell, now, won't you? Tell us all that your dear guilded friends and doctors have clued you on to, as to what the realities of the world of HIV/AIDS really are. And unworldly as we are, do spare us no details. The shock might do us all good, and perhaps wake us from our own vapid stupor.
lincoln:
Look up the MSDS sheets for caffeine and ibuprofen:
Caffeine:
WARNING! HARMFUL IF SWALLOWED OR INHALED. CAUSES IRRITATION TO SKIN, EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT. POSSIBLE BIRTH DEFECT HAZARD. MAY CAUSE BIRTH DEFECTS BASED ON ANIMAL DATA.
Chronic Exposure:
Excessive use of caffeine may lead to digestive disturbances, constipation, palpitations, shortness of breath and depressed mental states. Possible teratogen. May cause congenital malformation in the fetus.
Ibuprofen:
Potential Acute Health Effects:
Very hazardous in case of ingestion, of inhalation. Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant). Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (permeator).
Potential Chronic Health Effects:
The substance is toxic to blood, lungs, the nervous system, mucous membranes. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage.
Perhaps it's time to sue Starbucks and the makers of Nuprin?
Wilhelm wrote: "I have explained time and again that this pet theory of frequent mutations by RNA viruses is just hot air."
No, Wilhelm, you've just asserted it as 'fact' without backing data and in spite of clear results to the contrary in the scientific literature from labs that do active research in viriology.
Mr. Unsympathetic.
When is the last time you read a PHYSICIANS DESK REFERENCE. Oh, never. I SEE! I now understand our worldly and sophisticated friend even more.
And bear in mind, that the AZT/Retrovir/Zidovudine warning is for an amount ONE THIRD LESS than what was given to HIV Positives for the TEN YEAR PERIOD with the HIGHEST death rate for the patients. Corresponding DIRECTLY, to the HIGH DOSAGE AZT USE.
The following is DIRECTLY from the Physicians Desk Reference, not an msds sheet, my very sophisticated darling:
SOMETIMES IT IS DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH SIDE EFFECTS FROM THE UNDERLYING SIGNS OF HIV DISEASE OR THE INFECTIONS CAUSED BY HIV.
And the PDR Continues as follows:
COMMON side effects may include:
Cough, diarrhea, difficult or labored breathing, ear pain, discharge or swelling, enlarged liver, enlarged spleen, fever, general feeling of illness, headache, loss of appetite, mouth sores, nausea, nasal discharge or congestion, rash, swollen lymph nodes, vomiting
Less common side effects may include:
Anemia, anxiety, back pain, blood disorders, blood in urine, breast enlargement, change in sense of taste, chest pain, confusion, chills, constipation, decreased mental sharpness, decreased reflexes, depression, difficulty sleeping, difficulty swallowing, difficulty urinating, dimness of vision, dizziness, drowsiness, exaggerated feeling of well-being, fatigue, flu-like symptoms, frequent urination, gas, hearing loss, heart failure, hepatitis, hives, indigestion, inflammation of the blood vessels, inflammation of the pancreas, inflammation of the sinuses or nose, itching, irritability, joint pain, light intolerance, loss of sensation, mouth discoloration, muscle pain, muscle spasm, nervousness, seizures, severe allergic reaction, skin eruptions and peeling, skin inflammation, stomach and intestinal cramps and pain, sudden drop in blood pressure, swelling from fluid in the tissues, swelling in the eye, sweating, swelling of the face and throat, tingling or pins and needles, tremor, weakness, weight loss, yellowing of the skin and whites of eyes, vertigo
NOW DO PLEASE SHARE WITH US THE PDR READINGS FOR IBUPROFEN AND CAFFEINE! WE CAN'T WAIT! PLEASE DO CONTINUE TO SHARE YOUR SHINING BRILLIANCE!
Lincoln, what are you doing? This thread is over. You lost. Go do some research and stop writing. Come back and share your results.
and End Times declares victory...how cunning
!
End Times.
Galileo Galilei was a religious man, and he agreed that the Bible could never be wrong. However, he said, the interpreters of the Bible could make mistakes, and it was a mistake to assume that the Bible had to be taken literally. The true meaning of a Biblical verse might not be obvious at all, and wise Church scholars would have to work hard to find the true meanings. After all, a cardinal in the Church itself had once said that the intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes! He ended with an explanation of how the miracle could not possibly have taken place if the Sun went around the Earth.
This might have been one of Galileo's major mistakes. At that time, only Church priests were allowed to interpret the Bible, or to define God's intentions. It was absolutely unthinkable for a mere member of the public to do so.
And some of the Church clergy started responding, accusing him of heresy. One friar quoted from the New Testament "O ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?" Another churchmen went to the Inquisition, the Church court that investigated charges of heresy, and formally accused Galileo. This was a very serious matter. In 1600, a man named Giordano Bruno was convicted of being a heretic for believing that the earth moved about the Sun, and that there were many planets throughout the universe where life--living creations of God--existed. Bruno was burnt to death.
This time, Galileo was found innocent of all charges, and cautioned not to teach the Copernican system. 16 years later, all that would change.
The Final Trial
The following years saw Galileo move on to work on other projects. With his telescope he watched the movements of Jupiter's moons, wrote them up as a list, and then came up with a way to use these measurements as a navigation tool. There was even a contraption that would allow a ship captain to navigate with his hands on the wheel. That is, assuming the captain didn't mind wearing what looked like a horned helmet!
As another amusement, Galileo started writing about ocean tides. Instead of writing his arguments as a scientific paper, he found that it was much more interesting to have an imaginary conversation, or dialogue, between three fictional characters. One character, who would support Galileo's side of the argument, was brilliant. Another character would be open to either side of the argument. The final character, named Simplicio, was dogmatic and foolish, representing all of Galileo's enemies who ignored any evidence that Galileo was right. Soon, he wrote up a similar dialogue called "Dialogue on the Two Great Systems of the World." This book talked about the Copernican system.
"Dialogue" was an immediate hit with the public, but not, of course, with the Church. The pope suspected that he was the model for Simplicio. He ordered the book banned, and also ordered the scientist to appear before the Inquisition in Rome for the crime of teaching the Copernican theory after being ordered not to do so.
Galileo Galilei was 68 years old and sick. Threatened with torture, he publically confessed that he had been wrong to have said that the Earth moves around the Sun. Legend then has it that after his confession, Galileo quietly whispered "And yet, it moves."
Unlike many less famous prisoners, he was allowed to live under house arrest in his house outside of Florence. He was near one of his daughters, a nun. Until his death in 1642, he continued to investigate other areas of science. Amazingly, he even published a book on force and motion although he had been blinded by an eye infection.
The Story Continues...
The Church eventually lifted the ban on Galileo's Dialogue in 1822--by that time, it was common knowledge that the Earth was not the center of the Universe. Still later, there were statements by the Vatican Council in the early 1960's and in 1979 that implied that Galileo was pardoned, and that he had suffered at the hands of the Church. Finally, in 1992, three years after Galileo Galilei's namesake had been launched on its way to Jupiter, the Vatican formally and publicly cleared Galileo of any wrongdoing.
Whether one wins or loses matters not. What really matters in a man's life, is whether he lived it being true to his own heart, and whether or not he shared his own truth with his brothers and sisters, as his own unique contribution and gift to the world, and and his own gift to the universe and all of creation, that created him and gave unto him his own very unique and irreplaceable and irreproducible life.
Yes. Your hypothesis is not supported by the data available. You must provide data demonstrating why your hypothesis is superior.
Yes. It's called a hypothesis.
Toxicology is a fairly broad, multidisciplinary field. While the liver is one of my favorite organs, truly fascinating, risk assessment is an integral part of the field. We overlap a decent bit with epidemiologists.
"I have explained time and again that this pet theory of frequent mutations by RNA viruses is just hot air."
Here is a good article on that... The first few sentences of the abstract...
Wilhelm continues,
All viruses can undergo mutations, just as anything with a DNA or RNA genome does. Mutations can inactivate a virus, or they can alter virulence or any other function encoded by the virus. If one of those functions is targeted by a drug, you select for mutants that the drug has a decreased effect. Calling this sloppy work sounds like sour grapes when the proofreading function and sequence fidelity of DNA and RNA polymerases is a very healthy area of study.
Oh, I am so hurt. :D
Back up, lincoln.
Recall what you quoted from the VirusMyth website: The label from a Sigma Chemical bottle. You asked if coffee or ibuprofen came labeled similarly. Purchase caffeine from Sigma. You'll see the skull and crossbones. You'll see very dire warnings. I am not sure what to make of the description that the bottle has a skull and crossbones but only contains about a third to a tenth of the daily dose. The picture is included based on the chemical composition of the contents, not the quantity inside.
I also don't understand the claim that I've never read a Physician's Desk Reference. First, what's the purpose of the insult? Does that accomplish anything? Second, where does the reference to the PDR fit in? Is the issue that the therapeutic window for AZT is narrow and that there are side effects? There are balancing factors in choosing AZT (or any reverse--transcriptase inhibitor or combination of agents) as there are with any drug treatment.
Mr. Lacking of Sympathy:
You write:
There are balancing factors in choosing AZT (or any reverse--transcriptase inhibitor or combination of agents) as there are with any drug treatment.
How very true, Sir! How astute of you!
Showing a more enlightened doctor, perhaps, that a prescription consisting of:
a cigarette, a cup of coffee, and perhaps a tab of ibuprofen or two,
just might be the better choice!
If a patient is asymptomatic with good T-cell counts and low viral loads, some doctors may consider coffee to be fine. Others don't. But those conditions do not remain stable in most HIV-infected individuals. As a patient's status declines, the risk-balance shifts in favor of taking anti-viral medication.
Thank you for your very educated opinion Mr. I Feel Sympathy for You!
Strangely, there are many who disagree with you, with words such as:
I am not convinced by the theory that HIV is the cause of AIDS. There were so many studies published during the last two years that question the benefits of HAART and that challenge the HIV/AIDS-model. Links to those studies can be found via Pubmed or aidsmythexposed. I already could mention enough of those studies to let the whole Toronto AIDS conference go up in smoke.
found at the following post:
Click Here for German Guest Not Convinced!
Oh,God, lincoln,
You're not TS are you ? and quoting some internet drivel from german guy cuz he's personally not convinced the world is non-hiv from some court german judge dude ?
This is getting good.
lincoln: "Strangely, there are many who disagree with you..."
But really not many in the biological and medical sciences who actually know something about the issue. Thus I'm not concerned. It's not terribly strange if you think about it: One can always find a few people in any population who indulge in conspiracy theories or hold odd ideas. The relative numbers in this case seem about right. I would think it peculiar if if there were none. It's not as if scientists are proportionately any less susceptible to 'peculiar' ideas than the rest of the human race. We have our share of 'nutters'. I know a yeast geneticist who believes in reincarnation and a biochemist who thinks the earth was created only a few thousand years ago. C'est la vie. I think everyone holds at least one crazy-assed, completely irrational idea in their head somewhere. One can only hope that it doesn't come out in embarrassing moments or drive one's professional life to ruins.
My nutty idea is that spending time in discussions such as these are actually productive. At least I recognize it's not professionally 'beneficial'; hence the pseudonym.
Strangely, lincoln, the Toronto AIDS meeting has not yet gone up in smoke.
As for your comments concerning me: infer what you like. The evidence would not be altered whether I were the son of Richard Branson or of Nottinghamshire ex-coalminer on disability benefits.
Seth wrote:
"Goldshalk puts forth the proposal that no quote or article from Duesberg is necessarily representative of his true beliefs, as Duesberg himself does not differentiate between the presentation of "jokes" and "facts", but may at any time simply be joking around."
No Seth, you are twisting my words around. "No quote or article"?? I never said that. I cited one particular instance. Continuum Magazine had offered a prize for anybody who could present proof that HIV had been isolated. Continuum is not a generally recognized scientific journal. So Duesberg must have thought it would be fun to present some of the typical jargon the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy uses. So he came up with "molecular cloning", presenting it as "the most rigorous method science has to offer." Well now, this cloning of DNA, posing as the isolation of an RNA-virus, is so totally ridiculous that any virologist who is not getting his salary from Big Pharma will see it immediately for what it is: A grotesk joke. But a funny thing happened: The HIV/AIDS idiots took it seriously, and keep on citing this as proof that "even" Peter Duesberg believes in HIV.
It is quite possible that he allows for the existence of HIV as a regular retrovirus. After all, he is an expert on retroviruses. There are thousands of them, and he has wallowed in them all of his professional life. But none (I repeat NONE) of them are as nasty and tricky as described the wild fantasies of the true HIV/AIDS believers. Retroviruses are benign passenger viruses, and all of us carry the genetic material of many of them in our own genes.
If Duesberg writes a scientific article, he is not joking. You can count on that. But in every day life, he can joke around. He compared ARV-treatment of AIDS with "shooting at bunnies with nuclear weapons".
Personally, I don't believe in the existence of HIV. But it's really not that important. If tomorrow somebody would succeed in isolating it in pure form (which nobody has accomplished in 23 years), that wouldn't mean much. It would still be an innocent retrovirus with a measly genome, that would be totally unable to perform all the tricks (like hiding, mutating on cue, killing T-cells, and causing 29 diseases) that urban legends would have it do.
Pharma Bawd,
"Jeeze Wilhelm,
What field is your Phd in? And what University did you earn it from?"
Ph.D. in Biochemistry. University of Leiden, the Netherlands, founded in 1575 by William the Silent (when Native Americans were still hunting buffalo, with bow and arrow, where now Stanford Univ. is located). And no... I was not a member of the class of 1579.
But you quoted some papers. The first one, from Stanford (7 authors!) is typically one of those that have to be thrown out on Hatchet Day, with the rest of the output of the past 25 years. What all these publications are lacking is a solid foundation. They casually assume that HIV exists and infects T-cells. Reading the 'Materials and Methods' section usually reveals the weak spot:
"HIV-1 RNA quantitation.
Thawed 0.2- to 1-ml plasma aliquots were centrifuged
for 1 h at 125,000 3 g at 108C. The resulting pellet was dissolved in 400 ml of 5 M guanidine thiocyanate and subjected to RNA extraction followed by reverse transcription using a previously described protocol (29). Reverse-transcribed material was then amplified with 33 cycles of PCR, using primers SK38 and SK39. The product of each reaction was quantitated in an enzyme hybridization
assay by using avidin-coated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay plates (Nunc, Naperville, Ill.), a horseradish peroxidase-labeled SK19 probe (Synthetic Genetics, La Jolla, Calif.), and a Biomek 1000 Automated Workstation (Beckman
Instruments, Irvine, Calif.)."
And this is a quantitation of HIV-RNA? Could it be any more indirect?
Also get a load of this:
"Direct sequencing of PCR-amplified HIV-1 nucleic acid was performed at baseline and at several time points in
patients receiving combination AZT and ddI therapy. In patients with positive HIV-1 cultures, proviral HIV DNAs from cultured cells were amplified by nested PCR; in patients with negative HIV-1 cultures, cDNA reverse transcribed from plasma viral RNA was amplified by nested PCR. First-round primers consisted of A(35) and NE1(35) (13), which resulted in the amplification of an '800-bp
fragment of the HIV-1 RT gene."
Really, all you need to appreciate this is a rock-solid faith in that piece of DNA that is amplified by PCR. You just have to believe that this is the proviral DNA from HIV.
Now if you just believe this, and also that the various RT molecules differing in a few alterations in the primary protein structure, are resulting from mutations of HIV, instead of being different enzymes from the co-culture soup... Yes, if you are willing to believe all that, then everything is ducky.
Everything is aimed at Reverse Transcriptase, as if this enzyme is specific to HIV. It's been a while since everybody believed that. I don't even see AZT as an inhibitor of RT. It's a DNA chain terminator, pure and simple.
No, I still don't believe in virus drug resistance. Maybe something in the cell-culture witches' brew got resistant.
Well, Mr. Unsympathetic, but perhaps pathetic, I do agree that you are well versed in:
crazy-assed, completely irrational ideas in their head somewhere.
Particularly as concerns HIV as causative to AIDS. In this, however, you are far from alone. Some would consider it herd mentality, some would consider it in regards to the madness of the masses.
It seems to me that your worst fears:
One can only hope that it doesn't come out in embarrassing moments or drive one's professional life to ruins.
are on the way to fulfilment as we speak!
Oh well, whatever moves man and science forward.
Wilhelm writes: "Really, all you need to appreciate this is a rock-solid faith in that piece of DNA that is amplified by PCR. You just have to believe that this is the proviral DNA from HIV.
Now if you just believe this, and also that the various RT molecules differing in a few alterations in the primary protein structure, are resulting from mutations of HIV, instead of being different enzymes from the co-culture soup... Yes, if you are willing to believe all that, then everything is ducky."
In each step, controls and earlier experiments can be run to confirm reliability. It doesn't require 'faith'; The results are empirically accessible. We can even establish geneological relationships between the viruses of infected partners.
Wilhelm writes: "I don't even see AZT as an inhibitor of RT. It's a DNA chain terminator, pure and simple."
It is a competitive inhibitor (binding in place of the normal substrate) and a chain terminator, reducing the rate of viral transcription to DNA. Resistance mutations tend to fall into two classes: Mutations in which the RT nucleoside binding site can better discriminate between the normal substrate and the analog and those which improve the ability of the enzyme to excise the terminating nucleoside monophosphate analog after mis-incorporation. Note that there are non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) that bind in a different place and are non-competitive inhibitors. Mutations that reduce binding to NNRTIs have also been isolated and characterized biochemically. Such mutations are frequently found in patients where RT-blocking drugs fail to hold virus reproduction in check.
lincoln: "Some would consider it herd mentality, some would consider it in regards to the madness of the masses."
Everyone who believes they are thinking 'clearly' and 'reasonably' must come up with some rationalization for why others have strongly different opinions in an area that is readily accessible to empirical analysis. Unfortunately, "herd" mentality cannot explain the proportion of biological scientists and medical professionals who think HIV has a causal role in AIDS. The "Big Con", the "Greedy, Money-Grubbing Sycophant" and "Too Afraid to Step Forward" hypotheses are also not sufficient. The case of HIV and AIDS covers too many biological disciplines and is too well probed among a wide variety of active researchers to be accounted by 'group thinking' explanations. My suggestion is that most find the data compelling for a causal link and the counter explanations insufficient or flat-out wrong.
But by all means, continue your research as it suits you. Get a major in the biological sciences and/or work in a lab where the related experimental methods are actively used.
Lincoln y Galileo...
Of course, modestly, you present yourself as the modern day Galileo. He was thought wrong, you are thought wrong. He was a genius, as are you. He was a superstitious believer in the bible - are you too? Or was the brilliant Galileo wrong about something? I wonder...
Galileo's adversary was "the church". Whether the bible is full of superstitious inacruacies about nature or whether the church simply "misinterprets" what the bible is saying, is kind of irrelevant, thinks me. There is a huge difference between you "believing" you are the right, the good, the true - battling against the forces of the sciences and Galileo in a similar position - battling against the church.
I do agree with the fundamental point that winning and losing (personally) are of no great import here. I only point it out, because in order for you to fulfill your righteous quest of helping your brothers and sisters, you are going to have to quit talking and do the SCIENCE that makes it irrefutable, like Galileo and others did. After all, even if it took 200 years for the truth to be fully accepted, it was finally accepted not because the church finally correctly interpreted the bible but because the SCIENCE forced them to interpret it thus.
Now stop writing and do the science before I have you Tara and feathered prior to the execution at the stake! Crack, crack! The petri dish awaits!
"Your comments are unsupported and thoroughly offensive."
Oh, come on, Peter Barber! Unsupported? DB's comments come from somebody who has seen it all. Who was there when it all happened. So you find his remarks offensive? Well, being one of the perpetrators, you had it coming.
"Additionally, by your description, Wilhelm, it seems you don't understand how they determine resistance, either in bacteria or in viruses. These are in vitro measurements, Wilhelm."
Thanks Tara, but I just got through reading a 7-author paper that Pharma Bawd recommended. And I've seen the sorry state of contemporary research. When I say 'in vitro', I mean incubating a pure virus preparation with the drugs. But when they mention 'in vitro', they mean incubating a soup consisting of reverse transcripted, PCR'ed to death DNA material in a cell culture. Not quite the same. My point is still that a virus is not a micro-organism (which has its own metabolism). And the drugs don't interact directly with the virus.
What they want us to believe is that the various reverse transcriptases they find (and which show different sensitivities to RT-inhibitors) are all specific to their own HIV-mutant. They don't provide evidence for that. Host cells have reverse transcriptases too. "In vitro" means cell-free to me.
"If y'all claim that HIV doesn't exist, that takes away any expertise Duesberg--as a retrovirologist"
I don't see that at all. What we think takes nothing away from Duesberg's expertise. He has seen his share of retroviruses during his career (last time I looked there were more than 3000 of them), so for him it's not too far-fetched to believe HIV does exist. But he insists that none of these retroviruses do any harm. And they are certainly unable to perform all the circus acts that are ascribed to HIV.
The Perth Group does not believe HIV exists, and neither do I. That does not mean I deny the existence of all retroviruses. Stefan Lanka, however, even doubts the whole class of retroviruses. So there are various opinions. But we all agree on one point: A virus that is so unstable it cannot even be isolated, in spite of 20 years of trying, and has been shown to have poor infectivity besides, cannot possibly cause a dangerous epidemic.
Unsympathetic wrote:
"In fact, one can clone the mutant gene and demonstrate that the protein produced is no longer inhibited by the drug."
Oh, I'll readily believe that they can clone genes, but they seem to be so extatically proud of that, they keep right on cloning without ever asking where that gene comes from. This line of research is fundamentally flawed. They just assume these 'mutant genes' are viral. But how could they? Even the much-touted "complete HIV genome" cannot be demonstrated to belong to HIV, because nobody has ever seen a complete HIV particle. They don't even have a complete RNA chain. Just DNA material that is supposed to have been created by reverse transcription of HIV-RNA.
Let's get real: So far, we've seen that there are various genes (of unknown origin) that code for different proteins with different sensitivity for inhibitors. "HIV" only enters the picture if you believe in it - like Santa Claus.
"Now stop writing and do the science"
Are you going to pay for it, End Times? NIH won't. They will spend another gigabuck on the flock of believers before they will give Peter Duesberg 50K$ to do some independent research.
Wilhelm: "Oh, I'll readily believe that they can clone genes, but they seem to be so extatically proud of that, they keep right on cloning without ever asking where that gene comes from."
A claim made despite the facts that control experiments have been performed which justify the validity of the methods used in the paper. Yes, T-cells are hosts to the virus. Yes, the full length genome of HIV has been characterized (two copies of the RNA genome per viral envelope -- How did they figure that out for a virus that's never been isolated as a 'complete particle'? Go figure...) and no you won't find those exact sequences in high stringency Northern or Southern blots or in PCR amplification of human DNA from uninfected individuals, meaning it's not an endogenous, inherited sequence. Yes, the reverse transcriptase treatment does work to convert viral RNA to DNA with known fidelity. Yes, you can culture the virus outside of people and demonstrate that reagents in the culture do not contain the viral sequences prior to introducing the HIV. And yes, amplification with the primers used does pull up a specific portion of the HIV genome and you can also use reliable and well-established methods like overlapping nested PCR to amplify the entire genome for sequencing. Yes, from people for whom RT inhibitor treatment is not blocking viral replication we can isolate high numbers of HIV pol clones from this process that carry mutations known from enzymatic and cell-based assays reduce the inhibition of the HIV reverse transcriptase enzyme.
Dismissing the experimentally assembled and validated data as an artifact of something in a "cell-culture witches' brew" doesn't cut it in scientific discussion except as an admission of having no good, alternate explanation.
You also persist in the unsupported claim that there is no such thing as 'viral drug resistance' despite decades of work demonstating the contrary and seem to operate from a peculiar perspective of viral biology that few if any working biologists share.
"Let's get real: So far, we've seen that there are various genes (of unknown origin) that code for different proteins with different sensitivity for inhibitors. "HIV" only enters the picture if you believe in it - like Santa Claus."
Ignoring the tiny, inconvenient detail that reconstruction of HIV geneology is possible and that the HIV sequences neither track with genetic relatedness between individuals as you would otherwise expect from endogenous genes nor are randomly aligned as one might expect from a 'witches brew' but via relatedness that tracks with contact and infection between people. Those sequences fit a pattern of horizontal transfer between infected individuals. The origins are well established.
I would certainly pay for it if I could, and I'm surprised that the NIH would not fund Duesberg or any other scientist doing *any* interesting research. It really isn't in the greater interest of science for them to act that way.
That said, I'm getting a tad bored with the old "NIH stopped funding Duesberg when he came out against the HIV=AIDS model, so now there's nothing in the world we can do accept attack the research of others or try to use their research to make a different point".
Honestly, how *uncreative* for great scientific minds. There are, as was mentioned by Seth or Viji I believe, a number of relatively inexpensive research projects that could be initiated by someone getting money from any of a number of private resources. Hmmmmmm, if I were Duesberg et al, I might just go to, hmmmmmmm, the president of a major African nation who was sympathetic. I would say to him, "Sir, I know you agree with what we are saying. But we need to be funded to complete the research that will nail this thing shut. If we can do that, the person who funded it will never be forgotten". I would go to other private individuals and groups who are sympathetic. Hey, there might be some (Yuck!!) *big pharmacuetical company* that didn't get in on the HIV gold-rush and sees this as an avenue for *them* to get on track. Hey, it's a free market, right? There's money to be made from attacking this from another angle. If there really IS another angle.
But, I guess the only thing Duesberg can do is get turned down by the NIH and be a victim. It almost smells like he *rather* claim he can't get funded than to really be funded and have to produce. I'm sure I'm wrong... there must be some other reason why he and others have failed to do any non-NIH funded research. Right?
Mr. Endtimes. I am sure you are aware, although perhaps not, that Mr. Duesberg has submitted for hundreds of grants for 10 years for a multitude of various AIDS studies, and is still submitting for projects related now to his cancer research for the last 10 years. Perhaps you would like to contact him for the copies and the refusals? As far as HIV and AIDS is concerned, Duesberg's opinion for the last ten years, is that HIV was over 20 years ago, and there is no point whatsoever in doing studies that simply show again what we already know to be fact. He concerns himself with things of greater import and is now at the forefront of cancer research. You are welcome to acquire through Amazon and other sources a copy of Dr. Harvey Bialy's book, "Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS" wherein all this is quite well gone over. That is, if you are capable of reading anything besides a newspaper or a pubmed.
I think Dr. Duesberg finds it much more fruitful at this time, to enjoy his spare moments by humming a little song: "TIIiiiiimmmmmme is on my side, yessss it is!"
Godschalk writes:
HIV RT is specific to HIV. Gene Semon kindly cited an article showing phylogenetic analysis comparing HIV RT with other RTs and polymerases. HIV does to a lesser degree inhibit some cellular polymerases.
RT is not the only target of antiretroviral treatment. HIV protease and HIV integrase are also targets. All of these are specific to HIV.
These targets are all viral anymes that are vital for the life cylce of HIV and are specific to HIV
One thing in life is certain.
Sooner or later all crackpots will compare themselves with Galileo.
The Galileo Gambit
Duesberg does get funding from Robert Leppo.
Why doesn't he use it to do experimental work to find evidence for his theory.
You must also realise that Duesberg has no track record in toxicology or epidemiology both of which are central to his theory.
There are researchers studying the effect of chemicals on the immune system. Why doesn't Duesberg collaborate with them?
Dear Chrisp
Dr. Peter Duesberg does NOT compare himself to Galileo.
I compare Dr. Duesberg to Galileo, and so do many others.
I compare YOU to Simplicio in Galileo's book "Dialogues".
You wrote:
Duesberg does get funding from Robert Leppo.
Why doesn't he use it to do experimental work to find evidence for his theory.
As I said, perhaps you did not understand, so let me be absolutely clear: Duesberg considers the case of drugs and malnutrition, etc as the causative agents of AIDS to be a closed case. A case that he shed a light upon 20 years ago. He sees no reason to work on it for one more precious moment of the time that he has left upon this planet. He considers his time to be better spent, and Leppo's contribution to be better spent, on unlocking the secrets of cancer, which result in more deaths in the Western world, than does AIDS.
He has nothing to prove. No-one, NO-ONE has yet proved him wrong. Perhaps you, Mr. wannabe, would like to be the first! Twenty Five years of accumulated evidence prove him absolutely, and unquestionably more right with every... passing... moment. Why do you suppose the studies are just NOW being done, by Jay Levy and such, on long term non-progressors of 20 year HIV positives, whom all have in common a track record of ZERO drug or ARV use!
He may consider it a closed case (actually a closed mind - his) but he has not managed to convince more than an insignificant number of scientists because Duesberg failed to produce evidence and failed to explain away the evidence that contradicts his pet theory.
I would have thought saving millions of Africans might be important.
Yes they have.
Ascher et al published a paper in 1993 that demolished Duesberg's nonsense. Duesberg just refuses to admit it.
Does drug use cause AIDS? Ascher MS, Sheppard HW, Winkelstein W Jr, Vittinghoff E. Nature. 1993 Mar 11;362(6416):103-4.
Duesberg accused Ascher of fraud. A charge that was found to be without substance by an independent review.
Duesberg then invented 45 cases in the HIV- group that he alleged were defined by the CDC. " ... we found 45 HIV-negative men with AIDS defining conditions (according to the CDC), as listed in Table 1."
Except that Duesberg doesn't follow the CDC definition. He includes Salmonella food poisoning which 1.4 million people in the US get every year. (It must be recurrent infection to count according to the CDC definition). Duesberg also uses Herpes Zoster as an AIDS defining disease. Except it is not. Duesberg is just not being honest.
Meanwhile the HIV+ group gets KS and other AIDS defining conditions that are extremely rare in the general population. Come on. The HIV infected group gets KS etc. The HIV- group gets food poisoning and shingles.
Duesberg's response was pathetic. Nobody in the scientific community has taken him seriously since.
Well don't wait any longer. Show us the evidence.
LTNP progressors have been studied since at least the early 90s. It has been recognised from very early on that less than 100% of people infected with HIV progress to AIDS. Studying LTNPs is important to find possible anti-retroviral treatments and also to ascertain the likely success of different vaccination strategies.
The papers that you refer to, if you bothered to read them specificied lack of ARV use in their definition of LTNP.
"Ten HIV-1-seropositive subjects from the New York metropolitan area were referred to us because they met our working definition of long-term survivors of HIV-1 infection: they had no symptoms, normal and stable CD4+ lymphocyte counts, no prolonged use of antiretroviral agents, and at least 12 years of infection."
"We studied 15 subjects with long-term nonprogressive HIV infection and 18 subjects with progressive HIV disease. Nonprogressive infection was defined as seven or more years of documented HIV infection, with more than 600 CD4+ T cells per cubic millimeter, no antiretroviral therapy, and no HIV-related disease."
The large number of people who are on HAART and have high CD4+ counts 12 years after infection are by definition not LTNPs.
Duesberg deceives his readers by implying that their is a causal connection between not taking ARVs and non-progression
There is none.
There were papers describing Long Term Non-Progressors in 1993-4. LTNPs are defined as people that have not progressed to AIDS after 12 years of infection (without taking ARVs). How could they have been studied any earlier than the early 1990s? Do the maths.
The idea that science has been ignoring these people is ludicrous.
Wow! You guys didn't leave much of Wilhelm's comment for me to correct. :(
Oh, wait! I do see something. :)
Regarding LTNPs: Those were actively sought from the beginning. In any species' population there is variation that may confer resistance to diseases. It is a classic and time-proven research strategy to identify the resistant individuals and study the mechanisms behind resistance. That information often provides details about key mechanisms affecting a pathogen's virulence.
That Ascher paper is a classic and was probably the last nail in the coffin for Duesberg's thesis. Heck, an early dissenter like Robert Root-Bernstein recognized the core problems of Duesberg's ideas (These days, Root-Berstein is investigating areas like vaccines against HIV and possible mechanisms for the decline of CD4+ T-lymphocytes with HIV infection).
Lincoln "Mr. Endtimes. I am sure you are aware, although perhaps not"
No, you were right the first time
Linc "that Mr. Duesberg has submitted for hundreds of grants for 10 years for a multitude of various AIDS studies, and is still submitting for projects related now to his cancer research for the last 10 years. Perhaps you would like to contact him for the copies and the refusals?"
Stop, stop, stop... I have already conceded as much. OK, he couldn't get an NIH grant to work on a project to save his soul. My point is to agree with this and tell you to get on to other things, which you say he has done -
Linc "He concerns himself with things of greater import and is now at the forefront of cancer research."
Fine. He's abdicated any responsibility (from a scientific perspective) of discovering and shedding insights about HIV or AIDS. He's busy with other things while other researchers work on AIDS. Then I can stop listening to his 20 year old opinions.
Linc "You are welcome to acquire through Amazon and other sources a copy of Dr. Harvey Bialy's book, "Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS" wherein all this is quite well gone over. That is, if you are capable of reading anything besides a newspaper or a pubmed."
Sorry to blow the mind of a tremendous intellectual mind such as yours - but unlike a lot of folks here, I HAVE READ IT. Didn't stop me from making the comments above. Good read though.
Linc "I think Dr. Duesberg finds it much more fruitful at this time, to enjoy his spare moments by humming a little song: "TIIiiiiimmmmmme is on my side, yessss it is!"
One look at Keith and Mick (and probably you and me), is instructive as to the veracity of that one.
Chrisp, Tend Limes, Pharma Bored, and Pathetic Unsym
Here is the latest from the Toronto Aids Festival, again re-affirming the correctness of Peter Duesberg!
TORONTO... A major focus of the conference up here is finally about Drug Use. In particular, was the use of crystal methamphetamine. "Meth is the major driver of the epidemic in the United States" said Dr. Steffanie Strathdee of the University of California, San Diego, at a conference on Monday. Strathdee's research focused on heterosexual users. Yesterday, Amy Drake of the CDC said, "One of the recreational purposes of the use of meth is increased sexual stimulation. It is clear from our data and other data that meth use among men who have sex with men presents a challenge!" Sandra Bullock, of the University of Waterloo said yesterday "It can lead to a self fulfilling prophecy. If we're telling people that using this is going to cause you to do things your not going to do, in can be a built-in excuse."
Now let's just back up right here and take a moment to look at all this. This is all a bit odd, as this drug abuse issue is exactly where Dr. Peter Duesberg had, in no uncertain terms, told the world where to look for the source of the AIDS problem a mere 20 years ago. 25 years ago, at the very same time that gay men began to sicken, just so happens to coincide with the very moment when the Methamphetamine manufacturing began to spiral upwards. While meth may at first make you want sex all the time, meth users can lose the ability to have sex after only six months of use. And national drug czar John Walters notes the physical deterioration meth users often undergo: "Hair falls out, teeth fall out. That's not sexy." After the initial euphoric 'rush,' the behavioral effects include heightened concentration, increased alertness, high energy, wakefulness and loss of appetite. As addicts binge, they typically go extended periods of time -- often days on end -- without eating or sleeping. These binges result in a cycle of physical deterioration that occurs rapidly, much more rapidly than that associated with addiction to other drugs.
Sounds like AIDS to me!
Well Gang, Dr. Duesberg, and all of us contrarian, anti-authoritarian types have KNOWN for 20 years now, that drug abuse IS AIDS. Not a mysterious and elusive virus that the real QUACKS of HIV, cashing in on more chemical laced goo and microbicides would have us believe. Drug use, especially crystal meth, and partnered with malnutrition around the rest of the world, and an unhealthy dose of stress thrown in, IS AIDS. This of course is not meant to let the anti-HIV drugs off the hook, as they too contribute to a weakened immune system and poor health, particularly AZT.
Originally the 'biker gangs' had a stranglehold on meth production, but the process was so simple that one could cook up batches of meth in their own home. All they needed was the very easy to acquire drug called ephedrine.
Germany's BASF is the world's leading maker of pseudoephedrine, Another is Krebs Biochemicals & Industries Ltd, in India. The pseudoephedrine then fetches about $180,000 for 140 barrels of it when sold to a U.S. pharmaceuticals company, and all of the big pharma companies over here buy and process it and press it into pills that can clear a stuffy nose. Big pharma is happy to be sure it gets directly into the hands of a shadier clientele for an unknown price and from there, the 140 barrels would be enough to produce $50 million of methamphetamine at wholesale value.
Now these are the forces, the manufacturers and the pharmaceutical company processors and the shady meth makers, that are making big fortunes off of creating and spreading AIDS and the HIV Lie. Even the government has been unable to stop this as our senators and representatives and governments are bought off by the pharma lobbies and unwilling to pass legislation to stop the business. And why would they want to. Big pharma makes money creating AIDS, and makes an even bigger fortune with even more toxic poisons to supposedly treat it.
And I think the writer from Toronto, should also have added in the many viruses, bacterial and fungal infections, chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, etc, etc, that the Number One "AIDS" group, promiscuous homosexuals, have also been exposing themselves to, plus taking massive amounts of antibiotics and other drugs for. Repetitious overuse of antibiotics is well known and well documented as being the source of overwhelming candida yeast overgrowth, which has the very same symptoms of what is called "Symptoms of AIDS". Not to mention all of the fun filled and now antibiotic resistant strains of flesh eating staph going around hospitals and the gay community as well.
Be sure to send Dr. Duesberg a letter of thanks, for having straightened out your obviously warped and biased minds.
lincoln,
As I mentioned to you previously, if meth use = AIDS, then where is the huge Iowa AIDS epidemic? You've scoffed previously about my living in this state and mocked its being rural and backwards, but by your own logic if meth abuse alone causes AIDS without the presence of HIV, then we should have a helluva lot more AIDS cases than we do.
Of course, when have inconsistencies in logic ever stopped the deniers?
"Tend Limes"...
LOL!! I love it. I will use that for any future posts. You have no way of understanding why it is so aPEELling to me, but pray don't take that as an insult. You simply can't know the circumstances of my life.
One question... if meth IS AIDS, why didn't you make this connection earlier (instead of the more general "drugs") and who in poverty sticken Africa is using chrystal meth?
One other... if a blind test with no presumptions were done, in which 200 people who had AIDS-like symptoms were tested and a much higher pct of them had HIV anti-bodies than a control group had, what would that mean? Again, assuming this were all done by someone who had zero preconceived notions about the cause of AIDS.
Oh, and one more... isn't it possible that there are multiple causes and HIV is one of them? You accuse others of having a closed mind, but is your mind open to this possibility or is the very notion of HIV too distasteful to you to even consider it?
Your friendly farmer. Tend Limes
"You've scoffed previously about my living in this state and mocked its being rural and backwards,"
Well, at least the good Linc has hit on one thing I sure we can all agree on!
do they have lime farms there? I may have to join you.
Seriously, we should have a tremendous AIDS epidemic in Kentucky.
Again, you confuse risk factors with causal factors.
From observations of college student meth users, most abuse heavily for a few years, both for the buzz and the ability to party and study non-stop. So where is the campus student AIDS epidemic? Without HIV exposure, nowhere.
lincoln: "Repetitious overuse of antibiotics is well known and well documented as being the source of overwhelming candida yeast overgrowth, which has the very same symptoms of what is called "Symptoms of AIDS"."
Imagine that! You can get Candida if your gut flora is disrupted or if you're immunocompromised. Actually, the infection can manifest differently. With immunocompromised people it often progresses to a systemic infection, even in patients who don't overuse antibiotics.
Pharma Bawd wrote:
"Besides, she's young, female, good looking and sincere."
True, but Tara is much hotter. (Married, of course. :-))
Lindsey Eck
www.corneroak.com
Tara wrote:
lincoln,
As I mentioned to you previously, if meth use = AIDS, then where is the huge Iowa AIDS epidemic? by your own logic if meth abuse alone causes AIDS without the presence of HIV, then we should have a helluva lot more AIDS cases than we do.
To begin with Tara, unless they are intravenous drug users, Gay, or Black, they will not even be tested for HIV. As was mentioned to you somewhere by someone prior, heterosexuals very, very infrequently are even tested for HIV.
If and when they are, heterosexual's test results are read completely differently than the very subjective reading given to anyone in the so called "high risk" categories.
The same identical bands of protein going off in a so called "confirmatory" western blot would be read as "false positive" in a homosexual, and "definitely positive" in a high risk reading of the very same deceptively, homophobically, and rascistly oriented reading of the test for a homosexual.
I am having difficulty at this point, Tara, in understanding why you are asking the same questions that were answered several times prior, over and over and over? Do you not understand? OR do you simply not WANT to understand? It must be either one of the two. It can not be that you are too ignorant to understand, as you are indeed somewhat educated and capable of understanding written words, I would believe. I would hope you are of a sufficient maturity to only ask a question in which you truly desired to find an answer.
Either way, I will repeat some points on this for those readers who have not read other threads on this subject.
And actually Tara, I do not believe meth use alone causes AIDS, as AIDS is nothing more than a category definition. Aids usually, though not always,(see #1 below) is dependent upon, and requires an HIV positive-,but yet, HIV-NON-specific test result, (as per the fda literature on all HIV tests being a non-specific test) added to another witches brew of either a questionable CD4 count OR any one of 29 diseases that drug abusers and others whom have run their body down for multitudinous reasons quite often come down with.
AIDS is not in and of itself a disease. I repeat, AIDS, is not a disease. But in the large cities, it is shown to be the single leading contributing co-factor, if not the main cause in the gay community, as to being at the core of the cause of the condition known as AIDS.
This was even the case with the original 5 "grid" Gay Related ImmunoDeficiency cases that turned up. These were the very first 5 reported. Common ingredients: Meth use number one, many other illicit drugs number two, poor eating habits number three, sexual history of extremely high number of many partners number four, large amount of various std infections, number five, and large amount of antibiotic use number six. And an unknown quantity of stress as gay men dealing with their own unique set of emotional difficulties living in a straight world that despised them in 1981, where, being a gay drug addict "ain't always so glamorous and ain't always so GAY!"
These men had ALL run down their bodies, and exposed their bodies to more pathogens than can be found in the petri dish refrigerator at your local std clinic. They ahad all be highly treated with antibiotic after antibiotic. (do I need to explain what the basic parts of the word 'anti-bio-tic' means? It means anti-life. The massive antibiotic use in and of itself, with many gays taking them all the time to ward off even possible infection was a self creating, and iatrogenic physician created disaster, just waiting to happen, as these men destroyed the very gut flora needed to digest their food, and first line of immune defence in their guts, and this behavior also opened their bodies to attack by every type of fungus they became exposed to. The gay community is very mobile, and pretty much every pathogen around the world has been added to the mix that some gay men have been exposed to.
How much abuse can an immune system take before it ceases to function as intended?
And as word traveled of a new "gay disease", the gay community went into an ever increasing and level of fear and panic. Even more so than typical in a community that lived in fear every day. Fear of being found out gay. Fear of being bashed or arrested by police. Fear of government. Fear of losing their jobs. Fear of parents and friends finding out they were gay. Fear of being gay bashed as was common in the gay communities at that time, and sometimes, still is. Just ask Mathew Shepard, not all that far from where you are at Tara. And Tara, I am sure that if you truly wanted to find out the immunologically destructive effects of fear on the body, you would have done so in scientific and university literature by now, as this point has been made several times prior.
Reference #1 meaning:
The CDC itself, in a memo sent out to American doctors in December of 1999 to tell doctors that NO HIV TEST IS NECESSARY for diagnosing AIDS in GAY MEN or other SUSPECTED RISK GROUP MEMBERS. In the same memo, the CDC anounced several NEW ways to declare patients to be HIV positive who previously tested negative to HIV antibody tests.
Although this was another way for the CDC to be seen as doing their utmost to "control" the supposed HIV epidemic, this very memo is construed by myself and many others, to be SUBJECTIVE, RACIST, and HOMOPHOBIC of the targeted groups.
Tara, I will not be answering any more questions posed by you, unless I find them to be unbiased, sincere, and of a sufficient level of maturity to warrant an answer.
Furthermore, Tara, may I ask, Are you a racist or homophobic? I only ask, because I have yet to see the slightest display from you of what I consider to be any compassion toward the most affected groups, by what most simple men, would construe from the diagnostics procedures of HIV, was either subjective, if not even very possibly based in homophobia and/or racism.
Tara, would you do me the tremendous favor of correcting in the above post, in the fourth paragraph, in the sentence of
The same identical bands of protein going off in a so called "confirmatory" western blot would be read as "false positive" in a homosexual,
to read:
The same identical bands of protein going off in a so called "confirmatory" western blot would be read as a "fale positive in a HETEROSEXUAL,"
The only word that needs to be changed, is to change HOMOSEXUAL, to the word HETEROSEXUAL.
I am sure this should be fairly easy to accomplish in the typed words above, even though it has been proven to be seldom if not fairly impossible in the real world model.
You may also erase this post after doing so.
Thank You.
Lindsey,
that was Dale. But I agree with you Tara gets my vote.
Linc,
Links Linc, Links.
Dear Limey,
One question... if meth IS AIDS, why didn't you make this connection earlier (instead of the more general "drugs")
Glad to see your last posts were not quite as SOUR as some of the previous ones have tasted. As to why I didn't make the connection earlier. I made the connection in 1984. The question I would love to have asked is why the SEXPERTS of HIV did not make the connection even as of yet? Certainly one does not need to be a braniac to understand the toxicity of almost all of the drugs used illicitly. Many drug addicts sickened and died of many different diseases, prior to AIDS even way back as far as the 1800's, early, and mid 1900's. But back then, they were not called AIDS patients, they were simply called "JUNKIES".
You also asked:
and who in poverty sticken Africa is using chrystal meth?
Please take notice of the complete difference between western "aids" and African "aids". In Africa, it is said to be a scourge equally to men and women. In Africa, it is very different diseases, with almost no Kaposis Sarcoma, as KS was the NUMBER ONE AIDS Defining illness in the US, particulary among multiple drug using, promiscuous poppers (butyl nitrate) sniffers. In the west, it has been confined to almost exclusively gays, drug addicts, and an increasing, but still minor number of the black community which is now highly targeted for HIV testing, and a mere smattering of others not fitting into these categories.
If you read current world events, you will find central and southern Africa is still a cesspool of problems, with massive starvation, genocides,lack of clean water, lack of proper nourishment, poverty, tuberculosis is 80 percent of reportable disease, children are playing in the sewers in the middle of the streets, people are drinking from streams filled with cholera and sewage, Population doubling every 25 years, TB is the majority 80%+, of AIDS cases, and the list of problems goes on and on. How well do you suppose your own immune system would survive in such as this?
Here in the states, Blacks are now forgetting the lessons of Tuskeegee, and again blindly trusting that the government sponsored health system is designed with everyones best interests at heart as some type of public benevolence association. The intertwining of the military/industrial complex with medical care and science, has shown that this is impossible in reality. Tony Fauci, director of NIADS, is also the director of the military bioweapons division. You are probably not aware that the NIH itself is a "uniformed branch" of the military, hence it is run overseen by the surgeon "general". I don't know if you read current events or listen to the news, however, fairly every week for some time now, has been newstory after newstory documenting the corruption within the FDA/NIH in connection to the pharmaceutical "for profit" industry.
As one little old lady -former scientist/then journalist, put it, at the Toronto Conference on Monday, at the Session for Journalists, as she said "HIV/Aids is tied to Biotechnology,which is tied to industry, which is tied to profits, and this is why we must question their science!"
Wilhelm wrote:
(If there was a 'heartsink' emoticon on scienceblogs, it would be inserted here...)
No, Wilhelm, you come on. 'Perpetrator'? I'm not an virologist or immunologist, I have no financial connection to pharmaceutical companies, and I was only seven years old when the first cases of AIDS were reported.
You see, you've just made the same mistake as DB: you have made a serious accusation about others' integrity which you simply cannot back up.
Even a suspected war criminal would be unlikely to take this accusation:
lying down (otherwise, why bother setting up bodies like ICTY?).
You have to understand that when these words are directed at people who have taken the trouble to read as much of the literature on HIV as is practical (maybe like yourself), and have come to a well-reasoned, defensible conclusion (leaving aside the question of whether they are correct), they are highly insulting. Apart from casting aspersions on their mental faculties, it suggests they don't care about their fellow human beings, to the point that they would deliberately inflict serious suffering and death on them. Such an accusation needs some evidence of intent. I think you have none.
lincoln wrote:
"Here is the latest from the Toronto Aids Festival, again re-affirming the correctness of Peter Duesberg!"
-------------
There are at least two opinions that lincoln does not trust when it comes to the very existence of HIV: his own, and Peter Duesberg's. In fact, he considers Duesberg to be a gullible fool for believing that the HIV literature after 1990 contains solid proof that HIV exists.
And yet, he somehow thinks that his own analysis, or Duesberg's, of whether HIV causes AIDS is somehow meaningful.
But of course, it is meaningless. The question of HIV existence is crucial to the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, and someone like lincoln who is undecided on the former is just babbling nonsense when they profess an opinion about the latter.
Lincoln wrote,
lol, Lincoln, you owe me a new keyboard. You made me spit coffee all over mine.
lincoln: "As was mentioned to you somewhere by someone prior, heterosexuals very, very infrequently are even tested for HIV."
I was tested during a health screen as part of a hiring process. I'm also tested whenever I donate blood. In the USA, millions of heterosexuals have been tested.
Oh, yes: I was also tested for HIV prior to purchasing life insurance.
I pointed that out to "lincoln" via an email conversation weeks ago. I also pointed out that many white, middle class, heterosexual college kids also get tested for HIV when they're screened for other STDs--a fact "lincoln" simply ignores. He also accused me of bigotry against homosexuals and racism then as well. That kind of thinking--ignoring any point your opponent might make because it's all "biased" and they're just bigots anyway--is the last refuge of someone who realizes they're completely floundering, and can't provide valid answers to the questions being asked of them, so they smear their opponent's character instead.
Seth, another brilliant statement by you, perhaps the only judge and jury and prosecutor that we still have left, who is yet following this case. And quite astutely following it, I must add. Seth has made the most astute and applicable statement in thjs entire thread. Perhaps the most astute and meaningful statement that I have ever heard. And Seth IS absolutely correct, yet again, in the following statement that he has made:
But of course, it is meaningless.
It is absolutely completely meaningless. True, how very true. A greater truth has never been spoken so precisely and so eloquently, in the but three little words of "it is meaningless". It is indeed. Completely meaningles!! Completely, absolutely and positively meaningless, as to whether or not HIV EVEN EXISTS!
The only question of any import whatsoever, would have been: If HIV does exist, IS HIV the cause of "AIDS"? Is this minute and miniature 9 kilobase RETROvirus, the one and only and single and solitary retrovirus to be distinguished among all retroviruses, in all of existence, and that is known, shown, proved, and verified to cause a disease, let alone is it the cause of a disease that is not even a disease, known as AIDS?
IS HIV TO BE FOUND GUILTY AND HELD LIABLE FOR THE MURDER OF 500,000 PLUS AMERICANS AND MILLIONS OF OTHERS IN AFRICA AND AROUND THE WORLD?
Well the jury, the vast majority of whom collapsed in fatique, and left this courtroom for lunch a week and a half ago and never came back, is now of course quite bored and quite over the case!
The prosecuter and witnesses fell asleep under their desks one week ago, and never woke up.
But of course, in answer to this most important and pressing question. Most important especially today, this very day. This day of the final closing and curtain call of the XVI Toronto AIDS FESTIVAL, Conference, and International AIDS Olympics. Today, those whom would continue to call for the lynching of HIV have been answered. Today the very evidence to show the defence of HIV and the lack of probable cause in this question, has been fully presented and is now demonstrated repeatedly in the very mountains of evidence to be found on Tara Smith's own much peer and public reviewed data and discussion as generated right here in this thread, and also quite a bit in the preliminary hearings in one or two other prior threads on Aetiology, and the evidence has rendered HIV to be innocent. Insufficient proof of guilt. Not Guilty. Framed. Maliciously used and abused time and time again over the course of twenty long and painfilled years, and lied about by false witnesses. False witnesses have heretofore CALLED HIV THE CAUSE OF AIDS, AND HERE! Right HERE. HERE on THIS A.E.T.I.O.L.O.G.Y. blogsite, the defendent HIV, and the defence of HIV, has had its day in court and in BATTLE, before the eyes of GOD, and a mostly disinterested general public, and has been found "not guilty". Insufficient evidence. Not guilty as declared by Seth Manapio himself, due to insufficient evidence, in his statement, "it is meaningless".
And now, now that this single long and dreaded, and tumultuous and tortuous battle, this very long battle which has raged in this thread since the first of August 2006, which has been valiantly fought by heros on both sides of the issue is drawing to a close. And the bodies of a great number of brave heros and casualties of this battle and war are to be counted here.
I, lincoln, call now for the now declared by the court of Seth to be innocent HIV, for HIV to be set free immediately, and for immediate reparations made to all, in particular, Peter Duesberg, who has struggled to defend the very right of HIV, if HIV does exist, to exist, in peace.
"Limey"?? No. I don't like that one. I may have strong British genes, but I'm too far removed culturally. I refuse to change my screen name to Limey.
You answered some of my questions, but you didn't answer the question about the research I proposed. Curious. I ask because I would consider it an example of a project that could be done quite easily without the goodwill of the NIH or any other particular body. One of many I could think of. I'm sure creative scientific minds could come up with even more. Yet they don't.
I'm sorry, but until you start doing this work I'm just going to have to capitulate responsibility for my well-being to the consensus of the experts. I believe in thinking for yourself, but a wise thinker incorporates the best expert advice he/she can get. I don't imagine myself wise enough to be an expert on every subject. I'm not particularly fond of attorneys, but if I was suddenly accused of a serious crime I would certainly take the best legal advice I could get and give it a lot of weight over my gut instincts. Right now, the dissenters are not the best medical advice I can get. Do the research and stop talking. Sorry if that sounded "sour". Wasn't meant to be.
Cheerio old chap!
Another most appropriate, although cryptic post on Seths Whiskeyb4breakfast blogsite:
http://www.whiskeyb4breakfast.org/
The thing is, I've been where lincoln is, although not as deeply infected as he is. I've had his disease of denial, I know how hard it is to beat these bad memes. It took me a long time to face up to the fact that I had looked HIV positive people in the face and told them--wrongly--that HIV wasn't killing them. I had to face up to being very wrong about something important, and that wasn't easy to do.
Finally facing that was profoundly liberating. Finally realizing that it is totally okay to be stupidly wrong and cocky about it is a great feeling. What is important, what is crucial to my life and the life of people like Tara and Richard, of anyone who wants to be or is a working scientist, is to be willing to be wrong, willing to be corrected. Willing to accept that maybe, just maybe, everything you thought yesterday has to be evaluated anew in the information you have today.
If you find yourself unable to answer a question, if your best response is spewing abuse at the opposite side, jeering at them instead of trying to engage them in thoughtful discussion, that is a telling sign that your argument may be weak. Its a sign that maybe you should be reevaluating your own beliefs.
Sometimes you do... and you find that you are mocking your opponent from a position of strength. Sometimes you have to admit that you were mocking the wrong person, and should have been mocking yourself (which is illegal in five states, I believe). But I think that a skeptic should at least try to be honest enough to know the difference.
posted by Seth
Yeah, that WAS an appropriate post. I don't find it all that crptic though. Very self-insightful on his part and nice of him to admit and share.
Not guilty as declared by Seth Manapio himself, due to insufficient evidence, in his statement, "it is meaningless".
----------
Predictably, lincoln misunderstands, or pretends to misunderstand. It is his opinion that is meaningless, though this never stops him from writing another 500 words of inconsistent nonsense. It is especially amusing to see him write about evidence... evidence that he himself freely admits he is unable to evaluate! I think the word for that is "irony", but I could be wrong.
Tend Limes, as you wish to be known,
You wrote:
but you didn't answer the question about the research I proposed. Curious. I ask because I would consider it an example of a project that could be done quite easily without the goodwill of the NIH or any other particular body. One of many I could think of. I'm sure creative scientific minds could come up with even more. Yet they don't.
You are quite correct, and are obviously much smarter than those in charge at the NIH. There are certainly a multitude of experiments that could be done to verify all.
However, there is a bit of a problem. A study being done, does not mean it will be printed in any scientific literature, no matter how accurate and reproducible by peer reviewers the study may be. A study done, and not printed in a leading science magazine, will not be read, let alone acknowledged by scientists or medicine.
There is a little recognized word, known as censorship, that one would need to overcome in order for anything of value to be posted in the major literature of importance, such as "Science", "Nature", "The Lancet", "JAMA", "JAIDS", "NEJM", or even on the government sponsored "PUBMED".
Someone, known and loved by all of us, whom is reading these words right at this very moment, is personally familiar with the word "CENSORSHIP", and is even practiced at such.
It IS this one little word, that is behind the entire curtain of the AIDS saga. This one little word, so insulting to those of us whom wish for open debate and honesty, is a word that our own forefathers in this Great Nation of the United States of America, fought and lived and died to prevent from corrupting our very souls. It has, however, continued to live on, and disguise itself in a multitude of other forms, that continue to prevent mankind from true freedom.
In France, the originating point of Montagnier's LAV, later usurped and renamed HIV by Robert Gallo, and later still renamed HIV, was also the very birth place of the original call for freedom from Censorship.
In 1762, a man named Jean Jaques Rousseau, wrote a piece entitled "The Social Contract", in which was born the original call for freedom of the evil, biased, and immature practice of Censorship:
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm
French King Louis XVI, wanted to control all thought and speech regarding various popular beliefs, in particular religious ones, at this time.
Two french gentlemen, Jean Paul Marat, and Robes Pierre, armed and bolstered by the words of Rousseau, rose up against this censorship of thought and speech, which culminated with the storming of the Bastille in 1789. The take-over of the Bastille led to the beheading of King Louis, as well as his many supporting and not-quite-so-Noblemen.
However, Robes Pierre and Jean Paul Marat, wished to replace the King's censorship, with their own form of censorship. As such, they too came to know Messieur Guillotine, and lose their own heads to him as well. Let this be the lesson for those who would learn it:
That THEY, who do not LEARN the lessons of history, are DOOMED to repeat it.
As was said by American Patriot Thomas Paine:
"Let Reason Triumph Over Superstition And Privilege!"
And a tumultuous REVOLUTION that would change the very life of all peoples on the face of this earth was begun, and our great nation was born.
That revolution continues yet to this very day.
Lincoln, in this thread, retroviruses responsible for diseases and syndromes, in a variety of species, were mentioned and links were given. Claiming it is the only retrovirus to cause a disease is simply false.
On the testing issue, I have been tested as a blood donor, life insurance policy owner, vaccine trial participant...
Claiming victory over meth abuse being discussed as a risk factor won't change the reality that AIDS is caused by HIV, or that the HIV AIDS theory explains the observations better than any other hypothesis.
The "Repressed Minority" gambit doesn't fly. As I mentioned previously, research in the area is performed by too many and too diverse a range of researchers for repression, simple error, greed, mass hysteria and/or any combination of the above to explain the high levels of support for the conclusion that HIV is a necessary, causal factor in AIDS. It's like herding ducks -- Yeah, you can do that with a handful but not thousands. And once scientists see a tiny gap to a new and fertile research area, they tend to bolt for it.
"The Data" is a better and more accessible explanation than psychology and motives. How about addressing the former first?
lincoln: "However, there is a bit of a problem. A study being done, does not mean it will be printed in any scientific literature, no matter how accurate and reproducible by peer reviewers the study may be."
You know, I've heard of 'overthinking' yourself out of doing an experiment (something many overly cautious grad students have to overcome), but thinking yourself out of even thinking about possible research is a new one to me. Essentially, that's claiming that one shouldn't bother to support one's conclusions with actual research because nobody is going to read it anyway. Here's a news flash: Most papers don't get read by all that many people anyway. Working scientists are used to flinging out their hard-earned results to a tiny group of interested readers. That doesn't stop them from doing research.
lincoln,
One more comment. When you repost large tracts of text from other sources, would you mind referencing the sources? The authors spent time on the work and deserve credit for their efforts.
That revolution continues yet to this very day.
-----------------------------
AIDS denialists form unsupported opinions that are contrary to the evidence, and then spin elaborate conspiracy theories to support those opinions. They are not the intellectual heirs of the enlightenment.
Another absolute truth by Seth:
They are not the intellectual heirs of the enlightenment.
As each and everyone of us, is our very own intellectual heir to equal hope and opportunity of enlightenment, should one first of all choose it, and should one be so strong and willing and pure to surrender up all false belief, and lastly yet most importantly, should any one among us, be so graced by GOD to receive it, from whence it comes.
Doubt is the beginning of Wisdom
Buddha
Un simp pathetic:
"The Data" is a better and more accessible explanation than psychology and motives. How about addressing the former first?
Most all of the time, "The Data" is indeed a true way of discernment. Much data can indeed be amassed by quite rational minds, and possibly discern much to be considered accurate. Data that may even be true from one perspective, however, can not always be considered "ultimate truth", as there exists realms of discernment that are indeed more inclusive of an even truer vision of greater benefit to all involved.
The realm of the Rational Mind, is a limited realm. It is not ever possible for a mere rational mind to see the cause behind the cause of any perceived "event". Such as to see the invisible energies of belief itself, or of divine consciousness, that are imperceptible to mere rational mind. It is here, that rational mind and scientific instrument fail us. The rational mind has difficulty allowing for what it can not prove, let alone percieve. But the lack of the rational mind to prove or percieve does not change ultimate truth, whatever that ultimate truth may be.
For instance:
A person reaching up to get something from a shelf that can not be reached now has a mind steeped in anger that can only percieve that "I" am not getting whatever it is that "I" want from that shelf. Therefore "I" am angry!
A rational mind can see perhaps that the reason this being is not getting what they want is because they are not standing quite tall enough to attain it. Perhaps something somehow could be devised to lengthen their legs, boost their shoes, stretch their fingers, lower the shelf, OR, the rational mind might see this person as being a wonderful test subject to use in a trial study of "anger" reducing medications.
A higher mind yet, might perceive that they are not attaining it because they have not yet made the choice to go get the ladder to stand on to reach it. And might even offer to get them a ladder.
A higher mind yet, might percieve that they are not attaining what it is they wish off the shelf, because they do not yet believe that they can, and therefore the possibility of attainment, lies unmanifest, due simply to the lack of belief.
The highest mind, seeks the greatest benefit with the least harm.
lincoln: "Most all of the time, "The Data" is indeed a true way of discernment."
Absolute knowledge is impossible: Fine. How about addressing the data?
And a higher mind yet, sees nothing to attain, nothing right or wrong, nothing but a process of the allness, wherein another of ones own self, is experiencing the human realms of physicality and emotion, and growing, and learning and experiencing aspects of the all that is.
And a higher mind yet, perhaps one that has gone beyond mind, to a state of mindless all-unifying-one-ness, sees nothing to attain, nothing right or wrong, nothing to change, and nothing to fix, nothing but the IS, an eternal process of the allness, wherein another of ones own projections of self, is experiencing the human realms of physicality and emotion, and growing, and learning and experiencing aspects of the all that is.
How about addressing the data?
is a very nonspecific question, open to infinite interpretation.
Exactly WHICH piece of "data"?
And address it from exactly WHICH level of consciousness?
The Level of consciousness where I am pissed off or the one of rational mind, higher mind, highest mind, or mindlessness?
The hope would be that all the data, taken together, could be addressed. This is how we tell good theories from bad theories, working out which does the best job with the accumulated body of data, not just a cherry-picked subset.
And of course, if the point is to get the best picture of reality we can from the empirical facts in evidence, opting for rationality seems like a good idea.
Dr. Free Ride:
Forgive me for just a moment, as when I read your post, it most definitely took me to a place of humor, from which I am not yet recovered.
Reason:
From where I am myself, currently viewing it, all 201,000 plus pieces, the perception, from the most rational mind I am capable of at this moment, is that it is mostly cherry picked and founded on subset(s) of misperceptions.
And Dr. Free Ride, one can only have or understand another's perception, from where levels and perspectives of where they individually are at.
If one is on a level of rationality, that, is the only level they can view or understand from. Kind of like only having a certain color filter in front of your eyes.
The body requires nourishment to exist, (or at least so I percieve, through it's emotional feelings of hunger).
Later.
"And address it from exactly WHICH level of consciousness?"
-------------------
As he has no scientific, rational,or evidence based arguments, lincoln now retreats to mystic hogwash about levels of consciousness... liberally spliced with his big bad conspiracy theory.
Sadly, he fails to realize that the data in a study is not changed by his whims, fancies, or moods. This undoubtably contributes to his self-confessed inability to draw simple conclusions about simple things.
That is, if Harvey Bialy and Peter Deusberg disagree, our "free thinker" hardly knows what to think!
our "free thinker" hardly knows what to think!
This may greatly surprise you, but this "free thinker" was most likely among the FIRST, if not the first, to perceive and be convinced that the causation of the condition known as AIDS was to be other than any single monocausal virus or retrovirus, and that the "cause" extended far beyond that. And this was even before this free thinker had ever even heard the name of Peter Duesberg. And how would this free thinker have determined that 20 years ago? Based on a broader observation, as in "real world", up close, personal, first hand, experiential knowledge, of the lives and lifestyles and behaviors and emotional and belief factors, of the very first afflicted individuals and groups, unlike scientists such as Gallo and Montagnier. At the time, I was a conservative, youthful 25 year old, with dashing good looks, and a very intelligent and inquisitive mind, with what one would call "spiritual" leanings, and struggling to accept myself and my own homosexuality. This time of my life included reaching my own "bottoms" of living in the street, sleeping in doorways, eating out of dumpsters, etc. I was more fortunate than most. I was not rejected by my family upon coming out to them. I was not strung out on drugs or on sex. I was out and about, and knew many of these people personally. To me, the MOST amazing thing, was that any of them stayed as healthy as they did, as long as they did, considering what their behaviors and beliefs were. But then again, when one's body is younger, it can take quite a bit of abuse, but only to a point!
As I said, this was also quite before I ever heard the name of "Peter Duesberg" and long before I heard the name of "Harvey Bialy". But I must tell you that it was truly a delight, to later find the works of these men and others, to have confirmed my own rationally and experientially based beliefs.
I can also only share with you, what a delight it has also been- in my life, to meet with others years after my own observations and beliefs had been formed, whom also had become convinced, of and on their own, of the same or nearly similar beliefs as myself, which now includes thousands of renowned scientists and doctors throughout the world. A very small percentage of these people, sign petitions, or are at all vocal with their beliefs, as most just go about their day to day work, and keep their opinions to themselves, as I had done for many years. One can not change others opinions, and can only share ones beliefs with those whom wish to hear it.
I can also share with you what a pleasure it is, to finally meet many others, and discover that what I believed 20 years ago, has now spread to thousands and thousands, if not hundreds of thousand and millions, of like minded people, with now more than 25 books and several documentary films now done on the subject of HIV dissent. It has been a thrill to watch the dissident/rethinker side of the issue grow exponentially in just the last 6 years. One only needs to "google" the words "aids dissent" or "HIV dissent" to see the millions of pages now on the internet on the subject.
I tell you firsthand, it can be a very lonely and painful place to be emotionally, for an individual to be the only person one knows, for many years, whom quietly but passionately disbelieves what seemingly every single other person in the world believes.
And somewhere, in my heart of hearts, I know that the hundreds of thousands of lives lost of young gay men, as well as millions of others whom have passed around the world, with a diagnosis of HIV or AIDS, will not have died in vain. They will have died so that all the world may grow through the many lessons to be found in their passing, if one but looks and reaches for them. Society could move forward greatly by looking within at this entire debacle. The lessons, if we choose to learn them, could change societal attitudes and beliefs, could change government, medical care, science, industry, and bring about a seachange of how all of these are instituted, for the greater betterment of the future, of all of mankind.
I've just realised an amusing implication of DB's claim that the data supports the hypothesis because the study was a test of the hypothesis. I'm going to hypothesise that wood doesn't burn. Now, I'll pile up some wood, and light a fire under it. According to DB's logic, because my test is predicated on the hypothesis that wood doesn't burn, we will therefore observe that the wood doesn't burn. Does that sound reasonable to anyone? No?
I see that Wilhelm Godschalk is still babbling about gravitation. Firstly, as we've pointed out previously, your arm is not doing any work on a stationary weight; work is being done internally by your muscle cells, because we don't have catch-connective tissue. A wire will support a weight indefinitely without getting tired :) Secondly, complaining about Newtonian gravitation now, when we've been using GR for almost a century, is pathetically behind the times; look up the concept of geodesic motion on a curved spacetime manifold.
"lincoln"'s outbursts are simply embarassing now, and are grossly insulting to the large numbers of concerned and dedicated health care workers and researchers who are working hard to save lives all around the world.
"But I must tell you that it was truly a delight, to later find the works of these men and others, to have confirmed my own rationally and experientially based beliefs."
----------------
So lincoln, lacking any knowledge of epidemiology, and without any clue as to the larger situation, concludes that drugs are the AIDS culprit. Then he finds people who confirm what he already believes, and decides that they are right. At no time in this monologue does lincoln ever question his immediate beliefs, or notice that the HIV/AIDS hypothesis matches his observations equally well, and explains many other things besides!
I'm pretty sure that the term for this is "confirmation bias".
"lincoln"'s outbursts are simply embarassing now, and are grossly insulting to the large numbers of concerned and dedicated health care workers and researchers who are working hard to save lives all around the world.
To be insulted, or not to be insulted, is merely a choice.
One of many choices that could be made.
One could just as easily choose to be "thankful" instead.
Whew. I haven't been here for many days, and you guys are still mentioning me. Must have struck a chord!
Stephen, in your misrepresentation, you actually help to prove my point.
But first, I never said that the studies were a test of the hypothesis. They aren't. The studies work under the assumption that HIV causes AIDS. The studies do not seek to challenge that assumption, or test the hypothesis. They work from the basic nearly universally-accepted belief that HIV causes AIDS.
So, let's use your burning wood example to illustrate the "logic" of HIV/AIDS. You set out to do a study of some sort that involves wood. Your study does not set out to challenge your hypothesis that wood doesn't burn. You've already accepted the hypothesis that wood doesn't burn. During the course of your study, wood becomes combustible.
Just like an "HIV/AIDS" study, you turn your head away from something so incredibly inconvenient, as it could dismantle your most basic premise (wood doesn't burn). Anyway, your study wasn't actually trying to find out if wood didn't burn as you already knew that it didn't.
You helped to illustrate my point. HIV/AIDS studies don't seek to question if HIV causes AIDS, just the way your wood study doesn't seek to question if wood doesn't burn. Both of these were accepted as facts beforehand.
The term: "scared to death" has rolled off the tongues of mankind for many centuries. It can be found in the literature of the 1500's, and is still a commonly used term.
Is there any truth to the statement?
Perhaps Seth could answer the question. Is it possible for someone to "be scared to death"?
If so, or if not, perhaps Seth could answer as to how it could be "proved" in the literature or in science, one way or the other?
DB's response is hilarious. Apparently an experiment in which we pile up some wood, and set it on fire, is not designed to question whether or not wood burns. I have this wonderful image now of DB standing in front of the bonfire, telling me that this is no reason to believe that wood burns.
linc -
"And address it from exactly WHICH level of consciousness?
The Level of consciousness where I am pissed off or the one of rational mind, higher mind, highest mind, or mindlessness that I get at moments like this, while smoking weed?"
Oh, did I misquote you there? Sorry, I think I was reading between the lines of last nights posts. Must have been a "Happy Friday" though. Hope you are well today. Let me try again on a couple of points. Although I don't know why. They one thing you said that I absolutely agree with is that you can't change another's mind. I suppose this is just too much fun not to participate. For instance, you said:
"As was said by American Patriot Thomas Paine:
"Let Reason Triumph Over Superstition And Privilege!"
Then, a few posts later, (in regards to becoming "enlightened"):
"and lastly yet most importantly, should any one among us, be so graced by GOD to receive it".
Nice. If you have never read Payne's works, I highly recommend his "Age Of Reason". I wonder what the fundies would think if public schools made this particular great patriots writing a mandatory course?
I think if I am ever truly "enlightened", I won't have to tell others about my enlightenment. They either know it, or they aren't capable of knowing it, or I don't have it. You follow my point? Do the research. Which brings up a final point.
The one you addressed as Un Simp Pathetic (Clever. Not enlightened of you, but definitely clever) said:
"You know, I've heard of 'overthinking' yourself out of doing an experiment (something many overly cautious grad students have to overcome), but thinking yourself out of even thinking about possible research is a new one to me. Essentially, that's claiming that one shouldn't bother to support one's conclusions with actual research because nobody is going to read it anyway."
And he's absolutely right. It just sounds like silly excuses for not doing the research. You know perfectly well that if the work was solid it would be published SOMEWHERE and you and other dissidents would trumpet the hell out of it in places just like this. If y'all would put as much effort in to THAT as you do in these blogs, you could have accomplished your goal by now. But if you don't think your research will back you up, I understand and will just accept the consensus as stands. It's up to you, linc. Smoke a fat one for me. I may not be enlightened, but whatever the hell you call this - it's done with out supplement.
Your friend, the farmer.
DB, why do you believe that a study based on a premise must validate that premise? This is such a peculiar and strange belief, contrary to all experience and reason... how do you support it?
Lincoln,
You dissapoint me. Bringing your personal enlightenment into the realm of a discussion on AIDS. For starters you are clearly not enlightened because if you were you wouldn't be so pissed. I also agree with Tend Limes when he suggests that you do not need to state you are enlightened. Nor would you use it as an argument as to why you are right. Being enlightened is about helping others on their path to enlightenment accusing them of being pawns of Big Pharma and hurting people doesn't exactly inspire people to listen to you. Claiming to be their conscience doesn't qualify either nor does it assist your plight. I also believe that advising people on medication is not adviseable because it is clearly not your expertise and may do harm (which is bad for your karma). So instead of arguing on blogs about the validity of scientific research which you refuse to discuss maybe you should focus on people open to finding enlightenment. Perhaps teenagers helping them to find the right path of life avoiding drugs and other risky behaviors that will stop HIV from spreading in the first place.
Ya know you told me I needed to work on myself well I think you still have more work to do as well. You have not quite achieved the status of the Budda. So instead of preaching on blogs on matters you don't understand maybe you should continue to work on yourself because contrary to your belief that their are many causal factors of AIDS you have admitted you cannot prove HIV does not cause it. So until you have a significant amount of evidence (beyond your personal beliefs) then you should just leave medical advice to the doctors.
Laura, it's SATURDAY NIGHT for god's sake. He's lighting up his "blunt" instrument of enlightenment as we write. He may reply to you tomorrow (or much later tonight if he's bored. Hell, I know I am, but then I don't pretend to be on a "higher" plane).
Tis true, I am currently seeking higher levels of being via the vehicle to instant enlightenment of a double South Park episodathon. So, you will need to practice the internal yoga of patience till I return. BUT, when I do come down and return from the South Park etherium, first Seth is in trouble, big trouble, as he asks questions before answering any asked of him, as he accused poor ole lincoln of earlier, for he has not answered the predicament of "scared to death" that in my last post I had clearly described, and second, Laura, oooohhhhh Laura, you are in for a treat! A bitterSweet treat, as I like to call them. Commercial breaks are over, gotta go! Kenny, Cartman,and Carl are calling and need my assistance!
Tend Limes and Laura, and dear Seth as well!
Just as I suspected, South Park did indeed lead me to the answers I have been seeking, and I have reached a new height of enlightenment and truth! Indeed, it is found that HIV/AIDS is REAL! Let me explain!
Well, Cartman the prick, was being ignored by Kyle and everyone after they had enough of his crap. They decided to treat him like he was invisible and just did not exist. The only one he was not ignored by, was Butters, and he asked Butters why. Butters reached the obvious conclusion that it must be that Cartman is dead and is now a ghost and Butters believed he was seeing a ghost. Butters told his parents he was seeing a ghost and was too afraid to go to sleep. Butters parents straightened little Butters out. They told him, in no uncertain terms, that GHOSTS are not real. Butters father said, "There is nothing to be afraid of. Nothing, that is except for SUPER-AIDS. SUPER-AIDS is the ONLY thing to be afraid of, because SUPER-AIDS is REAL. Now go to bed Butters!"
There you have it. It, Super-AIDS, must be REAL. Cause Butters dad told us so! What more proof could we want! Tara, Chris, Super Bored, Seth, and all the rest, I see your proof clearly now, and now I too am a scared believer of this very real and vicious virus! After all, it knows how to find us fags, and that means I must be on it's shitlist! My apologies for EVER doubting. I shall never doubt again!
Tend Limes,
You thrill me beyond words with your knowledge of the seldom discussed Mr. Paine's amazing works. Yes his work would indeed rock a boat or two, if not sink em completely, and twould do the fundies much good , although I fear it quite beyond their abilities or readiness to give it due consideration. It is truly an inspiring piece of work, and uplifting to any who would seek a higher truth.
Paine's interpretation of the "Bible" is not unlike my own interpretation of 201,000 pages of HIV/AIDS studies. Witness Paine's words with regards to the "Bible":
THESE books, beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelations, (which, by the bye, is a book of riddles that requires a revelation to explain it) are, we are told, the word of God. It is, therefore, proper for us to know who told us so, that we may know what credit to give to the report. The answer to this question is, that nobody can tell, except that we tell one another so.
Quite appropriate, and I thank you for sharing it.
Furthermore, Paine also said:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
As I relate to this, I do not believe in the creed professed by the church of NIAD, NIH, CDC, AMA, nor any church of HIV/AIDS that I know of. My own mind suffices to guide me, and I have no need of being told what to believe or who I should trust for medical or scientific advice.
Paine also said:
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
As for me I see this as: All National Institutions of Science and Health and Pharmaceutical manufacture, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit!
Furthermore Limes,
Although, I have tasted of many different supplements, as you call them, at some various times of my earlier life, I steer clear of them as well. For me, supplementation does not assist in any way of attaining or maintaining any type of "higher mind", as higher mind is only 'attained' through awareness of what is not of higher mind and awareness. Supplementation, to me, creates the opposite of awareness. It is a form of "cheating" which also seemingly creates a backlog of necessary experience, often connected to emotionally painful perceptions, that egoic mind is protective of, and as such, keeps itself from attaining the real freedom from such, through awareness of the misperceptions that lie behind it all.
Studies exist on the effects of malnutrition.
Studies exist on the mutagenic nature of Poppers.
Studies exist on the toxicity of all HIV drugs.
Studies exist on the toxicity of various illicit drugs. (Let alone as I just mentioned above as to the unprovable effects of it on conscious awareness, leading often to more irrational and often destructive behaviors)
Studies exist on the hazard of overuse of antibiotics.
Studies exist on the immunologic lowering effects of stress, and fear. (Tony Fauci himself did his doctorate on stress and the negative effects on the immune system, though it seems he forgot his own work as soon as he got the job at NIADS, or maybe his promotion of HIV/AIDS is a further experiment in such?)
The only ones who will not look upon THIS "mountain of evidence" are those that simply choose not to.
Just exactly precisely how much "evidence" is enough for you?
And who exactly has to declare to you what "truth" is, for you to believe it?
As far as what you are meaning by research into alternatives, you are not specifically describing of any study in particular. As such, I am not talking myself out of anything.
Not to mention, there is a thing that seems to be not overly common, which many refer to as common sense. Re:
Is there anyone here who believes that exposing ones self, or any other creature to drug addiction to excess is healthy for ones body?
Is there anyone here that thinks exposing ones self or any other creature to multiple well known and already described pathogens followed by antibiotics and more pathogens and more antibiotics would be healthy? Perhaps there are those that might see this as no biggie, but established science already documents the immunological dangers of such.
As such, I do not know quite what studies you would like to use to see how much some creature could be abused or poisoned before it sickens and dies, and I for one, have no desire or stomach to do so. You are more than welcome to do such if you like, but it is not my cup of tea, thank you.
And then, there are the unprovables, such as the above example given to Seth regarding the possibility of "scared to death", which if you are not quite sure that this is common inate truth or belief or knowledge, just go find the nearest 10 people, and ask them, off the cuff, if they believe someone could "scare themselves to death". You will probably be hard pressed to find those that do not already agree.
Now for the bigger questions or issues at hand, Enlightenment.
First, I have not ever claimed to be enlightened anywhere in my words on this thread, though it is interesting that so many point toward my simple words and either accuse me of saying such, or bring up such a word as enlightened when describing either myself or my words.
Second, I agree with our lime farmer that if one was ever enlightened, one would not need to broadcast it, or tell anyone about it.
Third, If an enlightened being ever did think they were enlightened, the very thought of one's self as being enlightened means that one is not. Not only that, but it would not even be a consideration, for Enlightenment is a state of being, not a state of mentacious describing of being, such as we are doing at the moment.
Third, if I or you were enlightened, we would not even be having this conversation, as we would not care less about any of the conversation or mundane mentations of either myself or any of you, or even of the issue of whether or not HIV causes AIDS or even exists. All would be seen as illusion of mentation and physicality.
Tend Limes, Not only would the enlightened not tell anyone they were, but if they ever did, it is 100 percent guaranteed that upon the very moment of noticing it, one is no longer there. It is a 'state of grace', and one can easily fall from that state.
And now for YOU LAURA!
YOU accuse me of being PISSED!
Is this truth or is it a projection of your own self? Or is it even possibly a calculated manipulation to provoke others to their own anger, wherein they can eventually aim their anger toward arriving at a higher level of understanding for themselves through the duality of anger?
Anger, in and of itself, is not good or bad. Depends on the purpose one chooses to use it for.
Laura, are you for some strange reason contemplating looking up to me?
Buddha taught: Put no head above your own. What does this mean?
Are any of you DAFT enough to look UP to ME???
Wake up, you are all as connected to absolute truth as myself or anyone else, as all that actually exists is absolute truth, even though perhaps ones mind or ego obscures it from them. Truth is not found in mind or ego. It simply IS! We live it, eat it, sleep it, and breath it. We can all mentate over perceptions of it, and mispercieve time and again exactly what that truth is, but even this does not change it. It is what is and it is ALL that is. All IS truth, and All truth IS, but mind and ego. Even untruth is but a truthful acknowledgement of what is not truth and therefore nonexistant. Untruth does not exist anywhere but in our minds.
Every single person who has ever believed HIV causes AIDS, simply AGREED to believe it, whether they are aware that they personally agreed to believe it or not aware of their choice of agreement. Agreeing to believe or not believe something does not make it true. It would only make it one's perception of what truth IS.
Laura, you suggested or perhaps recommended that I leave the question of what is truth unto doctors or scientists? Are you gone completely mad woman? What do you think God bestowed me with my own mind for. To simply allow to be filled with the possible drivel of some other quite possibly educated idiot? If you wish to take no self responsibility for your own health and well being, or abdicate responsibility and turn that responsiblity over to others, well, that is certainly up to you. I seek a higher truth, thank you. That IS my God given right. If someone should follow me at their own choice and even to their own detriment, well that is just their own God Given right to choice, and YOU are no one to judge what is right for others. Although you have every right to speak your own belief, as do I. Perhaps you perceive yourself to be a better judge of truth than me? That is your opinion, and we all know the one about everyone having one.
And do tell me Laura, if you truly believed your community and friends were at danger from a belief that all of your own heart told you was false, would you not speak up? Would you ignore your own heart and just let them all be swept away by it without saying a word?
Have YOU bothered to become as informed as possible of other sides to this issue of HIV? I have, and read as much as possible on BOTH sides. And afterwards, I think for myself and reach my own conclusions. I have no need of someone else to tell me what to think or what to believe. Do you?
And Laura, my friend, as for the bittersweet I promised you? You said:
You have not quite achieved the status of the Budda
Tis true! But life is a journey, not a destination.
And this my friends, means it is time to bow out. To leave you all to your own journeys, your own lessons. The work that I set out to do here is done, which was but to share my own truth. I have shared with you my own truth, my own beliefs. I leave you to your own, and the consequence and experience of such. Disbelieve ALL that I have shared, and investigate all and think for yourselves. Believe no-man, not even lincoln. I have truly enjoyed all of you and all of the challenges that you have presented me, in the conversations on this thread. I shall be reading from time to time, but not joining in, as I know you all have what it takes to figure things out for your own selves, to decide what is right for your own selves. To decide what your own truths shall be. And I know you are all quite good enough, smart enough, and tough enough. Even tough enough to stand up and challenge lincoln. Thank you all, and you as well Tara, for the much appreciated opportunity to discuss some of these issues. I hope you found a word or two of it helpful in some way in the issues at hand, or in other aspects of your lives.
One is formed, known, and easily judged by one's chosen heros.
Thanks all,
Abraham Lincoln
http://sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/alincoln.html
lincoln is quite strange. He has stated several times that all scientific institutes are, basically, filled with liars, and then claims some veracity to studies on malnutrition, poppers, etc, done by those same institutes. Quite odd, but it again demonstrates that lincoln has no objective criteria for evaluating information. Simply, source credibility is not important to him, nor is methodology, design, or analysis. lincoln demonstrates clearly, again, that his only criteria for new information is that it agree with his preconcieved notions, which were born out of his own ignorance and superstition many years ago.
Uh, Lincoln, if your main theory is that AIDS is caused by "sex+poppers", and helped along by AZT, aren't you a little troubled by the _FACT_ that it is trivially easy to find counterexamples that invalidate your pet theory ?
There are any number of AIDS sufferers that never took poppers, any of which who never took drugs others than coffee, alchool and cigarettes, and there are also a great many documented AIDS cases who never had sex, both adults and children. There are of course thousands of AIDS sufferers that never received AZT or other antiviral drug, and died of AIDS all the same.
What have all those sick people in common ? You guessed it, they all test positive for the HIV virus. How did they contract the virus ? Then again, in all documented cases, the HV infection can be traced to a handful of causes: sex with an HIV+ partner, blood transfusion from an HIV+ donor, sharing needles with an HIV+ junkie, or being born from an HIV+ mother without the benefits of antivirals. The common factor ? The HIV virus, as detected by an array of tests.
People that test positive for HIV are expected to develop AIDS in time, except for a handful of cases that are currently under study. People that are HIV free will stay HIV-free and thus AIDS-free as long they practice safe sex, (or unsafe sex with HIV- partners), and don't share needles.
You can stay in denial as long as you want, Linc, and we can shower you with any number of studies, and your answer will always be "I'm not convinced".
We can lead you to hospital wards were peoples are dying of AIDs, and you'll blame AIDS on the medication they take. We can lead you to South African wards, were peoples are dying on AIDS, and you'll blame it on antivirals: when informed that those particular people are not taking antivirals, you'll then blame it on "malnutrition", regardless that those particular South Africans never missed a meal in their lives.
You'll just keep on posting your denial, and heap scorn, insults, and accusations on other posters.
lincoln: "Studies exist on the effects of malnutrition.
Studies exist on the mutagenic nature of Poppers.
Studies exist on the toxicity of all HIV drugs.
Studies exist on the toxicity of various illicit drugs. (Let alone as I just mentioned above as to the unprovable effects of it on conscious awareness, leading often to more irrational and often destructive behaviors)
Studies exist on the hazard of overuse of antibiotics.
Studies exist on the immunologic lowering effects of stress, and fear."
Yep, but these factors don't kill CD4+ T-cells in a manner like that observed in AIDS patients and aren't communicable via blood transfer from person to person. The epidemiology of those potential causes doesn't fit the symptoms and the course of the disease exhibited by the patients. Those factors and combinations of these factors (except anti-HIV drugs*) were considered and eliminated early in the search because they couldn't account for the pattern of disease in a peculiar cluster of medical problems that appeared rapidly in the early 1980's. Instead, researchers found a retrovirus that had near perfect correlation with the cluster of symptoms and was predictive of who would likely succumb to AIDS in the future.
*Anti-HIV drugs were used *after* AIDS was uncovered so it's ridiculous to make a case that they were responsible for deaths prior to their use.
"The only ones who will not look upon THIS "mountain of evidence" are those that simply choose not to."
There are mountains of evidence. This evidence reveals that the potential causes you cite are neither necessary nor sufficient to predict the decline in a patient's immune system and depletion of T-cells that results in AIDS. These can be *modifying* factors in disease progression but they aren't, by themselves the core *intiating* or causal factor. The 'mountains' aren't where you think they are.
Leave lincoln to his energy, vibrations, magic, levels of conciousness, belief determines reality, and misinterpreting Payne (who would mock his superstitions) etc...
This isn't a discussion about the paranormal, but about evidence. Evidence is on the side of HIV being the causal agent of AIDS. Deniers can make all kinds of claims, from all scientists being corrupt to the non-existence of data already discussed.
They claim that the better hypothesis will win out in time. But this has already happened. The behavior hypthesis was left behind as data mounted demonstrating the superiority of the HIV hypothesis. Some don't want to accept this, which is at first, reasonable, but the point of reason has long since been passed. Most proponents of the pehavior hypothesis have moved on. Others find hangers-on and new allies among pseudoscience and snake oil salesmen. And some manage to convince actual patients of their beliefs, only leading to more suffering.
I vote Lincoln
I vote Lincoln
----------------
Good for you. You can email Michael Geiger, aka lincoln, at mgeiger@simplyweb.net.
I just happened to run across the following today from Richard Dawkins 1982 book, "The Extended Phenotype", p. 115 wherein he quotes Maynard Smith from 1976 - "'It is the nature of science that once a position becomes orthodox it should be subjected to criticism'. This is, no doubt, healthy, but Smith drily goes on: 'It does not follow, that because a position is orthodox, that it is wrong.'"
According to the pseudo-scientific hero Michael Crichton it does.
A lot of pseudoscience feeds off an uncritical reaction against science.
It should be pointed out that both evolution and the HIV causation of AIDS have been critcised over and over again. They have both withstood the criticism not because scientists are dogmatically censoring debate but because they are supported by the evidence.
Linc (or Michael) is no longer posting (though I'd wager he will change his mind on this) but in case he is reading - I agree with Robster who accuses him of twisting the intent of the great Thomas Payne who criticized organized religion, in favor of something he felt mankind could unite around - wisdom and common sense a brought about by the use of science. He did not feel that HE and what was inside his head were where his wisdom would solely come from but by the works of science of not only himself but of all scientists. And surely he would defer any of his "beliefs" to the wisdom of other scientists who were more expert in certain areas than he himself was. He may have disagreed, but he would either have done research himself to refute or would have persuaded an expert in the particular field to engage in the research that he felt would prove his point.
Michael Lincoln - you said that YOU KNEW that the HIV hypothesis was wrong 20 years ago, even before others had shown exactly why. How curious that your "beliefs" just happened to come true for you! Can you not see and accept that your "beliefs" are what causes you to accept the extreme minority judgment on this issue, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? This is not Payne. It's a pain! But you're worth it to me and you share an interest in enlightenment, so I continue.
Seth brilliantly pointed out the truth about you, if you're of a mind to consider it - "He has stated several times that all scientific institutes are, basically, filled with liars, and then claims some veracity to studies on malnutrition, poppers, etc, done by those same institutes". You can't have it both ways. Well, you CAN. But most of us aren't having it with you and you'll have to live with that until you do some irrefutable research that can bring us to some greater understanding than we've currently arrived at. I don't think science is always right, but I think it's always the right way to find out what is. So did Thomas Payne.
Tara, I'm the 600th post on this thread. What do I win?
I retract my final sentence. Noble beat me to it.
The prize for the 600th post was a book titled "1001 better things to do with your time than debating HIV 'rethinkers'".
I'll read it after my next post.
I'd send you a prize, but I'm not yet convinced that prizes exist, or if they're instead just a conspiracy by the entertainment industry.
I've been away from this board for a few days. And when the cat's away from home... But I don't intend to let all y'all get away with the nonsense that has been written.
But first I must express my appreciation for Lincoln, who has been valiantly fighting a lone battle against the flock from the Church of HIV/AIDS. He has done a marvelous job, so I expect that he will be banned soon...
Well, here we go:
Unsympathetic:
"In each step, controls and earlier experiments can be run to confirm reliability.
Emphasis mine. And that says it all. Actually "could be would even describe the situation better.
"It doesn't require 'faith'; The results are empirically accessible."
Oh, it's not the data that require faith; it's the interpretation.
"We can even establish geneological relationships between the viruses of infected partners."
See? That's what I meant. "relationships between the" WHAT?
We know, since we were told about the birds and the bees, that genetic material is transferred among partners, right?
Now if you state that it belongs to "the viruses", that requires faith.
"It is a competitive inhibitor (binding in place of the normal substrate) and a chain terminator, reducing the rate of viral transcription to DNA."
You just made that up. It sound plausible, because drugs such as AZT are nucleoside analogs. But the enzymologists I knew always purified their enzymes before they performed their kinetic studies. Not the down 'n dirty RT crowd. They measure their "HIV-RT" activity while they are stirring the contents of their cauldron. Wake up, guys: Measuring how much AZT is built into a DNA chain is NOT the same as studying the kinetics of an enzyme. The trouble with the HIV faithful is that they are making to many shortcuts in their thinking.
"Note that there are non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) that bind in a different place and are non-competitive inhibitors."
I KNOW there are non-competitive inhibitors (What is this: Enzymology 101?) Do you really think these stupid drugs are specific for "HIV-RT" (assuming this exists at all)? The host has its own reverse transcriptases. And what about the regular DNA-dependent transcriptases? Wouldn't they be inhibited by Nevirapine and its ilk?
Patients all react differently to drugs. Only when it's about patients who are seropositive and being treated with ARV's, unresponsiveness is interpreted as "resistance" of HIV, due to mutation. If you turn your ear towards Europe, I'll bet you can hear me laughing.
"Mutations that reduce binding to NNRTIs have also been isolated and characterized biochemically."
Uh-huh. Real chutzpah. My friend, they have not even been able to isolate, let alone characterize the wild type of HIV. And now you are trying to sell us the isolation of mutants? I'd really like to see a paper where they have accomplished that.
Now it's really getting crass:
"Yes, T-cells are hosts to the virus. Yes, the full length genome of HIV has been characterized (two copies of the RNA genome per viral envelope -- How did they figure that out for a virus that's never been isolated as a 'complete particle'? Go figure...) and no you won't find those exact sequences in high stringency Northern or Southern blots or in PCR amplification of human DNA from uninfected individuals, meaning it's not an endogenous, inherited sequence."
First of all: "HIV" has never been found in naturally occurring T-cells. The HIV illusionists can, however, grow something they say is HIV in a cell culture of cancerous T-cells (which are stimulated with a mitogen). From that "something" they can isolate RNA, which they can't work with because they lack the skills. So they reverse-transcribe it first to DNA. If the quantity is too small, they have to amplify using a number of PCR cycles. Then they have enough DNA that can be sequenced. And guess what: The sequences they find are not found in a cell culture inoculated with blood plasma from seronegative individuals...
So far so good. But then comes the conclusion: These sequences are not endogenous, and SO they must come from HIV WOW!! If a student had ever approached me with that kind of logic, I would have kicked him out of the lab.
Let's assume that they did proper control experiments on the pure uninfected cell culture, to show that these sequences did not come from the witches' brew itself: Does that mean the conclusion was correct? No, of course not. The only thing we know is that it's "something" exogenous.
Well, big freakin' deal! Don't we acquire all sorts of exogenous material every day? We eat food that contains bacteria and molds. Our intestine contains whole families of bacteria. We get stung or bitten by insects. We ingest worms from our house pets (mainly dogs). We get colds and the flu. And what about semen? Certainly that's exogenous, isn't it?
There are about 70 different factors that can cause a person to become seropositive. Several of these are viruses such as Herpes or Influenza. The presence of the antibodies ascribed (for no good reason) to HIV indicate that there's "something" different about these people. But if you want so bad that it is HIV, then it IS HIV, right? Just like a scared kid who sees the bogeyman everywhere. Bah.
"Yes, the reverse transcriptase treatment does work to convert viral RNA to DNA with known fidelity."
Oh, does it now? So it works with high fidelity when it's for an experiment that has to be pushed down our throats. But (according to Noble and friends) in the natural environment of our body, RNA viruses replicate with poor fidelity, and produce oodles of mutants. Do you really need to have it both ways?
"Yes, from people for whom RT inhibitor treatment is not blocking viral replication we can isolate high numbers of HIV pol clones from this process that carry mutations known from enzymatic and cell-based assays reduce the inhibition of the HIV reverse transcriptase enzyme.
Oh, come off it! You can't isolate Jack-youknowwhat from people. Not even from patients with full-blown AIDS. First you have to inoculate the witches' brew and say "Hocus Pocus".
"Dismissing the experimentally assembled and validated data as an artifact of something in a "cell-culture witches' brew" doesn't cut it in scientific discussion"
Where ARE these "experimentally assembled and validated data"? All they have been doing for 22 years is drawing conclusions on the basis of what they really should have been proving. And when I point at the holes in the reasoning they have the gall to wave the criticism away and demand alternative theories for which the critics have to provide proof (!) "We know we're right. This is how it is. And if you don't believe it, prove to us that it's NOT so".
That's science? Let these klutzes try to be useful members of society. Like street-sweepers.
"You also persist in the unsupported claim that there is no such thing as 'viral drug resistance' despite decades of work demonstating the contrary"
Decades of wasting tax money on dead-end project, you mean. "Viral drug resistance" is so completely off-the-wall that anybody who has the slightest notion of what viruses are, would laugh his ass off. Demonstrating it? Sure. Wait till you have a cold (or even the flu), and take a drug, any drug Big pharma recommends. It won't do any good. But after some time, the virus disease will go away by itself.
[Sarcasm]But the virus was resistant to the drug, now wasn't it?[/Sarcasm]
"Those sequences fit a pattern of horizontal transfer between infected individuals."
Sure, there are plenty of sequences available. You can always find one you like.
"Horizontal transfer"? You must be kidding. I... hardly dare to mention this... If Tara reads this, I may regret this... but...
Have you ever heard of Nancy Padian?
Wilhelm, I haven't addressed one of your posts in a while so here goes:
"In each step, controls and earlier experiments can be run to confirm reliability.
W: Emphasis mine. And that says it all. Actually "could be would even describe the situation better. Actually "are" would be the proper descriptor. Admittedly not all science is adequately controlled or reproduced but enough of it is that the hypothesis that HIV causes AIDS is still by far and away the one best supported by the data.
"It doesn't require 'faith'; The results are empirically accessible."
W: Oh, it's not the data that require faith; it's the interpretation. and yet the majority of scientists agree with the interpretation. Some would argue that is because the interpretation is the most logical interpretation.
"We can even establish geneological relationships between the viruses of infected partners."
W: See? That's what I meant. "relationships between the" WHAT?
We know, since we were told about the birds and the bees, that genetic material is transferred among partners, right?
Now if you state that it belongs to "the viruses", that requires faith. No, it doesn't require faith at all. If that genetic material can be shown, as it has, to be capable of directing the synthesis of new viruses. Even Peter Duesberg acknowledges that.
"It is a competitive inhibitor (binding in place of the normal substrate) and a chain terminator, reducing the rate of viral transcription to DNA."
W: You just made that up. It sound plausible, because drugs such as AZT are nucleoside analogs. But the enzymologists I knew always purified their enzymes before they performed their kinetic studies. Not the down 'n dirty RT crowd. They measure their "HIV-RT" activity while they are stirring the contents of their cauldron. Wake up, guys: Measuring how much AZT is built into a DNA chain is NOT the same as studying the kinetics of an enzyme. The trouble with the HIV faithful is that they are making to many shortcuts in their thinking. The enzymologists you knew purified their enzymes because they didn't have the techniques of molecular biology available to them just like Christopher Columbus spent months crossing the Atlantic in a tiny boat because that was the only way he had available to him.
"Note that there are non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) that bind in a different place and are non-competitive inhibitors."
W: I KNOW there are non-competitive inhibitors (What is this: Enzymology 101?) Do you really think these stupid drugs are specific for "HIV-RT" (assuming this exists at all)? The host has its own reverse transcriptases. And what about the regular DNA-dependent transcriptases? Wouldn't they be inhibited by Nevirapine and its ilk?
Patients all react differently to drugs. Only when it's about patients who are seropositive and being treated with ARV's, unresponsiveness is interpreted as "resistance" of HIV, due to mutation. If you turn your ear towards Europe, I'll bet you can hear me laughing. No real biochemist would make blanket statements about all transcriptases, let alone all reverse transcriptases, necessarily being responsive to the same drugs. Are all bacteria sensitive to the same antibiotics?
"Mutations that reduce binding to NNRTIs have also been isolated and characterized biochemically."
W: Uh-huh. Real chutzpah. My friend, they have not even been able to isolate, let alone characterize the wild type of HIV. And now you are trying to sell us the isolation of mutants? I'd really like to see a paper where they have accomplished that. And once again, mutants are isolated and characterized all the time. Just because you refuse to accept the techniques of molecular biology as a valid form of isolation doesn't mean the majority of scientists, again, including Peter Duesberg, don't.
W: Now it's really getting crass:
"Yes, T-cells are hosts to the virus. Yes, the full length genome of HIV has been characterized (two copies of the RNA genome per viral envelope -- How did they figure that out for a virus that's never been isolated as a 'complete particle'? Go figure...) and no you won't find those exact sequences in high stringency Northern or Southern blots or in PCR amplification of human DNA from uninfected individuals, meaning it's not an endogenous, inherited sequence."
< i > W: First of all: "HIV" has never been found in naturally occurring T-cells. The HIV illusionists can, however, grow something they say is HIV in a cell culture of cancerous T-cells (which are stimulated with a mitogen). From that "something" they can isolate RNA, which they can't work with because they lack the skills. So they reverse-transcribe it first to DNA. If the quantity is too small, they have to amplify using a number of PCR cycles. Then they have enough DNA that can be sequenced. And guess what: The sequences they find are not found in a cell culture inoculated with blood plasma from seronegative individuals...
So far so good. But then comes the conclusion: These sequences are not endogenous, and SO they must come from HIV WOW!! If a student had ever approached me with that kind of logic, I would have kicked him out of the lab.
Let's assume that they did proper control experiments on the pure uninfected cell culture, to show that these sequences did not come from the witches' brew itself: Does that mean the conclusion was correct? No, of course not. The only thing we know is that it's "something" exogenous.
Well, big freakin' deal! Don't we acquire all sorts of exogenous material every day? We eat food that contains bacteria and molds. Our intestine contains whole families of bacteria. We get stung or bitten by insects. We ingest worms from our house pets (mainly dogs). We get colds and the flu. And what about semen? Certainly that's exogenous, isn't it?
There are about 70 different factors that can cause a person to become seropositive. Several of these are viruses such as Herpes or Influenza. The presence of the antibodies ascribed (for no good reason) to HIV indicate that there's "something" different about these people. But if you want so bad that it is HIV, then it IS HIV, right? Just like a scared kid who sees the bogeyman everywhere. Bah. HIV has been found in T cells from patients. It can be produced in larger amounts in a cell culture of cancerous T cells but it has certainly be found in patients as well. I like your statement "they isolate RNA which they can't work with because they lack the skills". Seriously, Wilhelm - if the virus uses reverse transcriptase to replicate, and it does, why shouldn't the scientists use the same approach? The sequences are not endogenous. So far so good. But you are leaving out the rest of the observation. The sequences are not endogenous. The sequences are only found (with a few rare exceptions) in people who have or go on to develop symptoms of a progressive immunodeficiency syndrome. And last but not least, the sequences, as purified DNA, can be introduced into cells that will then produce infectious virus. That last property, ability to produce infectious virus, distinguishes HIV sequences from semen or worms or any of the other agents you mention as being exogenously acquired. There have been reports of factors other than HIV that could cause seropositivity, especially on the early tests. However (i) improvements in the tests have reduced the false positive rate (ii) none of those factors cause false positives on PCR tests and (iii) false positives will usually serorevert upon retesting - true positives don't.
"Yes, the reverse transcriptase treatment does work to convert viral RNA to DNA with known fidelity."
W: Oh, does it now? So it works with high fidelity when it's for an experiment that has to be pushed down our throats. But (according to Noble and friends) in the natural environment of our body, RNA viruses replicate with poor fidelity, and produce oodles of mutants. Do you really need to have it both ways? Known fidelity, Wilhelm. Not high fidelity.
"Yes, from people for whom RT inhibitor treatment is not blocking viral replication we can isolate high numbers of HIV pol clones from this process that carry mutations known from enzymatic and cell-based assays reduce the inhibition of the HIV reverse transcriptase enzyme.
W: Oh, come off it! You can't isolate Jack-youknowwhat from people. Not even from patients with full-blown AIDS. First you have to inoculate the witches' brew and say "Hocus Pocus". You can isolate DNA from people. People with full blown AIDS and people who are not responding to the drugs. You can then introduce the mutations identified in those DNAs into wild type HIV and show that the mutant HIV don't respond to the same range of drugs that the patients themselves don't respond to. You can also use those assays to predict which drugs the patients will respond to. Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that is all coincidence?
"Dismissing the experimentally assembled and validated data as an artifact of something in a "cell-culture witches' brew" doesn't cut it in scientific discussion"
W: Where ARE these "experimentally assembled and validated data"? All they have been doing for 22 years is drawing conclusions on the basis of what they really should have been proving. And when I point at the holes in the reasoning they have the gall to wave the criticism away and demand alternative theories for which the critics have to provide proof (!) "We know we're right. This is how it is. And if you don't believe it, prove to us that it's NOT so".
That's science? Let these klutzes try to be useful members of society. Like street-sweepers. Where's the data Wilhelm? Try Genbank and PubMed. For starters.
"You also persist in the unsupported claim that there is no such thing as 'viral drug resistance' despite decades of work demonstating the contrary"
W: Decades of wasting tax money on dead-end project, you mean. "Viral drug resistance" is so completely off-the-wall that anybody who has the slightest notion of what viruses are, would laugh his ass off. Demonstrating it? Sure. Wait till you have a cold (or even the flu), and take a drug, any drug Big pharma recommends. It won't do any good. But after some time, the virus disease will go away by itself.
[Sarcasm]But the virus was resistant to the drug, now wasn't it?[/Sarcasm] Would that it were so, Wilhelm. Sadly, the mid 80s taught us how persons infected with HIV fare when they don't take drugs. The virus doesn't go away by itself. It goes on to infect their sexual partners.
"Those sequences fit a pattern of horizontal transfer between infected individuals."
W: Sure, there are plenty of sequences available. You can always find one you like.
"Horizontal transfer"? You must be kidding. I... hardly dare to mention this... If Tara reads this, I may regret this... but...
Have you ever heard of Nancy Padian? You mean Nancy Padian who found, among other things, that in a study of 400 HIV infected individuals, ~ 15% had HIV infected partners? 15% in a population where less than 0.5% of the general population was infected? Yeah, I've heard of her but I don't see anything funny about her data.
Lincoln,
I am not accusing you of being angry I was only saying that it is not a trait associated with an enlightened mind. Nor did I say anger is bad I was simply addressing how you feel your people have been harmed and you are obviously upset about it. Since we both agree that you are not enlightened it is a non issue so I will move on.
Second I never said that you should seek TRUTH from doctors and scientists only that you probably shouldn't offer medical advice since from my understanding you are not a doctor nor can you prove HIV is not the cause of AIDS. So before you claim Absolute Truths regarding causality I think you need some better evidence than belief.
You seemed to ignore where I think your beliefs could be useful though. Such as in being a mentor to teens perhaps helping them deal with coming out. Guiding them towards good choices so they don't use drugs or practice unsafe sex at bath houses for example. If you don't think that would be helpful that is your choice but I think it could be.
Third I am not judging you on your beliefs. I agree everyone is entitled to believe what they choose. I just don't believe that anyone on this Earth can truly know the Absolute Truths. It is all perception and it is unique to each individual. That is not to say that I don't think beliefs and spirituality can be good for health. I believe they are especially useful for coping in times of great stress and illness. However spirituality and belief cannot negate reality. Disease is reality whether we like it or not we cannot will it away with our minds. Since perception is so unique to each individual I believe data is our best tool for defining truths and the data supporting HIV as the cause of AIDS is currently the most supported explanation.
Finally I have not read Bialy's book because I am a full-time student and I work full-time so my time for reading outside of my studies is limited. I did do some reading at virusmyth though and it has not changed my beliefs. The most striking concept I have seen is how rethinkers tend to blame the victim for drug use and partying and how those who got sick and died before ARV's must have lied about these activities. Funny how the rethinkers don't seem to see a problem with these unnecessary deaths. Not to mention most of the examples of people who were harmed by ARV's never seem to have been drug users. Kind of coincidental don't ya think could they have lied too? Perhaps ARV therapy wasn't the cause of their ailing health maybe HIV was or maybe illicit drugs. To bad we will never know.
Like I said I am not here to pass judgement only to learn about a topic that interests me as I am very new to the rethinking movement. However IMHO I do think you could do more good counseling on healthy practices rather than dismissing the HIV paradigm because it seems to me prevention is key whatever you believe.
Wilhelm says:
"But first I must express my appreciation for Lincoln, who has been valiantly fighting a lone battle against the flock from the Church of HIV/AIDS. He has done a marvelous job, so I expect that he will be banned soon..."
Actually, if you read his final post, he banned himself!
He was fighting a lone battle here in a way analogous with all dissidents (in their few numbers) being relatively "alone". You can keep making the church comparison, but you know it's SCIENCE they are debating and the very same science that they quote as, if you will pardon this one, "gospel" - whenever it seems to suit them.
I wasn't swayed in the least by linc, and I'm a very open-minded guy, so maybe he wasn't doing a well as you thought. He is one very interesting cat though. In fact, I believe he may have retired from this discussion to finally GO DO THE RESEARCH that he thinks will ultimately vindicate his position. As you should.
Correction to my last post I am not a rethinker I never realized there were people who questioned that HIV was the cause of AIDS.
Laura, there is nothing wrong with rethinking if that is what people are actually doing.
In 25 years the so-called "rethinking movement" has neither rethought its original position nor moved from it. They are still stuck in the same position they were 25 years ago. They just keep on going to more and more incredible lengths to protect their dogma.
Take the case of Raphael Lombardo. According to Duesberg in 1995 Rapahael Lombardo was a HIV+ person who did not take illicit drugs or ARVs and had not developed AIDS. As such he was evidence for his theory that HIV does not and cannot cause AIDS. When it was pointed out to Duesberg that Raphael Lombardo had in fact diedfrom AIDS in 1996 Duesberg changed his mind completely. Duesberg calls him a liar. Raphael Lombardo must have been taking drugs.
This should be a lesson to all HIV+ that are tempted to believe in Duesberg's lies. If you don't take illicit drugs and don't take ARVs but still die from AIDS Duesberg will call you a liar. He will make up stories about you taking drugs.
Raphael Lombardo is not the only case of revisionism. Various people have also accused David Pasquarelli, Jack levine and Huw Christie of secretly taking illicit drugs or ARVs.
"He has done a marvelous job, so I expect that he will be banned soon..."
----------
Notice the persecution/messiah thing. Goldshalk shows classic symptoms of someone infected by "denial" memes, common (I believe) to HIV denial, Evolution Denial, and Holocaust Denial. He also claims, consistently that he knows basic (insert science) better than a specialist in that field, because he is non blinded by their preconceptions. That is, he claims that "viral drug resistance" would be laughed at by anyone who has a clue what a virus is: thus labelling as clueless approximately 100% of all people who study virii for a living.
My favorite Goldshalk comment so far is the one where he said that Duesberg must have been "joking" when he said that HIV had been isolated by the best methods science had to offer. That showed another facet of this memeplex, the evaluation of "evidence" based on whether the evidence is consistent with a desired result, rather than based on source credibility, methodology, and so on.
I'd written: "It is a competitive inhibitor (binding in place of the normal substrate) and a chain terminator, reducing the rate of viral transcription to DNA."
Wilhelm writes: You just made that up. It sound plausible, because drugs such as AZT are nucleoside analogs. But the enzymologists I knew always purified their enzymes before they performed their kinetic studies. Not the down 'n dirty RT crowd. They measure their "HIV-RT" activity while they are stirring the contents of their cauldron. Wake up, guys: Measuring how much AZT is built into a DNA chain is NOT the same as studying the kinetics of an enzyme. The trouble with the HIV faithful is that they are making to many shortcuts in their thinking.
'Made it up'? Excuse me? No, I'm not the one who is making all this up and who hasn't followed the work in the field.
Well, Wilhem, maybe it would be useful for you to refresh your Enzymology 101.
First, they have purified the reverse-transcriptase of HIV. In fact they've purified the various resistant forms as well (Aside: Wilhelm, are you aware that the structures have also been published?). That's how we examine the mechanism and kinetics of the inhibitors and how one examines how the binding has changed in the mutant forms of the enzyme. And yes, AZT most definitely is a competitive inhibitor. Look up what a competitive inhibitor is in Segel or some other textook.
"Note that there are non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) that bind in a different place and are non-competitive inhibitors."
I KNOW there are non-competitive inhibitors (What is this: Enzymology 101?) Do you really think these stupid drugs are specific for "HIV-RT" (assuming this exists at all)? The host has its own reverse transcriptases. And what about the regular DNA-dependent transcriptases? Wouldn't they be inhibited by Nevirapine and its ilk?
The specificity of inhibitors can be determined both in vitro and in vivo. It's a useful though imperfect predictor of how well the drug will work in patients. Therapeutic windows may be narrow, and it can vary by patient which is why treatments should be monitored, but the data shows that HIV can be knocked down and extend the most patient's lives.
Patients all react differently to drugs. Only when it's about patients who are seropositive and being treated with ARV's, unresponsiveness is interpreted as "resistance" of HIV, due to mutation. If you turn your ear towards Europe, I'll bet you can hear me laughing.
A kind of desperate and certainly lonely laughter, I would venture, given that we can test for resistance prior to administering treatments. Funny how the pre-treatment measurement of resistance is such a strong predictor of how well the drugs can knock down viral levels in patients and affect the rate of progression to lowered CD4+ counts and AIDS. Who would have thought that mutations in an enzyme's sequence would affect the binding sites and activity? Who would have thought that you might be able to measure these things? I mean, besides just about every enzymologist...
I wrote: "You also persist in the unsupported claim that there is no such thing as 'viral drug resistance' despite decades of work demonstating the contrary"
Wilhelm: "Decades of wasting tax money on dead-end project, you mean. "Viral drug resistance" is so completely off-the-wall that anybody who has the slightest notion of what viruses are, would laugh his ass off. Demonstrating it? Sure. Wait till you have a cold (or even the flu), and take a drug, any drug Big pharma recommends. It won't do any good. But after some time, the virus disease will go away by itself. [Sarcasm]But the virus was resistant to the drug, now wasn't it?[/Sarcasm]"
Have you done a search on the terms: "viral drug resistance". Pick up any hits with Hepatitis B virus resistance to Hepsera and lamivudine? How about H5N1 (influenza A) resistance to oseltamivir? Again, the molecular mechanisms of resistance to these compounds are known at the enzymatic level and have been characterized in labs and in the clinics. Again, you're making claims with no scientific basis.
Chris
Thanks for responding to me. I agree that there is nothing wrong with rethinking as long as you are actually doing research. I just wantd to clarify because if Lincoln responds he will probably turn it around that he has changed my my at some level which he hasn't.
I also noticed that the beliefs haven't changed over the past 20 years which doesn't demonstrate that any rethinking is actually going on. Just a lot of blame and conspiracy talk. However I have learned quite a bit from this site I appreciate the links to actual studies and although I am not a virologist or epidemiologist I try to follow along with the discussions on the actual science.
Laura writes: "I also noticed that the beliefs haven't changed over the past 20 years which doesn't demonstrate that any rethinking is actually going on."
Good observation.
The dissent beliefs aren't even coherent. HIV dissent can mean almost any combination of the following (this list is by no means exhaustive):
Regarding HIV...
HIV doesn't exist.
You can't find HIV in human tissue.
There are no pathogenic retroviruses.
HIV exists and infects humans but causes no harm.
You can find HIV in human tissue but the tests are completely unreliable.
The tests are reliable for the US population but not for other populations (insert your favorite third world country here).
HIV is just an opportunistic, 'passenger' virus that can infect people when they are immunocompromised.
Regarding AIDS...
There are no disease clusters. All the AIDS-associated diseases have been around for years -- There is nothing unusual or out of the ordinary that happened in the 1980s.
There are clusters of disease associated with immune system failure but they're unrelated.
Regarding HIV's role in AIDS...
The epidemiology of disease clusters and timings do not point to an infectious agent.
There is no blood-borne or body fluid-borne agent related to AIDS.
There is a connection between some of these disease clusters and blood, plasma and/or semen transfer. But it's not HIV.
It's caused by negative thinking.
It's caused by drug abuse.
It's caused by malnutrition.
It's caused by anti-viral medication.
It's caused by pollution.
HIV is not an predictor of immune system failure.
HIV is a predictor but it's either not reliable or it's not the causal factor.
HIV can't kill T-cells.
HIV can kill T-cells but not fast enough.
You'd think that you could put two AIDS dissenters in a room and they'd tear into each others' pet theory with gusto. Instead, many do not critically analyze the validity of each other's position. I think this is revealing because that is not what typically happens in a robust, scientific environment where there are multiple, competing theories. The dissenters are correct in one area, however: If this HIV/AIDS thing really was just an unsupported 'house of cards', the past 20 years and continuous scrutiny by thousands of research scientists should have hit at least one 'Achilles heel' by now, if not hundreds. In contrast, the dissenters have yet to produce or stand behind one coherent, solid, explanation for the diseases that holds up to scrutiny.
Of the dissenters, I think perhaps Root-Berstein was the most reasonable. He recognized and acknowledged the strong correlation between HIV and AIDS. His main beef was whether additional cofactors, in addition to HIV, were necessary to help deplete T-cells and cause a cascading failure of the immune system. Of course, his current work involves development of HIV vaccines and studies for mechanisms behind HIV killing of T-cells. So... I'd guess he wouldn't fit too well into the dissenter category anymore.
I am bowing out of this conversation as well.
I feel it is getting repetitive and tedious (Ok, it was kinda repetitive from 23rd post...). There is not a lot new to add and I'm not going to hold the hand of a former 'biochemist' and spoon-feed them stuff about modern biochemical techniques and basic enzymology that they should already know.
Chris, Seth, 'Tend Limes', Dale, Tara, et al.: you've been very patient with your recalcitrant students. Kudos to you!
UR writes:
He is still proudly claimed as a "rethinker".
His current position appears to be that HIV causes the depletion of CD4+ cells and that infection with other pathogens effects the rate of progression to AIDS. This is indistinguishable from the "orthodox" position.
"The thing is, I've been where lincoln is, although not as deeply infected as he is. I've had his disease of denial, I know how hard it is to beat these bad memes."
[gasp!] What cured you, Seth? How many dollars?
Peter Barber wrote:
"Apart from casting aspersions on their mental faculties, it suggests they don't care about their fellow human beings, to the point that they would deliberately inflict serious suffering and death on them. Such an accusation needs some evidence of intent. I think you have none."
I don't think it's so much a matter of intent. It's cowardice, plain and simple. I've seen enough examples of it during WW II, when I was a kid. Almost nobody had the courage to take part in the Resistance, although people were being deported and murdered. There's an apalling program of eugenics going on right now, under our noses. And again, nobody is protesting.
Seth wrote:
"Sadly, he fails to realize that the data in a study is not changed by his whims, fancies, or moods."
Oh, I've read a lot of recent papers on HIV/AIDS (wish I hadn't) Guess what? The data are usually OK. But it's always the interpretation that sucks. The authors (all 17 of them) go out on a limb, wiggling in the most impossible contortions to come up with conclusions that back up the HIV paradigm. Because that was understood when their study was funded.
"The behavior hypthesis was left behind as data mounted demonstrating the superiority of the HIV hypothesis."
In your dreams, Robster. The number of people who are now clearly seeing the hogwash, the deception, and the murderous slaughter with antiretroviral poisons, is iscreasing fast.
It won't be long now until Hatchet Day, when the gravy train stops.
"HIV denial, Evolution Denial, and Holocaust Denial."
You disappoint me Seth, that you have to drag this old strawman into the discussion again. I lived during the holocaust, so how could I deny that? I doubt if you experienced either one (evolution and the holocaust).
What's up next? Creationism?
"It's cowardice, plain and simple. "
"when the gravy train stops."
"You disappoint me Seth, that you have to drag this old strawman into the discussion again"
----------
Notice that Goldshalk is playing the persecution card pretty hard, with several holocaust references to establish that he isn't a holocaust denier.
Naturally, no one ever said that he was. What was said was that the tactics of HIV denialism are strongly similar to those of holocaust denial. That is, there are structural similarities in the memeplexes. I think there is a link of some kind, but thats just an untested hypothesis.
Goldschalk takes the opportunity to again play the victim card, however, which is fairly predictable and consistent with the structure of HIV denialism.
Not satisfied with calling every scientist who disagrees with him clueless, we see Goldschalk return to the conspiracy theory, claiming that the majority of scientists deliberately skew their interpretation of data in order to placate the great pharma conspiracy, which has embarked on a program of eugenics, theoretically meant to kill off all the gay people or dark-skinned people or something.
So, essentially, in order to believe Goldschalk, you must believe that a statistical totality of scientists who study infectious disease in any way, and who study AIDS, are aware that HIV does not cause AIDS. Further, these scientists are so greedy that they are willing to lie about that and deliberately produce studies that they know will result in the deaths of thousands, if not millions, in order to get a little research funding. Why do they have to do this? Because for reasons that are somewhat mysterious, big Pharmaceutical companies (who also know AIDS is a myth) want these people dead. Goldschalk will claim its a profit thing, but this is clearly silly: living patients who feel okay but not great would be much more profitable. So there must be some hidden agenda, like: kill all the gay and black people.
So, big pharmaceutical companies want to kill all the gay and black people, and the entire scientific and medical community of planet earth (again, entire in a statistical sense, like, 99.9%) is willing to help them kill people in order to make a little money.
Does this seem even moderately feasable? When they are perfectly free to just study something else? Given the shit salaries in immunology compared to say, biotech, this is highly unlikely.
Also, Goldschalk again makes the claim, with his "interpretation" bit, that he is more qualified than almost every virologist in the world. Why? Because many people do not study AIDS and have no stake in his crazed conspiracy theory, and they think HIV causes AIDS. So they are either in on it (now he has entire biology faculties are engaged in a conspiracy to commit mass murder) or they are utter fools compared to Goldschalk.
You need a planetwide conspiracy and a lot of completely stupid scientists to make this work, and that is consistent with the typical denialist type argument.
This style of argument is also broadly similar to a jeremiad... he even has the prophecy bit where he declares that the chosen people will be led to freedom...
Noble says: "Raphael Lombardo is not the only case of revisionism. Various people have also accused David Pasquarelli, Jack levine and Huw Christie of secretly taking illicit drugs or ARVs."
Let's not forget the people who are taking their meds, are healthy, and are thus accused of NOT REALLY taking their meds and lying about it. A La Magic Johnson.
Seth Says:
"So, essentially, in order to believe Goldschalk, you must believe that a statistical totality of scientists who study infectious disease in any way, and who study AIDS, are aware that HIV does not cause AIDS."
Earlier Wilhelm said:
"The number of people who are now clearly seeing the hogwash, the deception, and the murderous slaughter with antiretroviral poisons, is iscreasing fast."
The problem, for me, Wil is that you are RIGHT however the rapid increase is due to the internet and the "beliefs" of non-scientists. There really has been no "fast increase" of change among researchers in the field. When there is, then you have something to talk about. Until then, you really are just saying the same stuff you've said for 20 years and I for one am not buying in.
Tend Limes wrote:
"The problem, for me, Wil is that you are RIGHT however the rapid increase is due to the internet and the "beliefs" of non-scientists. There really has been no "fast increase" of change among researchers in the field."
You're right about that. But you're not really so naive to believe that I am writing all this to convince researchers in the field? No, they know which side of their bread is buttered. They will never admit that they're working on a bunch of pseudoscientific nonsense. They don't want to lose their funding, or even join the ranks of the unemployed.
You'd be surprised at the overwhelming majority of Russians, living under Stalin in the old Soviet Union, who would swear on a stack of books by Lenin and Marx that communism was the greatest system on earth. That was the safe thing to do at the time.
But, although I am answering posts by paid activists and corrupted scientists here and on other boards, I am not really addressing them. I know I'll never "convince" them anyway. No, I'm addressing that whole crowd of lurkers in the background. The lay persons who would like to know what's really going on, but don't dare to ask.
The paid activists and corrupt scientists won't change their minds until Hatchet Day, when a raucous mob is banging on their doors with axes, demanding to know why so many innocent and ill-informed victims had to be killed with irresponsibly toxic chemicals, supposedly inhibiting a virus of doubtful existence. And why a whole generation of young people had to be deprived of a healthy and enjoyable sex life. Why newborn babies had to be poisoned, and their mothers harassed endlessly.
I don't know when the grand public will realize they've been had (again). But the day will come. And I hope the perpetrators won't get away with it.
"There are any number of AIDS sufferers that never took poppers, any of which who never took drugs others than coffee, alchool and cigarettes, and there are also a great many documented AIDS cases who never had sex, both adults and children. There are of course thousands of AIDS sufferers that never received AZT or other antiviral drug, and died of AIDS all the same."
Uh, Arthur...
As the number of diseases that are called "AIDS" has been steadily increasing (there were 29 when I last looked), it becomes easier and easier to find anecdotal cases where somebody who lived like a monk died from one of them. If you call every sickness "AIDS", then everybody will die of AIDS.
It's very important to never allow yourself to get tested. If you do, you're marked for life, and when you die (as we all will one day), your cause of death will be marked as "AIDS". Even if you were shot to death.
"What have all those sick people in common ? You guessed it, they all test positive for the HIV virus. How did they contract the virus ?"
Beg your pardon? They all test positive for antibodies against a bunch of proteins in a kit patented by Robert Gallo. Positive for HIV? That's a big jump to conclusions. If that's supposed to be science, deal me out.
Of course all these people are seropositive. That's why they were counted as AIDS-patients in the first place. Completely skewed cohort. But you know: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
And by the way: Did you notice all these sick people had a nose? Maybe having a nose causes AIDS...
"People that test positive for HIV are expected to develop AIDS in time, except for a handful of cases that are currently under study. People that are HIV free will stay HIV-free and thus AIDS-free as long they practice safe sex, (or unsafe sex with HIV- partners), and don't share needles."
Yes, that's a good summary of the paradigm. And we'd better believe it, OR ELSE. But please DO shower us with studies, to back up your big mouth, Arthur. I've taken more of them apart than I care to remember. I especially love the ones written by 14 authors or more.
I don't doubt that there are sick people in hospitals. And also in countries where there's malnutrition. But the people who are living happily, in perfect health (seropositive or not) are the ones who DON'T take ARV's. I know many of them. And I take a dim view of people who lure others into letting themselves be poisoned to death.
Wilhelm writes And by the way: Did you notice all these sick people had a nose? Maybe having a nose causes AIDS...
And maybe you could draw that conclusion if having a nose was a characteristic of sick people not shared by well people. But it isn't, is it? The vast majority of people, sick or well, have noses. In contrast, the vast majority of those with progressive immunodeficiency have HIV while the majority of the population who don't have immunodeficiency are HIV negative.
Wilhelm: Resistance members in Nazi-occupied Europe faced, as you say, deportation or murder. HIV/AIDS dissenters face... the ability to promulgate their views widely on the Internet, and accuse everyone else of being dupes or shills.
It's not quite the same, is it?
Over and out.
OK, at the risk of taking the bait, DB, whoever, what sort of experiment/natural experiment would convince you that HIV causes AIDS? What would researchers have to do to convince you? Hypothetically.
If nothing could make you change your mind...
Sketch it briefly
Not content with playing the Hitler Card, Goldshalk plays the dreaded super duper mega powerful all encompassing STALIN CARD!
Of course, notice he is even more explicit now: AIDS researchers are nothing more than hired assassins who deserve to be killed. At least he's honest about where he stands.
This is a serious charge, and the lurkers should really think about what Goldshalk is saying. See that picture of Tara at the top of the page? That nice young lady, according to Goldshalk, is a ruthless, lying, mass murderer, and so are all her colleagues. Almost everyone in the field of biology must be in on this in order for his theory to work.
As has already been covered by other posters, these mass murderers have nothing to fear if they drop out, study another area, or just break ranks and tell the world what is going on. They will not find themselves stripped of life or property, they will merely have to find a different job, which is not all that hard.
Goldshalks theory just makes no sense. It is absurd to argue taht there is a vast cabal orchestrating the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, and that virtually everyone who studies HIV is in on it. How on earth do they recruit? When a new graduate student (who is, if nothing else, out to clear some space at the top) gets a hold of this, do they make them take a secret oath or something?
And I'll remind Wilhelm once again that I and many other people who support that HIV causes AIDS have never received a dime of "AIDS money." So he has to assume that anyone receiving research funding from *anywhere* somehow must pinky-swear that they'll uphold HIV causation of AIDS or else lose their money and position. But no, it's not a conspiracy theory....
Peter Barber writes:
That's not entirely true. There are cases of HIV/AIDS dissidents being kidpnapped and secretly detained by the police just because the dissidents were telling the truth about HIV/AIDS in a totalitarian country.
Except maybe this isn't what Godschalk meant.
Anyone on this thread still claiming that debating denialist is boring?
Only since the early 1990's.
However, the psychology *is* interesting and it does in very many ways parallel debates with creationists.
Debating denialists is boring.
"It is absurd to argue taht there is a vast cabal orchestrating the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, and that virtually everyone who studies HIV is in on it. How on earth do they recruit?"
Very simple, Seth. Stalin did it like this: Shoot half the people, and tell the other half they will be shot too if they don't cooperate. Of course, it is not done in such a bloody fashion in our civilized world, but the priciple is similar:
Strip half the biomedical scientists of all funding, and tell the other half that they won't see another penny if they don't tow the party line. In a grand conspiray not everybody needs to be a co-conspirator. Lots of scared people will do just fine.
Hi Dale! I feel I've neglected you a little, because of lack of time. I was planning to react to your reaction to my long post, but never got to it. Well, there's a new issue now:
"In contrast, the vast majority of those with progressive immunodeficiency have HIV while the majority of the population who don't have immunodeficiency are HIV negative."
Of course I realize that the example of having a nose, leading to disease, is ridiculous. But I came up with that to illustrate that a lot of studies I've seen fail to run control experiments. And in many cases they really correlate a property that occurs across the board with a rare event they are studying.
But back to your statement I quoted above: It sounds so reasonable, but it's the reverse of what they are actually doing: In reality, they first test for antibodies. The individuals who test negative, are sent home, happy. The unfortunate souls who tested positive are subjected to T-cell counts. If they come up low, they say "Ah! You see? You have HIV!" But... but... They did already conclude that when they did the serological test. They just formed a nice biased cohort. The ones they tested for immunodeficiency all came from the seropositive group. A self-fulfilling prophesy.
If it really were as you stated, they should have done it the other way around: Test a large randomized group for immunodeficiency, and split up the population into two groups, one with high T4 counts, and one with low counts. Then test each group for antibodies. I'll bet that wouldn't come out so clearcut.
"HIV/AIDS dissenters face... the ability to promulgate their views widely on the Internet, and accuse everyone else of being dupes or shills."
You're right, Peter, it's not quite the same as facing the firing squad. Maybe we've become a little more civilized after all (though I doubt it). True, we can (still) spout our views on the internet, which is not that easy to control. There we find lots of shills opposing us, just to keep the big shots out of the firing line. (Has anybody seen Tony Fauci around here somewhere?)
On the other hand, the other media are solidly locked up to dissidents. Radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, scientific journals: Forget it. Public appearances: Not a chance.
Although... I did get a chance to hold a speech in Brazil, last year. My last, I'm sure. The organizers who invited me got sued by the state health dept., and I'm sure they won't invite me again.
But none of the dissidents got shot or tortured yet, that's true. When one of us dies, though, no matter of what cause, the orthodoxy dances on his grave, cheerfully chanting: "Ha! He died of AIDS! We told you so!".
But the "nice" way we're being treated (Oh thank you! Thank you for not torturing us!) may be changing soon. Mark Wainberg, the most despicable sourpuss I've ever seen, has already expressed his desire for incarcerating the "evil" people (such as Peter Duesberg) who deny the HIV?AIDS paradigm. Every morning, just before dawn, I expect a heavy knock on my door now.
"In a grand conspiray not everybody needs to be a co-conspirator. Lots of scared people will do just fine."
-------------
Goldshalk has a weird definition of conspirator. According to him, all biologists are willing to keep silent--while all AIDS researchers promulgate a secret program of murder and deception on a global scale--in order to share profits.
Sounds like conspiracy. Goldschalks dissembling aside, his position continues to require tens of thousands of people to engage in or turn a blind eye to a program of systematic deception and murder... even if their own sources of funding are not AIDS related.
Chaired professors, tenured professors dying of cancer, independently wealthy PhDs, people with nothing to lose: they are all, in Goldschalk's bizzarro universe, keeping this grand secret, lest the great pharma companies cut their funding! Researchers who have lost family, friends, loved ones, lovers to this disease? Apparently, they know its all a big lie, knew it while their lovers were dying, but they keep the killing machine alive and stay silent, lest the great horrible pharmas and the evil NIH somehow find out and cut their funding.
And why do the pharms want to do this? When it is dangerous, stupid, and less profitable than almost any other course of action? Who knows... in the Goldshalk universe, no one worries much about motive, science, or sanity.
Not to mention that non-AIDS researchers are free to say just about anything. Duesberg gets funding in other areas, just not AIDS research. Apparently, he is the only biologist in the world who is willing to get funding, keep his position, write best selling books, and make a fortune. The rest of them are too scared of... something. The bogey man, perhaps.
But hey, this isn't a conspiracy theory.
Godschalk's supposed conspiracy would have to extend to scientists in countries such as China, Russia, Cuba etc in addition to France, Germany, Holland, Canada, Australia, Brazil .......
Isn't it amazing how much power Gallo and Fauci have around the globe.
I confirm:
France, Germany and Holland all have their Gallos and Faucis well installed in high places. The Wainberg kind of hatred is all around too.
Together with many people, I keep throwing lots of rotten tomatoes at them but they just don't seem to notice. Recently I figured that tomato juice might not matter much on suits that are already stained with blood. Maybe I should try rotten eggs, might be more succesfull.
Take care all of you. And to the denialists: don't be too rough with the dummies. Every time I read this kind of "discussions" I feel pity for their total disability to recognize logic when it bites their ass. Please don't rub it in too hard.
JS
---
www.nightsofarmour.com
Ah... our old friend jspreen, who doesn't believe in pathogenic causes of disease at all. Apparently, he feels a kinship with the HIV deniers, most of whom are of the opinion that he is barking mad.
Hi Gang,
Especially Wilhelm. Still going at it with Chris and Dale, I see, plus a few other friends of theirs. Maybe Seth - I do appreciate "barking mad" - can ask Chris or Dale if anything I posted in the other thread resembles their strawman, Creationism, but I see here that Holocaust Denial is the big issue. Let's be sure and not leave out hollow earthers as well.
Or what's another catch phrase ... lying ...
And who can the brave and bold Unsympathetic be? I will congratulate Chris for posting at Truthseeker's site and defending his obsession with the flat curve's mathematical precision which everyone seems to get at this point doesn't exist. And the not trivial donnybrook there over MTCT. So now I have to catch up on all these wonderful threads ... or maybe ... too boring at this point ...
Hey Seth and Unsymp, why don't you - brave warriors that you no doubt are - as you gang up on Wilhelm here, take a walk on the wild side at newaidsreview, or better yet, Barnesworld, where there's more action on such subjects as PCP non correlation with HIV right from the paper of experimentalists. Yeah, people who actually measure sterols of PC.
if anything I posted in the other thread resembles their strawman, Creationism,
------------------
Here, we see relative newcomer Gene ask if anything he posted IN A COMPLETELY different thread resembles something in this post, as if that is somehow relevant. Apparently, we're supposed to scour the internet for all possible denialist posts before responding to the ones we have here.
Gene, you also misuse the term "strawman". While it has been pointed out that there are similarities between the arguments of HIV deniers and other anti-reality positions, the actual positions and statements of HIV deniers on this thread are what has been refuted, not the positions and statements of creationists or whomever.
For the rethinkers, would you be willing to be infected with HIV for an experiment? Why, or why not?
Gene writes:
I think that most people do not have the masochistic streak that I have.
Anybody that wants to can read the dialog in question here
The Duesberg Fallacy
What follows is the mathematically inept attempting to defend the indefensible.
The most noteworthy aspect is that the "rethinkers" have at least two mathematicians in their ranks but none of them came forward to point out the errors in Duesberg's statistical tomfoolery.
Why is that?
Why doesn't Rebecca Culshaw comment? Why can't she admit that Duesberg makes serious mathematical error?
My IP address is now being blocked from posting to the blog and I am not about to use "rethinker" tactics of using an anonymiser to circumvent this nor am I going to use a pseudonym.
So what is the outcome?
None of the "rethinkers" have really admitted to the mathematical mistake inherent in the Duesberg Fallacy. Most of them still insist that in some way Duesberg is still correct. The few that have sufficient mathematical training choose not to comment on this issue. They neither admit to the error nor attempt to refute anything that I stated.
The likely outcome is that in a few months or a few years a new batch of "rethinkers" will read Duesberg's articles and be convinced by the Duesberg Fallacy.
The German language has a good word for this activity - Sisyphusarbeit.
Chris,
I can't believe they banned you over there. So they can dish it out but they can't take it. Even I found flaws in Duesberg's statistical analysis which doesn't say a whole lot for their math apptitude.
Anyhow I was wondering if anyone over here can elucidate on why Duesberg and Bialy believe that HIV is not special and cannot be latent for many years. From reading Duesberg's articles it seems to me its because they don't want it to be. There argument was only special viruses do this such as herpes but from my understanding others do as well. I mentioned the JC virus and CMV and noone acknowledged it. I know for a fact that JC Virus is latent in the normal population and only causes problems for the immune suppressed such as in AIDS and also caused a temporary recall of Tysabri due to 3 cases of PML. Can anyone offer any insight or a good place to look on why retroviruses cannot do this? I want to know if I am really out in left field and it didn't warrant a reply or if they just don't have an answer. Thanks for any help.
Laura,
Duesberg's assertion that viruses cause disease immediately or not at all is more a royal fiat than anything corresponding to reality.
Viruses don't particularly care what Duesberg says they can or can't do.
There are many viruses that cause persistent infections. It is important here to distinguish between latent and chronic infections. In latent infections there is very little viral replication until reactivation. In chronic infection there is continuous viral replication. HIV is a chronic infection.
"Rethinkers" conflate clinical latency with viral latency. HIV is replicating and casusing the depletion of CD4+ cells continuously during the asymptomatic stage. It is only when CD4+ cell counts have decreased to low levels that the risk of opportunistic infections increases to the point where most people get seriously ill with AIDS related illnesses.
HIV also causes CD4+ cell loss during acute infection. In almost all cases CD4+ counts rebound before slowly decreasing again during the asymptomatic stage. Duesberg's claim that nothing happens during acute infection apart from mild flu-like symptoms is not true.
I really have no explanation of why Duesberg clings to the idea that viruses cannot cause disease long after initial infection.
In a bizarre display of cognitive dissonace he often cites this book Fenner, F., McAuslan, B.R., Mims, C.A., Sambrook, J., and White, D.O. The Biology of Animal Viruses. New York: Academic Press, 1974. as support for his stance although it contains a chapter on persistent viral infections and contradicts his claims.
As an aside, Frank Fenner also deliberately infected himself with myxoma virus in order to disprove public concerns that this virus was dangerous to humans something that Duesberg has failed to do with HIV.
People have been pointing out the errors in Duesberg's statements for decades.
Many viruses are highly pathogenic after evidence of immunity appears. For example, reactivated herpes zoster virus causes shingles, and reactivated herpes simplex virus causes local lesions as well as lethal necrotizing encephalitis; moreover, hepatitis B virus causes chronic active hepatitis, equine infectious anemia virus causes anemia, and visna virus causes central nervous system degeneration after the appearance of specific neutralizing antibodies (3, 9). (The last two viruses are lentiretroviruses as is HIV.) These diseases also can have long and variable latent periods.
Duesberg still clings to his beliefs.
Thanks,
I was a confusing latent and chronic and obviously there is a huge distinction between the two. I don't buy Duesberg's arguments because they don't make sense. However, I conceed I do not have the knowledge base to hold my own at NAR.
Chris,
Firstly I do not believe you are banned. I will ask if this is true.
Secondly you know exactly why Duesberg hasn't infected himself yet and any one with any google powers can go find exactly why he says he is not doing it yet. I wouldn't expect you to be honest enough to actually add his comments on that issue because otherwise it ceases to function as an ad-hominem and you say you are so against them aren't you?
And now that you and Laura have thoroughly debunked Duesbergs math, can you please show me which set of stats YOU use for your modelling and please provide me with a reason why you chose those specific numbers as opposed to the myriad of other inter-conflicting studies. Can you also please verify mathematically ,for my benefit, why it is that "WE ALL HAVE AIDS". Are we all going to die of Aids or is the "WE ALL HAVE AIDS" just nothing but a really stupid slogan/mantra with no basis whatsoever in statistical/medical truth? Bag on Duesberg's math all you like but the world doesn't need a mathematician to explain to them why HIV/AIDS is a dead issue. We have been fed mathematically-flawed hysterical scare stories for 25 years now and the world is definitely showing signs of "Kriegsverdrossenheit" in this WAR against an invisible epidemic (a little German Wurst for you there).
You want to know what a Sisyphusarbeit really is? The search for an HIV-AIDS vaccine!
Chris, it seems you are telling an untruth regarding being banned or even filtered on any thread of the www.newaidsreview.org thread of: http://www.newaidsreview.org/posts/1155530746.shtml
or any other thread on that site. Perhaps it was a computer glitch on your part. The administrator at NAR also said he has not recieved any notice from you that you could not post there. Otherwise this will be construed as blatant untruth and lack of integrity. If it is such, hopefully this lack of integrity in stating a blatant untruth does not extend to the information you put in your posts, although it leaves all of your posts open to questionable integrity until you clear up the matter.
Meanwhile, here is the information directly from PNAS, in response to your post above:
Intervals of 2 to 15 Years Between Infection and AIDS Are Incompatible with
HIV Replication
If cytocidal viruses or retroviruses cause disease, they do so within 1 to 2
months of infection (23 <#ref_23>, 86 <#ref_86>). By that time, the host's
immune system either eliminates the virus or restricts it to latency, or the
virus overcomes the immune system and kills the host. Indeed, clinicians
have reported that, in rare cases, HIV causes a disease like mononucleosis
prior to immunity, presumably due to an acute infection (23 <#ref_23>,
69<#ref_69>,
130 <#ref_130>, 186 <#ref_186>). Since this disease correlates with viral
activity (69 <#ref_69>) and disappears within weeks as the body develops
antiviral immunity, it may reflect the true pathogenic potential of HIV.
Considering that HIV replicates within 2 days in tissue culture and induces
antiviral immunity within 1 to 2 months (19 <#ref_19>, 23 <#ref_23>,
69<#ref_69>,
130 <#ref_130>), the inevitably long and seemingly unpredictable intervals,
ranging from 1 to 15 years (20 <#ref_20>, 35 <#ref_35>, 37 <#ref_37>),
between the onset of antiviral immunity and AIDS are bizarre. The average
latent period is reported to be 8 years in adults (21 <#ref_21>,
33-38<#ref_33>)
and 2 years in children (21 <#ref_21>, 36 <#ref_36>). Indeed, at least 2
years of immunity is required before AIDS appears in adults (7
<#ref_7>, 38<#ref_38>).
If one accepts that 50-100% of antibody-positive Americans eventually
develop AIDS (7 <#ref_7>, 20-22 <#ref_20>, 33-37 <#ref_33>), the average
1.5% annual conversion corresponds to grotesque viral latent periods of 30
to 65 years. These intervals between HIV infection and AIDS clearly indicate
that HIV by itself is not sufficient to initiate AIDS. Because all genes of
HIV are expressed during the early immunogenic phase of the infection, AIDS
should occur at that time, rather than years later when it is latent
(23<#ref_23>).
In an effort to rationalize the long intervals between infection and AIDS,
HIV has been classified as a slow virus, or lentivirus (40 <#ref_40>), a
type of retrovirus that is thought to cause disease only after long
incubation periods (129 <#ref_129>). Yet there are no "slow" viruses. Since
viral nucleic acids and proteins are synthesized by the cell, viruses must
replicate as fast or faster than cells (i.e., within hours or days) to
survive (86 <#ref_86>, 87 <#ref_87>).
Nevertheless, as pathogens, viruses may be (*i*) fast in acute infections
that involve many actively infected cells, (*ii*) slow in subacute
infections that involve moderate numbers of actively infected cells, or (*
iii*) asymptomatic and latent. Retroviruses provide examples of each
different pathogenic role. Acute infections with the "slow" Visna/Maedi
retrovirus of sheep, a lentivirus, rapidly cause pneumonia (131 <#ref_131>),
and those with equine anemia lentivirus cause fever and anemia within days
or weeks of infection (132 <#ref_132>). Such infections typically generate
titers of 104 to 105 infectious units per milliliter or gram of tissue
(132<#ref_132>,
133 <#ref_133>). The caprine arthritis-encephalitis lentivirus is also
pathogenic within 2 months of inoculation (134 <#ref_134>). Acute infections
with other retroviruses also rapidly cause debilitating diseases or cancers
(23 <#ref_23>). This includes retrovirus infections that are now considered
to be animal models of AIDS, termed simian or feline AIDS (12
<#ref_12>, 23<#ref_23>,
30 <#ref_30>, 111 <#ref_111>, 135 <#ref_135>). Unlike HIV in AIDS, these
viruses are all very active when they cause diseases, and the respective
diseases appear shortly after infection (23 <#ref_23>). In rare cases, when
antiviral immunity fails to restrict Visna/Maedi or other retroviruses, they
persist as subacute symptomatic infections (3 <#ref_3>, 86 <#ref_86>,
129<#ref_129>,
133 <#ref_133>). Under these conditions, Visna/Maedi virus causes a slow,
progressive pulmonary disease (129 <#ref_129>, 133 <#ref_133>, 136<#ref_136>)
by chronically infecting a moderate number of cells that produce moderate
titers of 102 to 105 virus particles per gram of tissue (136 <#ref_136>).
However, in over 99% of all Visna/Maedi or caprine arthritis-encephalitis
virus infections, and in most equine anemia virus infections, the retrovirus
is either eliminated or restricted to latency by immunity, and hence
asymptomatic, exactly like almost all other retroviruses in mice, chickens,
cats, and other animals (23 <#ref_23>). For instance, 30-50% of all healthy
sheep in the U.S., Holland, and Germany have asymptomatic Visna/Maedi virus
infections (129 <#ref_129>, 137 <#ref_137>, 138 <#ref_138>), and 80% of
healthy goats in the U.S. have asymptomatic caprine arthritis-encephalitis
virus infections (133 <#ref_133>) in the presence of antiviral immunity.
from Duesberg, PH, *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA*, *86*, pp. 755-764, February
1989
Yesterday, I tried to post a message responding to NAR regarding your description of your personal experience. When I attempted to submit this message I received a message that my IP had been banned.
I tried once more and got the same message. I then concluded that I had been banned.
I tried again today and my post got through. It is therefore possible that the problem was indeed a computer glitch and I apologise for jumping to conclusions.
Michael,
The article does not disprove my point that a virus can remain in the body as a chronic assymtomatic infection. JCV and CMV are both chronic infections that normally do not harm their hosts. Infection can be identified via antibody testing however that does not indicate whether or not the host will ever suffer an acute infection. The virus particles are undetectible in the blood so originaly the only confirmation of infection was biopsy of the infected organ. Now with PCR scientists are able to detect the viruses earlier and treat with antivirals.
Considering my interest in MS I know more about JCV than CMV. JCV normally hides in the kidneys and the brain. Even when infectous the viral titres are rather low which is why PCR is so helpful in making prompt diagnoses of PML. I have done some further reading today and found a press release of a study published this month in the Journal of Aquired Immunodeficiency Sydromes regarding lymph nodes in the gut being principle resevoirs for HIV. I admit I don't have access to the journal to read the study but it made me wonder if perhaps the low levels of the virus in the blood are because the virus is hiding in the gut (where we haven't been looking). If that's the case then it would't be unlike JCV which is undetectable in the blood and virtually undetectable in the CSF without PCR but still deadly. So can you tell me why high viral titres are necessary for infectious HIV but not for other viruses?
Neither do any of the other people posting at NAR. What they can do is regurgitate arguments form Duesberg and other chosen authorities that have already been refuted time and time again.
Ultimately it boils down to "Duesberg said it, I believe it, that settles it".
The events at NAR demonstrate this cult-like behaviour.
"Ultimately it boils down to "Duesberg said it, I believe it, that settles it".
Not really Chris. It's more like HIV/AIDS said it, then it said it differently and then it did otherwise and then said it yet again differently, that settles it.
"Meanwhile, here is the information directly from PNAS, in response to your post above:"
---------------
What I love about that post from Michael is that it requires no understanding on his part at all, just the ability to cut and paste. He can't explain WHY that information is relevant to the discussion, or respond to Laura's statement that it isn't relevant to her point, because he doesn't actually understand it.
Oh, if anyone wants an example of a strawman, read Pat's post, the bit where he asks about the phrase "We all have AIDS." No one here has argued that we all have AIDS, or that we are all going to get AIDS. Pat sets up a caricature of the HIV/AIDS position and then attacks it by saying it isn't supported. That is a strawman.
Seth,
"We All Have AIDS" is a slogan and not even mine (and I didn't say it was yours); HIV/AIDS and Co. set itself up there. Sorry if it flew above your head. Nice try though. Perfect example of an argument "falling" onto your keyboard, heard somewhere blurted out by someone else and you merely repeating it...reminds me of that "creationist" Zombie Tara's so in love with.
And Seth, I was addressing CN who seems to have abandonned the thread at NAR and now tried to set up this "strawman" by:
1) Accusing NAR of banning his IP on this thread:
"My IP address is now being blocked from posting to the blog..."
2)then proceeds to attack "rethinker" tactics by stating:
"...and I am not about to use "rethinker" tactics of using an anonymiser to circumvent this nor am I going to use a pseudonym."
But you would know that would you?...
PS: is the opposite of "re-thinker" an "atrophied-thinker" or a "one thought wonder"?
Pat,
Just to clarify I never said I debunked all of Duesbergs math. I said I found flaws in his anlysis and I meant regarding the Concorde study which I posted at NAR. Specifically that he compared the fatalities between two groups without accounting for the size of each group. Thats all. I haven't even attempted to figure out the probablity of infection nor have I posted on the topic.
How many of you are HIV positive? How many of you high and mighty pundits live every day with fear that any runny nose, stomach cramp, headache, or sore throat is THE AIDS and the THE END is near?
For 20 years as an every-six-month-tester, thank-GOD-it's-still-negative! gay guy, I lived with this fear.
For the last six months this fear has been magnified by the dreaded TEST result gleefully recited POSITIVE by the "counselor" who left me alone to tremble with ashen face and shaky knees as I yelped the words, "I need water," and busy Gay and Lesbian Center employees rushed about with great self-importance.
You, HIV-ers, you, AIDS-lovers, you, you are a sorry bunch. You do nothing useful; you never actually show anybody anything about being well, getting well, or living life to its fullest. All you do is incessantly rant about the latest bullshit mutant discovery, blog on and on about an ever-growing array of "anti-virals" that cause buffalo humps, heart disease, liver failure, face deformation, and old grey skin. Do you call that helping?
Thank God I decided that this HIV scare would be no different from the other situations in my life, where I saved myself from incompetent "professionals" who doubted my own conclusions based upon my own feelings in my own body, my own thoughts in my own head.
I would research first. Foremost, I would not jump into a "regimen" and be led like a lost boy along the road to "adherence."
There was a nagging voice that kept asking, "If there is no cure, and the virus is always fatal, and anti-virals don't cure HIV, nor decrease infectiousness, then why the hell would I be interested in all those PILLS that cause all those side effects?
I don't feel sick, and never felt sick, or acute, or whatever the freaking term is you HIV storytellers use to describe the unholy SEROCONVERSION.
Well put your pens down, take off your glasses, loosen your tie, undo the knot in your head, look out the window, and think for a moment.
When you're ready to actually pay attention to someone truly in the "field" - someone truly qualified to talk about HIV, you will hear me clearly. I don't want your help. I have never taken your AIDS drugs, and I am not interested, but thanks for offering.
I am a thriving, living, person, and NOT a PWA. I am not ill, nor have I suffered any of those AIDS infections, except for the 3 or so I had over the 20 years when I was -gasp- NEGATIVE.
My CD4 count is stable, and NORMAL, and it never was anything but NORMAL, as the doctor said, there is "NOT ONE abnormal result." My weight is stable and healthy, and my life continues, unimpacted, as two doctors agree. THanks be to God he gave me a brain. One doctor, meaning well, tried with a perfunctory, "Wait...we can..uh... do things." "What things?" I ask. I don't need any "things" thank you very much.
Attention AIDS lovers, I will not adhere to your insane suggestion that I take some DNA altering pills that won't cure HIV, nor prevent AIDS, whatever that may be, and isn't certain to do anything but give me loose bowels, gaunt jowels, or to take the cushion off my ass and put it in my back. I like my butt, and I like my jaw line, and my back, that's nice too. Certainly it's my body and I'd like to keep it that way.
The unsung heroes of the AIDS century are clearly those genuine and humble scientists who want to uncover the TRUTH, who don't claim to know all the answers, who admit they are ignorant, and who stand up for a CONTINUING pursuit of proven knowledge, even if it disproves an earlier belief.
As a gay man you can imagine, (in the words of the inimitable Whitney Houston, said to some vapid news hostess) "I HAVE partied."
Do I feel resentment towards someone who suggests that certain party favors may cause changes in my cells that can generally be reversed? NO! Of course I don't. I knew exactly what I was putting up my nose; I'm not proud of it, but I won't wear HIV-branded blinders. How laughable it is. All those years of partying and -gasp- unsafe sex- oh my! - never saw me seroconvert; it wasn't until I decided to settle down and be monogamous was I served the cursed news. How's that for irony!?)
HIV/AIDS lovers, please spare us all the high-mindedness, and please don't try to speak for me, gay 37 year old "poz" guy who is fine and isn't on your pills, won't ever be on your pills, and who doesn't require any of your time. It's a shame untold billions have been spent on AIDS when we all knew sleep and nutrition were not optional.
Still reading? There must be a conference you should be attending. You better check your calendar. Do you want me to call you a cab?
Go find something to do in life where you can really make a difference if that is what you want to do. It certainly isn't HIV and AIDS. These I think have overstayed their welcome. The market is SATURATED.
Congratulations on your attention span, and thanks for reading. NNTR.
-Kirk Cordell
P.S. I am using my real name, not a pseudonym like Pharma-fuck or whoever s/he is.
P.P.S. Lay off the gentle woman, Rebecca Culshaw. Don't be so vicious! Be decent to one another for the sake of humanity.
Notice how Kirk insults everyone freely, denigrates their life work, calls them stupid, insults people profanely, and then closes with "be decent to one another."
Priceless. Truly priceless.
Kirk also has no facts, studies, or evidence of any kind to support any of his allegations. His sole claim is that he personally isn't sick. Of course, this isn't unusual, people frequently feel just fine when they test HIV positive, no one denies this, but our super-thinker holds up this single unremarkable fact as his evidence that the AIDS research community is a sorry bunch.
Brilliant. Just... brilliant.
Yes, Kirk's comment "Don't be so vicious! Be decent to one another for the sake of humanity" is a suitably ironic end to a vicious, indecent inhumane post.
""We All Have AIDS" is a slogan and not even mine (and I didn't say it was yours); HIV/AIDS and Co. set itself up there. "
-----------
Hey Pat, I just noticed this.
Um... no. You said: "Can you also please verify mathematically ,for my benefit, why it is that "WE ALL HAVE AIDS"."
This is a straw man, you are postulating that Chris has put forth that position, supports the slogan, or is in any way involved with that statement, when in fact you cannot demonstrate that anyone on this board has ever put forth that position or agrees with that slogans use. You are creating an inaccurate caricature of the opponent and then attacking it.
You are also caricaturing the slogan itself, the actual campaign is "if one of us has AIDS, we all have aids." Which is not meant to imply anything about the transmission of AIDS, merely about the impact. So, you are setting up two strawmen, not one.
Its like shooting fish in a barrel.
shooting HIV/AIDS is like shooting fish in a barrel. They're just in denial that they are dead.
Seth,
Nowhere did I call anyone stupid. As to your other comments, I am a 'layperson' who is speaking from direct experience over 20 years of being inundated with doomsday HIV media madness. My facts are firsthand from my interactions with HIV positives, and from the last six months as a "poz" guy myself.
I didn't go through any "acute" phase, and six months into "it" my t-cell counts are rising, and "viral load" is nominal, and I am healthy and even gaining some weight (time to hit the gym!)
On the other hand, during the years as a "negative" I came down with at least 3 of the "AIDS defining illnesses."
There is strong evidence that HIV does not cause AIDS based on solid research by the Perth Group and many other leading scientists. The recent research out of Chicago that "viral load" doesn't impact CD4 t-cell counts is another piece of evidence that HIV doesn't kill CD4 cells.
Statements from Kary Mullis, founder of the PCR technique, and numerous other scientists shed serious doubt on the flawed HIV / AIDS diagnostics and overall on the HIV / AIDS linkage.
Finally, my post was an emotional account of my personal experience over 20 years as a "negative" and then 6 months as a "positive." I wasn't writing a white paper for publication (although I dare say my subjective prose has more truth than much of the academic research that has been exposed as faulty and unsubstantiated by research).
Rather than focusing on an absent bibiliography of my personal story, it would behoove you and the rest of the AIDS-lovers to consider the real lives of untold thousands and millions who are not part of the AIDS establishment, and who quietly live healthy lives after an HIV positive diagnosis, and yet who never went on AIDS meds.
Of course, it is in these millions of stories where the truth lives, and over the coming years as these stories are told, the imaginary HIV/ AIDS theory will be further discredited.
Not AIDS! Find answers to questions you never you knew you had. NotAIDS! Eliminating AIDS, one mind at a time. http://notaids.com
Perhaps one day science may acknowledge and encompass underlying spiritual causes for medical and physical phenomena, and more closely tie psychological and emotional drives as initiators of disease. Then, by addressing these, treat the physical illness to create wellness.
An interesting article is at http://www.louixdordempriey.com/article12.html
"Perhaps one day science may acknowledge and encompass underlying spiritual causes for medical and physical phenomena"
We, that is humans, tried that for the first few thousand years we were sentient. It didn't get us much except average lifespans of a few decades, very high rates of infant mortality, high levels of chronic and debilitating diseases even in the young...you get my point.
Although some disease is clearly exacerbated by, or even caused by, mental/spiritual issues I think humanity as a whole would be better off if Louix and his ilk accepted at least some of what scientists have learned in the past few hundred years.
D
It appears the germ theory deniers are the AIDS believers, how odd.