Margulis on HIV/AIDS

thank s

Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS:
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

So how about giving a link to the information Margulis asked for, on the HIV causality of AIDS?

I have observed that the closer one comes to the study of humans the shoddier the quality of the scientific evidence.

You can kill trillions of bacteria in one experiment and not even have to fill out a form. There are tighter ethical guidelines on human experimentation.

Kary Mullis is seriously wacky. Margulis should find more reliable sources of information.

I had always admired Margulis for her breakthroughs on the symbiotic origin of organelles. Discoveries like hers are what makes science truly awesome.

What a disappointment to see her making such ridiculous statements. "Such papers do not exist." "[A]ll zoologists are intrinsically poorly educated in biology...." Bah.

Reminiscent of Pauling and his descent into the woo of megadoses of Vitamin C. Very sad.

I read all this stuff back in grad school in the mid 90s. I was wowed then, and read all the long reviews that Duesberg published on the subject. I haven't kept up with it at all, because I assumed that along the way there had been evidence a plenty to shut off this line of thinking.

I guess I'm shocked that there isn't a bibliography of papers as long as the blogroll proving it. The NIAID post is actually pretty pathetic.

Anyway, I'm not saying they're right, it's just surprising that the billions in grant dollars haven't produced something more than this. Then again, maybe they have, like I said, I haven't kept up with the sideshow whatsoever.

Yeah, I don't know what it is, but prominent scientists have a disturbing tendency to fall into pseudoscience when they wander outside of their own field.

Robert--searching PubMed with "HIV" as a keyword returns over 200,000 hits. The NIAID post isn't meant to cover all of them; it's a brief overview for those who aren't familiar with the literature, a jumping-off point for both discussing the positive evidence and countering the denialist statements. is there something specific you were looking for that wasn't touched on there?

Um, Tara can you double check with PZ that that post was actually from her? Look at the wording/syntax-- thats not how scientists write. That looks like lincoln with gel in his hair.

I hesitate to say this, but I have thought Margulis was wacky for a long time. She's got some things right in spite of herself but still. On the AIDS issue, she's personally close to the principle actors from what I understand. Wasn't she at Berkeley with Duesberg and Bialy in the late 60s?
On the one hand, she's an icon and one of the best-known women in science. I also respect her contributions to our understanding of symbiosis.
On the other hand, how many popular books can you write using the same material? And how much should you politicize your science? I can't remember the name of the last Margulis book I read, no, wait, it was "Acquiring Genomes." It annoyed me so much, I didn't make it all the way through. Margulis seems to view other people as if they're bacteria. Students "infest" an apartment building in Cambridge, for example.
And she goes into this ridiculous tirade against "competition." The subtext is: "Stinking capitalist fascist male pigs are in control of science and especially evolutionary biology and they say animals compete with each other. They're wrong! Animals are gentle and kind and members of the Communist Party like I wish I could be (cue L'Internationale in the background)." Isn't it possible to provide counterweight without putting on a red armband?
I wonder if Margulis ever watched two guys in a bar competing for the attention of a woman (or vice-versa). Or better yet watched a couple of moose battling each other and risking death for the privilege of a mate? And she calls "competition" nothing but a "Neo-Darwinian" war cry?

Margulis gets on her self-advertised eco-friendly bike and rides into the red sunset, happy to see that the "student-infested" apartment building has finally been torn down and the happy unicorns are frolicking in a celebration of diversity and cooperation. Awwwwwww.

Um, Tara can you double check with PZ that that post was actually from her? Look at the wording/syntax-- thats not how scientists write. That looks like lincoln with gel in his hair.

PZ's not raised any red flags, and the second quote was from the live chat. The visit was to promote this new venture of hers. Unfortunately, I have no doubt it's her.

**bangs head against keyboard**

Did I ever tell you guys about my theory for the evolution of single-celled organisms like blue green algae?

Well, you know they have a lot of genetic similarity to chloroplasts in plants right?

Yeah so anyway, I figure they probably escaped from the cells of their eukaryotic overlords sometime about a billion years ago.

If you look at the evidence this theory is very compelling.

My friends in the Perth Group are telling me that microorganisms and viruses are always inexplicably popping out of eukaryotic genomes and cells. It's really quite common...

At the moment my views are being oppressed by the powerful eukaryotic bias at the NSF who fear the inevitable calls for freeing the remaining captive plastids and, of course, for the payment of reparations to prokaryotes for the countless generations of eukaryotic oppression.

Unfortunately, Prof. Margulis is not alone in evolving from being a respected scientist into a whackjob. Duesberg and Pauling have been mentioned in previous comments. I would add the following individuals to that list.

1. J. Allen Hynek, a former president of the American Astronomical Society who came to believe in visitations by interstellar travelers and alien abductions.

2. William Shockley, a Nobel Prize winner for the development of the transistor, who came to believe that persons of African decent were intellectually inferior to Caucasians.

3. Brian Josephson, a Nobel Prize winner for the discovery of the Josephson effect who has come to believe in ESP, PK, and cold fusion, among other fantasies.

I thought the HIV/AIDS denialists had shrivelled up long ago. Especially after people started getting treated for HIV and, uh, got healthier.

And while one might dismiss this as random crankiness, it has had tragic consequences in the real world -- for example in South Africa where there have been thousands of wasted lives because the government was obsessed with "alternative theories" of AIDS.

As anyone that has had a paper rejected by a journal knows persistence in the face of criticism is a necessary trait in science.

Scientists that have made great contributions to science are often admired for their persistence in the face of criticism or even ridicule.

I think that having the xperience of facing undue opposition to your ideas and then eventually being vindicated makes you vulnerable to interpret opposition as just proof that you are correct.

Perhaps Fred Hoyle whose work on stellar synthesis was initially resisted before being accepted is a good example. In his later years he championed some fairly silly ideas such as the idea that HIV came from outer space and gave us the creationist logical fallacy of the century that compared evolution to a tornado in a junkyard.

Judah Folkman wrote "There's a fine line between persistence and obstinacy, and you never know when you've crossed it."

Well Duesberg has certainly crossed it. I think exactly the same characteristic that can contribute to being a good scientist can turn you into a crank.

I will rally to the cause. FREE THE PLASTIDS!

Hoyle was also once on board a claim that the most famous fossil of Archaeopteryx was a fraud. Roger Penrose with his microtubules and quantum gravity is not quite in the same league. He's only wrong, not outrageously wrong.

The problem, as I noted in this uber-thread is this:

HIV purports to kill CD4 cells. That is the sine qua non of the disease.

Yet, many other factors kill CD4 cells, too:

1. Alterations in lymphocyte cell surface markers during various human infections.
--Williams et al, Am J Med. 1983 Nov;75(5):807-16.

2. CD4+ lymphocytopenia without HIV in patient with cryptococcal disease. Seligmann et al., Lancet, 1991,Jan 5;337(8732):57-8

3. Reduced CD4+ T cells and severe oral candidiasis in absence of HIV infection. Pankhurst et al., Lancet. 1989 Mar 25;1(8639):672.

4. CD4 lymphocytopenia without HIV in patient with cryptococcal infection. Jowitt et al., Lancet. 1991 Feb 23;337(8739):500-1

5. Acquired immunodeficiency without evidence of infection with human immunodeficiency virus types 1 -- Laurence et al. Lancet. 1992 Aug 1;340(8814):273-4

6. Reduced CD4+ T cells and candidiasis in absence of HIV infection. Gatenby et al., Lancet. 1989 May 6;1(8645):1027-

7. Profound CD4+ lymphocytopenia in the absence of HIV infection in a patient with visceral leishmaniasis, Cozon et al. N Engl J Med. 1990 Jan 11;322(2):132.

These are all papers/letters in the mainstream scientific literature, so they cannot be dismissed. (Unlike the non-peer reviewed government fact "sheet" referenced by the first commentator.)

So, many other factors cause the exact same effect (depleted CD4 cells) as HIV.

So, each of the these factors must, if one is to be intellectually honest, ruled out, before claiming that the virus is the cause of any particular CD4 cell decline.

This is a massive "confounding" factor. Also, much of the AIDS literature suffers from "confirmation bias." Either the authors merely assume that HIV is the cause of AIDS or they clearly hope to find this relationship.

I found Dr. Margulis' comments to be quite interesting and provocative. I think highly of scientists who don't meekly follow the herd in any field. It would be much better if proponents of the viral cause of AIDS would state a priori what evidence would prove their own claim false, and then go about testing the claim.

These are all papers/letters in the mainstream scientific literature, so they cannot be dismissed.

Nobody is dismissing these paper/letters. This is simply a strawman argument.

These cases are written up and published exactly because they are extremely rare. You know verey well that case of profound CD4 lymphocytopenia in the absence of HIV infection are extremely rare.

This has already been explained to you - March 12, 2007 01:20 AM. What is it that you fail to understand?

I'll start paying attention to these denialists when they line up for blood transfusions from HIV positive donors.

It seems that the point made by Andythebrit is worth bringing up again - that anti-HIV therapy reduces AIDS sympoms and prolongs lives. Although it's important to keep an open mind and question scientific assumptions, it's also important to do it in a way that doesn't mislead others into behaviors that kill innocent people.

"Stinking capitalist fascist male pigs are in control of science and especially evolutionary biology and they say animals compete with each other. They're wrong! Animals are gentle and kind and members of the Communist Party like I wish I could be (cue L'Internationale in the background)."

Exactly right. And she goes into these ridiculous tirades against the supposed culutral "anglophonic capitalist bias" that influences science. As I noted on my blog, this is another form of mental partition on the part of scientists. You have religious scientists on one hand, and a Foucault wielding POMO scientist on the other. It's depressing.

This is nuts. I spend too much time looking at HIV sequences and we couldn't possibly identify where different strains came from if this statement of hers was actually true:

I heard a talk by a "medical scientist" from the Harvard Medical School at a meeting at Roger Williams Univ in Rhode Island from a supposed expert who attempts to design an HIV vaccine. He claimed the HIV virus mutates a billion times in 48hours. It became clear that the HIV virus has no clear identity

This is nuts.

It appears from PZ's transcript that she doesn't believe that bacteria are separate species either.

Could this explain why no one believed her hypothesis about mitochondria and chloroplasts? Is this one of those classic cases of a wrong clock being right twice a day?

Hello Sandra.

Actually, it is interesting that you bring up sequencing. That issue was a major stumper for the court in Australia last week with the Andre Chad Parenzee case.

The judge is trying to understand how one can tell where different strains come from as well, considering the gene banks only look at about 11 to 16 percent of the entire 9600 genome structure of the reputed virus to compare. It is particularly troubling to the judge after the foremost researcher in Australia told him that up to 30 percent of the virus can drop out or be altered.

Just how do you run a gene bank based on analyzing 11 to 16 percent and surmising where the strain came from, when the variable is as high as 30 percent of the genomic structure of the entire supposed retrovirus?

What sort of sequencing science is that?

Well, at least you will have job security as long as the sequencing science remains as flakey as this!

I heard a talk by a "medical scientist" from the Harvard Medical School at a meeting at Roger Williams Univ in Rhode Island from a supposed expert who attempts to design an HIV vaccine. He claimed the HIV virus mutates a billion times in 48hours. It became clear that the HIV virus has no clear identity

It's not clear exactly what the the "medical scientist" who I assume is Norman Letvin said in his talk.

HIV like other retroviruses and othe RNA viruses such as poliovirus and FMDV has a mutation rate of approximately 1 bp per genome per replication. With on the order of 10^10 virions being produced per day then there are billions of mutations per day.

I don't think Margulis knows much about RNA viruses. Viruses such as poliovirus and FMDV exist as quasispecies. Does that mean that these viruses have no clear identity?

Andythebrit said "Especially after people started getting treated for HIV and, uh, got healthier".

It seems Andy has not kept up with the issue either, as 48 percent of those taking these drugs suffered extreme side effects such as liver failure, neuropathy, heart failure, kidney failure, and a host of nasty side effects including death. Fortunately less death than was presented with the high dosage AZT that all positives were given from 87 to 95, but plenty of death directly from the newer drugs as well.

The CDC estimates that most HIV positives do not take any medications for HIV at all, and in the last few years, many thousands in increasing numbers have been and continue to be abandoning the use of any ARV drugs.

Little wonder when a glimpse at most of the Long Term NonProgressors shows that what they almost all have in common is that they avoided the anti-HIV drugs!

Andy,

Another interesting tidbit regarding the HIV drugs is that the former marketing rep of the largest West Coast HIV drug pharmacy company confided in me a few weeks ago that sales of various drugs sold to counter the toxic and often deadly side effects of the HAART and ARV drugs far outpaced the sale of the HAART and ARV drugs themselves, and were the mainstay of the companies sales to the HIV diagnosed community.

In other words, someone taking the ARV's would then be often be taking a half a dozen more various prescriptions of other drugs to counter the side effects of the ARV's!

Oh the wonder of the new and improved Fast Tracked FDA approved AIDS drugs. They should all carry the following warning:

ONE PILL MAKES YOU HAPPY. ONE PILL MAKES YOU TALL. AND THIS ONE, WELL, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT DOES AT ALL!!

Chris wrote:

What is it that you fail to understand?

I fail understand how utterly blind, dogmatic and emotional some people get on the internet.

Let me explain to you a very simple argument:

1. CD4 cell decline is the sine qua non of the disease called AIDS.

2. Many things, other than HIV, cause CD4 cell decline.

3. Therefore, HIV is not necessary to cause AIDS.

Very simple. Please tell us that you understand this.

The next question, which I haven't yet evaluated, is whether HIV is sufficient to cause CD4 cell decline.

Quoting Dr. Zvi Grossman in Nature Medicine last year: " The pathogenic and physiologic processes leading to AIDS remain a conundrum."

I have gotten the impression that Margulis is surrounded by individuals who are so awe-struck by her that it has developed into something which borders on a cult of personality. There are numerous cases in which individuals have made significant achievements only to be surrounded by individuals who can only tell them how brilliant they are - and who thereby lose the ability to look at their own conclusions self-critically. At a certain level, particularly among those who are innovative intellectuals, one needs people who are able to disagree with you if you are to remain tethered.

Moreover, I have gotten the impression that she has come to view herself as a victim of mainstream science even given her celebrity. Perhaps in part it is her grounding in the Marxist tradition. The rhetoric of this tradition is oftentimes at odds with objectivity and the ability to genuinely consider alternate viewpoints.

Given this, I am not all that surprised by her HIV denial. Unfortunate, but not that surprising.

Interesting. Some others said much the same thing - only a bit more directly. Maybe I should have checked before posting.

Barry,

You said "I fail to understand how blind, dogmatic, and emotional some people get".

Are you beginning to see the degree of blind fanaticism involved in the belief of HIV/AIDS?

The fascinating thing to me, is that this strange fanatic and cult like behavior revolves so intensely around this issue of HIV/AIDS. It is as if all of science rests precariously in the balance.

Notice the reverence with which Lynn Margulis, or even Peter Duesberg was held, until they themselves open mindedly looked at the issue of HIV and dared to have simply disagreed with "consensus".

Suddenly, Lynn Margulis falls from grace, in their eyes, and is immediately transformed into a babbling buffoon.

Same thing for Peter. Gallo himself called Peter the "greatest virologist in the world", until Peter had the sheer audacity to disagree with Gallo and the ruling virologists of the NIH!

Gallo can admit like he did two weeks ago in Superior Court testimony in Australia that he only found evidence of what he believed was HIV in a mere 40 percent of his AIDS samples, and Gallo can admit that 40 percent is not enough to call it the cause of a disease, and he can admit that he never found HIV in T Cells, but these entranced nonthinking zombies do not even stop for a moment, to pause at what this obviously implies.

Like zombies, they simply keep repeating the mantra, "HIV, The Virus That Causes AIDS". "Praise be unto Robert Gallo". "200,000 studies makes all HIV science unquestioningly true and irrefutable".

It is as if HIV causing AIDS must continue to be or the sun will burn out. It is as if somehow saying it enough times will continue to make it true, and the universe will remain in balance.

It is as if they must keep chanting it unto death or all of science will disintegrate as all germ theory, nay, all of science seemingly depends solely on Robert Gallo being correct that HIV causes AIDS.

And so it does! It really does! For the zombies anyway! But not for anyone else.

1. CD4 cell decline is the sine qua non of the disease called AIDS.

2. Many things, other than HIV, cause CD4 cell decline.

3. Therefore, HIV is not necessary to cause AIDS.

This is not a logically sound argument. The first statement says that CD4 cell decline is necessary for an AIDS diagnosis. You have to claim that CD4 cell decline is sufficient for an AIDS diagnosis in order for your conclusion to be valid. (That's ignoring the correctness or incorrectness of such a claim.)

This is not a logically sound argument.

Bah. That should read "this is not a logically valid argument." Soundness refers to the truth of the premises, which I'm not qualified to comment on.

lincoln: Just how do you run a gene bank based on analyzing 11 to 16 percent and surmising where the strain came from, when the variable is as high as 30 percent of the genomic structure of the entire supposed retrovirus?

You dont 'run a gene bank'. You make a phylogenetic tree. No two envs will nest unless theyre of common descent. Even more so if the infection is recent, as the new infected individual will only have a very very small subset of the genotypes present in the donor.

Most of the people posting seem to be thinking along the same lines as Margulis, that is, they want some strong evidence from molecular biologists that shows that HIV causes AIDS.

I'm not an epidemiologist, but it seems to me that you don't need strong biological(molecular) evidence for direct causation, as long as there is very strong statistical/epidemiological evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Of course, the theory could be called in to question if there was strong evidence to the contrary from another branch of science.(none of this is to say that there isn't strong biological evidence available, I'm just not doing my research)

I think that this is a case of a biologist who doesn't understand the fields of statistics or epidemiology enough to make a sound argument against the theory that HIV causes AIDS.

CD4 cell decline is not the sine qua non of AIDS. The CD4 decline is an attempt to explain how we get from HIV to AIDS. Other mechanisms can easily take its place, as has already been suggested in the cases of KS and Dementia.

Once the CD4 'explanation' is in place, there's no need for the 'defining' CD4 decline in individual cases. Hence if one has HIV + defining disease + sky high CD4 count, one can still get diagnosed with AIDS.

Tim Noble,

I'm not an epidemiologist either, but that doesn't mean I cannot conceive of the possibility that scientists like Peter Duesberg and Lynn Margulis question the AIDS hypothesis precisely because of their profound understanding of the field of epidemiology and the nature of statistics.

SLC: You can add Peter Naur, the recent Turing Award winner to your list :(

I think it would be more accurate to characterize CD4+ T cell decline as a convenient marker of disease progression associated with HIV infection, to point out that not all non-HIV associated CD4+ T cell decline is created equal (much of it is temporary and some of it is not associated with clinical disease) and also to note that with the exception of immunosuppressive drugs, the strength of the evidence supporting a causal relationship between other factors and CD4+ decline is no better and in many cases weaker than the evidence supporting a causal relationship between HIV and CD4+ T cell decline.

Lincoln, read my commments above. Margulis' problems began long before she made her asinine comments about HIV and AIDS.

Sorry, but some things are just immiscible (nice comment, Tyler). Religion and science, politics and science are two combinations that come to mind. We as scientists all need to remember this, regardless of what kinds of beliefs or persuasions we have outside the lab.

The potential interactions between two (or more) organisms are incredibly diverse. It's good to note this. But it's bad to exclude entire categories of interaction because you view them as too "capitalist" or "Neo-Darwinian" for your taste.

Lynn Margulis' descriptions don't exclude categories of interaction; they are criticisms of the explanatory models these interactions are made to fit.

I'm not an epidemiologist either, but that doesn't mean I cannot conceive of the possibility that scientists like Peter Duesberg and Lynn Margulis question the AIDS hypothesis precisely because of their profound understanding of the field of epidemiology and the nature of statistics.

No. Margulis admits she has no specific expertise in this area, and Duesberg botches epidemiology so much that even our first-year MPH students can pick his arguments apart. "Profound understanding of epidemiology" my arse.

I found Dr. Margulis' comments to be quite interesting and provocative. I think highly of scientists who don't meekly follow the herd in any field.

I agree, Barry, but as you or anyone else reading can see, the herd, here, is out in full force. I can't believe how transparent they are, in their insecurities, but the immediate character attacks on Dr. Margulis are absolutely pathetic. Once again, rather than dealing with the force of Dr. Margulis' straightforward comments on HIV's shortcomings, the members of this little peanut gallery eschew real discussion and stoop to character attacks doused in self-congratulation -- all for being "well-behaved little scientists". How ironic and how predictable.

Thankfully, the tide is truly turning and peanut galleries, such as this, may have a a short shelf-life. Can we revoke all of the advanced degrees obtained by all of these HIV proselytizers, who are posing as real scientists? I sure hope so.

The recent comments by Adele are particularly juvenile:

And she goes into this ridiculous tirade against "competition." The subtext is: "Stinking capitalist fascist male pigs are in control of science and especially evolutionary biology and they say animals compete with each other. They're wrong! Animals are gentle and kind and members of the Communist Party like I wish I could be (cue L'Internationale in the background)." Isn't it possible to provide counterweight without putting on a red armband?

Your attempt to capture the "subtext" of Dr. Margulis' position is thoroughly inadequate, Adele. It should be pointed out that in the very same post, you ask, "And how much should you politicize your science?", referring to Dr. Margulis, no less; yet, you then proceed to offer up this "subtext" quote, in which you engage in an extremely unfair politization of Dr. Margulis' position -- all of which is based purely on speculation and your intent to malign Dr. Margulis' character is clear. As if it even needs to be said, but it is really is pretty clear who the real scientist is, Adele. I'm not even sure, based on your comments here, that you'd be qualified to clean Dr. Margulis' office, much less offer a relevant criticism of her scientific views.

You manipulation tactics and those of your cohorts are truly disgusting, given the gravity of this situation.

Kevin

...and Kevin provides some comic relief! It's so refreshing to see Bozo the Clown do his cute little "cleaning staff are scum" goosestep routine after I've had a long day of mounting slides for IFA.

Not a shred of decency as Kevin points out. One little disagreement and the negative character assessments come flying out of their rectums. This hypothesis is a good example of speaking with one's arse:

"I have gotten the impression that Margulis is surrounded by individuals who are so awe-struck by her that it has developed into something which borders on a cult of personality. There are numerous cases in which individuals have made significant achievements only to be surrounded by individuals who can only tell them how brilliant they are - and who thereby lose the ability to look at their own conclusions self-critically. At a certain level, particularly among those who are innovative intellectuals, one needs people who are able to disagree with you if you are to remain tethered."

Pure speculation, nothing more.

"At a certain level, particularly among those who are innovative intellectuals, one needs people who are able to disagree with you if you are to remain tethered"

Can you read the words coming off your own computer??? She IS disagreeing with you and you and the cybersisters go completely untethered. Tethered? my arse also.

One litle "disagreement" which happens to be total nonsense with a potentially disastrous impact on public health. Nothing to get excited about, right? Idiot.

Margulis is a crank. Cranks are highly useful to have around because, as her championing of the endosymbiotic theory (which, by the way, she was not the first to think of by a long shot) demonstrates, they occasionally are right about an idea which they then have the moxie to push against fierce opposition. But it's well to remember that they're wrong 99% of the time. And I suspect that if such cases were to be carefully examined by a hsitorian of science, it would be found that they are rarely if ever right about more than one big idea in the course of their careers.

Re pat and Kevin

I see that the whackjobs are out in force. All we need now is Hank Barnes to complete the triangle. I find Mr. Kevins' comments in particular quite amusing. Substitute evolution for HIV/AIDS and he sounds like Jonathan Wells.

The most depressing thing to me about Lynn Margulis coming out in support of Peter Duesberg's opinion on HIV and AIDS is that she clearly hasn't read any of his papers - at least not his recent ones. All one has to do is check a half dozen of his citations to be aware that he uses references inappropriately. Not just occasionally and inadvertently but consistently and, I assume, deliberately. She's not making a defense of the science but a statement of support for the person. That's her right of course but I still find it depressing.

SLC,

Nice to see that you also don't believe in surrounding yourself with people that disagree with you. You can add you name to this long list of non-innovative intellectuals. Thank you for the "whackjob", at least you will not be mistaken for a decent lad who has a point.

Hank Barnes is here already, see "Barry A"

Margulis at least has produced something valuable to science and humanity unlike every self-proffessed defender of science on this blog. For that alone she deserves respect. That all you scientific underachievers-come-attack dogs lash out baselessly and gratuitously at her speaks volumes in her favor. Adele, our serial flamer, mentioned something about Bozo the clown on another thread.

What, pat, did Margulis make the trains run on time?
Mao-gulis, I mean?

"(Margulis) was the one who pushed the (now accepted) idea that chloroplasts and mitochondria in cells came about due to symbiosis"

You obviously don't know anything about her and didn't read the contents of the post either but instead you went straight for Margulis' jugular. What have you contributed other than retarded highschool flamejobs and mopping the floor in an SIV research lab?

You must be a neo-con Adele. Go to Fox TV, you might get a slot right after O'Reilley

With a brain like his it is little wonder you haven't come up with anything useful.

Re pat

"Margulis at least has produced something valuable to science and humanity unlike every self-proffessed defender of science on this blog."

The same thing could be said about the three individuals I named earlier, namely Shockley, Hynek and Josephson, in addition to Pauling. The fact that somebody was at one time a first rate scientist is no guarantee that they will remain so, that is unless Mr. pat thinks that vitamin C cures cancer, that black Americans are intellectually inferior to white Americans, that the earth has been visited by aliens from outer space who have abducted earthlings for medical research or that PK, ESP, and cold fusion are real phenomena.

She's not making a defense of the science but a statement of support for the person.
Right on.
And this is all we see from the denialists. An emphasis on the person, not the science.
Margulis talks about people having great reputations and unimpeachable intellects and all that. Miklos, Duesberg. Well, the person really shouldn't matter. Miklos and Duesberg can have hearts of gold, but if their science is crap, their science is crap. It doesn't matter how many medals they get.
But that's how denialists work. "I like this person, she's nice, therefore she's right."
For the rest of us on here, it's the other way around. "Margulis puts ideology ahead of science, or Margulis' statement on HIV is junk, therefore I don't like what she said." Or even for floor-swabbers like me, "I don't like her."
I've criticized Margulis because she lets politics influence her science. I have no problem with Margulis' right to have her political views. Sure, my partner had to stand in bread lines back in the USSR because of similar ideologues who thought everyone would work together in a socialist utopia, but Margulis isn't making policy so why should I care? I also have no problem with Bill O'Reilly or neo-cons spouting their hot air.
What I do object to is when the far left or the far right or anyone in between allows their political or religious convictions to corrupt or screw up science.

Galileo is an interesting case in point; he correctly surmised that his discovery of the jovian moons confirmed Copernicus' heliocentric model of the solar system. But when it came to his theories on what caused tides he was in fact quite wrong. It does not make him a fool or an idiot; it just means his theory on the cause of tides was wrong.
This applies to any one that is held to be a foremost scientist. They sometimes get it wrong. Einstein took decades to accept the model of a dynamic or expanding universe and held fast to his galactic constant. He is still revered for his work on relativity; people may think some of his other ideas foolish but no one thinks him a fool.
So just because someone believes in somtheing someone else holds to be wrong or foolish does not make that first person a fool. You don't judge a theory on someone's character so you don't judge someone's character on the basis of what they propose.

Margulis at least has produced something valuable to science and humanity unlike every self-proffessed defender of science on this blog.

Since you seem to pulling assumptions out of your ass (like the idea that everyone who constitutes "humanity" shares your opinion of what is "valuable", if you don't get the subtext I'm saying you're a presumptuous cock). Why don't I pull out the assumption that you've contributed even less than any of us. Not every scientist has revolutionary theory that succeeds, and having a revolutionary theory under your belt doesn't make you an expert on everything and all your opinions authoritative. If you think that's the case, then you're just a kool-aid drinking moron, much like the rest of the denialists.

For that alone she deserves respect.

And in case you don't get the point of the post, we're especially disappointed in Margulis because we acknowledge that she is a respectable scientist. It's always saddening to see a brilliant mind descent into crankery like this.

That all you scientific underachievers-come-attack dogs lash out baselessly and gratuitously at her speaks volumes in her favor. Adele, our serial flamer, mentioned something about Bozo the clown on another thread.

Gee, I wonder why....

My dear Lincoln, you certainly have botched your reading on this! You wrote:

"...
Actually, it is interesting that you bring up sequencing. That issue was a major stumper for the court in Australia last week with the Andre Chad Parenzee case.

The judge is trying to understand how one can tell where different strains come from as well, considering the gene banks only look at about 11 to 16 percent of the entire 9600 genome structure of the reputed virus to compare. It is particularly troubling to the judge after the foremost researcher in Australia told him that up to 30 percent of the virus can drop out or be altered.

..."

Which makes it so painfully obvious that you have not a clue what you are talking about. Our database (http://www.hiv.lanl.gov) now contains the complete protein coding regions or complete genomes of 2,068 primate lentiviruses. The molecular epidemiology of all this is indisputable, if you would just read some papers such as:

Leitner T, Escanilla D, Franzen C, Uhlen M, Albert J. Accurate reconstruction of a known HIV-1 transmission history by phylogenetic tree analysis.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Oct 1;93(20):10864-9.
PMID: 8855273

Van Heuverswyn F, Li Y, Neel C, Bailes E, Keele BF, Liu W, Loul S, Butel C, Liegeois F, Bienvenue Y, Ngolle EM, Sharp PM, Shaw GM, Delaporte E, Hahn BH, Peeters M.
Human immunodeficiency viruses: SIV infection in wild gorillas.
Nature. 2006 Nov 9;444(7116):164.
PMID: 17093443

Wolfe ND, Switzer WM, Carr JK, Bhullar VB, Shanmugam V, Tamoufe U, Prosser AT, Torimiro JN, Wright A, Mpoudi-Ngole E, McCutchan FE, Birx DL, Folks TM, Burke DS, Heneine W.
Naturally acquired simian retrovirus infections in central African hunters.
Lancet. 2004 Mar 20;363(9413):932-7.
PMID: 15043960

Troyer JL, Pecon-Slattery J, Roelke ME, Johnson W, VandeWoude S, Vazquez-Salat N, Brown M, Frank L, Woodroffe R, Winterbach C, Winterbach H, Hemson G, Bush M, Alexander KA, Revilla E, O'Brien SJ.
Seroprevalence and genomic divergence of circulating strains of feline immunodeficiency virus among Felidae and Hyaenidae species.
J Virol. 2005 Jul;79(13):8282-94.
PMID: 15956574

Yeah, I'll confirm it: that was Lynn Margulis on the site and in the chatroom. <sigh>.

Margulis contemptuously dismisses not only decades of evolutionary ecology work, but the Modern Synthesis itself - as if the scores of scientists engaged in this research sprogram were deluded fools rather than involved in highly productive work that has helped explain phenomena from foraging to life history. Margulis goes much farther than Gould or Lewontin in this critique of neo-Darwinism.

The question is, are Margulis' politics, her views on biology, and her HIV revisionism all of one piece, or can they be disentangled?

Try this quote on for size:

"Free, independent science is going extinct, and that is perhaps the most serious hazard we face as science and technology have increasingly become instruments of oppression and destruction under corporate capitalism."
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/organic.php

Actually, the author of that quote is Mae-Wan Ho, another biologist who criticizes neo-Darwinism and 'reductionism.'

Like Margulis, Mae-Wan Ho is also something of an HIV skeptic who praises Duesberg, although she is not sold on the idea that there is never an HIV-AIDS link:

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/AidsHIV.php
"I am entirely persuaded that recreational and toxic anti-HIV drugs as well as malnutrition can all undermine the immune system to produce immune deficiency syndromes. But I would certainly not like to exclude something like HIV that could target the immune cells directly..."

An intriguing parallel. So, to answer the question I posed about: I don't know.

In their book "Science, Order, and Creativity, David Bohm and David Peat talk about three levels of communication: confrontation, discussion, and dialog. Dialog is the one where the different sides have open minds. The previous posts are, at best, disussion, and in some cases confrontational.

I read the Harpers article that came out a while back and was quite surprised and troubled by it. I thought the HIV-AIDS association was well-established and non-contraversial.

If the association is well supported, can you recommend some literature accessible (physically and intellectually) to general readers?

I heard Lynn Margulis give a plenary address to the New Hampshire Science Teachers Association at Phillips Exeter around 1986 or so. She was an excellent and articulate speaker (presented the Gaia hypothesis) with a natural sense of ease and confidence. You'd had to been a jackass to find fault with a presentation like that.

Sometimes science succombs to the power of personality. A famous example of such in the earth sciences is the Davisian downwearing model of landscape evolution vs. the backwearing model of Penck. Davis was the showman and orator, Penck was apparently more introverted. Davis was highly influential for decades. Penck was right.

Ah, Mr. Foley what are you doing here? Why aren't you in Adelaide where the prosecution experts, according to their statements under oath, don't know who you are or what treasures you guard.

The stakes have just been raised on the missing virus don't you know? You could get rich.

Tara or her behind, I'm not sure who signed, one does not have to be able to tell the sum of 2 + 2 to grasp the inherent limitations of your discipline. All one need do is read John Kaldor's testimony in said forum.

It would have been really sad and strange for someone else to fake being her. And this is of course not the first time she has stated that she believes HIV has not been scientifically studied.
http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2006/07/dr_lynn_marguli.html
for one example, from July 2006.

Mr. Pope,

It's doctor Foley for you.

Why would anyone need me in Adelaide? And what do you mean by "guarding" the treasures? The database is free and open to the public.

Why do so many of you denialists hide behind fake names?

Brian

My dear Brian Foley,

thank you for the some of the silliest garbage ever presented in defence of HIV, that is about gorillas, monkeys, and cats, and has absolutely nothing at all to do with full sequences 1) taken from, and isolated from HIV positive human beings, and that is what is claimed to be human immune deficiency retrovirus that is 2) contagious and is also proven to be, in some strange and as yet unknown way, 3) the cause of immune system or CD4 disfunction.

Nobody said complete retroviral sequences have not been determined for thousands of retroviruses. The question is what is it that has been sequenced, was it isolated from a human being, and is it indeed a human retrovirus that is contagious and is the cause of AIDS immune disfunction. Dohhhhh!

Stuff found in gorillas, and found in chimp crap, and found in cats has zero to do with this. This is an issue of what has been and currently is being compared at the Los Alamos HIV Gene Bank, that is derived from humans in HUMAN HIV COMPARISONS.

Unfortunately, you have not presented any papers on a full genetic sequence from a proven to be humanly contagious virion of a retrovirus that WAS repeatedly isolated from a cohort of 100% of HIV positive human beings and also proven to be the cause of immune deficiency.

You are also, Mr. Foley, painfully unaware of the sequencing comparisons that take place from genetic sequences that are and have been taken directly from human beings, otherwise you yourself would be well aware that the above was quite correct. What is presently called HIV, was cultured in a laboratory stew made of bits of cellular debris and DNA, and has 9600 base pairs. The Los Alamos Gene bank, however, does not use entire 9600 segment sequences in HIV comparison for the database. They only track partial sequences believed to be parts of the envelope.

So, please avoid boring us with gorilla dung, chimp pooh, and cat crap retroviruses while trying to convince us that this stuff has to do with HIV/AIDS, and had been isolated from beings diagnosed as HIV positive, and had been proven to be infectious HIV, and had been proven to be the cause of immune deficiency. Such is not the case, and I defy you to bring out the papers where it has. Present the papers to Mullis, Duesberg, and Margulis, and they will undoubtedly shut up. But until you do present such proof, sir, perhaps you should be the one to close the clap trap!

Mr. Foley, if you are so bright and knowledgeable about HIV, then please show us the paper that Dr. Margulis was asking for, that shows this retrovirus isolated in full from human sera, and show us the paper that proves it is contagious, and then show us the paper that verifies it causes immune disfunction.

Gallos paper showed 40 percent of AIDS cases presenting evidence of RT activity, which he would like us all to believe confirmed a contagious and deadly retrovirus. It was years later when he isolated or perhaps brewed up something and presented evidence of something with 9600 base pairs.

He never bothered to prove this is what was in other human beings, and never bothered to prove that it was the cause of immune disfunction. He also never bothered to prove it was contagious.

And please avoid telling us that there is an overwhelming mountain of 200,000 studies of evidence, that you just have to go through it all and take parts of this one to add to parts of another, and multiply by pi and divide by 200,000 and add it all together to prove that HIV is isolated and is the contagious cause of CD4 destruction and immune disfunction.

If the evidence was so overwhelming, there would not be any need for 200,000 studies that still conclude nothing that is sure.

If this simple prooving of human HIV isolation and causation were done, you blooming deaf and dumb fool, there would be no AIDS dissidents or what you call "denialists".

Until it is done, and is presented to the dissidents, you and everybody else who believes HIV is isolated from humans and is contagious, and is the proven cause of AIDS are the true and rightful heirs to the title of GRAND FLAT EARTHING DENIALISTS!

Dr. Foley,

That's 'Pope' as in the title. We denialists are a religious lot I'm sure you're aware. But if you should happen to be of a different persuasion, an educated man like yourself can call me Outis.

They seem to need you in Adelaide, Dr. Foley, because a couple of pseudoscientists, one of whom had a name stemming from the same classical regions as my own, but which proved too complicated for the real pope Gallo to pronounce, claimed that they had requested proof of isolation and purification of a certain animal lentivirus (no. 2069?) from you. But apparently this particular document was not free and open to everybody since they never received it from you; and none of the Adelaide experts could tell whether it had just been misplaced or if it was all just a big misunderstanding.

PZ Meyers, I notice that your brief comment ended with a sigh.

Your sigh in your post above almost makes me sigh.

Why the (sigh) remark may I ask? What exactly were you trying to say that you felt better off sighing over and not speaking up about?

What was the reason for the sigh following your admission that you had indeed been graced and blessed and fortunate enough to have someone of National Academy of Science member Lynn Margulis' stature gracing your own blogsite?

Was this a sigh of the bias of your own predetermined correct or incorrectness of Margulis position on HIV/AIDS, or do you think all of her science is trash?

Or was the sigh because you are saddened that so many outright rejected her right to speak her mind without having open mindedly and unbiasedly even investigated the issue or even read the books and papers that she recommended for themselves?

Perhaps, PZ, you think your own scientific mind to be greater or more accurate than Lynn's, after your own unbiased and open minded reading and investigation of the material that she herself has investigated and presented to your readers?

Undoubtedly as a biologist, you yourself would fully investigate the issues before making up your own mind, provided you are not already biased without having even properly investigated the issues for your own self.

I know that I have fully investigated the issue and read the pieces Lynn mentioned!

Perhaps that is why I completely agree with her and why I was thrilled to see that someone of her stature and her integrity had the courage and integrity to stand up against consensus and convention and speak her own mind and speak freely and candidly on the issues of HIV???/AIDS.

If they had wanted anything from me, they should have aksed me. I received no such request.

But all of the sequences and other information in our databases are freely open to the public, there is no need to ask me for permission.

I am happy to help anyone fond what they are looking for, if they do not know how to search our databases. GenBank also contains most of the same data, and has another staff willing to help, if you prefer not to deal with us.

Dear Pope,

If the people in Adelaide had wanted anything from me, they should have asked me. I received no such request.

But all of the sequences and other information in our databases are freely open to the public, there is no need to ask me for permission. Perhaps they simply found it on their own?

I am happy to help anyone find what they are looking for, if they do not know how to search our databases. GenBank also contains most of the same data, and has another staff willing to help, if you prefer not to deal with us.

Lincoln,

You are sadly mistaken:

"...
You are also, Mr. Foley, painfully unaware of the sequencing comparisons that take place from genetic sequences that are and have been taken directly from human beings, otherwise you yourself would be well aware that the above was quite correct. What is presently called HIV, was cultured in a laboratory stew made of bits of cellular debris and DNA, and has 9600 base pairs. The Los Alamos Gene bank, however, does not use entire 9600 segment sequences in HIV comparison for the database. They only track partial sequences believed to be parts of the envelope.
..."

Although our database does contain primate lentiviruses from gorillas, chimpanzees and other non-human primates, we DO in fact have sequences of HIV-1 M, N and O groups, as well as HIV-2, complete genomes, from humans. There are of course also many gag, pol, env, vif tat and other gene sequences.

Let me know if you need any help comprehending this.

http://www.hiv.lanl.gov

The vast majority of our sequences came DIRECTLY from human serum or PBMC, it would be hugely expensive to culture tens of thousands of different isolates. Only a few hundred of the isolates have been kept in culture outside of humans, for more than a few days.

Lincoln try this:

"...
Mr. Foley, if you are so bright and knowledgeable about HIV, then please show us the paper that Dr. Margulis was asking for, that shows this retrovirus isolated in full from human sera, and show us the paper that proves it is contagious, and then show us the paper that verifies it causes immune disfunction.
..."

http://www.amazon.com/HIV-Pathogenesis-AIDS-Jay-Levy/dp/1555811221

If you want "just one paper".
Can you now show me "just one paper" which proves that human pregancy can be caused by unprotected sex? Or one that explains all aspects of any other subject of importance? For most areas of science and technology, the knowledge is built up over years in incremental steps, and researchers do not wait for ALL of the answers to be in, before they tell the world what they have learned so far.

If biases from capitalist influences are distorting HIV/AIDS research, would it not follow that different models would emerge from those nations where such pressures are greatly reduced?

Can anyone from, say, Sweden or Cuba report on this?

The taxpayers have spent more than 100 billion dollars on research, and the evidence you offer to prove to the dissidents that HIV is properly isolated from a human, and is a proven contagious virion that causes immune suppression is a book of circular reasoning and deducing by correlations instead of proofs of causation, that was written by the well funded Jay Levy?

Perhaps you should read 20 books that refute and pick apart and show the circular reasoning in what Jay wrote, and then tell me what your thoughts are on the matter.

By the way, did you ever read Robert Gallo's book "The Virus Hunters"? I would hope you not offer this up as evidence as well.

It is the only science book ever written by a scientist that did not even contain one citation to published references to back up his statements.

Also, I am sure whoever said the earth was flat and whoever said malaria is caused by bad air, and whoever said scurvy is contagious and recommended throwing affected sailors overboard, and whoever said thalidomide or vioxx was perfectly safe also did not wait for all of the answers to be in before they told the world what they THOUGHT they had learned so far as well.

It would be wonderful indeed if you did glance at some of the dissident books sometime, such as those that Lynn Margulis has mentioned, just to give your own self a fuller understanding of why us crazy and supposedly mislead dissidents think as we do.

Although you are also welcome to understand that there has indeed been

billions spent with zero cured,

thousands gainfully employed with no intention of considering anything other than HIV,

lots of funding,

no known and proven way that HIV does anything on a cellular level,

a retrovirus that grows in eternal t cell lines but is said to kill t cells,

long term transmission studies that had zero transmissions on sero opposites,

scientists who all agree that unamed or unknown co-factors are necessary for disease progression but castrated Duesberg for saying it was the co-factors causing the disease,

deadly toxic treatments,

a virus so small that among viruses it is a miniature with barely the capability to infect a cell,

a virus that is such a brilliant genius that it knows who is gay and who is straight,

and knows who is black and who is white.

What a genius of a retrovirus that HIV must be.

Well Dr. Foley, Perhaps you would enlighten me on these quandaries or tell me a book to read that explains it better than the AIDS Rethinkers and Dissidents books?

"The same thing could be said about the three individuals I named earlier, namely Shockley, Hynek and Josephson, in addition to Pauling. The fact that somebody was at one time a first rate scientist is no guarantee that they will remain so, that is unless Mr. pat thinks that vitamin C cures cancer, that black Americans are intellectually inferior to white Americans, that the earth has been visited by aliens from outer space who have abducted earthlings for medical research or that PK, ESP, and cold fusion are real phenomena."-SLC

The fact that somebody was at one time a first rate scientist is no guarantee that they will remain so is true I agree but this does not invalidate their science either. You make the mistake of evaluating the science buy testing the character of the person behind it and sometimes viseversa by making conclusions about one's character by testing the science they come up with. In the case of Margulis, the general opinion of the resident bloggeurs is that she's been suspected for a while of being a wacky, mao-ist, Duce of train scheduling, Marxist celebrety wackjob because?....(roll drums) ...:because she's wrong. (crowd moaning in anti-climatic disappointment) I refer you to sascha's post for a clearer picture.
As for the rest of your post, SLC: no. FU2

"And this is all we see from the denialists. An emphasis on the person, not the science."-Adele
Adele, you don't understand what I am objecting to!! (how could you?) I object to YOUR emphasis on the person of Margulis (long-term wacky). Do you even listen to yourself?: "Well, the person really shouldn't matter"- ADELE

"Miklos and Duesberg can have hearts of gold, but if their science is crap, their science is crap. It doesn't matter how many medals they get."-Adele
All of their science? be precise, you're a scientist. They may have hearts of gold, but some of their ideas are wrong. Must they be "whacky" and stripped of all your respect? Do you believe these people have a right to voice their opinion, or do you believe they should be silenced. I believe you think they should be silenced by the way you so pile into their character in blatant contradiction to your own stated belief that "the person shouldn't really matter".

"But that's how denialists work. "I like this person, she's nice, therefore she's right."-Adele

Your modus operandi is to be rude when one is wrong, check.

"What I do object to is when the far left or the far right or anyone in between allows their political or religious convictions to corrupt or screw up science."-Adele

You seem to let your personality in the way. Can you back up all that stuff about her and the USSR and dictatorship and how that in any explains her or her science? BTW, your "subtexting" of what she meant to say is simply outrageous. Please, no one take Adele's interpretation of Margulis' words as balanced; go to the actual thread and read it for yourself. You're no Bozo, Adele, Bozo is funny not dullingly abrasive.

"Since you seem to pulling assumptions out of your ass (like the idea that everyone who constitutes "humanity" shares your opinion of what is "valuable", if you don't get the subtext I'm saying you're a presumptuous cock)." -Tyler

Well I am only making the politically safe assumption that if her ideas (not hiv of course) have been firmly embraced by the mainstream then I can safely assume that she has contributed to SCIENCE and by extension to "humanity" in a meaningful way. I maintain that even at the risk of being your presumptuous cock.

"Why don't I pull out the assumption that you've contributed even less than any of us. Not every scientist has revolutionary theory that succeeds, and having a revolutionary theory under your belt doesn't make you an expert on everything and all your opinions authoritative. If you think that's the case, then you're just a kool-aid drinking moron, much like the rest of the denialists."-Tyler

You can safely pull that out of your arse; I never claimed to be in sciences nor do I vomit on scientists. Margulis is at worst exactly like you, a scientist without revolutionary ideas about HIV; as Adele so poignantly put: "Well, the person really shouldn't matter" so give her the benefit of respect for what she is good at and leave the teenage crap in the locker room

"And in case you don't get the point of the post, we're especially disappointed in Margulis because we acknowledge that she is a respectable scientist. It's always saddening to see a brilliant mind descent into crankery like this."-Tyler

You describe in plain terms that going from respectable scientist to crank requires a simple fringe opinion. It pains me to think I need to draw you a picture about how irrational this behavior is?

About her blog appearance ,this is again very interesting. The blog owner wrote: "I will be policing the comments, so trolls, please don't bother; serious comments only, and keep in mind that she's only going to respond to a limited subset, so make 'em GOOD." (emph. mine) He was right, this was after all a good opportunity to actually ask questions about her work. The first few posts were well fomulated and polite questions and ONE reply by Margulis but it didn't last a cyber beat and quickly the comment sectioned turned into a troll fest with all the household names: Chris Noble, unsymp reader and others. An interesting note about Noble is that he too missed all opportunity to directly have an exchange with her; no one ounce of interest on his part to ask something anything honestly. Noble is an old pro internet "hitman" By post number seven all reasoned questions had all but dissappeared as these trolls started moving in on the thread in shock and awe:
And voila, this no longer was a Q&A but exactly what she said she already knew about the internet. No more acknowledging her, just interjections to questions posted TO her and gratuitous flame jobs:

"It just seems like her post is very similiar to claims we often hear from the Discovery Institute (confusingly so). I suppose that may be unfair, but I think with a post like that we all deserve to hear some evidence and examples backing some of her claims up."-Robert
...and so on and so forth all along the "comments"

ROBERT, YOU IDIOT! YOU MISSED IT! IT LAY RIGHT AT YOUR FINGER TIPS! but you had to piss in the soup.

"I give this 5 days to appear in ID literature!" (donno who)

"Right, I'm sure no socialist government would ever need to conduct cost-benefit analyses... [bangs head on desk]"- Steve la Bonne

and steve la bonne was hoping for an answer...fool.

Margulis hasn't responded to anything since her initial post, no wonder. Did she really "chat"??? my arse. Margulis is right about science on the internet: "Sound bite-hype is far more useful to those who assert religious truths and would banish authentic science from the public sphere than to the scholar or scientist" ...how foreboding. You guys are unstable.

Dr. Foley, I don't think anybody would object to scientists telling the world what they have learned, or more to the point what they have not learned so far. But this line of argument still begs the question, when was the tipping point reached? In your opinion, was it reached when Gallo declared he had found a new type C retrovirus in 36% of his AIDS patients?

To make my question absolutely clear, looking back at the history of HIV/AIDS, when would Dr. Foley say the evidence that HIV is necessary and sufficent for AIDS become 'overwhelming'?

"If biases from capitalist influences are distorting HIV/AIDS research, would it not follow that different models would emerge from those nations where such pressures are greatly reduced?

Can anyone from, say, Sweden or Cuba report on this?"- Pierce

You just missed a nice opportunity to ask her that question directly. Unfortunatly that opportunity was spoiled for you by this blog's self-proffessed defenders of scientific enquiry with their immature flame jobs. It is sad to see adults behave as though highschool was the highlight of their social lives.

was it reached when Gallo declared he had found a new type C retrovirus in 36% of his AIDS patients?

And 75% of his ARC patients. Don't forget those, Pope! Nor the 115 heterosexual controls. Where it wasn't found was as important as where it was.

That sigh was because I thought highly of Margulis; she has done some excellent work, and is always a source for original ideas. Unfortunately, the HIV denialist comments were all ignorant crap that only a deluded fool would find convincing. So that was a sigh of disappointment.

Re pat

"The fact that somebody was at one time a first rate scientist is no guarantee that they will remain so is true I agree but this does not invalidate their science either. You make the mistake of evaluating the science buy testing the character of the person behind it and sometimes viseversa by making conclusions about one's character by testing the science they come up with"

Excuse me, at no time did I, or their critics evaluate the science of Pauling, Shockley, Hynek, or Josephson by testing their character. I and their critics evaluated their science by the evidence they have presented in favor of it. This has nothing to do with their character. Thus

1. Pauling presented no credible scientific evidence that Vitamin C can cure cancer nor has anybody else subsequent to his demise.

2. Hynek presented no credible scientific evidence that earthlings were being abducted by interstellar space travelers for medical experiments.

3. Shockley presented no credible scientific evidence to support his claim that black Americans were genetically inferior to Caucasian Americans. In fact, having had the misfortune to read his articles on the subject, it is shocking to find such a distinguished scientist writing such drivel.

4. Josephson has presented no credible scientific evidence to support his claims that cold fusion, ESP, and PK are observable quantities. In fact, his naivety in accepting the claims of the well known fake Uri Geller is incredible for someone of his scientific accomplishments.

None of this has anything to do with their character or their political views either (Pauling was a leftist, Shockley was a rightist politically). In fact, it is rather interesting to find a Socialist like Prof. Margulis in league with right wing neofascists like Philip Johnson and Jonathan Wells on the subject of HIV/AIDS.

PZ,
Does her position on HIV do more than disappoint you? Does the fact that you disagree on her make her other science invalid? Has she deserved the trolls like Noble and Adele? Since when are people always right? Since 1984? I hope none of you ever get something wrong; I won't stoop low and rip you a new asshole but I fear you will do it to yourself.

"Excuse me, at no time did I, or their critics evaluate the science of Pauling, Shockley, Hynek, or Josephson by testing their character. I and their critics evaluated their science by the evidence they have presented in favor of it. This has nothing to do with their character. Thus"-SLC

You did test their character by the ideas they presented though, so it has everything to do with their character according to your logic. We may not agree with all their positions especially their political or social ones, but none of this make their other contributions worthless or crankey. Talking about racism, African AIDS is being supported by the racist myth that Africans are sex addicts who can't control their libido, what's your take on it and how would you explain the African AIDS if not through the "sex addict" model? If it is not "sex addiction", will you take a stand against the mainstream propaganda machine spreading such racist myths?

Is the solution of applying permanent latex penis grafts to black and gay men considered sound science in your world?

Re pat

Mr. pat keeps trying to change the subject. At no time did I in any way, shape, form or regard denigrate the scientific contributions of Pauling, Shockley, Hynek or Josephson (three of whom are Nobel prize winners). I merely pointed out that they turned from being reputable scientists into whackjobs (unless Mr. pat, for example, thinks that belief in alien abductions without a shred of evidence is not wacky). The unfortunate fact of the matter is that Margulis and Duesberg have done the same.

I wrote the CDC and asked them for the papers that prove Margulis does not let her political views influence her science. I have not received even a list of references from them!

My god.

And about those billions of dollars HIV/AIDS has "wasted." Go take a look at the numbers. If the superheroes can't deal with the entire epidemic, they can just focus on pediatric AIDS. Cases have fallen by 95% in this country and vertical transmission is way down since elective prenatal treatment was started. Pope and Lincoln and the Pat can tell those kids they're not worth a few dollars of tax money.

I find Mr. Kevins' comments in particular quite amusing. -- SLC

That's most likely because you don't understand them. I would however like to thank you for your juvenile response to what is otherwise a very serious matter, and I'm not thanking you for your insights, obviously, but rather, because you've provided invalueable support for the dissident position with every ignorant contribution you've made. Truly...thanks.

Kevin

Re Kevin

Mr. Kevin, the road company Jonathan Wells, even sounds like the latter in his put downs. If Mr. Kevin wants to get into bed with the Philip Johnsons of the world, all I can say is have fun.

The "dissident position" does not need "invalueable support" from anyone or anything.

Denial happens when people let their personal prejudice or isolated experiences get in the way of critical thinking. No support needed.

The victims of denial are people like Mark and Colleen who make a real effort to understand HIV and AIDS. They want to think HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS and they don't need meds. Their lack of knowledge lets them be deceived by the comforting and science-sounding BS of angels of death like Rebecca Culshaw and Celia Farber.

Don't forget Kary Mullis when talking about scientists who turned into whack jobs -

His original PCR concept was profound, but he has failed to keep pace with any developments in his supposed own field of expertise. A bit like the Wright brothers denouncing intercontinental jet aeroplane flights as impossible, because they were only able to fly half a mile at Kitty Hawk.

And then there is his belief in Astrology, and his faith in the existence of Aliens that talk to him through the voice of a racoon in his back yard. Sheesh!

Adele,

I think you meant Noreen.

"Re pat

Mr. pat keeps trying to change the subject. At no time did I in any way, shape, form or regard denigrate the scientific contributions of Pauling, Shockley, Hynek or Josephson (three of whom are Nobel prize winners). I merely pointed out that they turned from being reputable scientists into whackjobs (unless Mr. pat, for example, thinks that belief in alien abductions without a shred of evidence is not wacky). The unfortunate fact of the matter is that Margulis and Duesberg have done the same."- SLC,

I have never changed the subject and that is evident to all. The subject is and always was the hitjob on Margulis' character orchestrated from this very scienceblog.com and the resident trolls who live within. You brought up these other dudes to justify your hitjob, remember?

" (unless Mr. pat, for example, thinks that belief in alien abductions without a shred of evidence is not wacky)"

Why do you always do this? Why don't you ask me directly what I think about alien abduction instead of making baseless assumptions?

You, Mr SLC, were not only the first poster but also the first troll to appear on the Q&A with Margulis by posting an "attack" veiled as a valid question. Lets look at it together:

"I would appreciate it if Prof. Margulis would clarify her position on the relationship, if any, of HIV and AIDS. There appears to be some confusion on her position relative to this issue due to a review of a book by Prof Duesberg who is a noted HIV/AIDS denier.
Posted by: SLC | March 12, 2007 08:57 AM"

First off is the form. You don't address someone in the third person if your intention is to be respectful. This form is reserved for kings and queens and otherwise people you think are below you, like me (mr. pat keeps trying to...). Civility 101. Secondly, you can't expect an answer to a strawman. There is no confusion about what she wrote in support of Bialy's book. What she writes is unmistakably clear. But you indeed attempt to make it look as though her credentials may have been unjustly highjacked by those perfidious "deniers" and when she stands by her words you fall back into your default habit of "personalizing" the debate. She is not "with you" on HIV so she is wacky. Thirdly you can't hope for a respectful answer when your "question" is a veiled smearjob directed against someone she happen's to hold in very high esteem: "There appears to be some confusion on her position relative to this issue due to a review of a book by Prof Duesberg who is a noted HIV/AIDS denier."
SLC, you fully know this and use it to great effect: "denier" is a fighting word, it is by design loaded with pejorative ordinance.

I don't really care or know much about those other guys you brought up as a diversion but Margulis and Duesberg are total "wackjobs" to you and your fellow hitmen alone. There are armies of non passive-aggressive, well adjusted people out there who recognize your style and arguments as immature and the whole thread about Lynn Margulis at Pharyngula as nothing more than a cheap ambush by those of you who want to shout her down. The day we stop allowing inquisitive minds from asking even the most outrageous questions we may as well embrace Intelligent Design theory.

"Denial happens when people let their personal prejudice or isolated experiences get in the way of critical thinking. No support needed."-Adele

Another very good post. It is just unfortunate that Adele is a "Do as I say, not as I do" person. You fail to recognize that this makes you the denier. Do you think that vomitting on other people's right to respect is "critical thinking". Perhaps the word "critical" confuses you; "critical thinking" means pondering an idea or a form of logic not "FUCK YOU, YOU WACKO!"

...after I've had a long day of mounting slides for IFA. -- Poor Adele

Perhaps, I should thank you too, Adele, for providing the same support as SLC, but also let me add an additional heart-felt thanks for all that you do for the advancement of science in your capacity as slide-mounter extraordinaire.

Re pat and Kevin
I see that the whackjobs are out in force. -- SLC

One of the most interesting societal effects of the internet is how it has allowed members of society, of similar intellectual and awareness levels, to find each other. For intelligent people, this new opportunity for worthwhile communication has been a godsend. Such high caliber people may not be commonly found in one's non-virtual environment. You obviously don't understand the importance of what I am describing, SLC, or you would never engage in petty internet posturing, where personal attacks are considered valueable. Unfortunately, your own intelligence level will remain a limiting factor for you when participating in discussions such as this, but don't expect the rest of us to slow down for you.

The only significat contribution you've made to this discussion is an attempt to label me, and others, as "whackjobs", and it's only significant because it clearly demonstrates your limited abilities to contribute otherwise. I realize that I am singling you out when there are innumerable sheep from which I could choose, but you've simply added nothing else, so you deserve it. Nevertheless, let's continue.

It's easy to see that your lack of self-awareness inspires you to label the "self-aware" contributors in this discussion as "whackjobs". Sadly, your not the first person on this blog to use this intellectully weak strategy. "Wic" -- where have you gone? -- also labeled me a "whackjob" for my comparison of the bankrupt idealism supporting the HIV/AIDS establishment to the bankrupt idealism supporting the housing market. He accused me of being a conspiracy theorist because I questioned that the true health of our economy was not quite as rosey as the leading "experts" in that field portrayed. How's that prediction turning out?

Has I've stated previously, one good thing that might come from our coming economic troubles is that the bottomless funding for HIV will most likely dry up, as it will become necessary for more efficient science. Science that will once again focus on supplying practical knowledge about the world -- out of necessity. That said, anyone interested in participating in an intelligent discussion about the economy should definitely read about the house of cards to which the US economy has been reduced. Looks like there are at least a few hundred other "whackjobs" participating in a real blog discussion there -- a discussion that has dramatically improved the public's awareness about that extremely important issue.

Corruption and deviation from acceptable professional practices is certainly not limited to HIV scientists. If all the sycophants on this blog could overcome their insecurities, they would see that Dr. Margulis' comments were very insightful:

"And this way I can lay low and not be "name-called" (i.e., "denialist") because I ask hard questions and require solid evidence before I embrace a particular causal hypothesis."

Name-calling adds nothing to real scientific inquiry.

Kevin

Yes, I did mean Noreen. Sorry about that.

It is just unfortunate that Adele is a "Do as I say, not as I do" person. You fail to recognize that this makes you the denier.

Pat, I'll stack up my denialist reading list against yours any day. I wonder how much actual science you've read?

Know what? I always wanted the denialists to be right. It's kind of cool to think about a rag-tag bunch of eccentrics like Duesberg and Rasnick taking on a multi-billion dollar worldwide conspiracy and being right. It would be even better if the vitamin peddlers were right, too, and all we had to do to end AIDS was take garlic pills or wear goat's teeth around our necks.

What sucked for me and the rest of the world is that they weren't right and they never will be. Denialists are deluded fools or worse. Just my educated opinion. I looked at the denialist stuff and I looked at the scientific literature and I looked at my monkeys. I didn't see any support for denialism anywhere.

Is it any wonder that when you stand up for someone's right to freedom of thought you are shouted down and called a wackjob? This is the new American century, after all, where MIGHT is RIGHT. I can't remember who said this but it goes something like this:

"I don't agree with this man's opinions but I will die for his right to hold them"

anyone know who's words these are?

Jack Levine?

"Pat, I'll stack up my denialist reading list against yours any day. I wonder how much actual science you've read?"-Adele

I'm not talking about "the" science you tit, I am talking about your utterly unscientific habit of shouting people down and I don't need stacks of paper to prove my point to you or to anyone; your behavior is exhibit A.

As I posted on the previous thread, I drew your attention to a mainstream article asserting that simians do no come down with disease when they are infected with their naturally occuring version of SIV but only when you re-engineer them and introduce them into new hosts. Is this what you do adele? or is that manistream publication just wacky?

Jack Levine? maybe, couldn't find it yet. Nonetheless, a courageous statement.

Pat, who has questioned anyone's freedom of thought? Or even freedom of speech?
So someone called you a wackjob. Don't pretend it's because you're some kind of a cyber-Minuteman defending the freedom of "humanity." It's because you're a sort of cyber-thug defending a scientifically ludicrous idea with no apparent knowledge or expertise.
Margulis and you can say whatever the hell you want. But don't expect everyone to nod their heads smile primly and applaud politely. Scientists are a skeptical and irreverant lot.

"Pat, who has questioned anyone's freedom of thought? Or even freedom of speech?
So someone called you a wackjob. Don't pretend it's because you're some kind of a cyber-Minuteman defending the freedom of "humanity." It's because you're a sort of cyber-thug defending a scientifically ludicrous idea with no apparent knowledge or expertise.
Margulis and you can say whatever the hell you want. But don't expect everyone to nod their heads smile primly and applaud politely. Scientists are a skeptical and irreverant lot."

Adele you are a confused, illiterate nitwit who can't follow a "conversation". What scientifically ludicrous idea am I defending? I am merely defending Margulis' RIGHT to HAVE one because you won't, no agreement with it is even necessary. But reading stuff that isn't there is typical of lazy non-thinking trolls.

Adele, you don't question anyone's freedom of thought, I grant you that. That would require a philosophical debate and a modicum of intellect. You deny people's right to free thought and speech by SHOUTING THEM DOWN with character insults.

...and there is NO hope in hell of any of that sinking into your deranged schizo brain. Go clean the monkey poop out of your cage.

"Scientists are a skeptical and irreverant lot."

Just because you and your trolls are irreverent doesn't make it a normal or even welcome trait in science.

Please pat, just one, one single quote, from anyone on here who questioned Margulis' right to think whatever the hell she wants.
We're pointing out that Margulis is wrong about HIV and AIDS. That she lets her personal politics influence her science. That she seems to judge HIV science at least partially because she is personally close with several of the principal denialists, going all the way back to her time at Berkeley in the '60s, and hasn't read much or any of the scientific proof for HIV and AIDS.
Yes, there has been some ridicule of Margulis. I called her Maogulis in reference to her well-known political leanings; I'm guilty; I'm an ass. But nobody ever said she has no right to think or say whatever she wants.

Sorry, Adele but you're a treasure trove of non-sense.

"cyber-thug". A thug is someone who abushes unsuspecting victims in dark alleys. A "cyber-thug" is someone who performs similar feats on the internet. For an example of a "cyber-mugging" go revisit the Q&A with Margulis. You obviously use english words without proper care or understand as to their actual meaning. shameful for an intellectual.

"Please pat, just one, one single quote, from anyone on here who questioned Margulis' right to think whatever the hell she wants."

Adele, again, no one here is QUESTIONING her right to free speech, what you are in effect doing is DENYING IT!!!

No, you're not pointing out she is wrong about either this or that, YOU ARE COMMITTING CHARACTER ASSASSINATION and worst, it was pre-meditated. sigh

"I'm an ass" You got that right.

Re pat

I have some news for Mr. pat. I asked that question of Prof. Margulis because I was only aware that she had written a favorable review of a book on Prof. Duesberg. I had not read that review and was totally unaware of its contents, other then that it was allegedly favorable. I genuinely was interested in her opinion on the subject of HIV/AIDS. I was unaware that she had serious doubts as to the issue of the relationship. The assignment of the term denier to Prof Duesberg is absolutely correct and accurate. He has been on record for over 20 years denying that HIV is the main cause of AIDS. If Mr. pat thinks that's fighting words, tough noogies.

Re Kevin

Mr. Kevin is bent out of shape because he was termed a whackjob. Apparently, he is rather less upset about being compared to Jonathan Wells. I have some news for Mr. Kevin. His claim that the scientific community is coming around to Prof. Duesbergs' view is about as accurate as Jonathan Wells' claim that the scientific community is abandoning the theory of evolution.

Sure Pat,

"what you are in effect doing is DENYING IT!!!"

That's why PZ gave her such an open forum to say whatever she wanted on his, the largest science blog on the internet and Seed here at the largest collection of science bloggers. Because nobody wants to let Margulis exercise her right of free speech.

Now that we've cleared that up would you please shut up?

I for one would like to see Andrew Maniotis and Brian Foley get into it. Maniotis has a big mouth at YBYL where he can pull the plug on any and all dissent lets see if he can hold his own against someone like Dr. Foley.

You denialists are always saying you want a debate, clam up and lets see if we can have one.

Margulis is on record as being a Maoist?

Sigh. No, Pat, she's on record as being Mao-gulis, the Red Queen.
It's called mean-spirited humor. Sorry if you don't like it. It amuses the hell out of me, and so do you!

Going by their appearance on ScienceBlogs threads, HIV denialists are poor advocates for their own cause: frequent use of ALL CAPS, lots of exclamation points!!!!!, snide contempt, ignorance, ridiculously overblown rhetoric, making unsupportable claims about opponents (racism, denying freedom of speech), and weird rants and asides. Those typify the usual internet HIV 'skeptics'; the more credentialed among them blather in a more sophisticated (but still vacuous) fashion about the reductionist evils of neo-Darwinism and the distortion of science by corporate capitalism.

"Now that we've cleared that up would you please shut up?"

No, of course not, have I not made my point clear that shouting down doesn't work in conversation? O'Reilley, are you going to have the plug pulled on me next?

That PZ was not an open debate. Just because you use the word "open" doesn't make it so. I urge everyone to go there and see for themselves if that even was a debate.

SLC, thank you for clarifying your confusion about Margulis. The source of your confusion appears to lie in the fact that: "(you) had not read that review and was totally unaware of its contents, other then that it was allegedly favorable". For someone interested in her position on HIV that is crazy. All you had to do was stop blogging for a second and open up a new browser window and check Amazon.com. It sounds difficult but trust me, it is as simple as ABC. It is also not the only place you can find literature on her position. Also I don't like fighting words so it is tough noogies for me, true, but it is also tough noogies for you since you'll never get another opportunity to ask her personally about her position and ideas again. But fear not, you can always continue making ridiculous assumptions about her in the future.

"You denialists are always saying you want a debate, clam up and lets see if we can have one."
A "debate" is apparently what was promised to Margulis. Did she get a "debate" No, of course not, but she did get her noogies roughed up. You wouldn't know a debate if one hit you in the face.

"Going by their appearance on ScienceBlogs threads, HIV denialists are poor advocates for their own cause: frequent use of ALL CAPS, lots of exclamation points!!!!!, snide contempt, ignorance, ridiculously overblown rhetoric, making unsupportable claims about opponents (racism, denying freedom of speech), and weird rants and asides. Those typify the usual internet HIV 'skeptics'; the more credentialed among them blather in a more sophisticated (but still vacuous) fashion about the reductionist evils of neo-Darwinism and the distortion of science by corporate capitalism."

Can you back any of this up and explain how it makes the content of what they write invalid? Otherwise this sounds like nothing but a hitjob again

"Sigh. No, Pat, she's on record as being Mao-gulis, the Red Queen.
It's called mean-spirited humor. Sorry if you don't like it. It amuses the hell out of me, and so do you!"

Meanspirited humour only bugs me when it is witless

Lynn Margulis is associated with the GAIA hypothsis:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/gaia_lyn.html

She is also famous for endosymbiosis.

As far as myself "debating" Andrew Maniotis or any other anti-scientist, it will not happen unless there are some rules for the debate. There is no such thing as "scientific debate", science is about forming testable hypotheses and then testing them, gathering data etc. All of the so called scientific debates I have seen involve one side telling the science side and another side telling blatant lies, half-truths, and BS.

For example, on this discussion above, Lincoln claims that the complete genome of HIV from a human has never been sequenced, that the http://www.hiv.lanl.gov/ database contains only tiny fragments thought to be envelope gene etc. which is all blatant lies. Anyone can search or database to find 1,602 HIV-1 sequences longer than 7,000 contiguous bases, and 1,449 of them are longer than 8,500 bases (which is the RNA genome, the proviral genome contains 2 complete LTRs, the virion RNA has 2 partial LTRs). So in most cases, it is trivially easy to find out who is telling the truth, and who is telling lies, in any "debate", but very often the audience does not bother to make even a trivial effort. Most often, people just pick a winner from whichever story sounded better to them.

I probably could be talked into debating someone, if there was time given for fact-checking, and there was a $500 fine for each lie told, $250 for any "half truth", 80% paid to the opponent, 20% paid to the fact checker or moderator.

Re pat

Excuse me Mr. Pat. I asked a question of Prof. Margulis (which, by the way was seconded by another commenter) and she answered the question, in case you missed it. The fact is that all of the tumult on this thread is in response to her response, not to the book review. She expounded on her views and many of the commenters, including Prof. Smith who owns this blog and whose background and expertise in this area is at least equal to Mr. pats, responded by stating that Prof. Margulis is full of s***. Now Mr. pat and Mr. Kevin and Mr. lincoln and Mr. Barry A (alias Hank Barnes) take exception to this characterization which is their right as it's a free country. However, at the end of the day, Prof. Duesberg and Prof Margulis are still full of s*** and are in bed with some rather smarmy characters such as Philip Johnson and the Reverend Moon (and the latters' acolyte, Jonathan Wells). If I found myself in the company of Johnson and Moon, I'd be very unsettled.

"That PZ was not an open debate. Just because you use the word "open" doesn't make it so. I urge everyone to go there and see for themselves if that even was a debate."

It wasn't a "debate" only because Prof. Margulis apparently chose not to answer any of the questions posed to her on evolutionary biology, or to follow up on HIV/AIDS. As I understand it, it was she who contacted PZ, as part of her blog tour to promote her new book and publishing company (for example, she's scheduled to be at Skepchick next week).

Can you back any of this up and explain how it makes the content of what they write invalid?

Colugo's point: denialists are poor advocates for their own cause because they can't/don't debate science.

That's probably good. When denialists start talking about science, they lie or show their ignorance or both. Case in point, Margulis and her view of HIV tests. They are nearly always positive for pregnant women.

Well, maybe if the pregnant women are HIV positive. HIV negative pregnant women have false positives approximately never, even on the screening test. Multiple prior pregnancies associate with a slightly elevated chance of false positive. The risk of clerical error is probably greater.

What Margulis' proves is she has never read anything about HIV tests, pregnancy, and false positives other than Duesberg and Culshaw (who have no experience in the field) and even those authors don't say what Margulis thinks.

PSST Adele! Come to my blog so we can commiserate about IFAs! I spent my first internship doing IFAs on HIV+/- HHV8+/- samples! I cant honestly say I miss it...

pat:I drew your attention to a mainstream article asserting that simians do no come down with disease when they are infected with their naturally occuring version of SIV but only when you re-engineer them and introduce them into new hosts

And THIS is why we need to teach evolution in classrooms, ladies and gentlemen!
Creationists--> Deniers. Different sides of the same coin over and over and over and over and over...

ERV,
What?! How could you not like IFA? (Answer: only if you love it!)

Tara writes, "I ask, who's the one hindering science, by assuming that entire fields of experts are "poorly educated" and "misinformed," and therefore allowing the evidence accumulated by those fields to be hand-waved away?"

Science has some specific levels of action. Without being comprehensive, there is the level of physically setting up and carrying out experiments, the level of data categorization and organization and there is the analysis of the data into overview statements.

First, let me say that I believe that the lab techs that do step one and step two - don't get enough credit.

L. Margulis has had her success on the level of analysis, IMHO. She saw "thru" the data and offered a paradigm changing conjecture. This conjecture, in the long run has proven considered and insightful. Analysis conclusions are best, when closest to the data, but at the other end off the continuum they become an overview perspective typically called philosophy of science. Margulis has made strong assertions in this area that have captured a modern outlook - as opposed to the compartmentalized outlook of the past. From my limited perspective - GST (General Systems Theory) is largely not embraced and this hinders fully reductive pictures of complex processes.

When I read the above sniping at her and others; it strikes me as seeing science as religious doctrine and having orthodoxy. When in fact, the environment for behavior at all times should be skepticism of the process under investigation. That Margulis is skeptical about the classification and direct causality of HIV and Aids is interesting to me. I have read these other reports of issues that complicate the causal relationship. While clearly progress is being made in constraining the malady, a complete picture may introduce other factors, yet unknown.

Are past views of infectious disease thrown out when questioned - or is the questioning of anomalies the DUTY of scientists with deep overview credentials.

What is at stake here --- righteous belief in orthodoxy or the freedom to demand clarity or declare "work to be done" in philosophy of science claims? Remember the commonly accepted way of thinking IS always a philosophy of science stance.

I'm sorry for not making myself more clear pat.

You bore me. Specifically, I find both you and Lincoln to be scientifically ignorant and to be stupid generally.

I was hoping that since we had a "high-profile" HIV/AIDS denialist, Maniotis/Pope, and a high-profile HIV/AIDS researcher, Foley, addressing one another in the same thread that maybe we could see some intellectual sparks fly. A la Foley vs. Rasnick a few years ago. Unfortunately, you continue to drizzle on the parade.

Neither you nor Lincoln, (nor Hank Barnes for that matter) is qualified to have a scientific discussion of HIV/AIDS because you do not know enough science to understand when you are arguing out your arse. This is not to say that laymen cannot discuss science with scientists, it is to say that Tara has been more than generous in letting you, Lincoln, and others litter her blog with thousands of words of foolishness. It is well past time for you to please shut up, and let the grown ups talk.

Listen quietly and you might learn something.

Well, ncg-- I would reply, "What is the point or the use of 'Step 3' if you dont listen to anyone doing 'Step 1 or 2'?"

THAT is what she is doing. Margulis is not 'questioning' any orthodoxy because of information gathered in 'Step 1 and 2'. She established that when she proclaimed Culshaw was 'convincing' (I shouldnt be able to correct anyone with a PhD centered on HIV on HIV. Anyone.)

Margulis is insisting upon her 'Step 3' opinion being considered valid without putting even remedial effort into 'Step 1 and 2.'

Why should anyone consider her opinion valid? The same reason why we should listen to Dembskis opinion on evolution?

Re Tara Smith

Here's hoping that Rebecca Watson can nail Prof Margulis next week when the latter makes her appearence on the formers blog.

SLC -- sounds like you have a conspiracy story to sell to Oliver Stone.

Roy Hinkley: I was hoping that since we had a "high-profile" HIV/AIDS denialist, Maniotis/Pope, and a high-profile HIV/AIDS researcher, Foley, addressing one another in the same thread that maybe we could see some intellectual sparks fly.

Yeah, when hell freezes over. Ive had a post up for two weeks, specifically at the request of a Denier on another board who wanted to 'discuss the science'. Hes been back to post snark, but never to 'discuss science.'

They dont want to 'discuss science' any more than the Creationists do. *shrug*

@Adele ROFL!!!

That Margulis is skeptical about the classification and direct causality of HIV and Aids is interesting to me.

It is interesting to all of us. But Margulis' denialist proclamation is not based on deep, high-brow analysis. It is based on falsehood and cliquishness. It is not true that HIV tests are "nearly always positive for pregnant women." It means nothing that the CDC did not act as Margulis' personal research assistant and send her papers on HIV and AIDS. Instead of doing any reading herself, Margulis takes the word of those she respects and trusts (Miklos, Duesberg) refusing to fact-check their claims.

This is not the stuff of paradigm-shattering intellectualism.

"They dont want to 'discuss science' any more than the Creationists do. *shrug*"

Yeah, but Maniotis isn't your average denialist:

http://www.uic.edu/depts/mcpt/faculty/maniotis.html

And Dr. Foley of course has proven himself well-prepared to point out the gaping holes in the denialists' arguments.

I got a little excited for a moment at the thought of someone attempting to argue the denialist point of view from a scientific perspective. I guess Maniotis/Pope just wants to make snide comments about a court case in Australia. Spending too much time with "Hank Barnes" I guess.

ERV,

I would not know the working relationship of Margulis and her staff, during the devolopment of her research. I can say it "worked" as she was successful at her #3, in spades.

I have no idea what you mean that she is ignoring the data on Aids research. She is addressing overview questions, only, in what I read.

Trying to link Dembski and Margulis is very Joe MacCarthy-like. Are they fellow travelers, in your decerning view?

All I know in my appreciation of applied reason, to the data at hand, Margulis has made a ground-breaking contribution to evolutionary theory, by thinking "out of the box". She has the right to poke at other unresolved issues - because of her track record.

What is all this zeal about calling her names? Is science now a emotional exercise in politics - or the joy of thinking things through to the best of our skill-sets and not being afraid to have an "out-of-the box" conjecture to offer. A thousand false leads and one right guess - was maybe behind Margulis, C. Pert and B. Josephson. But - that's how it works. They have made terrific discoveries and you and I haven't.

Adele,

I would not be up to seed on this issue of Aids/HIV. However, in my personal experience I have known two people who where misdiagnosed, to great stress in their lives. (neither had it) Do you have any statistics for the accuracy. Is Margulis just spinning the number of, say a 25% to 50% false positive or is the false positive number below 5%? I would be curious.

ncg, Margulis of course has a right to "poke at unresolved issues" and so does everyone else. "Track record" has nothing to do with it. Looks to me like Margulis' track record is quite exaggerated anyway as you admit yourself ("one right guess").

But Margulis is poking at resolved issues, and she doesn't even have the sense to realize this or to educate herself about things. There's the example of almost all pregnant women being HIV false positive. That's a ridiculous statement coming from anyone. Margulis gives it as her example of the problems with HIV and AIDS.

Is your idea of "skill-sets" application wandering into a subject you know nothing about, making statements based on questionable stuff some friend of yours told you, and then pronouncing the whole subject is crap based on your own misunderstanding of it? That's what Margulis just did.

It's not the behavior of an intellectual. It's acting like some kind of cult of personality royalty. I called Margulis in my mean-spirited way, a "queen." And that's how a queen acts. The queen needs no justification or proof. Her ideas are law. She decideds on whim. And god forbid if the little peons at the CDC don't send her documentation by mail, and double-time! Because she'll axe the heads off the entire field of HIV research, and serves 'em right!

ncg, didn't see your q before posting.

The false positive rate is well below 0.5%, and that's using just the screening test. When you follow-up with one or more confirmatory tests as should be done, false positives are so rare it's hard to quantitate them. It is interesting that you know two people who tested false positive for HIV. I would wonder if maybe they were related?

I have some news for Mr. Kevin. His claim that the scientific community is coming around to Prof. Duesbergs' view is about as accurate as Jonathan Wells' claim that the scientific community is abandoning the theory of evolution.

This is the last time I'll respond to you, SLC, because you're not worth my time. I'm not bent out of shape about anything. Your pathetic attempts to malign my character stand on their own against my post history at this site, and any unbiased readers can easily see who is arguing from an intellectually dishonest position and here's a hint: it's not me.

I could care less about Jonathan Welles and your attempts to align my views with his are a reflection of your inability to adequately respond to my comments regarding HIV. I've never once mentioned evolution, in this thread, but I can assure you that my views on evolution are thoroughly mainstream.

You and Adele are just a weak-minded parasites and that's probably not gonna change, so I'll direct my comments elsewhere. But, please, feel free to continue posting your puerile drivel about me. That way no one will waste their time by mistaking you for a worthy participant in this discussion.

Kevin

What is all this zeal about calling her names? Is science now a emotional exercise in politics - or the joy of thinking things through to the best of our skill-sets and not being afraid to have an "out-of-the box" conjecture to offer. A thousand false leads and one right guess - was maybe behind Margulis, C. Pert and B. Josephson. But - that's how it works. They have made terrific discoveries and you and I haven't. -- ncg

Wow, a reasonable comment. Thanks for chiming in on the ridiculuosly unscientific demeanor that is so cherished by most of the bloggers here. Surely, there are other readers here who are uncomfortable using emotional politiking and other intellectually bankrupt tactics, such as name-calling, in defense of scientific claims. It's laughably unscientific.

Perhaps, the most revealing reason that bloggers on this site have taken issue with Dr. Margulis' comments on HIV, is due to how obvious it is that most of these bloggers are just the type of "scientists" that she is lamenting.

Earlier the logically gifted, Sascha, posted this:

They [Scientists] sometimes get it wrong. Einstein took decades to accept the model of a dynamic or expanding universe and held fast to his galactic constant. He is still revered for his work on relativity; people may think some of his other ideas foolish but no one thinks him a fool.

Well, I can't say that I disagree, but I would add that the same is true of the consensus opinion, as well. Sometimes it is the minority opinion in Science that exposes a foolish consensus. And thus Sascha's astute closing applies to this alternative scenario, as well:

So just because someone believes in somtheing someone else holds to be wrong or foolish does not make that first person a fool. You don't judge a theory on someone's character so you don't judge someone's character on the basis of what they propose.

Well said. Usually, a dialectic is necessary to judge the value of competing theories. Of course, we all know that HIV is far too precious and fragile to withstand counter arguments.

Kevin

Re Kevin

Mr. Kevins' charge that I am maligning his character assumes a fact clearly not in evidence (namely that he has a character to malign). The fact is Prof. Smith and others on this board have totally discredited Mr. Kevin views on the relationship of HIV and AIDS. Having been so totally discredited, Mr. Kevin now confines himself to whining at me. Mr. Kevin states that he is uninterested in Dr. Wells. Since Dr. Wells is also an HIV/AIDS denier, as well as being a young earth creationist, I am surprised that Mr. Kevin is uninterested in his views on the matter.

There are always many more unthinking sheep than there are shepherds. And sheep are not ever very discerning over what shepherd they allow themselves to be led around by. Certainly no wonder that sheep get skinned and fleeced on a regular basis.

Dear ERV, SLC, Adele, Roy, and Colugo.

First of all, the gentleman posting as Pope is not Andrew Maniotis, I can personally assure you as I know exactly who posts as Pope, and it is most definitely not Dr. Maniotis, although Pope is equally as capable as Andrew of seeing the lack of evidence and logic that is found with a simple critical look at HIV/AIDS science.

Strange how one of you thinks it was, and then the rest follow on with some type of dullard's belief that the former error was correct.

It might just be possible that this tendency explains all of your own current belief that a 2nd rate virologist named Robert Gallo, and his equally scientifically dull French equivalent, named Luc Montagnier, got it right that HIV was the cause of AIDS.

ERV, SLC, Adele, Roy, and Colugo,

Please give us your best explanation of the following points, so that we silly followers of Duesberg and Margulis may understand just why Lynn Margulis and Peter Duesberg leading us astray, and are so mistaken, as Dr. Foley ran away to hide as soon as he read them:

1) Billions spent with zero cured,

2) Thousands gainfully employed with no intention of considering anything other than HIV,

3) More funding for HIV than other leading causes of death are given, even though other causes of death have a much higher percentage of overall mortality than HIV.

4)no known and proven or verified way, after 25 years of research, of knowing that HIV, if it exists as a contagiouus retrovirus, actually does anything damanging on a cellular level anywhere in the human body,

5) HIV is a retrovirus that grows in eternal t cell lines but is said to kill t cells in humans,

6) the longest term transmission study on sero opposite couples that showed exactly zero transmissions among sero opposites,

7) scientists, including discoverers Robert Gallo and Luc Montangnier, who all agree that unamed or unknown co-factors are necessary for disease progression but castrated Duesberg for saying it was the co-factors causing the disease,

8) Proven deadly and toxic treatments fastracked through the FDA with no long term study. AZT itself was approved after only 4 months of actual patient trials,

9) No hiv drugs are ever tested against placebo or against non treatment.

10) a virus so small that among viruses it is a miniature with barely the capability to infect a cell, yet is claimed to mysteriously be the cause of immune system depression.

11) a virus that is such a brilliant genius that it knows who is gay and who is straight, and

12) must obviously know who is black and who is white

as the virus is currently said to have infected 97 percent blacks and gays in the western world.

Please do give us your explanations for these confounding and puzzling questions, so that we denialists may return to your higher understanding and be back in the good graces of civilization.

Dear Tara and PZ Meyers,

I was wondering if either of you could give us a reference for the following statement:

"HIV, the virus which causes AIDS"

I myself, as well as Lynn Margulis, Peter Duesberg, Karry Mullis, and all of the rest of the rethinkers would greatly appreciate some help with this, as none of us are able to find the reference.

"Re pat

Excuse me Mr. Pat. I asked a question of Prof. Margulis (which, by the way was seconded by another commenter) and she answered the question, in case you missed it. The fact is that all of the tumult on this thread is in response to her response, not to the book review. She expounded on her views and many of the commenters, including Prof. Smith who owns this blog and whose background and expertise in this area is at least equal to Mr. pats, responded by stating that Prof. Margulis is full of s***. Now Mr. pat and Mr. Kevin and Mr. lincoln and Mr. Barry A (alias Hank Barnes) take exception to this characterization which is their right as it's a free country. However, at the end of the day, Prof. Duesberg and Prof Margulis are still full of s*** and are in bed with some rather smarmy characters such as Philip Johnson and the Reverend Moon (and the latters' acolyte, Jonathan Wells). If I found myself in the company of Johnson and Moon, I'd be very unsettled.

Posted by: SLC | March 15, 2007 04:14 PM"

She still esrned her wings as oposed to all of you wannabees and don't bother asking about my credentials; I don't pose as a scientist. I'll answer the sad rest of you once I've recovered from my social night.

"Colugo's point: denialists are poor advocates for their own cause because they can't/don't debate science."

You don't debate squat. you wouldn't know one if it too hit you in the nuts

"Excuse me Mr. Pat. I asked a question of Prof. Margulis (which, by the way was seconded by another commenter) and she answered the question, in case you missed it. The fact is that all of the tumult on this thread is in response to her response, not to the book review."

so you get your knickers all tied up in a knot because of an answer????

"Excuse me Mr. Pat. I asked a question of Prof. Margulis (which, by the way was seconded by another commenter) and she answered the question, in case you missed it. The fact is that all of the tumult on this thread is in response to her response, not to the book review."

you didn't even bother to read her review

I am done with people talking out of their arses. This thread shall stand on its own merits: Lost on the blog-geeks

And THIS is why we need to teach evolution in classrooms, ladies and gentlemen! Creationists--> Deniers. Different sides of the same coin over and over and over and over and over..."-ERV and his self inflicted strawman

Roy , you had the perfect opportunity to debate someone other than the likes of me andm Lincoln and your acolytes fucked it up. Your loss, not mine or even "ours"

Roy Hinkley.

I'm afraid I have to disappoint you with regard to me being Dr. Maniotis. I can see how my reference to classical regions could have led you to think so, but the name I alluded to was 'Outis'. Outis is, as you will recall, the name cunning Odysseus gave when asked by Polyphemus in a bid to avoid future unpleasantries from the very well connected cyclops. It's a standard rethinker in-joke which I'm sure you won't appreciate.

I feel you have less reason to be disappointed with my 'snide comments' about the Australian court case. Dr. Foley entered this debate specifically to answer a reference Lincoln made to one of the Defence's points about identifying parts of the HIV genome.

Dr. Foley thought this showed a profound ignorance of 'the science', so Lincoln and I took the liberty of reminding him that the point goes back to the original isolation question, and that this question remains unanswered by Dr. Foley - who has indeed received many requests from the Perth Group regarding the missing virus - as well as by the Prosecution's assembled HIV expert team in Australia headed by the inimitable Gallo himself.

I am quite sure Dr. Foley could have set Outises like Lincoln and myself straight on a few things regarding genomes and suchlike, however, he preferred to not do so. As Dr. Foley is, like you say, expert in debating rethinkers, I was personally disappointed to see that his best answer to the proof of causation question was the 'incremental' nonsense - which of course forced the 'critical mass reached when exactly' riposte to expose the silliness of Dr. Foley's reply. Still, I'm quite certain it wasn't this question of mine that silenced him, so my best guess is it was Adele who scared him off, for which I don't think anyone should blame the good doctor.

For what it's worth the person posting under the pseudonym "Pope" is doing a very good job of impersonating Wilhelm Godschalk who has previously posted under various names on this blog and elsewhere.

This Wilhelm Godschalk in addition to "rethinking" HIV/AIDS is also a gravity "rethinker". Apparently the theory of gravity predicts that fridge magnets should get tired and eventually drop off.

If "Pope" is not in reality Wilhelm Godschalk then I apologise profusely to them both.

Pope Bialy, Pope Duesberg, Pope Miklos, Pope Rasnick, ultimately what does it matter? Their scientific careers have scaled such heights that they're now collaborating with people who sell used electronics on Ebay to get their oh-so-scientific points across. What exulted potentates they are.

Pope Bialy, Pope Duesberg, Pope Miklos, Pope Rasnick, ultimately what does it matter? Their scientific careers have scaled such heights that they're now collaborating with people who sell used electronics on Ebay to get their oh-so-scientific points across. What exulted potentates they are.

This is the endosymbiotic nature of the "rethinker" movement.

The movement (if something that is going nowehere can be called a movement) needs a few respected figureheads to have a semblance of credibility. The figureheads also benefit from the hero/maverick status and adulation that they attain within the movement.

Duesberg gets lots of emails from thankful fans like Raphael Lombardo - and of course Duesberg never gets emails from these fans when they die from AIDS after following his advice.

I suspect that Duesberg and Margulis relish their maverick status. They also need their lay-supporters as much as they need them.

Pope and friends,

The "isolation" question has been asked and answered many many times. Your failure to comprehend the answer does not mean there was no answer.

Ask yourselves this: Has ANY virus ever been "isolated" to your exact satisfaction? If so, please name it, and cite the paper where this was accomplished.

Brian Foley (my real name, no guessing needed)

...they're now collaborating with people who sell used electronics on Ebay to get their oh-so-scientific points across. What exulted potentates they are.

And you, Jonathan...your star shines so bright that I can barely see to type....please tell me more....

Brian Foley (my real name, no guessing needed)

No guessing needed because you are so common.

Kevin

Brian Foley (my real name, no guessing needed)

Agent 2734, you forgot that the world class science journalist, Anita Allen, blew our cover.

I did come come across an item of information that intrigues me - did you know that both Brian Foley and Chris Noble are listed as victims in 9/11? - Anita Allen

It's your own fault. It was your silly idea to use the identities of people that died in 9/11. You should have known they would be too clever for that old trick!

Agent 7256

As usual, Jonathan the Pod Person, and other fools are up to their usual insults and lies, as they have no comment to the HIV paradigm problems that I posted above.

Judging from the list of rethinkers at:

www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htm

I hardly think that the list full of hundreds of MD's and PHD's and researchers, scientists, etc, hardly looks like the rethinker movement is "going nowhere" or reduced to making a living or collaborating from any single member for support or to get their message across.

Now perhaps that is what you clowns are doing. What else could explain your belief in such a ridiculous comment as you had made?

Could this be evidence that the rethinkers have broken the back of AIDS Incorporated?

Are Tony Fauci and Robert Gallo and all of NIAIDS reduced to collaborating with Jonathan the Twit, and animation programmers, and Adele the monkey poop slide stainer to get their oh-so-un-scientific points across?

Hey Jonathan! What are your comments to the 12 individual statements I made above?

Because if you don't have something to add to move the discussion forward, then it would be nice if you would please stay quietly in your pod and control your need for attention.

Dr. Noble,

By your own logic I choose to post under my title rather than name as a show of integrity. You see, I just don't think I could bear the thought of profiting from my maverick status. By the way, my fridge magnets do get tired and fall off, but maybe they're just poor quality.

Dr. Foley,

In the BMJ rapid response debate, The Perth Group has given you examples of viruses isolated to a standard much closer to the one they request of HIV scientists. We can go through all the steps of that discussion all over again here, but the fact is the most recent major debate has been the Parenzee trial. In this no authentic, verified EM of (reasonably) purified virus was forthcoming, neither were the papers that showed the isolation, purification and chemical characterization of HIV directly from fresh plasma. Instead the experts pointed to cloning - the 'infectious' clone, which predicate has also been challenged by Perth quite apart from the identity of the clone.

The elusiveness of this virus, I think you will agree, continues to present difficulties on all different levels for 'HIV science', and now also in legal cases.

The strategy of holding the (proof of) existence of the 2068 or however many other animal retroviruses hostage to the existence of HIV does not impress me the least - as you can see, I'll be labelled a denialist whackjob regardless.
S in the despairing words spoken to me by one prominent molecular biologist, who shall remain unnamed, "if retrovirology is a crock so f*** what. Until HIV came along, nobody would have given damn anyway".

If the standards of proof are not good enough, if the concept of 'retrovirus', to paraphrase Lynn Margulis, is too colonialist, I say let fall what cannot stand.

But I prefer to take this opportunity to quite innocently ask another question related to the parade in Adelaide: If HIV is self-identical by virtue of the so-called conserved regions, how is it possible to get a false-negative, so to speak, PCR?

OK Michael, I'll go shop at your Ebay store. Based on your feedback, you're at least civil to the people that shop there.

I hardly think that the list full of hundreds of MD's and PHD's and researchers, scientists, etc, hardly looks like the rethinker movement is "going nowhere" or reduced to making a living or collaborating from any single member for support or to get their message across.

Some of the people on the list signed almost 2 decades ago and have since changed their mind like Walter Gilbert. Nevertheless, they still appear on the list.

Skimming through the list I recognise some names of people who died from AIDS.

Stephen Caiazza was a doctor who believed that AIDS was caused by untreated syphilis. He died from AIDS in 1990.

Casper Schmidt had a theory - THE PSYCHOHISTORICAL ORIGINS OF AIDS.
He died from AIDS in 1994

Their names are still on the "ever growing" list of scientists and professionals that doubt the connection between HIV and AIDS.

A large proportion of the names on the list are from chriropractors, acupuncturists, homeopaths and quacks like Hulda Clark. There is some irony in these people expressing skepticism for the relationship between HIV and AIDS when they themselves have belief systems that are totally unsupported by scientific evidence. This again raises Johnathon's question - why do the scientific "heavyweights" such as Duesberg and Bialy seek the support of these fringe dwellers?

The list of HIV "rethinkers" is identical in purpose (and in some names) to the evolution "rethinkers" list. They both seek to create the illusion that a growing number of scientists are doubting HIV/evolution.

By your own logic I choose to post under my title rather than name as a show of integrity. You see, I just don't think I could bear the thought of profiting from my maverick status. By the way, my fridge magnets do get tired and fall off, but maybe they're just poor quality.

No, you use pseudonyms because you are a troll.

I actually thought you might be embarassed by your gravity denial

Perhaps I am mistaken and you truly enjoy displaying your ignorance in several fields of science.

And no, you aren't a maverick - you're a kook.

Dr. Noble,

I think we all understand that you hoped I'd be embarrassed by gravity denial or some such thing that would shift attention from the issue at hand to personal insults.

However, the only thing I deny is that the standard and integrity of HIV science is acceptable. Is that not enough for you to get your teeth into my character? You may, as I've indicated, lump me together with Lynn Margulis who've indicated that we project our human politics into the explanatory models we create for natural phenomena, including quite possibly retroviruses. But I don't see how the fact that I've observed my fridge magnets fall off makes me a gravity denier much less identical with the person you're talking about. Did I not just offer the alternative hypothesis that they were bad quality? That in itself should have given you ample material for an side issue attack on my unscientific understanding of the nature of magnets while I was seeking enlightenment on a few basic points from Dr. Foley, whom I hope is not as common as Kevin charges.

Chris,
When you tell us about all those people that died of AIDS, could you please be a bit more precise and tell us what killed them exactly because we all know that no one has ever died of "aids". You love to repeat that all those people that have gone to rethinking eventually died of AIDS. You sound like there is a cure.

Why did you not ask Margulis anything when she was there? Why did you ignore her? Why did you choose to flame her?

Pope,
Chris is a pathological liar, a poor reader and a serial flamer. He is not even capable of independent thought; he's a blogbot. You could write: "I know the world is NOT flat" and he'll read "I know the world IS flat" because he WANTS you to be a flat earther, he needs it like he needs oxygen. That explains why he calls you now a gravity denier and even offers you a link. He really truely believes that you have denied gravity, he NEEDS it.

He even explained to me on a previous AIDS thread/ambush exactly HOW hiv kills t-cells and passed it off as overwhealming, widly known fact; something about hiv protein coats breaking off during cell penetration and then floating off to go kill another unsuspecting t-cell. Self-proclaimed defender of "real" science-Chris, it appears, is the only person to know the mechanism of hiv and him not sharing his discovery about the HIV/AIDS mechanism with the scientific community is, may I venture, negligent?

"If "Pope" is not in reality Wilhelm Godschalk then I apologise profusely to them both."-Chris

Offering apologies in case the insult doesn't apply; Chris, you're a psycology field trip.

"It wasn't a "debate" only because Prof. Margulis apparently chose not to answer any of the questions posed to her on evolutionary biology, or to follow up on HIV/AIDS"-Tara

Questions? How rudely does a question need to be formulated before you choose not to answer it? The questions you are talking about got lost in the sea of flame jobs. "I'll be policing the thread" right, my arse.

"pat:I drew your attention to a mainstream article asserting that simians do no come down with disease when they are infected with their naturally occuring version of SIV but only when you re-engineer them and introduce them into new hosts
And THIS is why we need to teach evolution in classrooms, ladies and gentlemen! Creationists--> Deniers. Different sides of the same coin over and over and over and over and over..."-ERV

What does creationism have to do with it? Whatever,anyway... Talking about teaching...can you please take a position on this mainstream publication and its claims? Is what they write correct? If not can you explain beyond a flame job why they got it wrong? I actually addressed this to Adele, the resident chimp-poop specialist.

Pope,

You wrote:

"...
In the BMJ rapid response debate, The Perth Group has given you examples of viruses isolated to a standard much closer to the one they request of HIV scientists.
..."

Can you name one? And cite a paper?

I am calling your bluff.

Brian

"I'm sorry for not making myself more clear pat.

You bore me. Specifically, I find both you and Lincoln to be scientifically ignorant and to be stupid generally.

I was hoping that since we had a "high-profile" HIV/AIDS denialist, Maniotis/Pope, and a high-profile HIV/AIDS researcher, Foley, addressing one another in the same thread that maybe we could see some intellectual sparks fly. A la Foley vs. Rasnick a few years ago. Unfortunately, you continue to drizzle on the parade.

Neither you nor Lincoln, (nor Hank Barnes for that matter) is qualified to have a scientific discussion of HIV/AIDS because you do not know enough science to understand when you are arguing out your arse. This is not to say that laymen cannot discuss science with scientists, it is to say that Tara has been more than generous in letting you, Lincoln, and others litter her blog with thousands of words of foolishness. It is well past time for you to please shut up, and let the grown ups talk.

Listen quietly and you might learn something."- Roy (Bean) Hinkley

I bore you scientifically, how suprising seeing this thread is not about science but rather "scientists". You're right when you say I am not qualified to discuss the details of, say virology but I am perfectly qualified to discuss scientific behavior or UNscientific rather. I merely object to the fact that there is no debate that would allow me to "listen quietly" where I might "learn" something. You too were hoping to learn something from Margulis. Did anybody get something beyond flame jobs out of that Q&A? Shut up and let the grown-ups talk? When we review the Q&A we clearly see what you mean by "grown-ups" talking. I continue to drizzle on the ...what? parade? I was not present on the Q&A so I couldn't have spoiled it and this thread is not about the science behind HIV/AIDS but was designed as character assault on Margulis. You're the only one thinking this thread was started to discuss the "science" behind HIV. I am always hoping for a good informative read but it seems that the really crude personalities of this "science"blogsphere keep getting into the way of a good discussion and when a noted scientist shows up, well the "grown-ups" march her out of town tared and feathered. As Chris Noble demands: there never was a debate and there never will be a debate. So you don't like what Margulis said and all those "grown-ups" decend into a name calling orgy and Tara even finds the nerve to blame the bad behavior on Margulis (i.e. it's OK to become idiotic and rude when in disagreement) Crappy-behavior apologists. bah!

Does anyone remember how Dr. Foley gave us those references on HIV above? (Or was it on the "milling" thread?) I do.

And does anyone remember how Lincoln, Pat, Kevin, and Pope read those articles and responded with carefully referenced comments and point by point criticisms of those articles? No, I don't either.

This is because denial needs no proof and responds to no proof.

I'm waiting with Brian for those virus isolation papers, Pope. Or is Your Holiness too busy with His Holy See to educate self-deluded virologists like me?

I am also looking forward to any actual science from the denist crowd here. It's interesting that they keep failing to refute the scientific papers provided by Dr. Foley and other, yet keep claiming that they are wrong.

Lincoln, thanks for giving your twelve points again. I already addressed one of them and you didn't respond.

about those billions of dollars HIV/AIDS has "wasted." Go take a look at the numbers. If the superheroes can't deal with the entire epidemic, they can just focus on pediatric AIDS. Cases have fallen by 95% in this country and vertical transmission is way down since elective prenatal treatment was started. Pope and Lincoln and the Pat can tell those kids they're not worth a few dollars of tax money.

The answers to all of Lincoln's questions are available to anyone who wants to look. I would give them myself right now with references and all.

But we have seen how the denialists repond to argument and proof. The close their eyes and paste their already answered questions again.

Questions? How rudely does a question need to be formulated before you choose not to answer it? The questions you are talking about got lost in the sea of flame jobs.

Pat, you say you're not very scientific, but it looks like you're actually doing an experiment to answer your question about rudeness. Which paper did you want this 'tit,' 'juvenile,' 'flamer,' and 'neocon' "chimp-poop specialist" to explain for you?

Please give a link to that paper again. It must have gotten lost in the sea of something or another.

Pope,
You wrote:
"...
In the BMJ rapid response debate, The Perth Group has given you examples of viruses isolated to a standard much closer to the one they request of HIV scientists.
..."
Can you name one? And cite a paper?
I am calling your bluff.
Brian

Brian, I'm sure you won't be surprised when the devil is in the details. That "much closer" leaves a lot of wiggle room.

Hey pat, I again suggest you run along and find Dr. Maniotis, or Bialy or someone to talk to Dr. Foley. That way we can all have some entertainment of a better informed and higher intellectual caliber.

But since you seem to want to make this about you why don't you tell us what you think about this statement of Dr. Margulis:

"The HIV tests, nearly always positive for pregnant women,..."

Do you agree that that statement is true?

If so, please, please find us a supporting citation to confirm it.

I submit that anyone who utters such a statement is either grossly ignorant of HIV science, stupid, or crazy.

We know that Margulis is not stupid.

Do you have any other explanations for someone uttering such nonsense?

Dr. Foley,

I'm a little taken aback. You are the same Brian Foley that had an extended 'passiar' with the Perth Group on the BMJ Rapid Response forum aren't you?

I fail to see how you could "call my bluff" bu asking for those references considering,

1. I stated that these examples are not my own but the Perth Group's, who are the ones you and others have held responsible for introducing these (impossible according to you) rules of isolation.

2. That regardless of the merit of the Perth Group's claim that these rules are commonly accepted, what I say is that the virus evidently presents problems by its elusiveness.

3. That my concern is not how many viruses have been isolated according to these standards, but if virologists at large sets standards for themself=ves that are too low when it comes to prove disease causation.

4. That I think I know your answer, which is not going to be much different from the one you and many others have already given; and you will know my answer, which is going to be some version of Perth's answer, since they are obviously more expert than I am.

I wanted to save you the trouble of repeating all these steps in the interest of perhaps moving the argument forward. But, if as Dale's post suggests, you're more interested in discussing the size of "wiggle room", fire away. I'm your Pope for counting dancing angels on the head of a pin, even with common people.

So in case your memory is really so short that you've forgotten the Perth Group did offer some examples, here are a couple of the references.

(1) Sinoussi F, Mendiola L, Chermann JC, Jasmin C, Raynaud M. (1973) Purification and Partial Differentiation of the Particles of Murine Sarcoma Virus (M. MSV) According to their Sedimentation Rates in Sucrose Density Gradients. Spectra 4:237-243.

(7) Crawford LV, Crawford EM. (1961) The Properties of Rous Sarcoma Virus Purified by Density Gradient Centrifugation. Virology 13:227-232

I hope you don't think I am bluffing when I say that they are from the Perth Group in a response to Brian T. Foley of the Los Alamos National Lab.

"Taken aback," Pope? I would say you take it way back! Keeping it old school, aren't you, with Perth? The Perth group may be "more expert" than you, but not by much.

Let's see. Sucrose density gradients? Isn't that how HIV was isolated? But what do I know? I've only purified retroviruses this way about three or four times.

Please, Pope, dispense your Infallible Words and clarify. Tell us why sucrose density gradients are rigorous for MSV and RSV but not HIV.

Moving right along, why don't we just pretend Pope is right. Isolation by sucrose density gradient and purification from contaminants is OK for every virus except HIV.

What about the other methods? Genomic isolation has been done from plasma, from integrated provirus, and from unintegrated cDNA in the nucleus (in one of the earliest HIV papers).

Co-culture is done with primary cells and lines.

Then there's the latest, immuno-isolation. That really bothersome (for denialists) Miltenyi Biotec company just made a viral isolation kit commercially available. It's called the microMACS(TM) VitalVirus HIV Isolation Kit. Look it up on the miltenyibiotec dot com site. It uses antibodies to pull virus magnetically out of patient samples or culture supernatants.

There's an article in AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses by Zahra Toossi etal (January 2007, 23, 1) using the method. They can get virus from patients with viral loads under 5000.

What are Pope's objections to this method?

Thats right, Adele, they are actually impossible to answer.

""The HIV tests, nearly always positive for pregnant women,..."

Do you agree that that statement is true?"

What the hell do I know. A majority thinks no and some think yes, and that is all I know.

"I submit that anyone who utters such a statement is either grossly ignorant of HIV science, stupid, or crazy.
We know that Margulis is not stupid.
Do you have any other explanations for someone uttering such nonsense?"

I see now how you guys are driven to character assassination. You are only allowing yourself 3 options: Ignorance, stupidity and/or crazyness.
Such limitation on options perhaps explains why there has been no real progress in HIV science other than in research funding. I do have another explanation. Perhaps she simply disagrees with the scientific conclusions. If you realize the difference between "fact" and "hypothesis" it becomes entirely possible and even acceptable to disagree with the educated guess that HIV/AIDS actually rests on. Until the mechanism of HIV has been understood and demonstarted all you and I can do is simply believe that it does what we THINK it does. To say "HIV causes AIDS is a fact" is either a gros misunderstanding of the english word "fact" or a gross abuse of it. So as a layman, I would have to settle on "she disagrees"; who am I to call her ignorant, stupid and/or crazy and who the hell are all these people who do?

I dont get it. You can always just pellet the bastards in an Ultra. (We just ordered an Ultra for our BL3 just for that purpose).

Its not even remotely hard to isolate HIV viruses.

Totally missing the Denier point here.

Hi ERV, the intellectual superheroes like Pat who just admitted he knows nothing about the subject have much higher standards than we do!

See, you can't just pellet the virus, because there might be other viruses in there. Or cellular contaminants. Or of course those infectious endogenous retrovirus particles that Pope thinks are everywhere.

So we remove the cellular contaminants and show we can't find other viruses. But that's not good enough either. You need an electron micrograph of your virus.

So we take an electron micrograph of our virus before and after removing the cellular contaminants. But that's not good enough because the sample isn't 100% pure. And since nothing ever is 100% pure, they've made their point!

We concede. We can't isolate HIV, it doesn't exist, and it doesn't cause AIDS. And to be consistent, no viruses exist, disease is a colonialist/capitalist/neocon construct (hey, everyone knows that ALL scientists are fascists!), and you and I are just using this fiction to rob the taxpayer blind.

Wait, how much money do I make? Well, maybe you're getting rich, ERV. I'm not!

Roy Hinkley, I see you would like both intellectual stimulation and an answer to where Lynn Margulis' gets her crazy ideas about pregnancy and false-positive tests from. Here's a combined answer to your requests

"We should be acting on what we know,'' Abdool Karim told me. "And what we know is very grave.'' Not only has the death rate risen sharply but the age of those who are dying keeps falling. For the first time, deaths among people in their thirties or forties have exceeded those of people in their sixties or seventies. In her studies, Abdool Karim found that thirty per cent of women under the age of twenty are infected. "For those between ages twenty and twenty-five,'' she pointed out, "the rate is fifty-four per cent. Then it keeps rising: sixty-six per cent of the women between twenty-five and thirty years old are infected.'' She took her glasses off and wiped her eyes. "When you look past thirty, they are all dead." (Michael Specter, The New Yorker)

According to this, Lynn Margulis' statement about pregnant women testing false-positive in South Africa would be meaningless, since they are all infected.
Abdool Karim is a South African professor of epidemiology, advisor to the WHO, head of South Africa's AIDS program. Where do you think she gets the idea from that "past thirty they are all dead"?

Re Hinkley

Actually, to paraphrase Richard Dawkins, anyone who claims that most pregnant women test positive for HIV is either ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked (but I don't want to consider that). Based on her admissions, I would have to disagree with the insane diagnosis; I think she is willfully ignorant.

Re pat

Mr. pat has been told the facts by individuals who, unlike Prof. Margolis, have the background and expertise to falsify the most pregnant women test positive for HIV claim. The fact that Mr. pat refuses to accept that Margulis is 100% wrong, and in fact, by her own admission has no expertise in this area, tells any neutral party he is not interested in the facts but in spewing out propaganda. In this regard, he is no different then the evolution denialists at the Discovery Institute (many of whom are also AIDS/HIV denialists) in that their minds are made up, the facts are irrelevant.

Mr. pat also states that Prof. Margolis has earned her wings by virtue of her previous accomplishments. Well, Pauling, Shockley, Hynek, and Josephson also earned their wings (in fact, they are at least as accomplished as Prof. Margolis is)by virtue of their previous accomplishments. That doesn't mean diddley squat in evaluating their claims about vitamin C, black American intelligence, alien abductions or cold fusion.

My dear, Pope! You truly are confused! I explained all this over at BMJ, but I will lay it out here again. The Perth group is telling lies about virus isolation. Any first-year virology student knows all this, it is in the textbooks. If you would read some legitimate papers, and not just swallow the denialist's lies, hook, line and sinker, it would save us all some trouble.

Pope wrote:

"...
1) Sinoussi F, Mendiola L, Chermann JC, Jasmin C, Raynaud M. (1973) Purification and Partial Differentiation of the Particles of Murine Sarcoma Virus (M. MSV) According to their Sedimentation Rates in Sucrose Density Gradients. Spectra 4:237-243.

(7) Crawford LV, Crawford EM. (1961) The Properties of Rous Sarcoma Virus Purified by Density Gradient Centrifugation. Virology 13:227-232

I hope you don't think I am bluffing when I say that they are from the Perth Group in a response to Brian T. Foley of the Los Alamos National Lab.
..."

Do you not know what those papers contain??? They contain descriptions of morphological properties of mixtures of 3 viruses.

The highly oncogenic retroviruses, such as the Schmidt-Rupin strain and other strains of Rous Sarcoma Virus, and the Moloney and other strains of Murine Sarcoma Viruses, are all defective. They have lost a significant part of their genome when they transduced a cellular oncogene, such as c-src, c-myc, c-ras, or c-myb to become the viral oncogene v-src, v-myc, v-ras, or v-myb. They thus require a "helper virus" for replication. Most often the helper virus is the same virus lineage without the oncogene transduction, so a nondefective virus such as a subgroup A Avian Leukosis virus can act as helper for the Schmidt-Rupin Rous Sarcoma virus, for one example.

The papers the Perth group is misinforming the world about, were early attempts to separate these mixed virus particles. The virus particles produced by an oncovirus/helper virus system come in 3 forms. One form has 2 replication-defective oncogene-containing genomes. The second carries one replication-defective oncogene-containing genome and one replication-competent helper genome. The third contains two replication-competent helper genomes.

Some of this was not yet know back in 1961. The fine details were not worked out until much better isolation and cloning procedures were developed in the 1980s and 1990s.

All retroviruses look pretty much alike under electron microscpopy. Serology and molecular methods are needed to distinguish them. Yes, lentiviruses look slightly different than C-type particles, but it is easy to mistake one for the other, if one uses only electron microscopy. But within the lentivuruses, one cannot tell FIV from HIV, let alone HIV-1 M group subtype B from HIV-1 M group subtype G. Serology and other more specific methods are required.

Stoker AW, Bissell MJ.
Development of avian sarcoma and leukosis virus-based vector-packaging cell lines.
J Virol. 1988 Mar;62(3):1008-15.
PMID: 2828649

Mathey-Prevot B, Baltimore D.
Recombinants within the tyrosine kinase region of v-abl and v-src identify a v-abl segment that confers lymphoid specificity.
Mol Cell Biol. 1988 Jan;8(1):234-40.
PMID: 3122023

Geryk J, Pichrtova J, Guntaka RV, Gowda S, Svoboda J.
Characterization of transforming viruses rescued from a hamster tumour cell line harbouring the v-src gene flanked by long terminal repeats.
J Gen Virol. 1986 Nov;67 ( Pt 11):2395-404.
PMID: 3023530

Wilkerson VW, Bryant DL, Parsons JT.
Rous sarcoma virus variants that encode src proteins with an altered carboxy terminus are defective for cellular transformation.
J Virol. 1985 Aug;55(2):314-21.
PMID: 2991557

Ellis RW, Defeo D, Shih TY, Gonda MA, Young HA, Tsuchida N, Lowy DR, Scolnick EM.
The p21 src genes of Harvey and Kirsten sarcoma viruses originate from divergent members of a family of normal vertebrate genes.
Nature. 1981 Aug 6;292(5823):506-11.
PMID: 6265801

Svoboda J, Geryk J, Karakoz I, Rejthar A.
Isolation of two transforming viruses from sarcomas obtained in chickens inoculated intraembryonally with a transformation defective mutant of Prague strain Rous sarcoma virus.
Folia Biol (Praha). 1985;31(2):135-51.
PMID: 2991028

Hello Dr Foley,

Are you aware that the good Dr Gallo failed to obtain HTLV 70S RNA (only budding, uncharacterized particles) from the "fresh mononuclear cells" of a LYMPHOMA patient documented here: Poiesz, B. J., Ruscetti, F. W., Mier, J. W., Woods, A. M. & Gallo, R. C. (1980) Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 77, 6815-6819 9 (available at Pub Med Central); and this is pivotal to this discussion of isolation and sequencing of any putative exogenous human retrovirus.

Some of us have the strange idea that at least this much is necessary to establish "infectivity" and "transmissibility" in vivo. Since the time when Gallo took it over, it's been nothing but surrogate markers and cell-line artifacts, without dimeric 70S RNA and its sequencing from patients. So it doesn't matter how many sequences you pile up in your database.

I also find it interesting that you fail to mention the known inaccuracies of phylogenetic reconstruction because the "replicase" has this funny habit of pausing and switching RNA templates which does indeed matter as far as retroviral "identity" and biological properties that effect "infectivity" and "transmission".

This is an area that interests me and perhaps someone can teach me something I don't know:

African AIDS is driven by Africans' addiction to sex, specifically dry sex and a belief that sex with a virgin will cure the disease.

Do you agree with that statement, Roy? If yes can you point me to social studies that would back this up? I am asking for enlightenment because the idea that African ueber-libido rests solely on racist assumptions about their sexuality is driving me into dispair.

The pope is learning very fast the tricks of clever fellows like Dr Foley, who brings up helper viruses (!) in rebuttal to the Perth's group's examples of successful isolation. What does this brilliant response have to do with the issues at hand - whether or not "infectivity" by a unique retroviral agent is taking place in the cells of people with AIDS?

Obviously all have their pat answers, but the point the pope is trying to get across is how low the standards have sunk. If a "helper" is required for "infectivity" in the Rous sarcoma model, SO WHAT?

Adele, I have never claimed that I knew anything on virus isolation or whatever, I merely point out your and your fellow flamers poor social skills and that alone made me the "hiv/aids denier". Where the hell do you get off inventing shit? Is it safe to discuss the weather with you?

Nick,

Before denying that any such studies have been done, how about looking for them?

Brian

J Virol. 1996 Dec;70(12):8348-54.Click here to read Click here to read Links
A dual role of the putative RNA dimerization initiation site of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 in genomic RNA packaging and proviral DNA synthesis.
Paillart JC, Berthoux L, Ottmann M, Darlix JL, Marquet R, Ehresmann B, Ehresmann C.
ABSTRACT:
In retroviruses, the genomic RNA is in the form of a 60S-70S complex composed of two identical genome-length RNA molecules tightly associated through numerous interactions. A major interaction, called the dimer linkage structure, has been found near the RNA 5' end and is probably involved in the control of translation, packaging, and recombination during proviral DNA synthesis. Recently, a small sequence corresponding to a stem-loop structure located in the 5' leader of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA was found to be required for the initiation of HIV-1 RNA dimerization in vitro and named the dimerization initiation site (E. Skripkin, J.-C. Paillart, R. Marquet, B. Ehresmann, and C. Ehresmann, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91: 4945-4949, 1994). To investigate the possible role of this 5' stem-loop in HIV-1 virion formation and infectivity, four mutant viruses were generated and analyzed in vivo. Results show that deletion of the stem-loop structure reduces infectivity by a factor of 10(3) whereas loop substitutions cause a decrease of 10- to 100-fold. The level of genomic RNA packaging was found to be decreased fivefold in mutants virions containing the stem-loop deletion and only twofold in the loop-substituted virions. Surprisingly, the second DNA strand transfer during reverse transcription was found to be severely impaired upon stem-loop deletion. Taken together, these results indicate that the stem-loop structure called the dimerization initiation site is a cis element acting on both genomic RNA packaging and synthesis of proviral DNA.
PMID: 8970954

And to all the old hands here, do I have to be the one to bring up deHarven's EM's from inbred mice, no "helpers" required ...

http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/news/edhlettercont.htm

Brian, can I make a prediction?
Nick will say his "replicase" zooms around between ERV fragments that are somehow in plasma until it has made a full-length genome that you catalog as HIV. In fact, that wily replicase did it for every HIV in your database!

Not denying anything, Brian; just want to wager $1000, sight unseen, of the SOURCE of the 60-70SRNA.

I bet it's not direct from patients.

You on?

"Surprisingly, the second DNA strand transfer during reverse transcription was found to be severely impaired upon stem-loop deletion."

So "variants" without the stem loop are what?

Is this an imporant biological property that has an effect on "infectivity"?

It's far closer to humans, than the Perth group's viruses were to chickens or mice.

Do you know any HIV-seropositive people who would donate a gallon or two of plasma, or maybe 4 ounces of lymph node tissue?

Brian

"Some of this was not yet know back in 1961."

It was in fact "known" by 1961, that there was a "purification problem" with the Rous Sarcoma Virus.

So nick are there any viruses that cause disease?
Or "effect" disease progression?

"Do you know any HIV-seropositive people who would donate a gallon or two of plasma, or maybe 4 ounces of lymph node tissue?"

Is this necessary, Brian, to get the 70SRNA and the proteins with today's technology, say the OctiPrep velocity gradient technique? [JVI, 73, 1460 (feb 1999)]

"somehow in plasma"

somehow in culture

Somehow in plasma and somehow in culture, and without any evidence much less what you ask of real scientists.
You know virus is amplified directly from blood, don't you? And from tissue?
Of course you do. But you ignore this. You know the truth but it's more fun to play a role isn't it?
Thank you for smoking.

Adele,

Perhaps some of the smoke would clear if you told us the precise relationship between purification and amplification.

Adele: Hi ERV, the intellectual superheroes like Pat who just admitted he knows nothing about the subject have much higher standards than we do!

See, you can't just pellet the virus, because there might be other viruses in there...

'Other viruses' that magically dont appear in the Mock. Fantastic! LOL!

Adele: Brian, can I make a prediction?
Nick will say his "replicase" zooms around between ERV fragments that are somehow in plasma until it has made a full-length genome that you catalog as HIV. In fact, that wily replicase did it for every HIV in your database!

But there arent any lentiviral ERVs. Nick knows that. He posted on my post about there being no lentiviral ERVs.

"So nick are there any viruses that cause disease?
Or 'effect' disease progression?"

Let me first apologize for the sentence-fragment response to you, Adele, and mention at this point my appreciation of Tara's great work on horizontal gene transfer.

I accept what the previously maligned Mae Wan Ho has brought up in a different context on the pathogenic potential of endogenous retroviruses. Nor do I exclude Hooper/Kyle/Ellswood on the iatrogenic transmission of retrovirus-contaminated vaccine as a risk factor in African "AIDS". So no, I don't toe any party lines in this matter.

Another example of a "real infectivity" problem is the transformation of E coli strain from harmless commonseal to pathogen, no doubt with the help of horizontal gene transfer.

I find more plausible the arguments of the Perth Group than I do Brian Foley on the taxonomic mess of human retroviruses, but I will certainly take seriously anything he has to say.

Alas, I still have my own ideas to express prior to completion of his lengthy reading list.

If you do not want to move the discussion forward, Adele, that, of course, is your choice.

*slightly louder*
THERE ARENT ANY LENTIVIRAL ERVS, NICK.

Sorry, my mumbling would irritate my grandmother too.

How slow is "slow" ERV, I mean can "lenti-" mean never?

THERE ARENT ANY LENTIVIRAL ERVS, NICK.

But ERV, "ERVS", selfish genes that they are, have an ENTIRE ANIMAL GENOME at their disposal. You can't ask for any more "accesories" than that.

And when you goose them up in a cell culture ...

ERV, nick has this obsession about ERVs. He thinks HIV sequences are from RT doing a dance from one ERV fragment to another, transcript in tow. Somehow it never puts in any other cellular material! And the result is always HIV!

He must think RT is like a denialist! Always assembling the same tired arguments from the same tired quotes from the same tired sources and always with the same boring product.

Of course, he doesn't exclude the Cloudson/Samuels/Debinsky/Englewood hypothesis of iatrogenic sunburst hypertrophy, so he's totally legit. Welcome to nicksworld.

ERV, since nick is taking such a long time to make his point, let me channel nick like those racoons in Kary Mullis' yard channel the aliens.

Ok. nick will now demonstrate for you that HIV is an ERV. There's this sequence, ATCGTTAGC, that is found in both HIV and HERV-K. You can read about it in a paper that was published in some journal that really shouldn't exist, and wouldn't have a much lower readership if it didn't, by some scientist who doesn't know what a nucleic acid is. This eight-nucleotide sequence can't possibly be expected to occur by chance! So HIV is an ERV.

Can't argue with that logic, can you ERV, you colonialist neo-con O'Reilly watcher!

testing another IP

wow. so it is my IP thats blocked

SHUT UP!

Cut his mic, CUT HIS MIC!

Pat, calm down, I've been having problems, too.
Who would want to get rid of you? You're such a good example of Uebermensh social skill, so sadly lacking in 'tits' like me.

Following the path Dr. Foley chose for us we have learned that the highly oncogenic retroviruses are defective and need a helper virus to replicate. Therefore isolation and EM of those viruses don't count.

Even more interestingly, the technical difficulty in isolating and purifying HIV directly from plasma anno 2007 is that we need 4 gallons of it. This is progress because just a couple of years ago the difficulty was thought to be to catch a patient within the first days of infection, or the last days of his life when the virus titer is supposedly high enough for a snapshot.

The little beastie, or parts of it at least, can, however, be amplified directly from a patient's blood, courtesy of Adele.

No contradiction between what I said, Miltenyi Biotec kit, and what Brian said.

How much virus you need depends on what you're trying to do with it. For an em or any structural work you need alot of virus. To do some FACS or genotype, you don't need as much.

Adele,

Let me make it clearer then: How do you know what it is you're amplifying?

Popenick, go read a junior high biology textbook and get back with us.

I can be such a 'tit,' can't I. How do I know what I'm amplifying?

Um, I purify my PCR product, sequence it, and then look at the sequence.

If I amplified an ERV, I see an ERV. If I amplified Histone 2A, I have the Histone 2A sequence. If HIV, then I get an HIV sequence. And if I amplified a hodgepodge of cellular sequences thrown together by that promiscuous RT you keep hidden in your pants or your garage away from the world of science, I see a hodgepodge of cellular sequences, publish this striking finding in Science and Nature simultaneously, and write 23 books on it every year for the next eighty years like Lynn Margulis.

I take it you don't know then.

But ERV, "ERVS", selfish genes that they are, have an ENTIRE ANIMAL GENOME at their disposal. You can't ask for any more "accesories" than that.

And when you goose them up in a cell culture ...

Then by your logic we could get a chimpanzee out of a dish of HeLa cells.

Like I told the Creationists-- ERVs are either mutated into junk or they only have bits functional under very specific conditions. You cant activate an entire ERV without getting body-wide cancer. Not an immunodeficiency-- body-wide cancer a la 'SCID gene therapy' times a trillion.

Take a look at all my ERV posts, nick.

Additionally, there are no lentiviral ERVs. They have properties that have prevented them from inserting themselves into germ line tissues... In ALL organisms sequenced thus far (lenti- and delta- retroviruses, which you should know because you read my post on them). Defying all knowledge of biology, you still couldnt cut/paste together a lentivirus out of ERVs because the lentiviral parts arent there.

ERV wrote:

"...
Defying all knowledge of biology, you still couldnt cut/paste together a lentivirus out of ERVs because the lentiviral parts arent there.
..."

And also note the highly skewed DNA base composition. All lentivuruses are A-rich and C-poor, not 25% of each of the 4 bases. The T-cell leukemia viruses (also never endogenous) have a different base composition bias. Both are totally unlike HERVs or anything else (Alu repeats etc) in the human genome.

On top of all that, it is just VERY CLEAR from tracing the phylogentics of virus alongside known transmission histories (see Leitner's papers for examples of direct person to person transfer; see global pandemic spread for the big picture), that this is not part of the human genome.

There are multiple lines of evidence that all lead to exactly the same conclusions.

Brian

Nick wrote:

"...
Another example of a "real infectivity" problem is the transformation of E coli strain from harmless commonseal to pathogen, no doubt with the help of horizontal gene transfer.

I find more plausible the arguments of the Perth Group than I do Brian Foley on the taxonomic mess of human retroviruses, but I will certainly take seriously anything he has to say.
..."

Can you tell us more about "infectious" Escerichia coli? Do you mean intracellular? If you only mean "within the body" like in our intestines, then perhaps you really meant to say "highly pathogenic E. coli"?? And by horizontal transfer, are you speaking of the fact that these strains that get famous by going around the country on spinach or in hamburger are found to carry a plasmid with the Shiga toxin encoded on it? Like Shigella toxin. Anyway, do tell us more, but please use terminology that gets to the point faster. For example, how often does this plasmid carrying the Shiga toxin jump from one strain of E. coli to another, say from an O-157:H-7 strain to an O-132:H-3 strain of E. coli? And what percentage of all O-157:H-7 strains (or isolates, or whatever you want to call them) of E. coli carry the Shiga plasmid now? And how many DIFFERENT plasmids with shiga toxin genes are there? Is it just one that jumped directly from Shigella? Or does each isolate of highly pathogenic E. coli tend to carry a unique one, never seen before? It's all been studied, I am sure, I have just not had the time to find a good review article, or read the primary papers.

On the taxonomic "mess" of lentiviruses, can you be a bit more specific about how the Perth group has solved all these problems? I was not aware that they were experts in virus taxonomy and nomenclature. If they've solved all the problems with lentivirus taxonomy and phylogeny, then they could tackle the Begomoviruses and Geminiviruses next, there is a REAL mess there. Watermellon stunt virus, tobacco mosaic virus, tomato leaf curl virus, etc. Poke around GenBank and the ICTV Taxonomy tables and you'll get a feel for the scope of that problem.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=10811

The ICTV taxonomy for lentiviruses is not yet ideal, but we have been working on it without input from the Perth group, they never told us they were experts in this area.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=11646

But the ICTV only goes down to "Species" level (As if we know how that compares to say a mammalian species. We don't yet). Geniniviridae is a Family, Lentivirus is a Genus. The committee for the taxonomy of human lentiviruses takes over below the species level, and they set the rules for naming "groups", "types", "subtypes" and "sub-subtypes". They make recommendations for isolate and strain names, but certainly no group has time to oversee that it is all done 100% correctly.

If the Perth Group could fix all the problems with taxonomy and nomenclature within the feline lentiviruses, it would be wonderful. I always have some trouble at GenBank, getting just those isolated from the rocky mountain cougars (Puma concolor of north America) to see how they are related to the puma lentiviruses from South America and Florida, for one example. There is much to be learned from that sort of thing, and it is tedious to have to check each entry by hand to sort the north and south American isolate sequences (or to sort them by phylogenetics, and then check each one by hand to see which are north and which are south).

The HIV databases has used this type of information in our Geography search interface:

http://www.hiv.lanl.gov/components/hiv-db/new_geography/geography.comp?…

Which is a bit of a help to people who are designing vaccines for specific regions of the world. It would be nice to have that for other viruses, but there is a lot of "grunt work" involved getting the taxonomy/nomenclature in order first. I am always thrilled to find people who are willing and able to help out.

Brian

"He thinks HIV sequences are from RT doing a dance from one ERV fragment to another, transcript in tow. Somehow it never puts in any other cellular material! And the result is always HIV!"

Not bad Adele. But this begs the question which "HIV" are we talking about in the first place. You know that there's more than one, right. So apparently you're aware of templates being switched as an inherent property of the enzyme. As far as cellular proteins associating with cell-culture produced virions, have you checked the literature on this? There's more than a few and the list is quite interesting, including HLA-DR, heat shock, signal transduction, etc. proteins.

"Of course, he doesn't exclude the Cloudson/Samuels/Debinsky/Englewood hypothesis of iatrogenic sunburst hypertrophy, so he's totally legit."

I don't?!! Well, if you could explain to me this most interesting sounding hypothesis ...

"Ok. nick will now demonstrate for you that HIV is an ERV. There's this sequence, ATCGTTAGC, that is found in both HIV and HERV-K. You can read about it in a paper that was published in some journal that really shouldn't exist, and wouldn't have a much lower readership if it didn't, by some scientist who doesn't know what a nucleic acid is. This eight-nucleotide sequence can't possibly be expected to occur by chance! So HIV is an ERV."

Interesting approach, Adele, but it needs more work. However, I'm puzzled over how the scientist who doesn't know what a nucleic acid is was able to identify the specified sequence.

And now you're trying to chennel me?! You're not going to get like that reporter now, are you?

"Like I told the Creationists-- ERVs are either mutated into junk or they only have bits functional under very specific conditions. You cant activate an entire ERV without getting body-wide cancer. Not an immunodeficiency-- body-wide cancer a la 'SCID gene therapy' times a trillion."

Creationists? How did they get into the discussion?

First of all, you're factually in error, not all ERVs are defective, ERV. Secondly, it has been demonstrated that LTR retrotransposons can do emergency DNA repair of double strand breaks, which just might have something to do with cells in karyotypic transition, i.e. oncogenesis. This is why retroviruses were studied in the first place, incuding ERVs in laboratory mice.

"Additionally, there are no lentiviral ERVs. They have properties that have prevented them from inserting themselves into germ line tissues..."

Really ERV, all of them? With all their DIFFERENT biological properties? And what are those properties? Silly me, I thought it was just a matter of making it into the cell nucleus with integrase and all that.

Somehow the ancient "infections" happened and given the pasticities inherent in retroviral genomes, I have to wonder about this particular "impossibility barrier".

"because the lentiviral parts arent there."

Aren't "there"? Clearly they had to have been in cell lines HUT 102 and HUT 78 or are YOU going Creationist on us, ERV.

"And also note the highly skewed DNA base composition. All lentivuruses are A-rich and C-poor, not 25% of each of the 4 bases. The T-cell leukemia viruses (also never endogenous) have a different base composition bias. Both are totally unlike HERVs or anything else (Alu repeats etc) in the human genome."

"On top of all that, it is just VERY CLEAR from tracing the phylogentics of virus alongside known transmission histories (see Leitner's papers for examples of direct person to person transfer; see global pandemic spread for the big picture), that this is not part of the human genome."

Brian, obviously you know what you're talking about, and if you want to argue for category lentivirus, fine. My inquiry concerns the relevance of this classification in nature. I'm not "denying" that particles such as these have an "existence", but more interested in their true origins - the open question of their nature as artifacts - and not convinced that "infectivity" in the medical sense or "transmissibility" in the epidemiological sense has ever been established.

And phylogenetic reconstructions plus BLAST searches are imperfect tools at best for all the reasons that you probably know better than I. We can delve further into those issues if you want, but I'm sure you're aware of the critique of your colleagues at Los Alamos by Hein and Schierup on the problems with the "molecular clock" due to retroviral recombinations. And, of course, there's everything recent on cytidine deaminases, methylation, histone acetylation, euchromatic and heterochromatic regions, etc.; which, IMHO requires a retrospective look on the 70's - 80's retroviral research in those lights.

nick- Go to my blog. Click on the 'ERV' tag. All of your comments have already been addressed in the context of Intelligent Design Creationism.

Seriously Im not being condescending, I really want to make this clear for you-- youre making the exact same mistakes as the Creationists. ERVs are weird, its not surprising at all that youre confused! But if youre really interested in ERVs, make sure you *really* know what ERVs are ;)

Yes nick let me instruct you on sunburst hypertrophy. This famous thesis of Englewood, Semon, Cloudson and Murchison was proposed after they observed cellular proteins in HIV virions. Or as you would say HI virions. Since cellular proteins are in virions, it follows that ERVs are lentiviruses and that heterochromatin is best explained by Strohmann. Since we do not exclude the Margulis/Laughlin/Foucault hypothesis that life itself is a postmodernist colonialist invention, cellular deaminases and specifically the K8 di-acetylation of the Histone H3 tail imply that O'Reilly was right, not just to the right.
Therefore, HIV is a neocon con and we are on acid.

Sorry, ladies and gents, I'm channeling E. Naylor again.

Adele,

This is not a simple "debate" like Intelligent Design or other flavors of creationism vs evolution:

http://www.youtube.com/v/KdocQHsPCNM

People die, thousands of people die, every day from AIDS. And it is rather critical that people understand the facts vs the fictions of this.

I wrote a rather extensive post his morning, but it got lost in cyberspace. Maybe I will try again tomorrow, if this one gets through.

Brian

My inquiry concerns the relevance of this classification in nature. I'm not "denying" that particles such as these have an "existence", but more interested in their true origins - the open question of their nature as artifacts - and not convinced that "infectivity" in the medical sense or "transmissibility" in the epidemiological sense has ever been established.

Well said, Nick.
The failure to establish HIV's infectivity and transmissibility can CLEARLY be seen even by those of us who do not work with retroviruses. Any layperson with a modicum of critical thinking skills can see that the numerous, and often contradictory explanations that have been given for HIV's "infectivity" are an indication of just how little is truly understood, even by retrovirologists. Of course, admitting as much is out of the question for sycophants like Adele, since continued funding for her own pet projects requires complete belief in the HIV story of AIDS. Meanwhile, all AIDS patients, whether test-positive or whether test-negative, as I was, will continue to be denied access to the comprehensive treatment protocols required to recover their immune health.

I know how difficult this condition is to treat not because I understand how hard it is for some bumbling physician to find the right "cocktail combo" but because I was deathly ill with AIDS-defining diseases and only recovered my health after exiting traditional care models, for they excluded the alternative treatments that did prove to be both necessary and sufficient. Of course, most won't be as lucky as me; I am thriving because I wasn't satisfied with the mythic answers given by my over-educated specialists. After reading this blog, it is also clear to me why my doctors were so ineffectual: most HIV researchers are more concerned with improving HIV's resume than they are with actually improving treatments for AIDS.

Until HIV has been shown to be both a necessary and sufficient cause of AIDS, study should be shifted to non-viral causes. As for establishing the "true origins" of whatever it is that Adele plays with, well, I encourage continued study there too, but it should not direct any treatment decisions without first demonstrating its explanatory value and resorting to "indirect and/or unknown mechanisms" of "infectivity" does nothing to establish the necessary and sufficient role that is required. (Sorry, Adele). In fact, if any one here can justifiably be accused of having anything in common with Creationists, it's Adele and all of the other apologists who refuse to accept any criticism of HIV, prima facie. Such adherence to one's dogma is usually only found in religious fanatics, and it certainly has no place in Science!

Your recent comments, Nick, are a welcome relief--most notably, the hoodwinking that ERV and Adele rely upon is refreshingly missing from your straightforward replies. I'm glad to see that there is at least one other capable reader of this blog willing to contribute relevant information without resorting to deceitful tactics, such as attempting to associate HIV criticisms to Creationism. How intellectually indefensible a position must be for its adherents to collectively embrace deceit.

Kevin

Well, my N=2 pregnancies didn't get me a positive HIV test.

For that matter, not a single person I know tested postive during pregnancy. I'm still confused by what she was claiming in that bit.

Since anecdote does not equal evidence, I eagerly await the evidence that we all either tested positive or were strange statistical outliers...

Nick wrote:
"...
Really ERV, all of them? With all their DIFFERENT biological properties? And what are those properties? Silly me, I thought it was just a matter of making it into the cell nucleus with integrase and all that.
..."
No, not quite Nick. Endongenous retroviruses are integrated into the GERM LINE. Sperm, egg, pollen, etc. of an organism, such that every cell of every progeny of that organism has the same virus in the same genomic location. HERV-K for example entered the primate genome before the splits between Orangutan/Gorilla/Chimpanzee/Human ocurred. We humans all have HERV-K in the same location, on homologous chromosome segments, as Chimpanzees. The Oragnuratn and Gorilla complete genomes are not completelely sequenced yet, but Southern blotting and in situ hybridization can locate the position of HERV-K copies in those genomes.

It is really critical, in this area, to know what you are talking about, before you claim that all of lentiviral research is probably or certainly bogus. Not all people who study lentiviruses know all there is to know about them, of course, but most of us at least know enough to understand the difference between terms such as endogenous and endemic.

Brian

"Nick Naylor" wrote:And to all the old hands here, do I have to be the one to bring up deHarven's EM's from inbred mice, no "helpers" required ...

Errrgh! Have you actually read anything other than virusmyth webpages?

The Friend Virus Complex is actually a mixture of two viruses and so does not fulfil the Perth Group's personal defition of isolation. The spleen focus-forming virus (SFFV) that is part of the complex is replication defective and requires a "helper" virus.

The Friend Virus Complex was isolated via a long procedure that involved injecting newborn mice with tumour cells and then injecting more mice with extracts from the spleens of these mice. After several passages what is now known as the Friend Virus Complex emerged. It is a laboratory-generated virus complex.

In De Harven's electron microscope studies they used inbred laboratory mice injected with spleen extracts. In these mice and with this laboratory-generated virus they managed to obtain extremely high titres of virus in serum which made ultra-filtration techniques viable.

Perhaps it would be possible to produce a highly virulent strain of HIV by serial passage of lymph node extracts in inbred laboratory humans. Are any "rethinkers" volunteering to take part in this study?

The antipope wrote:
1) Sinoussi F, Mendiola L, Chermann JC, Jasmin C, Raynaud M. (1973) Purification and Partial Differentiation of the Particles of Murine Sarcoma Virus (M. MSV) According to their Sedimentation Rates in Sucrose Density Gradients. Spectra 4:237-243.


(7) Crawford LV, Crawford EM. (1961) The Properties of Rous Sarcoma Virus Purified by Density Gradient Centrifugation. Virology 13:227-232


I hope you don't think I am bluffing when I say that they are from the Perth Group in a response to Brian T. Foley of the Los Alamos National Lab.

As Brian has already pointed out none of the virus complexes are purified in the Perth (non)sense of the word. They are all mixtures of viruses. That isn't the limit of the deliberate deception of the Perth Group.

These papers are not about a set of criteria that should or can be used to argue for the existence or non-existence of a retrovirus or anything else. The Perth Group talk about the "rules of retroviral isolation" which were supposedly thoroughly discussed at the Pasteur Institute in 1973 and argue that these criteria are the minimum requirement for "proving" the existence of a retrovirus.

Read the references! These viruses were already known to exist. The papers are not about proving the existence of a retrovirus. The papers describe techniques for the partial purification of retroviruses. These purified preparations are not necessary to demonstrate the existence of a retrovirus but are necessary for further characterisation of the retrovirus. These days purified proteins are normally produced from the gene sequence and bacterial expression systems.

Sinoussi makes a number of statments that indicate that not all viruses are easy to purify using these techniques. Some of the factors are viral titer and the amount of cellular debris produced by cytopathic viruses. It should also be pointed out that Sinoussi is one of the co-authors of some of the original HIV papers. I follow her interpretation of her own papers a lot more than the deliberate misinterpretations of the Perth Group.

The only people that are claiming that these papers set down the "rules of retroviral isolation" that are necessary criteria to prove the existence of retroviruses are the Perth Group and their acolytes.

Aren't "there"? Clearly they had to have been in cell lines HUT 102 and HUT 78 or are YOU going Creationist on us, ERV.

??? I suspect you aren't all there.

These cell lines are not germ line cells. HTLV-I and HTLV-II are not endogenous retroviruses.

It appears that "Nick Naylor" is Gene Semon who has previously posted under different names and pseudonyms here and elsewhere.

I fail to see why you seem to believe that regurgitating the same nonsense under a different pseudonym will be any more convincing than the first time. If you expect that people will patiently answer your silly and pointless questions a second or third time you are sadly mistaken.

The same goes for "Pope".

Why the do you "rethinkers" keep on changing pseudonyms?

For that matter, not a single person I know tested postive during pregnancy. I'm still confused by what she was claiming in that bit. -- savithny

Well, congratulations to all the people you know who have survived HIV testing, unscathed. However, it's well known that there is a long list of conditions that can cause 'false positives'. Unless you have been living in a cave, you can't be as ill-informed as your recent comment might suggest.

I do believe that Dr. Margulis was perhaps engaging in hyperbole, which shouldn't be too hard for an apologist such as yourself to understand, i.e. you don't seem to have any problems accepting all of the supposed "overwhelming" evidence for HIV being a vicious killer virus even though there isn't a single piece of evidence that "overwhelming" explains how it has earned that killer reputation -- not to mention, the increasing amounts of time it takes to work its "overwhelming" magic. Thus, her pregnancy hyperbole is really small potatoes and intended, no doubt, to emphasize the ridiculously low standards used to justify HIV's status.

Then again, maybe Dr. Margulis was simply basing her comments regarding HIV false-postives and pregnancy on the disclaimer that comes with each test kit. If I remember correctly, it's mentioned in there. You should really get your hands on one of these test kit disclaimers, savithny; they make for interesting reading particularly since they state that they are not designed to diagnose infection with HIV. And all this time, I thought that's exactly what these tests were being used for, you know, to diagnose infection with HIV? That said, it's clear that Dr. Margulis understands how unreliable these tests are and that the confimatory test, the WB, isn't actually "confirming" anything, except that it relies on inconsistent interpretation standards.

There are so many potential inspirations for her comment that the fact that you "eagerly await the evidence that we all either tested positive or were strange statistical outliers... well, that speaks more toward your own limited knowledge, as you have to reconcile the unavoidable conflicts that naturally inhabit "perfect dogmas" such as HIV=AIDS. Regardless, it's safe to assume that Dr. Margulis has seen through the hollow propaganda masquerading as science. If you were to re-read her comments in their entirety (as posted by Tara), I think you'll find that she makes it perfectly clear what she thinks of "all things" HIV:

I have observed that the closer one comes to the study of humans the shoddier the quality of the scientific evidence...Why? Because political bias, hearsay and gossip are inevitable..."

I couldn't agree more with Dr. Margulis' sentiments, and the behavior of most of the apologists on this blog strongly confirms her accusation that any science involving human health is dominated by political bias and gossip. For example, her reward, here, for demanding adherence to the highest standards for scientific inquiry has been the usual "character assault" treatment from all the establishment watchdogs. It's as though she were speaking directly to the likes of Chris Noble, sycophant extraordinnaire.

Nevertheless, you should email your question directly to her and report back, savithny? If you do, you might try rewording your comment. After all, even if she is now a dirty "denialist", she once was awarded the National Medal of Science and deserves, in the least, a modicum of respect; not to mention, she probably wouldn't answer an obnoxious email question from a deluded blogger.
___________________________

It appears that "Nick Naylor" is Gene Semon....

Now, Chris, are you ever going to realize that "labeling" people is not an acceptable way to argue your points. You really do make all apologist look bad by being so transparently deceitful. Whether you like it or not, more and more people are waking up from the HIV dream/nightmare. First, you try to label Barry A as "Hank Barnes", now this "Nick Naylor is X" booshat; I understand that you are arguing from a weak position, Chris, but do you have to behave so transparently? It really is tiresome.

Kevin

Kevin,
I did not claim that Barry A was "Hank Barnes". That was soembody else and I did not think that was at all likely.

I humbly suggest that "Pope" and "Nick Naylor" are pseudonyms used by "rethinkers" that have previously posted here under different names.

It is a matter of public record that Wilhelm Godschalk, Gene Semon, D D Steele and Michael Geiger keep on coming back and using different pseudonyms.

Gene Semon has in the past pretended to be a graduate student of Duesberg named Simone. He deliberately mislead a scientist into having an email discussion under this pretext. The scientist wasted his time by attempting to reason with him.

This is what I call being deceitful. Post under your own names or at least stick to a single pseudonym. There is no point answering the same questions being posed by the same "rethinker" using different pseudonyms.

Who cares if they post under Santa Claus, it's the points that are being made that are important. How can all of the AIDS proponents continuue to ignore more and more evidence against their theories, especially in lieu of so many HIV+'s and AIDS person who are tossing the drugs down the toilet and are living extremely healthy lives. When we live better and healthier off the drugs than on them, something is drastically wrong with the current hypothesis or better stated, "something is rotten in the state of Denmark."

Brian,

Thanks, and I agree with your sentiments entirely. People die, thousands of people die, every day from AIDS. And it is rather critical that people understand the facts vs the fictions of this.

Consider me admonished. I apologize if anyone thought I was trying to make light of AIDS.

But does my crappy humor keep anyone from separating fact and fiction? Is sober debate the correct response to someone like Eugene Semon? Chris just reminded us, Semon is dishonest. Chris has tried to correct him before on exactly the points he brings up here. So has Nick Bennett on deansworld. So have several people on Liversidge's pages, even some denialists.

Semon won't be convinced if we tell him about germ line transmission. He doesn't care about proximity requirements for template switching. He doesn't respond to proof. The more we debate with him, the more new science vocab words he gets to put in his random gibberish-generating machine.

I remember attending a science/creationism debate at a small university in Pennsylvania back in 1992 or 93 (Kutztown). I don't remember who was debating. The crowd in the gymnasium was probably over 95% creationist. They came in by bus and van from all over the east coast. The pro-science people in attendance were faculty members at the school.

The scientist debater was under the mistaken impression he was there to inform. The creationist knew what everyone had come for: entertainment. He showed pictures of scientists with monkey heads and the usual laugh-grabbers. He told alot of jokes. He responded to science with quotes from 19th century politicians and the Bible. The audience or most of it was in stitches the whole way through.

The believers there and here aren't going to be convinced. So I wonder why we debate people like Semon. Why do denialists come to aetiology? Will they be convinced by sober debate? Will they mistake my attempts at humor for agreement with the benighted Semon? Will they understand anything Semon says, except that it sounds really science-like? To me, the answer to all is no, but I would like to hear what others think.

Adele wrote:
"...
The creationist knew what everyone had come for: entertainment. He showed pictures of scientists with monkey heads and the usual laugh-grabbers.
..."

Something like this?
http://barnesworld.blogs.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2…
from:

http://barnesworld.blogs.com/barnes_world/2007/03/confessions_of_.html

How original.

no known and proven way that HIV does anything on a cellular level,

Read the fact sheet -- we don't know every detail of everything the hepatitis virus does either.

As for the "not peer-reviewed" comment, firstly, it leads directly to several published peer-reviewed papers, and secondly, if it were peer-reviewed, you'd simply say the reviewers were all part of the conspiracy, wouldn't you?

a retrovirus that grows in eternal t cell lines but is said to kill t cells,

It does kill them and then infects new ones, as has been shown -- if you had read the fact sheet, you'd know that. T cells reproduce.

And BTW, it's T, not t.

long term transmission studies that had zero transmissions on sero opposites,

What do you mean?

scientists who all agree that unamed or unknown co-factors are necessary for disease progression but castrated Duesberg for saying it was the co-factors causing the disease,

I don't know what you mean, but maybe you're talking about the fact that HIV "only" causes an immune deficiency. If you're not exposed to any pathogens, you won't get ill, unless you happen to develop KS or some other otherwise rare cancer. In the real world, you will get moldy alive, if you don't die from some otherwise rare cancer like KS first. Those are the "cofactors", I guess. Read the fact sheet...

deadly toxic treatments,

AZT is indeed heavy stuff. It stops DNA replication. I'm not surprised that the large doses of it that are used in AIDS therapy can have severe side effects. Yet, presumably due to the fact that if you're infected with a retrovirus most DNA replication is done by retrovirus production (I'm not a virologist), it works: people who have AIDS and take AZT live longer and healthier lives than those who don't. It works better than a placebo, see fact sheet. As long as we don't have anything better, we'd be quite stupid not to use it.

a virus so small that among viruses it is a miniature with barely the capability to infect a cell,

Doesn't it have normal retrovirus size?

a virus that is such a brilliant genius that it knows who is gay and who is straight,

Have you been sleeping for the last 30 years (in addition to not reading the fact sheet)? In the USA, HIV first established itself in the gay community. Then it spread to drug abusers (most of whom are straight males). It has long since escaped. Elsewhere in the world -- eastern Europe, eastern Asia -- it first turned up in prostitutes and their straight clients and has since escaped from those groups too. In Africa, it has never been confined any more than any other sexually transmitted disease.

and knows who is black and who is white.

I've often come across Americans on the Internet who seem to believe that the whole world consists only of the USA, but this is the top. Dude, why is there AIDS in Europe, especially in the east, where there are no people with skin as dark as hazelnut icecream? Why does China have an AIDS epidemic?

What a genius of a retrovirus that HIV must be.

And there you are, puzzled about why people keep comparing you to the cre_ti_nists. Here's why: like them, you don't know what you are talking about, and like them, you are arrogant enough to believe that everyone is just as ignorant as you.

-------------------

It's good that Margulis (again) attacks a consensus idea (completely independently from my respect for her work on endosymbiosis). But in order to be the next Galileo, to quote Sagan from memory, it's not enough to be persecuted by an orthodoxy. You also have to be right.

Margulis is not only wrong on HIV, she doesn't even know what she's talking about.

" Why do denialists come to aetiology?"

Propaganda needs an outlet?

Not to single out Aetiology, but that's the reason they go anywhere isn't it? Prosyletizing, seeking new recruits, deceiving people into thinking that there's an easy way out of the situation (HIV+ status) they're in.

" long term transmission studies that had zero transmissions on sero opposites,

What do you mean?"

Welcome to the topsy-turvy, upside down, black is white, day is night world of HIV/AIDS denial where successfully taking steps to prevent heterosexual transmission of HIV proves that HIV cannot be transmitted between heterosexuals.

?

Who cares if they post under Santa Claus, it's the points that are being made that are important.

I don't care what pseudonym that they post under. Just stick to one.

A number of "rethinkers" such as Wilhelm Godschalk and Gene Semon continually repeat the same arguments time and time again despite being presented with evidence that they are wrong. It is necessary to recognise this. If they come back under different pseudonyms and repeat the same arguments it is deceptive and dishonest.

Wilhelm Godschalk has previously argued that modern physics is wrong because he read a book that said that modern physics cannot explain why fridge magnets don't get tired and fall off. He made a number of statments that indicated that he did not understand basic concepts such as work, force and energy but nevertheless had the arrogance to argue that thousands of physicists are wrong, lying or just stupid. This does not exclude the possibility that his comments about HIV and AIDS have a basis in reality but it is an indication of his mental capabilities.

Likewise Semon produces a post-modern gobbledygook of scientific terms thrown together like Dada poetry. He demonstrates zero understanding of the terms he uses and yet has the arrogance to argue that thousands of scientists are wrong and he has the truth. He has previously used a number of pseudonyms and in at least one instance outright fraud.

You might be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt even though you don't understand what they are arguing (in fact nobody does) because they are saying what you want to hear - "HIV doesn't cause AIDS". This is a mistake. These people are the last people on Earth that you should want to associate with. They are dishonest and deceptive. Why Bialy and others cultivate them is a mystery. Apparently any "enemy" of HIV/AIDS is an ally.

I recognise that some "rethinkers" are honest but mistaken. I count you in this category. Godschalk and Semon are not.

Well, congratulations to all the people you know who have survived HIV testing, unscathed. However, it's well known that there is a long list of conditions that can cause 'false positives'. Unless you have been living in a cave, you can't be as ill-informed as your recent comment might suggest.

There are factors that can produce false positives. Scientists have been improving these tests for over two decades. Whenever somebody finds a case of a condition causing a false positive they can write it up, get it published and add it to their publication list. Manufacturers actually take notice of this and test their tests for potentially interfering substances.

The uposhot is that false positives possible, just like every other test in the world, but that the number of false positives is extremely low. It doesn't matter how big your list of conditions that cause false positives. What matters is how often these conditions cause false positives and the answer is very rarely.

"Rethinkers" write articles that deliberately attempt to create the false impression that false positives are very common. They want you to believe that a high proportion of pregnant women will test positive. This is simply not true. Unfortunately, people who read "rethinker" literature and do not do further research to check the claims often believe what they read and regurgitate these claims as if they were fact. This is exactly what Lynn Margulis has done. She read some "rethinker" literature that was designed to give the impression that a high proportion of pregnant women will have false positive test results.

I know that "rethinkers" would like to believe that Lynn Margulis' glowing praise of Duesberg's "rethinker" stance was supported by her detailed understanding of the subject. It is simply not true. She is just regurgitating.

To whomever,

Some people claim that HIV tests, especially the "new and improved" tests are nearly infallible, while rethinkers claim they are all highly flawed. Why this difference in opinion?

While some, including the manufacturers of HIV tests, claim the tests are 99% plus accurate, that clearly is not the case at all, which many are not even aware of the following:

A little over a year ago, the Oraquick Rapid test, which the manufacturer, who was attempting to get their test mandated as the basis for mandatory HIV testing in the United States, was found upon scrutiny of the results, to be springing ONE FOURTH PROVEN FALSE POSITIVES in San Francisco alone, and a few other cities that could afford to attempt to scrutinize the results, found similar problems.

See the San Francisco Chronicle's report at the following link:

Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, the city's director of sexually transmitted disease prevention and control services, said about 1 out of 4 of the roughly 200 positives detected by the new oral test turned out to be wrong.

AND see a 3 minute VIDEO and News Cast Report on this can at the following, because:

Subsequently, the Oraquick test was banned at several clinics in San Francisco, Ohio, and New York, although in many parts of the world, including most of Africa and Asia, this very test is still the ONLY test given before someone is diagnosed, and told they are HIV positive!

The HIV tests do NOT test for HIV, they test for antibodies "believed" to be antibodies for HIV. Whether they are or not, no-one can know for sure or for absolute as they are not verified against isolated virus that has been proven to be contagious or proven to be the cause of immune dysfunction in humans.

This is why, currently, even laws regarding HIV, and regarding knowingly spreading HIV are written to call HIV the "probable" cause, not the definite cause.

Even Robert Gallo was smart enough to only claim he had found the "probable" cause of AIDS in all of his papers, even though in word he would call it the definite cause, in his attempts to convince others. The science of HIV is yet so new, that no-one really knows for sure if these proteins or sequences that the tests find, that are believed to be specific for HIV, also happen to exist or not at other times from other sources or causes than from a definite reaction to HIV.

The difficulty for the Rethinkers is in trying to establish where and when HIV went from probable to the current mainstream belief that HIV is the "absolute" cause of AIDS.

Those on these threads who back HIV with claims that it is the "absolute" cause of AIDS can not and have not substantiated where in any scientific literature this occurs, as the evidence or proof for this belief does not exist.

People can and often do claim how wonderful and highly accurate the HIV tests are, but the truth is that we still do not know what they are accurate at finding. Or perhaps the accuracy is more about a proven accuracy at NOT FINDING HIV, and NOT a valid claim of accuracy at finding HIV.

Even the HIV tests themselves ALL have disclaimers that hold the manufacturer at no fault for non accuracy. None are approved for diagnostic use by the FDA due to the nonspecificity of these tests. They are only approved for prognostic use, which means "A PREDICTION" but "NOTHING DEFINITE"!

I would agree that the tests are 99.6% if not even 100% accurate at NOT FINDING HIV!

Why do I say this?

Considering none of the HIV tests are verified against a gold standard of absolute HIV, and only HIV isolation, who really knows what specificity any of the back-up tests have either. The results of any of the HIV tests, including the back up tests of PCR and Western Blot, are strictly a matter of belief and interpretation, regardless of some peoples "demands" that their own interpretation is "the truth".

Considering what San Francisco experienced a little over a year ago, with ONE FOURTH VERIFIED WRONG HIV TEST RESULTS, can we, nay, SHOULD WE possibly believe anyone who claims these tests are so accurate, and that HIV science is so sure and accurate?

Further, considering these facts, it is amazing that most of the public is so very convinced about HIV, HIV Tests, and AIDS, when the best science can still only present us with "possibile causes", uncertain pathogenicities of how HIV supposedly causes immune dysfunction, along with uncertain transmission studies of HIV infection, and all topped off with nothing but medical prognostications of uncertain tests that verify nothing that is certain when one is tested with any and all of the HIV tests!

How very impressive!

No wonder none of the HIV researchers have ever gotten a Nobel Prize, and no wonder HIV researchers have never cured anyone and never will, and no wonder no one has good answers for HIV and AIDS, even after more than 100 billion US tax dollars have been pissed away, and even after 25 long and intense years of supposedly good and proper if not modern and supposedly "superior" science has investigated. And most of all, no wonder the dissident side of the equation and number of AIDS dissidents and rethinkers does nothing but grow larger daily, regardless of how much or how loudly the defenders of HIV science protest!

lincoln,

You are playing with the truth.
The test in question is a rapid test using oral fluids. Nobody is being diagnosed on the basis of this test alone.

The manufacturers of the test did check to see whether a variety of possible interfering conditions gave rise to false positives see Table 4

If there really are problems with this particular test then it will probably be revoked. Your attempt to try to dismiss all HIV tests is deceptive.

You also seem to have problems reading the FDA list of approved HIV tests. Many of them are approved for diagnostic use. Some viral load tests are only approved for prognostic use.

Lincoln,
How did they verify that the tests were wrong????

(this question is rhetorical, not a request for factual information, BTW)

According to lincoln, all HIV tests are antibody tests.

In addition to the various antibody tests, there are antigen tests detecting actual HIV proteins not just antibodies to them. Also nucleic acid detection. And then virus culturing, but this lacks sensitivity so it's not often done in the clinic.

It was a rhetorical question, Adele.

If Lincoln is prepared to accept that there are established confirmatory HIV tests of sufficient specificity to show 25% of the oraquick results were false positive, then he clearly accepts the underlying validity of HIV testing (by whichever method).

He can't have his cake and eat it too.

Lincoln wrote:

"...
Considering none of the HIV tests are verified against a gold standard of absolute HIV, and only HIV isolation, who really knows
..."

What part of "infectious molecular clone" do you fail to comprehend? Let me know, and I will go over it again for you.

Brian

Propaganda needs an outlet?
Not to single out Aetiology, but that's the reason they go anywhere isn't it?

Yes, propaganda does need and outlet and, unfortunately, HIV has full monetary support from the largest propaganda entity to ever exist--Corporate America. Of course, you obviously don't have the intellect, nor the integrity to identify the real purveyors of propaganda, particular where HIV is concerned. Thus, the answer to that naive, insincere question first posed by Adele goes something like this:

HIV rethinkers participate in online discussions regarding HIV because the message being delivered by HIV devotees and their Mass Media allies is almost complete propaganda, and the public has a right to know that there are dissenting opinions regarding HIV's causal role in AIDS. It is clear that you, Roy, and you Adele, believe that censoring debate is not only acceptable in public discussion, but you also seem to be believe that it has a role in Science. Fortunately, corporate greed and the censorship it fosters is losing it's stanglehold on public discussion, as the internet has allowed alternative media to expose the corruption. Als people are beginning to being seriously affected by their own apathy, which allowed the corporate greed in the first place. One example of the negative effects of embracing corporate greed is currently unfolding before our very eyes, and it has many similarities to the HIV story. During the recent housing bubble, corporate lackeys, realty "experts" not unlike you Roy or you Adele, have being using the media to encourage Americans to take on large amounts of personal debt via mortgage lending that can only be described as predatory. Using manipulative phrases like "housing prices only goes up", "buy now or be priced out forever", "stop throwing your money away renting", they've created a situation that can only end very badly for the American middle class. Of course, the wake-up has come a little late and there will be serious economic reperucssions for everyone. That's why ignorant hacks, like you Roy Hinkley, are so dangerous. You are perfectly willing to allow these greedy bastards to work their ponzi schemes. Your doughy devotion to a brand of science that is filtered through Corportate filters, first and foremost, is disgusting, in and of itself, but your pleas for censorship cannot be tolerated. There's too much at stake.

Of course, another good answer to why rethinkers like Noreen and myself are posting here at Tara's site is because we have overcome the fear that seems to be the end-goal of HIV's considerable propaganda agenda, and we have regained our health after a considerable fight. It is clear that you cannot understand such geniune dedication to share our stories and our knowledge with others who might be facing the same fear-mongering, for HIV devotees are anti-hope. Well, that too is unacceptable, so get used to the resistance, Roy, I'm in this for the long haul.

Lastly, I'd like to thank Tara for not censoring this discussion. Those of you that call for censorship are pathetic and obviously fearful of real debate.

Kevin

Kevin, if you would be so kind and please tell us who has been calling for censorship, I'm sure it would be useful to everyone.

As I see it, no one has censored Margulis, or Duesberg, or you, or me. We are all free to speak our minds. We are also free to point out that some people speak without knowledge or understanding.

You could argue that Duesberg was "censored" when Nature would only allow him 500 words not the 2000 or more he requested. This doesn't fit any reasonable definition of censorship. But if you insist on a really narrow definition then it's Denialists like Bialy who are true censors. They won't even allow science-minded people a single word much less 500 on Barnesworld.

Seeing that the adults got side-tracked by CN and there's a lull in the "debate" and that my IP indeed was never blocked (blush) I will venture back in. It is very noteworthy, Adele, how you always make very damn good points that I myself couldn't possibly disagree with them. I do in all honesty; you've just described a loathsome ambush.
I just find it so strange that your ti...WIT!... seems so totally lost on your own self and you even let yourself confuse various, distinctly unrelated subjects. Arguments from different fields are similar in syntax only and can only be undone in two ways: you point out the logical fallacy and/or you falsify it despite the proper use of logic. Argument by "analogy" is false. It is a self-explanatory logical fallacy and alert minds should beware of responding in kind but I will make one for effect and fun later.

"Why do denialists come to aetiology?"

Well, "they" get invited. What would "discussing causes, origins, evolution and implications of disease and other phenomena" be like if it weren't for the opinions? Well, it certainly wouldn't be a discussion. "Do you believe in God, boy?" - "Yes, dad!" is not a discussion.

I will quickly make my position on Intelligent design clear so no one has to rely on assumption and analogy as to where that may or may not be. Although I personally reject the theory of Intelligent Design, I do not object to the teaching of Intelligent Design theory on several grounds. Firstly it is already being taught and has been on a massive scale ever since Constantine looked up into the sky one night before battle. Secondly and most revealingly... is because I want it to go away! (hint, hint)
There really is nothing to fear in exposing a mind to any kind of theory or idea. Indeed, the madder the proposal, the steeper the learning curve can get but only if logic is allowed an emotional get-out-of-shit-free card. To muzzle or undermine debate is to believe in the inescapability human stupidity and ironically is the cause of its "dumbing-down".

"Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education" B. Russell

One major reason for un-sharp tools lying around the shed and why they often remain un-sharp is because there's either no grinding stone around and/or there's a complete lack of grinding-technique and skill.

"Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man."- B. Russell

My roommate majored in Theology and noted how everyone always assumes he is a "believer". In High School I knew it (ID) as "Religious Studies" and, thankfully, it was always an elective, there were never any tests and it had no weight on student evaluation. It was just one of those classes you simply couldn't fail. I once singed up for one semester of it when I was about 11-12 years old and I remember it fondly because it was the first time I felt I had evaluated a "theory" and managed on my own to formulate arguments not only that falsified it then but that hold up to this day and remain the corner-stone of my ID-denial and of my strong doubts in the accuracy of any faith-based claims in general. I also fondly remember the Pastor who taught that class as a calm, friendly, respectful and engaging debater and was well liked by everyone in the class. He was one of the best and probably the most effective teacher I've ever had. The more we debated the more we realized that the only things separating us were in the details. He loved hard science and was fascinated with space exploration; he just liked the "nutty" idea that there was ultimately a God behind it all and that someday it will be revealed to him what God meant when he said he created all Universe in 7 days some 5000 years ago and why he generally acts in mysterious ways. Other than that he was simply comforted by his belief that God loved him and everyone else and said the bible was about an idea, conceptualized and embellished in human clothes for effect. It wasn't science, it wasn't history, it wasn't arts, and it certainly wasn't sports; it was philosophy.
He in effect sharpened everyone's reasoning skills and the fact that no one could rationalize the blind faith he had in God, it did not stop anyone from developing a deep understanding and admiration for his great emotional and spiritual intelligence, from which, I can say, we benefited a lot more. Respect is emotional logic. It is considered logical because it is required for intellectual logic to enjoy the most efficient testing environment. When respect fails, intellectual logic suffers to an unknown degree. The brain can be imagined perhaps a bit like a CPU. CPU's have a finite amount of processing capacity. The more applications you open, the slower the processing speed becomes and when you try to transfer one incompatible application file to another, a processing affront sometimes occurs with guaranteed catastrophic consequences starting with "unable to open file" followed quickly with "a fatal error has occurred" and a picture of an old fuse-lit bomb and the only way to un-jam it is to pull the plug from the wall or throw the CPU out the window. Even though untold numbers of CPU's have been destroyed in savage outbursts of human rage, when it comes to machines, we can easily recognize productivity losses, intelligently identify the causes and efficiently rectify the problems. Maybe it is because they have no personality that can get this baboon-like species emotionally distracted and all tied up in nooses and un-resolvable grenade fights. As Margulis says and I fully agree:

"I have observed that the closer one comes to the study of humans the shoddier the quality of the scientific evidence"... "Why? Because political bias, hearsay and gossip are inevitable".

Back on track...

"The scientist debater was under the mistaken impression he was there to inform. The creationist knew what everyone had come for: entertainment. He showed pictures of scientists with monkey heads and the usual laugh-grabbers. He told alot of jokes. He responded to science with quotes from 19th century politicians and the Bible. The audience or most of it was in stitches the whole way through."-Adele

Do you know what this ID "debate" reminds me of? It reminds my of...its on the tip of my fingers...ah, yes: pharyngula. This too is a loathsome hit job and no one was really interested in a "debate". At least in that respect Chris Noble is honest; he doesn't believe in this debate and never will, nor do the likes of JP Moore who wage it like a "war", in his very own words.

"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
-B. Russell

Now why do ID folk "debate" like this? Well, that is obvious; at least to me. They resort to throwing poop and character assaults because the "facts" they bring up can't stand on their own; they require an absolutist degree of "faith" for support. The ire and character assaults thrown at Margulis and the labeling of anyone as a "denialist" speaks a similar truth. If HIV/AIDS is so clear-cut, unambiguous and overwhelming then surely they can stand on their own merits.

"There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate government action."- Bertrand Russell

The fact that HIV/AIDS needs a concerted effort at character assassination as is currently orchestrated from AIDS central Aidstruth is perhaps indicative of weak foundations. Calling HIV/Aids denial "murderous" is simply a convenient moral distraction from the real truth behind the fallacy inherent in yelling.

"The degree of one's emotions varies inversely with one's knowledge of the facts"
- B. Russell

"Re pat

Mr. pat has been told the facts by individuals who, unlike Prof. Margolis,have the background and expertise to falsify the most pregnant women test positive for HIV claim. The fact that Mr. pat refuses to accept that
Margulis is 100% wrong, and in fact, by her own admission has no expertise in this area, tells any neutral party he is not interested in the facts but in spewing out propaganda. In this regard, he is no different then the
evolution denialists at the Discovery Institute (many of whom are also AIDS/HIV denialists) in that their minds are made up, the facts are irrelevant.

Mr. pat also states that Prof. Margolis has earned her wings by virtue of her previous accomplishments. Well, Pauling, Shockley, Hynek, and Josephson also earned their wings (in fact, they are at least as accomplished as Prof. Margolis is) by virtue of their previous accomplishments. That doesn't mean diddley squat in evaluating their claims about vitamin C, black American intelligence, alien abductions or cold fusion."

Seeing I have no expertise in the field I would have to take your word for it but I simply can't; that is called faith. Do you mean to say I refuse to believe Margulis is 100% wrong about the HIV tests and pregnancy? If so that is a figment of your imagination.
Or do you mean I refuse to believe she is generally speaking 100% wrong? The only thing I refuse is your wacky character assaults.

"...tells any neutral party he is not interested in the facts but in spewing
out propaganda"

really? I tell people that?

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."-B. Russell

"That doesn't mean diddley squat in evaluating their claims about vitamin
C, black American intelligence, alien abductions or cold fusion."

never tried to, not interested in vitamin C, the Bell curve, alien
abduction nor cold fusion.

Having spent a day in the mountains and feeling refreshed and upbeat I will take this opportunity, before it gets muddied and drained, to offer my apologies to Adele for delivering the "tit" for the tat. It is below myself. Now I will go off and ponder this one:

"It is a waste of energy to be angry with a man who behaves badly, just as it is to be angry with a car that won't go."-B. Russell

PS: On the gross scientific abuse of the word "fact": "All exact science is dominated by the idea of approximation."

PPS yes, I like Russell.

Pat, thank you for the apology.

Well my innocent but truthful post exposing the reality of how crappy the HIV tests are, as well as exposing the unfortunate reality that the claims of 99% accuracy are pure bull and marketing nonsense, certainly seemed to rattle the cages of some of the HIV meme infected contributors on this thread!

It was particularly fun for me to share this with all of you, as Chris had just shared his discertation on how wonderful and accurate he believed all of the HIV tests are!

Adele says "He (lincoln) can't have his cake and eat it too!"

I say nonsense, of course I can.

I can absolutely have my cake and I absolutely can eat it all by myself if I want to.

You on the other hand, may eat up all of the HIV, AIDS, or any other dis-ease cakes that you would like to eat. I however, have no need or desire to share in this HIV/AIDS belief cake with you.

However, I really do love sharing my reality cakes with you Adele, as well as sharing them with Chris and DT and Dr. Foley and even Tara. I love the way all of your lips pucker up and how your beautiful hair stands on end after I share them with you!

By the way, no comments on what a handsome and intelligent and sensible guy I come across as in the Channel 10 news cast? No date offers? Just think of how wonderful the make-up sex could be after we argued about the validity or invalidity of the HIV tests and how corrupt the AIDS studies are every other day!

You could argue that Duesberg was "censored" when Nature would only allow him 500 words not the 2000 or more he requested.

Oh, Adele, I fear you'll never see the big picture. Are you denying that Duesberg's early opposition to HIV did not result in an almost absolute loss of funding for all of his research endeavors? Censorship in academia, particularly in HIV research, has reached unprecedented levels. Apparently you are also not familiar with a regular contributor to Barnes World; The Subversive Grad Student has provided many insights into the suppression of science in academia, particularly where the science reflects poorly on HIV. Regardless, the example of Nature limiting Duesberg's submission length is but a mere drop in the bucket, and you are once again being less than straightforward. Of course, Duesberg isn't the only example of HIV-related censorship. The most notable recent example involves the lobbying of the BBC, by leading HIV devotees, to remove the documentary, Guinea Pig Kids, from the BBC archive. Are you familiar with that example of censorship, Adele?

As for the behavior on this blog, it is true that no one has outright demanded the censorship of dissident views but several of you have made your real feelings on the matter clear. For example, Roy Hinkley offers the following:

This is not to say that laymen cannot discuss science with scientists, it is to say that Tara has been more than generous in letting you, Lincoln, and others litter her blog with thousands of words of foolishness.

I wonder if Roy thinks Tara should be less generous? What do you think Adele? Well maybe we shouldn't hold our breath for an honest answer since you follow up one of your typical Creationist analogies with:

"So I wonder why we debate people like Semon. Why do denialists come to aetiology?"

Are suggesting that debate should be stopped, Adele? I mean, you could of course proceed without dissident contributions, but that wouldn't be very productive for anyone since comments would essentially be reduced to self-congratulatory drivel.

Of course, my comments here on the censorship associated with HIV are woefully incomplete. Journalist like Celia Farber and Liam Scheff (among many others) have made incredible personal sacrifices to report the truth. Of course, we all know that the ban of such truth-telling was recently broken by Harper's, and the world is a better place for that act of bravery. Congratulations to Celia.

Kevin

Are you denying that Duesberg's early opposition to HIV did not result in an almost absolute loss of funding for all of his research endeavors?

As dissidents/rethinkers are wont to say "correlation does not prove causation".

As dissidents/rethinkers are wont to say "correlation does not prove causation".

What's your point, Dale?

I'm afraid your attempt at wit has failed. Are you implying that Duesberg was undeserving of his universal acclaim as a scientist? If so, I wonder if you'd like to comment on why he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Was that a product of correlation too?

I'm sure that you'll make no attempt to clarify your smug comment. As your past history suggests, straightforward discussions aren't your strongpoint and since the evidence for HIV-related censorship is truly overwhelming, I can't say I blame you.

Kevin

As dissidents/rethinkers are wont to say "correlation does not prove causation".

Which is why the government letters admitting to censorship, and other letters trying to bribe Peter Duesberg, in which Peter is asked HOW MUCH HE WOULD TAKE TO AGREE THAT HIV WAS THE CAUSE OF AIDS, along with Tony Fauci appearing on CNN and Good Morning America when Duesberg had been scheduled to appear, are more than enough evidence to PROVE the rethinkers case for censorship far beyond that of "correlation"!

For more on this, see www.duesberg.com for full information!

Are you implying that Duesberg was undeserving of his universal acclaim as a scientist?

Not at all. I'm just saying that I don't believe that one should automatically assume that Duesberg's stance on HIV is the reason that his NIH funding has not been renewed. Maybe he stopped writing fundable grants.

With regards to the accustation of censorship:

Here is the foreword to volume 95 of Genetica that was devoted in its entirety to "rethinker" authors. Peter Duesberg was the guest editor and any "rethinker" could get their ideas and opinions published. While Genetica is a peer reviewed journal I somehow doubt that Duesberg sent any of the manuscripts to Gallo for peer review.

Challenges to the mainstream view that AIDS is caused by HIV have been receiving increasing attention in recent months especially in the popular press. Part of the reason for this attention is no doubt grounded in wide-spread frustration resulting from the fact that after more than a decade of intensive research, there is still no cure for this deadly syndrome. A second issue which seems to be adding fuel to the controversy is the claim that a de facto conspiracy exists within the scientific community to prevent dissenting views and alternative AIDS hypotheses from being presented to the scientific and general public (see, for example, the recent London Times article by Neville Hodgkinson entitled 'HIV: A Conspiracy of Silence' recently reprinted in the June/July 1994 issue of The National Times). According to the Popperian dictum, a valid scientific hypothesis can ultimately only be strengthened by the challenge of alternative views. On the other hand, ignoring charges of scientific censorship can only work to undermine the public's confidence not only in the prevailing scientific view but also in the entire scientific establishment. In providing this forum for alternative AIDS hypotheses, Genetica hopes to dispel the notion that a 'conspiracy of silence' exists within the scientific community. In addition, it is hoped that this special issue will provide interested readers with a convenient central location where they can familiarize themselves with and evaluate essentially all of the major current challenges to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. Genetica recognizes its responsibility to provide our readers with a balanced presentation of the issues involved in this controversy and so welcomes the opportunity to publish replies by qualified individuals to views presented in this issue. John E McDonald Editor-in- Chief

So in reality there have been extraordinary efforts made to give "rethinkers" the opportunity to present their views (whether they are supported by evidence or not).

All rethinkers have been able to present their ideas. They have been ignored because their ideas do not have any value and not because of any censorship.

Ironically, "rethinkers" switch between arguing a) that Duesberg and other "rethinker" scientists must be taken seriously because they have published their opinions in peer reviewed journals and b) that Duesberg and other "rethinker" scientists are being censored.

Which one is it? Are they being censored or do they have lots of peer reviewed publications?

"When does Skepticism become Denial?"

2002 article.

Still painfully relevant.

Kevin,

Let's review briefly, you are someone who has suffered from a number of illnesses common among people with AIDS: candidiasis etc. But you have never tested HIV positive. Nor have you ever had an abnormal CD4 + T-cell count (As far as I can recall you saying, correct me if I'm wrong). Yet you claim to have suffered and recovered from "non-HIV AIDS", or some-such, and to argue, based at least partially on your personal health history, that HIV does not cause AIDS because you had a persistent candidiasis infection which you self-diagnosed as "non-HIV AIDS". Now you try to convince HIV positive people that they can eschew evidence based medicing and just take "natural remedies" and recover their health like you did.

Is that about right?

If those were my only two choices, then I think I would prefer corporate science over anti-science propaganda.

As for "calls for censorship", it would seem that your skills at reading are as finely honed as your skills at deductive reasoning.

"I wonder if Roy thinks Tara should be less generous?"

No Kevin, I think it would have been nice to have a denialist around who could talk intelligently about science instead of you, pat, lincoln and the gobbledy -gook spewing Gene Semon/Nick Naylor. If you re-read my comments you'll note that I was quite excited when I thought that Pope had confessed to being Andrew Maniotis.

I'd like to see someone make a decent argument for HIV/AIDS denial as I've never been able to find one.

Unfortunately we have gotten no science from the denialist crowd. Just repetition of the standard denialist propaganda and a science vocabulary word salad from Nick Naylor.

You'll forgive me now if I withdraw from the insult spewing portion of the thread. This thread has not shaped up into the scientific defense of the denialist position that I was hoping to see.

"No Kevin, I think it would have been nice to have a denialist around who could talk intelligently about science instead of you, pat, lincoln and the gobbledy -gook spewing Gene Semon/Nick Naylor. If you re-read my comments you'll note that I was quite excited when I thought that Pope had confessed to being Andrew Maniotis."

But when one IS here (Margulis) what happens? An insult spewing thread.

"You'll forgive me now if I withdraw from the insult spewing portion of the thread. This thread has not shaped up into the scientific defense of the denialist position that I was hoping to see."

If it causes you to stop spewing denialist venom at me then I fully support it.

pat,
could you search through the posts you have written in this thread and indicate which of them are free from venom and insults and which of them have any scientific content.

I'd like to see someone make a decent argument for HIV/AIDS denial as I've never been able to find one.

If you find one Roy, I hope you'll announce it somewhere because I've been looking for a while too.

Pat, Margulis was not here. And her comments (pregnancy and HIV, etc.) suggest she's more qualified to lecture us on our supposed colonialist tendencies than on HIV science.

Kevin, I asked an open question about the proper response to Gene Semon. I did not suggest censorship. I know you like to hear a layman sounding intelligent and supporting your position. But Semon makes no sense at all and he doesn't listen to anyone. If you can tell me how, I will debate him myself. But I don't think it's possible.

Lincoln, that link to Duesberg's page was just an NIH memo. Nothing exciting, just a concern about PR since the public is easily misled by pseudoscience. Where's the evidence Duesberg was offered a bribe?

If you re-read my comments you'll note that I was quite excited when I thought that Pope had confessed to being Andrew Maniotis.

Poor little Roy Hinkley...all he wants is someone who is smart enough to engage him. Of course, all anyone has to do is look at your post history in this thread, Roy, and they can easily verify that you are lying as to your true intentions. As Pat has pointed out, when someone with whom you disagree makes comments dealing with the science, you have consistently responded with personal attacks, Roy. Intelligent commentators such as Barry A, Pope, Nick Naylor, Sascha, and others are obviously unwilling to further engage a twit like you, no matter how "excited" you claim to be. Perhaps that was your goal from the very beginning.

I, however, am willing to continue pointing out the duplicitous behavior of posters such as yourself, Adele, ERV, Dale, Chris Noble, and any of the numerous other hacks who are masquerading as "scientific superheroes" (as Adele smarmily misappropriated to the "denialists"). All of the aformentioned superheroes have at one time or another claimed that laymen do not have sufficient knowledge to participate in this discussion, claiming that HIV=AIDS is a purely scientific matter; however, AIDS long ago moved beyond the strict confines of Academia. When a public health concern uses the likes of Bono and Oprah as the primary means by which the masses are educated, a new set of rules for the discussion becomes necessary. If the science behind HIV were truly overwhelming, such propaganda tactics would not be necessary.

Now you try to convince HIV positive people that they can eschew evidence based medicing and just take "natural remedies" and recover their health like you did.
Is that about right?
If those were my only two choices, then I think I would prefer corporate science over anti-science propaganda.

No, Roy, you haven't got that right either, which is not at all surprising. Once again, you offer an incomplete analysis, either because you are too dimwitted to understand or more likely, because you are well aware of the real source of the propaganda and can only salvage your position by offering a willfully incomplete analysis. I've written extensively about my experience and if you are truly interested in understanding my views on the matter, you can review my posts in the previous HIV thread on this blog, found HERE . As you'll see, I do not eschew all conventional treatments for this condition, just those that are obviously misguided. Furthermore, I stress that a comprehensive approach to treating this condition is necessary, and such an approach allows for far more options than your position recommends, i.e. drugs and more drugs are not the only answer. Many of the alternative treatment options espoused by prominent dissidents were extremely helpful for me and for others I know. The bottom line is that I was regularly being given potent prescription drugs and my health gradually declined until I nearly died; I stopped taking the antibiotics and other drugs, and I got well. Thus, I can now see why Dr. Duesberg presents challenges that apologists, such as yourself, Roy, wish to deny.

Kevin, I asked an open question about the proper response to Gene Semon. I did not suggest censorship. I know you like to hear a layman sounding intelligent and supporting your position.

So you asked an open question, Adele? Well, so did I?

Do you or do you not agree with the assertion that Dr. Peter Duesberg was unfairly denied funding for his research endeavors after publicly questioning the HIV hypothesis of AIDS?

It's a really simple question, Adele, and one that any laymen can certianly understand. I'd also like to hear Roy's answer regarding this very real occurrence of HIV-related censorship. Of course, since he is retiring from "insult spewing", I'm doubt he'll have anything to add.

Here's another simple question for you:

If you do wish to continue to deny that Duesberg was unfairly penalised for his outspoken criticism of HIV, how can expect anyone to take any of your scientific proclamations seriously?

It should be noted that Duesberg had been the recipient of the prestigious, Outstanding Investigator Grant (OIG), the year prior to publicizing his views on HIV; thus, any comment you, or Chris Noble or any of the other denialists wish to make, should also deal with that easily verifiable fact.

You'll forgive me now if I withdraw from the insult spewing portion of the thread. This thread has not shaped up into the scientific defense of the denialist position that I was hoping to see.

Good riddance, Roy. You and your cohorts have lost this debate on every level, and it's not surprising that you choose to "withdraw" now, for your weak arguments and your deceitful character attacks have been thoroughly exposed. Perhaps, Adele too will withdraw but let's hope she, at least, has the decency to answer my very simple question regarding the censorship of Dr. Duesberg.

Kevin

Kevin, I was not privy to the deliberations of any of the study sections that reviewed Duesberg's grant applications. If these grant applications included the same ridiculous mistakes and imho outright dishonesty seen in his AIDS books and articles, then they were correctly rejected. Are you familiar with Duesberg's misstatements, Kevin? Would you like me to repeat the examples from above?

I think Duesberg slowly became contrary and obsessed with wrong-headed ideas. He let this disrupt his scientific relationships and even let it compromise his standards of scholarship in my opinion. He's not the first scientist who let himself go.

But let's just say Duesberg is and always has been worthy of funding. What if a few scientists on some committees decided they didn't like him and wanted to withhold funds?

This would prove that some malicious people withheld funds from Duesberg. It would prove nothing about whether Duesberg, his critics, or anybody else was right or wrong.

Kevin, I have not insulted you once in this little comment. Would you mind returning the favor?

Intelligent commentators such as... Nick Naylor...

the duplicitous behavior of posters such as... ERV...

Pretty sure I pwned Nick Naylor, all while being incredibly polite and attempting to correct his errors on ERVs so he wouldnt do it again.
Pretty sure Nick agrees with that, since he hasnt come back to correct me (which I would be perfectly happy to hear, if I were wrong, as I am just a student).

What we have, here, is precisely what you get in 'discussions' with Creationists: never an admittance of "Oh I didnt know that!" or "Oooh I thought X could do process A-- but couldnt it still do process B?" I mean some, any acknowledgment of error.
Instead Deniers leap off to some other topic and hope you forget they got pwned on ERVs, all the while still bringing up ERVs in other message boards/blogs/etc (which I caught Nick doing).
Death before admitting error.

"pat,
could you search through the posts you have written in this thread and indicate which of them are free from venom and insults and which of them have any scientific content."

My last one was fairly reasonable, shit, I even apologized for my one real excess. Would you like to make a one-to-one comparison? I make no "scientific" claims because I am no scientist but this somehow doesn't make sense to you.

In no particular order and answerable "a la carte":
Why is my friend loosing his liver, face and balance? Why is he kept on meds despite his doctor's worry about his liver? Why was he made to take meds ten years ago because of a two week fever? Why was he given life long chemotherapy therapy to cure a two week fever? Why was he never tested for anything else to see if this fever was not something else then HIV? Why do Noreen, Mark Birnbaum and many other"denialists" have a similar story? Why did I blister with Herpes for two years before it had to be a naturopath to tell me "its the immune system stupid"? Why did she make a difference in my health? Why is she "woo" and not the family docs and their army of anti-virals? Why did one doc have to look up "herpes" in his little book when I was travelling in North America? Why did he ask if I was having "too much" sex when I had none in two years? Why are people dying of AIDS today when yesterday AIDS was clinincaly only a "manifestation" of one or several specific dangerous diseases? Why the clinical inaccuracy after so many years of clinical accuracy? Why is Chris Noble repeating this inaccuracy? Why does JP Moore argue that the testing of HIV drugs on orphans was given with the consent of the parents or the guardians("Children were enrolled with the consent of parents or guardians and under the oversight of New York City's Administration of Children's Services". IAS newsletter march 2007)? Why does he not know what an orphan is? Why does he not know it was an orphanage? Why do people say Maggiore is HIV positive when she is HIV +,HIV -,HIV +, HIV indeterminate? Why did Moore say EJ died of AIDS when the clinical requirements for the diagnosis were not met? Why do people get diagnoised with AIDS in the absence of the clinically required HIV+ test? Why is reverse diagnosis a clinically acceptable alternative? Why is it ok to taunt a grieving mother by reverse diagnosing her responsability for the loss of her child? Why does this Moore fly so low and where does he get off doing it so publicly? Why did we believe microbescides were the ticket for Africa? Why is Africa better suited for microbescides than for condoms? Why are we applying chemical irritants to sensitive tissues known to be prone to HIV invasion? Why did this Moore on the street say "DUH!" when the Moore in the lab said "HUH?" Why do viruses have DVD Zone codes? Why do zone-2 codes only work in africa and its former colonial masters but the zone-1 codes are universally available regardless of colonial history and why does an AIDS diagnosis require a zone 1 and 2 HIV-decoder and not Africa? Why is plural of anecdote not data in the west but is in Africa? Why are estimates published on factsheets? Why do people invent things like the permanent condom graft (British Journal of Urology, 1998, 82, 292)? Why are urologists so bored? Why do I think "Space Truckers" was a visionary movie? etc, etc.

"Poor little Roy Hinkley...all he wants is someone who is smart enough to engage him."

Your reading "skills" fail you yet again.

I was hoping for someone smart enough to engage Dr. Foley.

I enjoyed the character attacks you claim typically come from the scientific side. Project much Kevin?

Intelligent commentators such as... Nick Naylor...

the duplicitous behavior of posters such as... ERV...

ERV, it is all very very simple.

Nick Naylor says HIV does not cause AIDS. Kevin also says that HIV does not cause AIDS. Therefore Nick Naylor is intelligent.

You point out errors in the pseudoscience that Nick Naylor used to argue that HIV does not cause AIDS. Kevin would prefer to avoid dealing with these errors. Therefore you are duplicitous.

Kevin is not judging the issue on the science. He is just a cheerleader with team loyalty.

Give me a D
Give me a E
Give me a N
Give me a I
Give me a A
....

Do I get a prize for pinting out the obvious?

I think Duesberg slowly became contrary and obsessed with wrong-headed ideas.

His loss of funding sure didn't happen slowly. You are a hypocrite and your response to my question leaves no doubt. In addressing the censorship of Duesberg, you claim ignorance. Well, I won't argue with you on that point.

However, I clearly asked you to include an explanation for why a current, Outstanding Ivestigator Award recipient, was denied fudning, you offer the following pollyanna:

If these grant applications included the same ridiculous mistakes and imho outright dishonesty seen in his AIDS books and articles, then they were correctly rejected.

His books on AIDS were published long after his funding was withheld. The lone article for which he was censured appeared in the most prestigious scientific journal in the United States, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS). I think it's fairly clear that his censure was a direct result of that article and not the result of a poor grant proposal.

Continuing, if your inability to digest that fact wasn't revealing enough, you flippantly follow up with this bit of pollyanna:

But let's just say Duesberg is and always has been worthy of funding. What if a few scientists on some committees decided they didn't like him and wanted to withhold funds?

Duesberg was considered by many to be Nobel-worthy, so if a few hacks-in-committee are in a position to alter Duesberg's research so significantly, what does that say about the current highly politicized state of Science? And what does it say about you, Adele, for accepting such a situation? In case you have trouble with mirrors, Adele, it shows that you are a hack too and that the brand of science you are willing to accept is based less on evidence than you have led readers of this blog to believe.

Incidentally, I tried writing this review with as little insult as possible, but it's difficult to do so considering the ridiculous response you proffered.

Kevin

Kevin is not judging the issue on the science. He is just a cheerleader with team loyalty. Do I get a prize for pinting out the obvious?

Is that all you got, Chris?

Even for a character attack, that is weak. It's difficult to respond to the truth, I realize, but you're slipping, Mr. IgNoble.

"Pretty sure I pwned Nick Naylor"..."What we have, here, is precisely what you get in 'discussions' with Creationists:"

Don't you mean: "I pwned him because I called him a Creationist"

He uses the same arguments as Creationists. I wrote those posts +month before he posted his 'ideas' on HIV & ERVs.

You know you could read my 'ERV' tagged posts to educate yourself on this topic too.

Its an open blog.

Don't you mean: "I pwned him because I called him a Creationist"

You're wrong on two points.

a) ERV pointed out in detail the scientific evidence that refutes Nick Naylor's nonsense. Remember that part of a scientific debate that you skip over before you get to the insults?

b) Saying that someone argues like a Creationist does not equate to saying they are a Creationist. Why do "rethinkers" continually misrepresent a valid comparison? The "rethinker" in question may indeed be offended by this comparison but this point is secondary to point a.

I have insulted some "rethinkers". I have also provided the evidence that refutes their claims (in the rare event that they actually make scientific claims).

You can look back and find countless posts where I have patiently presented the evidence in detail with supporting references that refutes the claims made by Wilhelm Godschalk and Gene Semon.

When they come back under different pseudonyms it pisses me off. Am I supposed to go through the whole thing again? No. They have demonstrated that they are trolls. If you claim otherwise then attempt to support their claims with scientific evidence.

The point is that neither you nor Kevin can defend these points and yet you rush to defend their characters simply because they are on your "side".

What is the point in calling for a scientific debate if you have no intention of examining the scientific evidence?

Adele et al

Re: the internal letter from HHS officer Chuck Kline, you said: " Nothing exciting, just a concern about PR.

However, as for myself, one single line that most gives me trouble in that letter states:

"The article (by Duesberg) apparently went through the normal pre-publication process and SHOULD HAVE BEEN FLAGGED AT NIH".

Why Adele, should a member of the National Academy of Science, as well as a top NIH researcher, indeed the winner of the NIH's prestigious "INVESTIGATOR OF THE YEAR AWARD" such as Peter Duesberg have his work flagged?

Why should his sincere and honest work of investigation have been "flagged" during pre publication?

Flagged for what purpose Adele?

Flagged to be OK'ed and suitable for print or flagged to be Rejected for publication!

Please explain to me Adele, how this "Flagging" of a top research scientists' sincere work is "merely a concern for PR"?

Is it possible, Adele, that a "mere concern for PR" can keep works from being published that the taxpayers have every right to knowing?

Explain yourself on this Adele? Inquiring taxpayers want to know?

What happened to Peter Duesberg is one of the reasons that many demanded whistleblower protections be created and put into law!

If you fail to see the courage that Peter has displayed in the face of all he has been subjected to, after he went against a "popular belief" in 1987, when 5 years later, his nemesis that Peters' paper challenged, Robert Gallo was found guilty on charges of scientific misconduct, then you must be simply a completely unthinking fool, and I would like to sell you a very nice bridge!

More details and information of the bribery involved can be found on Duesberg's site and in his book, as well as in Harvey Bialy's book. And at:

http://www.duesberg.com/about/bribepd.html

Adele, you and others such as Chris and Dale and DT, do not seem to me to have any sincere interest in learning anything that may put your own current beliefs and current proclamations, or put any of HIV/AIDS researchers' presupposed infallibility on these issues in jeopardy.

If you yourself had any sincere interest in finding the truth out, you would email your own questions to Peter and ask him yourself. If you had sincere interest, your posts on this thread would not be so filled with self serving and self protective statements of current HIV research supposed infallibility. You would instead have sincere questions to those of us who have spent many years researching other aspects of this issue.

Adele, I may be wrong about you and the other defenders of HIV/AIDS, but you, as well as all of the others on the pro HIV side of the issue, certainly seem to me to have no genuine interest in the pursuit of truth. Your only interest seems to be in argumentation or downplaying anything of obvious importance that the dissidents have shown you. And you do so while pretending that anybody that doesn't agree with you must be either nuts or completely wrong and everything believed in by the mainstream about HIV or AIDS must be right and correct.

I see no healthy scepticism of any of this HIV business within you at all, other than your own subconcious mind continues to bring you back to see what we will share with you next.

But then again, they say ignorance is bliss, so why else rock your boat Adele reading anything that we dissidents have yet to say?

The best thing you could do to protect your own ignorant bliss, Adele, is to stay away from, and stop reading or responding to the dissident posts on this issue. Once he got involved and found out what the dissidents had to share, Chris Noble is no longer able to stop reading our materials, and repeatedly shows obvious evidence of serious emotional instability over it all, as his conscious mind now fights with his own subconsciousness over it. Are you doing the same as well. There is only one reason why I can think of that you, and Dale, and DT, and Chris, and Roy and even Tara, and all of the other protectors of current HIV beliefs, would continue to come back again and again to smash your heads against these opposing beliefs!

Most likely you are and you should be very afraid that the dissident rethinkers may just be right again! Your current beliefs are threatened. Your job is threatened. But even worse, Your ego is threatened by such a prospect! You yourself would have to rethink what you believe in and what you have dedicated your own life to, and what you do for a living! Ouch!

If such is your position, and you do not desire to do rethink your life or go insane, as Chris Noble, and John Moore, and Mark Wainberg and Robert Gallo, and others have done, then do yourself a favor and read not one word further Adele!
---------------------------------------------------------
Because..... The question is......Are the dissident rethinkers right about any of the thoughts and beliefs they have shared here???

just as they were right about the deadly toxicity of high dosage AZT,

just as they were about the toxicity of protease terminators and other treatments?

just as they were about the necessity for proper nutrition and clean water and hygiene when treating any illness in 3rd world countries,

just as they were about the ignorance of diagnosing people as HIV with either no test at all and just on "symptoms" (the Bangui definition of HIV/AIDS),

just as they were about diagnosing people with only an Eliza test,

just as they were about the obvious role that drug and alcohol abuse plays in failure to thrive,

just as they were about the failures of relying on CD4 counts as a measure of supposed damage done by HIV,

just as they were about the failures of using PCR to determine someones immune status,

just as they were about the importance of the effects of high stress including the toxic stress of a deadly HIV positive diagnosis on a patients immune system,

just as they were about the effects of overuse of antibiotics on some patients,

just as they were about HIV not being the cause of Kaposis sarcomas,

just as they were about HIV not being the cause of cervical cancer,

just as they were and still are about the impossibility of treating "HIV/AIDS" with a vaccine,

just as they were about corruption and stock/cash given to doctors and scientists? Or perhaps you are not aware that last year 530 directors and top scientists at the NIH were found to be taking undisclosed kickbacks from big pharma?

and just as they were and obviously are about many issues that have kept mainstream AIDS researchers feet held to the fire to find out the truth about HIV and AIDS in all of its myriad manifestations.

and just as they were in exposing the fraud and deceit and greed of some top HIV scientists, that has helped to expose and helped to clean out the low standards of morals and values that is quite prevalent in many of the realms of scientific research in science and also in medicine.

As a matter of fact Adele, if you are still reading, it seems the only progress made in HIV/AIDS knowledge and treatment has been made by the nonstop demands and whistleblowing and pushing of the dissident rethinkers to demand that scientists and medical doctors wake up to the obvious problems that they otherwise refuse to look at, and use their own God Given common sense, and higher integrity, instead of relying on dogma and false beliefs and scaring their patients to death, and milking the "AIDS" issue for all of the money that they can make out of it!

Although most people on average are by nature, Adele, fairly stubborn and fairly slow learners when it comes to overcoming lacks of morality or overcoming pre-programmed false beliefs, someday, most of mankind will hopefully transcend this combative issue of HIV/AIDS and will hopefully find some of the ultimate truths involved.

Provided we remain open minded and willing to such being the goal.

It would be interesting to know how history will look back upon HIV/AIDS hundreds of years from now.

After all, even the medical treatments of the first United States Surgeon General, Dr. Benjamin Rush, who even doctored to, and eventually killed President George Washington, by "bleeding" him of four fifths of his blood, and "treated" him with high doses of "Calomel", which is poisonous mercury oxide, are practices which modern medicine no longer approves of.

And just think Adele, it only took 130 years after George Washington's death at the hands of his doctor, to get mercury oxide out of direct medical prescriptions by doctors! And, it was not until the 1980's when we in the United States, finally stopped putting "mercurachrome" on our childrens cuts and scrapes.
Mercury is still used as a preservative in most vaccinations, and is still put directly into peoples mouths when used as the base for silver and gold fillings.

And then we wonder why, after using mercury on children and in vaccines and in our dental fillings, that modern humanity suffers from so many mysterious illnesses of the nervous and mental systems, not unlike the "mad hatters" who used mercury in the making of hats.

We wonder why 70 percent of childhood medications are for "emotional problems", although this is not to say that it is all due solely to effects of mercury and some of the vaccinations, as I am sure many other factors are also involved, just as many factors are obviously involved in who gets sick with AIDS.

Mankind is generally a bit slow by nature, Adele, so you and all of the others are not to be faulted for this behavior. In my heart, I know that all of us and all of you want to do what is right, and there is never one single path with signs that leads to the correct way to go. But hopefully and eventually we will all yet wake up to the foolishness of our own thick heads one day provided we are willing and open minded enought to do so. Perhaps then we may hear each others valid points, and go beyond this entire issue with what is best for our own individual selves and what is best for all of humanity.

Sometimes it can seem that the more things change, the more they stay the same!

Mercury oxide (Calomel) and bleeding of patients was the main chosen treatment for illness by the first US Surgeon General and Chief Doctor Benjamin Rush, especially for treatment of yellow fever, which, unknown at the time, is spread by mosquitoes. An epidemic of yellow fever, along with Surgeon General Benjamin Rush's promotion of Calomel and bleeding 4/5ths of a patients blood, decimated one fourth of the population of the then first US capital city of Philadelphia in the summer of the year 1793.

At the time, Philadelphia was THE capital city of the federal government. The federal government, including Washington and Jefferson and Adams all went to Washington DC before the buildings and roads were even finished just to escape the epidemic in Philly.

A minority of doctors, who had even higher success with recommendations of rest, good food, and fresh air, and moving away from the swamps around the city of Philadelphia, fought against these treatments of bleeding and mercury dosing at the time, but were quite unsuccessful at getting the practices stopped, as Dr. Rush and the other leading doctors of the time demanded that they were absolutely correct and were absolutely saving lives and called those who disagreed with them killers and murderers of the innocents who were whithholding life saving proven treatments! Rush and his team of doctors claimed that the proof that his calomel and bleeding treatments worked is that the outbreak of Yellow Fever ended by November (just so happened to coincide with when the frosts came and the mosquitoes dissappeared for the winter).

Later than that, in 1805, Thomas Jefferson sent Northwest Expedition explorers, Louis and Clark, to see Dr. Rush for medical advice for their expedition to explore the American Northwest territories. Dr. Rush gave them several "bleeders" for slicing veins open, and a box full of Calomel for the trip, the only medical supplies they carried!

Later than that, in 1805, Thomas Jefferson sent Northwest Expedition explorers, Louis and Clark, to see Dr. Rush for medical advice for their expedition to explore the American Northwest territories. Dr. Rush gave them several "bleeders" for slicing veins open, and a box full of Calomel for the trip, the only medical supplies they carried along!

The following was a popular song written in the early to mid 1800's regarding doctors prescriptions of Calomel (mercury oxide). And even with that, many doctors still continued to prescribe calomel to patients in the USA until the 1930's.

Enjoy the words to the song. It was sung to the tune of "Oh Tannenbaum".

Ye doctors all of every rank
With their long bills that break the bank,
Of wisdom's learning, art, and skill
Seems all composed of calomel.

Since calomel has been their toast,
How many patients have they lost,
How many hundreds have they killed,
Or poisoned with their calomel.

lf any fatal wretch be sick
Go call the doctor, haste, be quick,
The doctor comes with drop and pill
But don't forget his calomel.

He enters, by the bed he stands,
He takes the patient hy the hand,
Looks wise, sits down his pulse to feel
And then takes out his calomel.

Next, turning to the patient's wife,
He calls for paper and a knife.
" l think your husband would do well
To take a dosc ol calomel."

The man grows worse, grows bad indeed
" Go call the doctor, ride with speed."
The doctor comes, the wife to tell
To double the dose of calomel.

The man begins in death to groan,
The fatal job for him is done,
The soul must go to heaven or hell,
A sacrifice to calomel.

The doctors of the present day
Mind not what an old woman say,
Nor do they mind me when l tell
I am no friend to calomel.

Well, if I must resign my breath,
Pray let me die a natural death
And if I must bid all farewell,
Don't hurry me with calomel.

from American Ballads and Songs

f you yourself had any sincere interest in finding the truth out, you would email your own questions to Peter and ask him yourself.

I asked Peter a question once. Over at deansworld. I asked him how he would explain a particular paper describing phylogenetic analysis of a heterosexual HIV transmission cohort without invoking heterosexual transmission. His (non) response as I recall was to ask for a pdf of the paper. His colleague (Rasnick according to Dean) responded with some non sequitor about how the paper wasn't actually testing heterosexual transmission. So much for asking sincere questions.

Adele, you and others such as Chris and Dale and DT, do not seem to me to have any sincere interest in learning anything that may put your own current beliefs and current proclamations, or put any of HIV/AIDS researchers' presupposed infallibility on these issues in jeopardy.

This I find ironic. Don't know about the others but I knew very little about HIV or AIDS when I stumbled across Harvey Bialy's "falsifying AIDS" post over at DW. The post itself was clearly scientific nonsense. I thought it was a joke and I tried very hard for a while to get Harvey to post even a single reasonable argument to support Duesberg's position on AIDS. Never happened. So I did some reading of mainstream and dissident literature. The more Duesberg I read, the more flawed arguments and the more examples of misrepresenting the literature I found. So in fact, while I think the science of HIV and AIDS has been grossly complicated and perhaps even distorted by the politics, it's reading dissident literature that has convinced me as much as anything that HIV causes AIDS.

Lincoln, I have already said that I've read the denialist literature. I already said I went into it wanting you guys to be right. Underdog story and all that jazz. But as I read unfortunately there was no way I could apply logic and knowledge and believe this stuff. And then when I started my job cleaning out the monkey cages (I won't smash pat's delusions, well, you can't keep denying when the truth hits you in the face every day.

In my experience, it's the denialists, not the scientists, who avoid reading the other side. Usually when I read a denialist argument supposedly based on a paper, there's been like five removes from the actual literature. The Perth group says something about a 1983 paper, it's taken by Rasnick and then repeated on altheal or somewhere and then Maniotis or someone puts it on YBYL further distorted and finally a book is published with the last version, and it refers to the original paper even when the author obviously never read it. That's typical and really dishonest.

"The point is that neither you nor Kevin can defend these points and yet you rush to defend their characters simply because they are on your "side".

What is the point in calling for a scientific debate if you have no intention of examining the scientific evidence?"

Chris I quoted Russell who had a very good point about stupid people always misunderstanding what smart people say; not say you are stupid and I am smart but you really make me wonder about your level stupidity. Of course your sclerotic mind thinks I am defending Kevin or Margulis or whonot because they are on ...ready?... "my side"???
Chris I don't care who is on what "side". I am a skeptic and that is my "side"; so according to your lazy logic and coupled with your vast and precise understanding of english words I couldn't possibly be on any "denier" side. For those not in the clear about the difference between a skeptic and a denier: a skeptic is a "maybe, maybe not" person and a denier is simply a "no" person; simple yet unfortunately not clear to all. I am skeptical for many reasons and all your talk about petri dish observation doesn't explain Africa, for example but you simply can never offer any response to that. I will galdly accept that HIV causes AIDS as a FACT if you can show me how it works in Africa. Are you afraids of having to defend the African sex myths that supports HIV/AIDS because you would come accross as a racist? Do you never think about Africa when you look into your microscope? Are there no viruses shaped like africa to remind you? Do you look into microscopes? Why are estimates printed on fact sheets? Is African Aids based on the teachings of Herge and the adventures of Tintin in the Congo? If Margulis is not qualified to discuss virology then I would like to know of your qualifications before I take any unqualified and potentially dangerous scientific opinions from you. If you have no answer to these questions just simply ignore them and me, please.

PS No one can prove HIV does not cause AIDS just as no one can prove God doesn't cause creation (nor can they prove the opposite). I'm a sinner because I don't believe in God and a Denialist because I don't take Chris' word for it. You can pile up all the corollation you want, it can not and never will be "fact" and this is a fact only to those who apply proper use of english. You are like the creationists and you even argue through the dung pile just like one. Take the Margulis ambush and compare that to the ID "discussion" Adele mentioned and call it "not dung". That was my "creationist analogy".

"language is the source of ALL misunderstanding"- Confusius

I already said I went into it wanting you guys to be right. Underdog story and all that jazz.

Yeah, right. Your frequent use of the nasty and pejorative "denalist" certainly belies your supposed affinity for the underdog. Once again, your status as a hypocrite (and all that jazz) only grows, Adele:

In my experience, it's the denialists, not the scientists, who avoid reading the other side.

This denialist entered this dialogue with an open mind and found that the RETHINKER position was far more tenable than the apologist position -- a position that is replete with examples of shoddy science where circular reasoning is the answer to the innumerable contradictions contained within.

Kevin

"...and perhaps even distorted by the politics"

This is what I believe African Aids to be and will until anyone can point me to the right literature which actually supports African Oversexuality. Is TAC (a political/ activist group) promoting sound science or is it promoting gross abuse of it?

I'm also always amazed at the difficulty that apologists seem to have in providing straightforward answers to straightforward questions.

Roy Hinkley laments:
I was hoping for someone smart enough to engage Dr. Foley.

First off, I'm not convinced that Dr. Foley is the intellectual powerhouse that Hinkley intimates. He doesn't seem capable of communicating in that straightforward manner that has traditionally marked superior intellects. For example, all the way back in 1997, which I'll refer to as the "HO Days of HIV", Dr. Foley used a rather lame analogy (sound familiar?) in anwering the following posed question, "Why is the HIV virus so frail outside of the body and so deadly in it?"

Here's the analogy that Dr. Foley saw fit to employ when answering this question at madsci.org . Readers can decide in what way it reflects on Dr. Foley's brilliance:

To use an analogy; Country A might try to take over country B by invading with a group of men with guns. The government of country B sees this war immediately and fights back the invasion after only a couple of hundred people are killed. This is like the flu virus invading a person. Country C decides to ruin the same country B by sending many young men to country B to join the country B army. They don't kill anyone, but they tell the regular soldiers in country B's army to be lazy and not obey the commands of the army leaders. After 20 years the country B army is full of poor soldiers and it gets invaded by armies from counties E, F and G and cannot fight back. This is more like the human immunodeficiency virus invading a person.

Has everyone been blinded by Dr. Foley's brilliance? LOL. I may not be an esteemed retroviral "expert", but it seems pretty clear to me that anyone who argues using such a goofy analogy isn't any more fit to argue the science than I am.

Kevin

Pat,
You should relax just a bit. It is never easy to watch a close friend slowly die. And because of that I probably have a lot more respect for you than many of the posters here. But if you want to engage with people in a debate that will possibly lead to new insights, you have to listen, or read, carefully and filter the drosch. Also do not let yourself be provoked into what will inevitably degenarate into mud slinging.
Comparing denialism to creationist debating tactics may not be very nice but unfortunately has some basis in truth. You have to be able to put yourself in your counterpart's shoes to truly engage the person.

Kevin wrote This denialist entered this dialogue with an open mind and found that the RETHINKER position was far more tenable than the apologist position

Since the purpose of a good hypothesis is to make testable predictions I can see why the rethinker position would appeal to you. You were sick without HIV and got better without ARVs. The flaw in your logic, as has been pointed out to you by others, is that since you were never HIV positive, you never had AIDS and thus your experience isn't relevant to whether or not HIV causes AIDS.

Kevin, my use of the descriptive term "denialist" as in HIV/AIDS denialist, post-dates my original reading of the denialist literature. No contradiction there. You don't have to believe I was open-minded before that, but I know that I was, and your opinion is of no concern to me. I was actually biased towards denial, although I didn't call it that then.

Pat, who do you hang out with? I've never known anyone who defends this "African Oversexuality" thing. Certainly no scientist proposes this.

Thabo Mbeki made this charge against "Western" medicine. It's part of his political appeal. There is no support for his comments that I know of. That's not to say there's no racism in the West, or in Africa. I just fail to see evidence of it in science or medicine or policy towards African AIDS.

Lincoln,
You provide a long list of things you fondly imagine the denialists have been "right about". This list is simply a rethinkers' revisionist history of HIV which bears no resemblance to reality. Most of the assertions are false, or based on a false premise or logical fallacy. A few of them are truths that the HIV orthodoxy has never disputed.

Why are listing these questions? Do you genuinely want a discussion about the scientific merits of each and every claim? (recent history makes me doubt this). Or are your questions merely rhetorical, with you using the list to try and convince people of the moral and intellectual superiority of the rethinkers cause? If so this is patently dishonest. I am afraid the real world is rather different to what is found in the rethinkers' alternative universe.

It is unhelpful to spam this thread with numerous queries like you and Pat seem to be doing. If you are unable to address the issue under discussion without wandering off topic and randomly venting your insults, then don't bother posting.

Comparing denialism to creationist debating tactics may not be very nice but unfortunately has some basis in truth. -- Sascha

Well, you certainly can't make that claim without backing it up with some examples, Sascha. I'm disappointed that you think that HIV rethinkers can justifiably be compared to Creationists. I'm a staunch atheist and find Creationism intellectually offensive, and I certainly don't think that it is an acceptable practice to use such a loaded and perjorative term in a completely unrelated debate -- certainly not without fully fleshing out your reasons for doing so. So, let's hear those reasons. Where do you find the justification for the claim that a comparison of Creationists and HIV rethinkers has "some basis in truth" ?

You've been a very reasonable contributor to this discussion, amongst the sea of peurile mudslingers. I'm very disappointed that you'd make such a careless statement. The questions that Rethinkers pose to the HIV establishment are absolutely related to the interpretation of the evidence, and the answers supplied by the HIV apologists has hardly been as overwhelming and convincing as many on this blog wish to assert. Those who defend Creationism distort the evidence, and that tactic has gotten far more use from HIV apologists than from rethinkers. Furthermore, the list of scientists who question the HIV=AIDS link is hardly a who's who of Creationist sympathizers. If you wish to compare them to Creationists, you should provide examples so that they can respond; otherwise you are engaging in worthless "character attacks" and that I expect from the likes of Chris Noble, but it is a surprise coming from you, based on your limited contributions here.

Despicable.

Kevin

Pat: "For those not in the clear about the difference between a skeptic and a denier: a skeptic is a "maybe, maybe not" person and a denier is simply a "no" person; simple yet unfortunately not clear to all.

Fine Pat, lets look at some of the things you mention and lets see if you are a "maybe, maybe not" person or simply a "no" person.

"Why did Moore say EJ died of AIDS when the clinical requirements for the diagnosis were not met?"

Perhaps because the autopsy report showed she had Pneumocystis pneumonia, atrophy of the thymus (which was also fibrosed), she had lesions characteristic of underlying HIV encephalitis on brain histology, she had HIV p24Ag detected in the brain by immunohistochemistry, she had laboratory signs of a chronic anemia, she had oral herpes, she had failed to gain weight appropriately in her last year of life, slipping under the 5th centile, and she had none of the symptoms or signs typical of "amoxicillin allergy" (which is what al Bayati claims she died from).

Do I hear a "maybe, maybe not" on the possibility EJ had AIDS, or just a plain "no"?

"Why did we believe microbescides were the ticket for Africa? Why is Africa better suited for microbescides than for condoms?"

Perhaps because in Africa, females are routinely disempowered when it comes to negotiating and controlling sex with a male partner. Condoms require male complicity and acceptance - something uncommon in Africa (as ANC Vice-president Jacob Zuma quite clearly demonstrated). Using a microbicide in the form of a gel in the vagina returns some of the control back to the female - if the male cannot be persuaded to use a condom, then there is the hope that she will have some protection come what may.

This is an entirely reasonable approach - it just happens to be one that orthodox science has not solved yet. So do we hear a "maybe, maybe not" for the orthodox approach on this one, or a flat "No"?

Go on Pat... You can do it.

Kevin
It's not in the substance that the similarity can be found but in the way the debate is carried forward. If truly the debate was based on the science than I would not be able to make that claim; for that is how "denialism in the larger sense" is not argued. Demanding to see the "one paper" that proves this or that is an example.
But my point to Pat was not to be provoked by such comparisons for, while I personally agree with the comparison, it is one that should not be made within the confines of the debate. Blog debates, because of their very low inhibition threshahold will become insulting much faster than a real life argument. So people should be somewhat more careful about how they couch their posts.
This and our last exchange show how quickly this can develop.
Another mistake is to generalise, I put it to you that not all "rethinkers" are reaonable debaters and that some posts here are quite inflammatory. Unquestionaly not all those defending the "orthodoxy" are polite and restrained.
My limited posting is a reflection of my limited knowledge of the science behind the debate. I have nothing to contribute there.

You were sick without HIV and got better without ARVs.

The flaw in your logic, Dale, as has been pointed out to you is that you cannot afford to see the link between patients such as myself and those that you BELIEVE are afflicted with a deadly virus, because to entertain that possibility would require admitting that the perfect dogma surrounding HIV is, in fact, thoroughly imperfect. Had you not already made up your mind about HIV, no doubt based partly on your own personal ties to the pharmaceutical industry, you'd see that HIV-negative AIDS is not so different than HIV-positive AIDS.

In addition, you , as a pharmaceutical rep are in no position to levy a "conflict of interest" charge at me. That simply demonstrates clearly that you are comfortable in your role as a hypocrite, Dale. I have been quite clear regarding my own conflict of interest in this matter, and it is certainly more reasonable than someone who stands to gain financially from continued support for HIV, as you do. As such, though it is true that I first learned that HIV was not a necessary condition for AIDS based on my own ill health, my opinion on HIV not being a sufficient cause of AIDS came well after resolution of my health problems.

Barry A attempted to explain the significance of this fact, but none of the sycophants on this blog could overcome their bias long enough to contribute meaningfully to such a discussion. The fact remains that HIV has failed as both a necessary and a sufficient condition for AIDS. My case is certainly not the only confirming incidence. I just happen to be here to answer questions to that effect. I'm sure that doesn't sit well with the hypocrites, but like I said, I'm not going away anytime soon.

Kevin

Kevin, you say "Those who defend Creationism distort the evidence, and that tactic has gotten far more use from HIV apologists than from rethinkers. "

I am quite surprised you think this. Evidence of distortion of scientific data abounds in rethinker circles. The example that springs most easily to mind is "Padian".

"As such, though it is true that I first learned that HIV was not a necessary condition for AIDS based on my own ill health, my opinion on HIV not being a sufficient cause of AIDS came well after resolution of my health problems.

Barry A attempted to explain the significance of this fact, but none of the sycophants on this blog could overcome their bias long enough to contribute meaningfully to such a discussion."

Chris Noble explained this previously, as have others. Unfortunately the point never seems to sink in. Sometimes when this happens one can blame the messenger for being clumsy in his delivery. But enough people have gone over this ground from so many angles that one is forced to conclude that in this case the recipient just doesn't want to be accept the parcel, and nothing will make him change his mind.

Hepatitis C virus is not necessary for cirrhosis. Cirrhosis can be caused by things other than Hepatitis C.
But can hepatits C cause cirrhosis, or is it sufficient to cause cirrhosis? You bet!

Kevin,
I'm afraid you're mistaking me for someone else. I have no ties to the pharmaceutical industry other than buying their products like every other consumer.

So called HIV-negative AIDS differs from HIV-positive AIDS in any number of ways. First, so called HIV-negative AIDS often resolves without ARVs - HIV positive AIDS doesn't. Second, there are thousands of times more HIV-positive AIDS patients than there are HIV negative patients with AIDS-like symptoms.

Personally, I will believe that HIV causes AIDS when Chris, Adele, Dale, DT, Foley, Gallo, Moore, and maybe a couple of other apologists shoot themselves up with it and die of some of the AIDS defining illnesses. And the sooner the better, cause you guys really need some serious proof of your statements as soon as possible.

Until they do so, it would at least be nice if they would all just keep their own silly beliefs to themselves as the world has no need of the life squelching terror, fear, and panic that they seek to spread with their current beliefs, because people who are ill and seeking to recover their health have no need of terror, panic, fear, and stress and hopelessness in their lives.

Thanks lincoln for telling us what you really think.

A. You want people who disagree with you to die. (Have any of the people on your list ever wished something like this for denialists? I sure as hell haven't.)

B. Until they have the courtesy to die, your opponents should shut up. To pat, disagreeing with someone is censorship. What is Lincoln advocating, then?

Pat, we're still waiting for those references about "Oversexuality."

It's not in the substance that the similarity can be found but in the way the debate is carried forward.

Just as I figured, Sascha. You were speaking carelessly, and the one example that you provide is so weak that I'll not even address it until you elaborate. What is striking about your response is that you wish to place all of the blame for "the way the debate is carried forward" squarely at the feet of dissidents, when there are ample examples of establishment behavior that suggests that is a huge mistake.

Unlike you, Sascha, I've provided numerous examples of unprofessional behavior on behalf of the orthodoxy -- behavior that could be construed to be similar to Creationists, but more importantly, it is behavior that is marked by transparent attempts to stifle debate. You, of course, have remained silent on these issues including examples given that demonstrate blatant acts of censorship on the part of the orthodoxy. Perhaps, you'd like to hide behind your "scientific ignorance" regarding these facts, as well, but that is unacceptable for you have shown that you are capable of reason and that is all that one needs to participate; therefore, one can only assume that you lack the courage to publicly consider the role that censorship plays in HIV "education".

You assert that "it's not in the substance that the similarity can be found", and I do not disagree here, for the pertinent questions asked by dissidents deal almost exclusively with the substance of the matter. To my mind, that's the hallmark of real scientific debate and the antithesis to Creationist tactics. On the other hand, simply labeling someone as a "denialist" or a "creationist" does not contribute to understanding the "substance" of this debate, at all, and the very fact that dissidents are constantly bombarded with such nonsense is an indictment of the poor climate in which science is being conducted -- a climate that is preferred because it insulates HIV from criticism. It is pathetic that such has to be pointed out to someone with obvious critical thinking skills, Sascha. Dr. Margulis' recent comments exposing this foul climate were entirely justified.

Anyone following this thread can easily discern that those defending the establishment seem to be allergic to debating the substance, for the comments that they have made have overwhelmingly taken the form of "character attacks", which I gather you also have no problems accepting as appropriate.

This and our last exchange show how quickly this can develop. Another mistake is to generalise, I put it to you that not all "rethinkers" are reaonable debaters and that some posts here are quite inflammatory.

I apologised for previous indiscretions where you are concerned, for they were truly based on a misunderstanding. You, however, did not acknowledge that courtesy, perhaps because you also lack the courage to show respect to a "denialist", under any circumstances. Nevertheless, I certainly don't disagree that some rethinkers are inflammatory, but your bias is further revealed when you meekly proclaim: "Unquestionably not all those defending the "orthodoxy" are polite and restrained." Polite and restrained? I see that your choice of adjectives for the orthodox offenders is decidedly less incisive. If anyone in the debate has been unreasonable and prone to inflame, it's been those unscrupulously defending the orthodoxy.

My limited posting is a reflection of my limited knowledge of the science behind the debate. I have nothing to contribute there.

Perhaps, you just think you have nothing to contribute. As I've previously pointed out, HIV is no longer a purely scientific matter. I, too, fell silent when the earlier more scientific discussions in this thread were attempted. I'm not adverse to learning about the science, but sadly, those discussions were sabotaged by the aforementioned orthodoxy "defense team."

Nevetheless, I certainly do not agree that someone who doesn't understand all of the scientific details is incapable of contributing to this discussion. For anyone to make such an assertion is not only disingenuous, it's dangerously obsequious.

Kevin

as the world has no need of the life squelching terror, fear, and panic that they seek to spread with their current beliefs, because people who are ill and seeking to recover their health have no need of terror, panic, fear, and stress and hopelessness in their lives.

HIV causes AIDS. Ignoring that, while it may be comforting to some of those already infected for a period of time, doesn't solve anything, discourages those individuals from taking advantage of the best treatments available and promotes the spread of the virus.

That's reality.

HIV causes AIDS. Ignoring that, while it may be comforting to some of those already infected for a period of time, doesn't solve anything, discourages those individuals from taking advantage of the best treatments available and promotes the spread of the virus.
That's reality.

Just who are you trying to convince with these trite "declarations", Dale. Such empty truisms only sound convincing; they work far better as henious scare tactics, a fact of which you grasp completely, I'm sure. However, I'll continue to rely on an unbiased evaluation of the evidence, which currently has proven neither the efficacy of treatment nor the infectivity of "the virus". Fear-mongering
is unbecoming and has no legitimate place in science nor in matters of human health. If anything is spreading, it's the bigotry that such fear-mongering fosters.

As for my mistaking you for DT, well, that is hardly noteworthy consider how monotonous you both are.

Kevin

What's that old saying ... you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Up to you, Kevin but I fail to see the fearmongering in pointing out that HIV causes AIDS. It's what an unbiased evaluation of the data demonstrates. Even Duesberg, in his 87 paper at least, acknowledged that seropositivity for HIV identifies most, if not all, of those who go on to develop AIDS.

Kevin, pat, I'm wondering, do you agree with MG Lincoln in wanting the rest of us dead? Is this a common position in the "rethinker" community, or is lincoln speaking only for himself?

Kevin
You can certainly read that I have a certain bias in my unguarded remarks. But having a bias is not something you or I, for that matter, can criticize. We all have bias in the way we go about defending or arguing.
When somebody wishes someone else would die simply because they disagree with their opinions is inflammatory. "Cult-like" and "Zombies" to describe scientists who have not yet admitted that HIV doesn't cause AIDS and "Capitalist male chauvinistic pigs" would fall under that category.
I clearly remember someone asking over and over again for "the one paper that proves HIV causes AIDS". If by chance someone responded by pointing to examples of papers then the request would be for the one paper that showed this in 1985 or so about.
There is no evidence of censorship of either Duesberg or anyone else. I found dozens of sites freely discussing this subject, I found many articles dealing with it. They are even getting your day in court.
You might be interested in going to the Hall of Maat and seeing how the egyptodoxy and their own nemisi go at it.
I apologize if I have led you to believe that I was referring to your behavior when I mentioned our previous exchange. When I wrote my post I was not exactly clear and precise and your response reflected that. There had been no need for you to apologize, and I did not feel there was any need for me to apologize. I was merely illustrating my point on how posts can get out of hand.

Well that's all I'm going to contribute for all it's worth. You can make of what you want.

Oh, Adele! You are so silly sometimes.

Now I don't really want you dead. Who would I argue with since I stopped responding to Chris and alienated most of the other apologists? Where do you get such silly thoughts? And I certainly do not believe that any harm would come to you or anyone else, by virtue of what you believe is HIV! Personally, I think that it is your belief in it and your belief in the mysterious powers that you seem to give to it that is what is hazardous to yourself and others!

Actually, I was just being humorous as many of the apologists, including some farther up on this thread, have often recommended that the dissidents inject themselves with HIV to prove that it does not cause AIDS. As if doing such would prove anything at all.

Additionally, for those who think dissidents should inject themselves with HIV to prove their belief that it is harmless; even if a person did such a thing and got sick with pneumonia or something 1 or 5 or 10 or 20 or 50 years down the road, it would still not prove that HIV was the cause. And if the person lived to a ripe old age of 90 and died of old age, then whoever posed the challenge would still not be convinced and would probably claim that the individual was "genetically predispositioned" to tolerate the retrovirus, or claim that it must have mutated to a benign form!

You also know damn well that I believe the whatever it is that you call HIV is completely harmless, and I also believe that you could inject yourself with the silly little protein sequence that is called HIV and be perfectly fine, PROVIDED, you did not stress out and scare yourself sick or scare yourself to death, or loose hope or will to live, as many people given such a diagnosis of death manage to do, or run off in fear to take some type of toxic lifelong chemotherapy treatments!

I myself, as a very public and very outspoken dissident in a large gay community, know and hang out with dozens of HIV positives that were diagnosed 20 plus years ago, that never did the AZT or meds, had not allowed themselves to believe HIV was going to do them harm, and are and have been perfectly healthy.

Now, I also know and knew lots of them that were scared to death by their HIV diagnosis, and to escape from fear took meds, or joined drug trial studies, and many of those suffered great harm from the effects of the meds. Some believed and stressed and freaked out regularly that HIV was going to make them sick or kill them, some were seemingly hypochondriacs, and such was often the result for these guys, that THEY got sick or died! Although, the majority of the ones that I knew that died were usually fairly self destructive already, often with major emotional problems, or drug and sex addiction and a lot of self loathing and personal death wishes among this gang. A lot of the guys that I knew that died had also been disowned by their families for being gay, and often harbored their own inner death wishes. A lot of these guys were raised in strict religious families that did not tolerate homosexuality, and I think a lot of the so called American "AIDS" death cases often died more of a broken heart than of anything else.

King Dale of the Kingdom of Doom and Gloom, proclaims:

"HIV causes AIDS. Ignoring that, while it may be comforting to some of those already infected for a period of time, doesn't solve anything, discourages those individuals from taking advantage of the best treatments available and promotes the spread of the virus. That's reality".

What you really mean, oh naked emporer Dale, is that SUCH IS YOUR OWN PERCEPTION of "REALITY".

And that does not make it reality for anyone but you!

It is not my reality, and it is not the reality of anyone that I know in one of the largest gay communities of California! I don't even think it is the reality of most gay mens personal beliefs anymore either. Most gays won't even go get tested anymore. Of those that do, and of the tiny number that do test as positive, most won't take any of the meds. Most have heard and understood the dissident message! Most have seen how psychotic and self destructive a lot of people diagnosed as HIV positive become. Most have seen the toxic and deadly and disfiguring effects of the drugs. Most HIV positives do NOT take any AIDS drugs Dale!

Frankly Dale, most gays are fairly astute people and just are not that stupid or blind to believe the likes of your crap any more! And the rest of the world is waking up to it all as well!

Most Gays do not trust big pharma or AIDS Incorporated or the government! Most do not trust the government to be at all serious about gay mens best interests.

Don't know if you noticed, there Dale, but we still live in a somewhat homophobic, and "old testament" flinging country where gays do not yet have equal rights, and are not even allowed to serve in the military, even though an estimated 60,000 do so anyway. A lot of wacky people, and I would not doubt that you number among them, still believe AIDS is God's punishment for homosexuals!

Believe it or not Dale, most gay men, even most HIV positive gay men DO, at this point, see through all of the AIDS bull perfectly well! At least the ones I know, which is one helluva lot of people do! And most are not accepting it, and most are not creating it in their own lives anymore!

I say to you King Dale, and to your overblown ego too, that you can stick your proclamations, perceptions and your projections of imminent death and disease of gay men right up where the sun don't shine.

And you can aim your own projections and your own psychotic and hypochondriacal fears of sickness and death at your own damned negative and nasty self instead of aiming it at us gays.

How do you like that Mr. King Dale of Doom and Gloom!

Doubt and dissent characterize both real science and the AIDS Dissenters. Certainty and consensus characterize the AIDS Establishment and religions.

That post was meant to be a link.

Doubt and dissent characterize both real science and the AIDS Dissenters. Certainty and consensus characterize the AIDS Establishment and religions.

Isn't that right, there Dale?

lincoln wrote I myself, as a very public and very outspoken dissident in a large gay community, know and hang out with dozens of HIV positives that were diagnosed 20 plus years ago, that never did the AZT or meds, had not allowed themselves to believe HIV was going to do them harm, and are and have been perfectly healthy.
Now, I also know and knew lots of them that were scared to death by their HIV diagnosis, and to escape from fear took meds, or joined drug trial studies, and many of those suffered great harm from the effects of the meds. Some believed and stressed and freaked out regularly that HIV was going to make them sick or kill them, some were seemingly hypochondriacs, and such was often the result for these guys, that THEY got sick or died! Although, the majority of the ones that I knew that died were usually fairly self destructive already, often with major emotional problems, or drug and sex addiction and a lot of self loathing and personal death wishes among this gang. A lot of the guys that I knew that died had also been disowned by their families for being gay, and often harbored their own inner death wishes.

No, lincoln, I don't believe AIDS is a punishment sent by anybody; I believe it's caused by a virus and spread primarily by sexual activity. You , on the other hand, seem to feel it's some kind of failure of character or mental disorder on the part of those who succumb. Or at least among homosexuals who succumb - I don't know what you think accounts for IVD or heterosexual AIDS patients.

The point is that neither you nor Kevin can defend these points...What is the point in calling for a scientific debate if you have no intention of examining the scientific evidence? Chris Noble

I posted that brilliant quote from Dr. Foley, hoping it might get all you scientists back on track. Didn't anyone find it inspiring? I was looking forward to a sciency discussion to ensue, since it was his analogy was so dense with powerful insights. I don't know about you, but I was rooting for Country B. Sure, it might it look like a too-simple analogy to explain much of anything but if you looked at just the right way, well, it probably makes this whole HIV thing totally clear. Regardless, I was prepared to have to drop out at some point, of course, if a sciency discussion had ensued. Yet, none of you seemed to have any response to that brilliant argument by analogy proferred by the eminent Dr. Foley.

You, of course, all could begin talking about the science behind HIV at any time and simply ignore the the comments from decorated scientists like Dr. Margulis or Kary Mullis or any other dissident-related thinker. I'd feel privileged to eavesdrop on such deep scientific discussions as they will no doubt be the norm when all the denialists go away. Considering how quickly HIV mutates, you all must have an endless supply of fascinating things to discuss. Come to think of it, HIV scientists must lead very exciting lives; I can almost see how saddened Roy Hinkley must have felt communicating with someone of my limited capabilities, but alas, not even a brilliant analogy from his exemplar, Dr. Foley, could bring him back into the discussion. Don't let that stop all you other scientists on this blog. I'm sure there are others waiting for you to show us why Dr. Margulis' criticisms were not as keen as they first seem, you know, at first glance.

I'll be too busy over the next several days to contribute, but that'll give all you "scientists" ample time to get this discussion back on track. I can hardly wait to read over all of the brilliant examples of HIV science-in-action, which I am sure will be waiting for me upon my return.

Kevin

Kevin posted ... there are others waiting for you to show us why Dr. Margulis' criticisms were not as keen as they first seem, you know, at first glance.

The only specific criticism Dr. Margulis posted was that The HIV tests, nearly always positive for pregnant women, that vary significantly in the US, Europe and Australia are particularly disturbing.

I have yet to see a study that indicates that HIV tests are nearly always positive for pregnant women. Not one. Which leads me to believe that Dr. Margulis' comment was not based on any reading of the scientific literature. To the best of my recollection this is not an argument even Peter Duesberg has ever used. Dr. Margulis further commented that her support of the rethinker position came from reading George Miklos' review of Harvey Bialy's book. I've read the book in question and there was lots about how politics of science is played out but very little actual science. Celia Farber, another source of Dr. Margulis, has herself stated many times that she is not a scientist. Therefore, as I posted previously in this thread, this leads me to believe that Dr. Margulis was declaring her support for the person of Peter Duesberg, not the science of Peter Duesberg and as far as I'm concerned, there really isn't any science to debate based on Dr. Margulis' comments.

I liked the 'country' analogy by the way.

When asked for a specific reference on this blog for her claim about pregnant women nearly always testing positive for HIV, Margulis replied: "Try Celia Farber's comprehensive Harper's Magazine article, I think it was published Mar 06?"

I am still awaiting a proper answer.

Perhaps the only surprise is that she didn't quote the Perth Group or a similarly intellectually challenged group of rethinkers as her source.

Kevin, I'm sorry you didn't understand Dr. Foley's analogy of immune system decline.
Maybe you'll get this one:
The land of Duesbergia convinces several countries to close their hospitals and outlaw medical treatment. Many inhabitants of these countries die as a result. Concerned, an alliance of many states around the world, led by Gallonistan and Mooreland, attempt to persuade Duesbergia to stop its indirectly genocidal actions.
At this point, a very small dog in Duesbergia starts barking.
And barking.
And barking.

Dale, you said:

"You , on the other hand, seem to feel it's some kind of failure of character or mental disorder on the part of those who succumb".

Dale, now really. To point out reasons for others suffering, can also come from a place of great empathy and compassion and understanding. As a person who has suffered from, and survived and even gone beyond my own childhood issues of an abusive parent, my own self loathing, addiction, extreme emotional pain, shame, guilt, hopelessness, etc., I have great empathy and compassion and understanding for the suffering of others and reach out regularly to help others to overcome their circumstance.

These issues are usually something that very few can understand, who have not had the same or similar life experiences.

Though I also know that I can not save others from their own suffering or from their own choices, at times, when those suffering from such issues want to go beyond or want to know why they suffer, I am often able to help them through, and help them understand, and help them to grow, due to my own intense experiential understanding of exactly what they are going through.

Dale, the statement of perception such as the one you made about me blaming people for their illnesses or problems most likely says more about you than it says about me. Are you perhaps again projecting your own inner beliefs and inner programming again?

You also seem to me to be a person who is unwittingly on a level of your own inner guilt which would be the only reason for such a projection externally toward others.

You often seem to me to be projecting your own inner feelings of guilt and judgement upon myself and others.

When a person sees others as bad or guilty, it is a sure sign that they are struggling internally with their own issues of judgement and guilt. I know this from personal experience Dale, because there are times when I do or have done this myself.

Your projection of such a statement at me has nothing to do with me, Dale. It most likely has to do with your own inner struggle and desire to have more compassion and empathy for those who suffer yourself.

You also said: "I believe it's caused by a virus and spread primarily by sexual activity".

This statement seems to be another inner self projection. A projection most likely having to do with your own fears and discomforts surrounding sex and especially your own sexuality and sexual desires, and perhaps even and mostly, your own repressed feelings of sexual guilt and fear, that you yourself most likely have over your own God given gift of your sexuality and your sexual desires and not being sure how such a gift should be used.

If you would like to know my thoughts and perspectives on the subject of human sexuality, you are welcome to ask me, and I will be glad to do so, on line or in private email.

Dale, You said:

"I don't know what you think accounts for IVD or heterosexual AIDS patients".

Most of the early IVD AIDS patients and even a lot of the "hetero" AIDS patients were closeted gays and male prostitutes that claimed they were hetero. A lot of these people lived the worst feelings of inner hidden shame and guilt.

Another percentage of hetero AIDS is also due to the very same issues of overwhelming stress, and mostly fear, and hopelessness.

Look on a map Dale. Let go of fighting with me and the "denialists" for just a moment, and THINK about this:

Look at a world map. Look at the areas wherever in the world there are a lot of people living in levels of "hopelessness", such as the poorest regions of India and Africa, and elsewhere in the third world, and just THINK for a moment of the stress and fear that living life in a state of poverty, hunger, dissapointment, and apathetic hopelessness for the future entails, and then hold up a world map of AIDS cases next to it and you will see something amazing. The two maps are an EXACT AND IDENTICAL MATCH!

What does this tell you Dale? What does it say about the ROOT CAUSE of disease. Lets look at that word closely Dale.

DIS-EASE

The very word means NOT AT EASE, or better yet: ILL AT EASE!

And then ask yourself, Dale, is the real core root of the entire problem a problem of people living in overwhelming feelings of HOPELESSNESS and HELPLESSNESS, or is it simply some sexual virus that all of those dirty oversexed people that just so happen to live there must all be passing around cause they are a bunch of dirty sex pigs! Not to mention the ones who live there who are the supposed "DIRTY SEX PIGS, as well as the ones who are not even sexual, are the same ones suffering from the world epidemic of Tuberculosis, as well! 80 percent of the "AIDS CASES" in third world countries are mostly treatable TB!

Are there also people in the US and West Europe living in hopelessness? Yes, but not nearly as many as in third world countries.

Do IVD users experience a lot of guilt and shame and stress and apathy and hopelessness? Absolutely! They would not be using drugs if they weren't. Drug abuse is a symptom of shame, guilt, fear and apathy!

What about children with AIDS? Do children pick up on the negative "vibes" and attitudes of their parents? Yes indeed, they most certainly do and most certainly are deeply affected by exposure to those who are around them. They most likely even pick up on it in their mothers wombs before they are even born!

Life is energy Dale. There is positive energy and there is negative energy. Life enhancing energy and life destructive energy. And even thoughts are projections of this very same energy and are either of the very same vibrations of either negative or positive energy, and life enhancing or life detracting energy.

What are your own thoughts throughout the course of a day?

Are your own thoughts mostly Positive or mostly Negative?

Are they mostly Life enhancing or mostly life destructive?

Do you ever even think to observe your own thoughts and beliefs to see if they are negative or positive, life enhancing or life destructive?

If you do not, you are not alone, because MOST people do not look at their own thoughts in such terms.

Perhaps they should!

Your own thoughts must overall be mostly positive, or else you too would be ill at ease, as well as dis-eased in very short order!

Hey Adele.

Arf Arf yourself. Kevins busy, but you and I can bark at each other if you like.

By the way, you never told me what you thought of my little history lesson.

DT,

You said: "I am still awaiting a proper answer". in reference to Lynn Margulis saying "The HIV tests, nearly always positive for pregnant women..... are disturbing".

I think that what Lynn meant to say, was "The HIV tests, nearly always FALSE positive in pregnant women,... are disturbing".

Seems to me she left out the word "FALSE".

Therefore, I believe that the "proper answer" to your question is: I absolutely agree with you that what Lynn said in that statement is an exaggeration and is not true. At least to the best of my knowledge.

I think Lynn screwed up in the heat of responding at her very first attempt at blogging. I am certain that all of us bloggeurs are quite familiar with such moments, as it seems to happen at times to most of us when we are very passionate about our beliefs.

I feel for her gaffe, as I think otherwise the piece was brilliant! Especially considering it was the very first time she had ever posted on a blog site!

Some of the Studies verifying false positive HIV test results in pregnant women are as follows:

1) Ng V. 1991. Serological diagnosis with recombinant peptides/proteins. Clin. Chem. 37:1667-1668.

2) Cordes R, Ryan M. 1995. Pitfalls in HIV testing. Postgraduate Medicine. 98:177.

3) Profitt MR, Yen-Lieberman B. 1993. Laboratory diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Inf. Dis. Clin. North Am. 7:203.

4) Steckelberg JM, Cockerill F. 1988. Serologic testing for human immunodeficiency virus antibodies. Mayo Clin. Proc. 63:373.

5) Voevodin A. 1992. HIV screening in Russia. Lancet. 339:1548.

I do however, believe that the actual point Lynn was meaning and trying to make is that even pregnancy itself is well known and documented to cause a high number of definite false positive results. And quite a valid and important point it is. Especially if your sister or daughter tests positive during pregnancy, and wants to jump off a bridge or have an immediate abortion or kill her husband or lover!

But, as we all know, once a message is blogged and posted, there are no further chances to re-edit for correction of either slips in judgement or errors in material.

Though I myself consider all HIV positive test results to most likely be false positives. I believe the most sensible reason the tests show positive is due to cellular particles in the bloodstream due to decomposition of some types of cells in the body. I believe the DNA fragments found are simply parts of some of these cells, in some people, that are being assumed to be a retrovirus called HIV. And I also believe, that even if these fragments of protein were a retrovirus, that retrovirus is not the cause of AIDS or T Cell destruction or immune depression. Maybe a symptom of it, but not the cause.

Therefore, to me, Lynn did not go quite far enough in her statement. To me, she would have most likely been more accurate to say that ALL HIV POSITIVE RESULTS IN PREGNANT WOMEN ARE FALSE POSITIVES!

Of course, you, DT, or I or Chris can usually get away with a mistake or exageration in posting, but when someone as notorious as Academy of Science member Lynn Margulis does it, it certainly does not look good for her. I am sure she will be taking major pokes for her gaff from many people.

And how about you, DT, have you ever exagerated or made a mistake in any of your own posts? Well, I am sure you never have, DT, right? And if not, then go ahead and cast the stone at Lynn! Give her proper hell! Crucify her right next to Peter Duesberg if you like. Obviously she believes enough in the dissident issue to have the courage to become another outspoken martyr for the cause!

Yours is a comforting view in many ways, lincoln. We can't infect each other, we can only help each other heal. And yet ... no matter what you think seropositivity represents; admidst all that poverty and guilt and shame and HOPELESSNESS, it's the HIV positive individuals who develop the immunodeficiency and the opportunistic infections and the virally associated cancers at hundreds of times the frequency of HIV negative individuals.
Even those children who pick up negative vibes in the womb. The ones who go on to exhibit many fold higher rates of mortality and morbidity are the ones who also pick up the HIV.

Lincoln, I am so glad you can see so clearly what it is that Lynn Margulis "meant" to say. She had plenty of opportunity to correct her lie, but totally weasled out of accepting that she had made an error of fact. Indeed it is likely she still doesn't realise what a booboo she made, which is why she didn't attempt to correct herself and merely indulged in some vague hand waving, metaphorically speaking.

Until she does summon up the bottle to correct her facts, I guess we will have to just tolerate posts by "Margulis rethinkers" like yourself, who can magically "know" what it is she really meant to say and reinterpret it for everyone to see.

Linoln:
"Though I myself consider all HIV positive test results to most likely be false positives. I believe the most sensible reason the tests show positive is due to cellular particles in the bloodstream due to decomposition of some types of cells in the body. I believe the DNA fragments found are simply parts of some of these cells, in some people, that are being assumed to be a retrovirus called HIV. And I also believe, that even if these fragments of protein were a retrovirus, that retrovirus is not the cause of AIDS or T Cell destruction or immune depression. Maybe a symptom of it, but not the cause."

What you consider.... what you believe....

Until you inform yourself as to what an HIV ELISA test actually is and how it is performed, until you can understand that it does not detect decomposing cells, until you can tell the difference between DNA and proteins, then what you "believe" on the matter is of no relevance.

Though I myself consider all HIV positive test results to most likely be false positives. I believe the most sensible reason the tests show positive is due to cellular particles in the bloodstream due to decomposition of some types of cells in the body. I believe the DNA fragments found are simply parts of some of these cells, in some people, that are being assumed to be a retrovirus called HIV. And I also believe, that even if these fragments of protein were a retrovirus, that retrovirus is not the cause of AIDS or T Cell destruction or immune depression. Maybe a symptom of it, but not the cause.

But surely, lincoln, even if you believe that HIV is a symptom of immune depression and not a cause, you should encourage everyone to be tested so that they can take appropriate action. Doesn't necessarily have to be ARVs if you don't believe in ARVs but at least wouldn't you want such individuals to know they were at risk so they could start taking better care of themselves?

Adele,
I want no one dead, I want no one to inject themselves with whatever and i want no one to swallow whatnot. Glad you asked

"Pat, we're still waiting for those references about "Oversexuality." Adele

No Adele, I asked esteemed scientist to provide it to the layman as confirmation. African oversexuality is what I am being told and so I asked. Are there any? You seem to think not. If there are none are you going to take a stand against that racist nonsense?

Do I hear a "maybe, maybe not" on the possibility EJ had AIDS, or just a plain "no"?

You'll hear maybe because the one required missing element for AIDS is a confirming HIV test. Why was there none?

"This is an entirely reasonable approach - it just happens to be one that orthodox science has not solved yet. So do we hear a "maybe, maybe not" for the orthodox approach on this one, or a flat "No"?

Go on Pat... You can do it."

Sounds reasonable. Maybe

pat posted African oversexuality is what I am being told and so I asked. Are there any?

The only people I've read claiming Africans are oversexed is dissidents. Or rather dissidents claim that the scientific community claims that. The dissident claim, as I've read it, is based on the following argument : HIV positive cases among North American or European heterosexuals are relatively infrequent while in Africa, the majority of HIV spread is believed to be by heterosexual transmission. Therefore the scientific community must be claiming that Africans engage in a lot of sex.

This is not what I've seen the scientific community claim. I have seen claims that at least in some parts of Africa sexual practices may contribute to HIV spread. This is based on surveys of Africans, not on some Caucasian's fantasies. I have also seen claims that the increased incidence of STDs among inhabitants of some parts of Africa may contribute to the spread of HIV. Again based on studies showing that STD incidence is high. In many parts of Africa as well access to condoms is limited (or so I"ve read). All of those factors (and maybe some genetic ones as well) could contribute to heterosexual spread of HIV in Africa and none of them in any way suggest that Africans are "oversexed".

Pat, I agree with dale's comments. There's a big difference between observing real sexuality-related practice differences between communities (male or female circumcision, mono- or polygamy as norm, average age at first sexual intercourse, gender-based power relations, and on and on) and blaming such differences on race. These are cultural differences, not racial.

I have never read any respected scientist claiming that Africans (talk about a category with a lot of internal diversity! as I hope you know) are "sex addicts" or anything along those lines. I have never encountered anyone who takes this position in private. There is simply no evidence for it and it's offensive too.

Whatever differences are observed from time to time and culture to culture in societal attitudes towards sex and specific practices, I think it's ridiculous to say such differences are race-based. Ridiculous and racist.

If you know of specific scientists who say this, please tell the rest of us so we can all review their comments and denounce them as they deserve.

Dale. I did not say that I believe HIV is a symptom of immune suppression. I said it may be. And it may only be in some people.

Therefore, no I would not recommend that anyone get tested for it. Particularly as there are a slew of factors known and verified to cause false positive test results. And even more particularly for the unhealthy and immune system devastating stress that such a prognosis causes.

I recommend that NO ONE get tested for HIV and that HIV testing be banned. I recommend that people treat medicinally only the illnesses that they are actually presenting. If one presents with TB, treat only the TB. If one presents with candida, treat only the candida. If one presents with pneumonia, treat only the pneumonia.

Testing HIV positive does not benefit anyone to "know", because nobody "knows" what the tests actually verify, if anything meaningful at all. Testing positive results in stress. Stress contributes to illness. Therefore I conclude that testing for HIV contributes to, and produces, illness and DIS-EASE.

And I am fairly sure that I already explained, about a hundred times, that testing positive often and usually and almost always results in increased stress and negative unhealthful emotions which are quite verified, and even your grandma's own common sense told her, that stress is UNHEALTHY.

Therefore, I must conclude your wishing to urge people to be tested for HIV to be irrational, fear based, and therefore fear and stress promoting, and therefore unhealthy for any and all of us on this planet. And particularly unhealthful for those who are already living emotionally difficult lives.

And you are correct that I would like to see people taking better care of themselves. And taking better care of oneself begins with ones thoughts.

Therefore, Dale, I would like to take this opportunity to make you aware of your own thoughts, and I would like you to honestly consider whether many of your own thoughts are fear and stress based, and are therefore doing you yourself more harm than good, and perhaps even doing harm than good to those whom you come in contact with. We all affect others greatly by projecting either our own fear filled and stress producing thoughts upon their fertile little imaginations, or projecting upon them health and well being.

Perhaps you, Dale, could do the world a greater service, simply by encouraging people to always have hope, and always think healthy thoughts, and let go of unnecessary and irrational stress and enjoy ones life while it lasts.

And if you did so choose, no one will need to worry about you making an emotional and physical wreck out of your own self, or be concerned that you too might one day be filled with guilt or shame by your realization that you too have unwittingly helped poison the minds of others with stressful and unhealthy and immune system weakening thoughts and emotions, instead of projecting and promoting a faith in well being, and healthy thoughts and emotions.

You do have a choice Dale. You can project health, hope, and well being upon others and upon this world, or you can project doom, gloom, fear, stress, and disease.

Your choice.

This is your world too. You count. Your decision counts. Your thoughts and projections upon the world count. And they contribute to the health and well being, or stress and illness in our world.

And I wish you well at rising above others fear filled projections, and may you be well and healthy yourself.

The way I see it, lincoln, not being tested means not knowing that you are at risk for a number of things that may or may not be easily treated. Thinking healthy thoughts doesn't prevent NHL or CMV or any of the opportunistic infections that can cause untreatable complications if they aren't detected early - or sometimes even if they are. Not being tested may complicate diagnosis if one does develop an opportunistic infection because being HIV positive makes one prone to certain infectious agents that don't for the most part make HIV negative people sick. Nonetheless, I suppose taking one's chances with one's health is a choice that adults may make for themselves. But, not being tested also means potentially infecting someone else with HIV.

So while I'm all for enjoying life as long as it lasts and encouraging others to do the same, I consider it socially irresponsible not to be tested if one is sexually active.

And speaking of doom, and gloom, and fear filled projections,

DT,

You said:

"Until you inform yourself as to what an HIV ELISA test actually is and how it is performed, until you can understand that it does not detect decomposing cells, until you can tell the difference between DNA and proteins, then what you "believe" on the matter is of no relevance".

Until I inform myself???? Of no relevance????

Are you talking to me or are you talking to your own self?

Well, DT, I am EXCEPTIONALLY well informed on the HIV tests, and how they work, and what they may or may not be detecting. This is including many hours spent discussing the subject with, and poring over the work of diagnostic test designer Rodney Richards, as well as discussing and poring over the work of many other highly knowledgeable scientists in the field regarding the HIV tests.

Therefore, I suppose that my beliefs are of EXCEPTIONAL RELEVANCE on the issues.

I can only assume that your "projection" to me of my beliefs "being of no relevance" as regards HIV tests, was simply a projection of your own beliefs about your own tenuous and obviously limited knowledge of the subject.

And as such, what you really must have meant, DT, was that my beliefs are "irrelevant" in comparison to what you yourself CHOOSE TO BELIEVE, which is therefore completely irrelevant to me as well as to many other scientists, who would see your own chosen beliefs as irrational, uneducated, biased, and often lacking truth and reality and rational perspective!

Dale, you still seem to me to have it backwards.

You said: "being HIV positive makes one prone to certain infectious agents".

To me, this alone is another of what I percieve as "unhealthy projections" that I already discussed countless times.

As I personally know hundreds of HIV positives that are "prone" to no such thing, and I do not believe your projection to be necessarily true, nor the least bit helpful to those who are so diagnosed.

If you are presently unable or unwilling to recognize unhealthy or negative projections or beliefs, I do understand. Such are the frailties of mankind.

And, you are also more than welcome to believe whatever you choose to believe, or project such beliefs all you like. As I said, it is your world too.

But at least at this point, Dale, you will no longer wonder why you live in a world full of DIS-EASE and illness, when you, and untold millions around the world just like you, continue to believe and project such unhealthy and stress causing and "dis-eased" beliefs, instead of beliefs of health and well being and hopefullness, onto other people and into our world!

Dale, look back on your last post. Read it carefully and tell me what the predominant emotional factor driving you was while you wrote it.

Can you not see how fear is of death and illness is in almost every sentence you wrote?

Can you not see that fear is one of your most dominant vibrations of being?

Believe it or not, you can get beyond such feelings of discomfort and fear if you choose to.

If you would like to work on getting beyond it, I would recommend that you find a copy of the movie "The Secret", which is about connecting to inner well being and awareness of thoughts. There are also many books currently available on the subjects.

Fear, which is one of the most basic human emotions, is not an easy emotion to get beyond. As one first must recognize and be aware of when they are experiencing it, and most people are not aware at all. But with dedication, one can rise above it and lessen its effects and grip on the mind.

We have seen that the only people who have an "African oversexuality" idea (unless pat presents some more evidence) are "rethinkers," who accuse scientists of having this idea. Scientists don't think this or say it, only denialists.

Lincoln repeats another idea, that HIV science spreads doom and gloom and fear and terror. That testing is fear. But just like pat's uebersexuality notion, this is a figment of the denialist imagination.

HIV science has one goal, to help infected people (and give them hope). Lincoln still hasn't responded to my comments on pediatric AIDS, where cases have been cut by 95% since the early 1990s because of testing and treatment. The overall rate of AIDS has gone down too, but not by as much since testing is not as common in most populations as in high-risk, pregnant women.

Scientists are full of hope. Sometimes they're too optimistic like when they predict eradication. They are "death sentencers" only in the denialist mind.

Adele.

Certainly I do not believe that all scientists are projecting fear and hopelessness and creating unnecessary stress in the public. But quite a lot of them do, and many of the biggest names of orthodox HIV researcher do exactly this. So it is certainly no surprise that most of the public has this mindset deeply engrained into their minds.

When scientists, such as Robert Gallo himself, make statements such as he did: "HIV KILLS LIKE A MACK TRUCK", and AIDS awareness campaigns are run on slogans such as "Silence = Death", then indeed, not all scientists are quite so full of hope as we might hope. To believe they are is to admit to pure naivete, considering you yourself can see that these threads are nothing but people who believe that HIV is absolutely deadly, versus others who are telling you that this is not true.

Many scientists took and still take Gallo at his word, including the man running our NIH's NIAIDS program, in charge of disbursing all funding for HIV/AIDS research. He does not disburse even a cent to those who are on the dissident side, so no funding for investigating dissident opinion has been forthcoming in 25 long years!

Today billions of people have taken Robert Gallo at his word, including the majority of orthodox scientists. Many of these scientists have spread this message of death and disaster to the people of the world, and hence, millions of people, just like yourself, have spread his message of HIV=DEATH, and various other predictions of viral doom and gloom and coming disaster very deeply into the consciousness of mankind.

People taking HIV tests and getting positive results have needed to be carried out of the doctors office. Some have committed suicide. Some have had abortions. Some of divorced their spouses. Some have unwittingly taken toxic and poisonous doses of medications that have killed them, instead of dying of anything viral. Some have become disfigured or destroyed their livers. Many live lives of hopelessness and beliefs of inevitable death and destruction by HIV. AZT babies have been born with sunken eyes. Nevirapine has killed some people. Drugs are tested not against placebos or nontreatment, but against other drugs. Some scientists have made their fortunes off of these inventions. Drug companies have made billions. AZT was Burroughs Welcomes biggest moneymaker for years and is the drug that built them into one of the largest pharmaceutical companies.

The ONLY thing that has been cut in pediatric AIDS since 1995, is the toxic dosaging, especially of high dosage AZT after 1995, and the reduction of other toxic medications that the mothers and babies have been given due to the nonstop demands of the rethinkers to re-evaluate how these things are handled. It is still almost completely ignored that most HIV positive newborns seroconvert to HIV negative status within 18 months. And by the way, Adele, there are NO studies in existence of comparing treatment to non-treatment, or comparing treatment to alternative non medicating treatment.

Gay media and even straight media, particularly in 3rd world countries, runs scare article after scare article, and billboards galore about getting HIV/AIDS.

Terror and paranoia have characterized the entire worldwide epidemic. You yourself are caught up in it and often unable, or unwilling to see beyond the various "beliefs" about HIV and AIDS, to see it from a place of rational thinking.

As one of a few persons in the world, who is capable of stepping outside of the dogma, and propaganda, and fear and paranoia and seeing this HIV/AIDS issue from a more balanced and detached perspective, I am happy to point out the irrationality and detrimental effects of the irrational fear and paranoia that my fellow gays, and fellow mankind inflicts upon himself, and herself, and each other.

I do this in the hope that one day, most of mankind will see the irrationality of their own fears as the unnecessary and self defeating and self propagating insanity that it is. I hope that more of us can begin to see that unhealthy focus and dis-ease inducing projection is the major issue of our time at our current level of evolution.

Then, and only then can mankind really begin to take major steps to deal with, and make commitment to minimizing the very real underlying root causes of worldwide dis-ease, along with the problems of global apathy and poverty and irrational fear, along with issues such as stress, hygiene, clean water, proper nutrition, financial stability, education, acceptance of gays and blacks as deserving respect and equal rights and protections, and a slew of other very real issues that much of mankind is faced with.

By the way, Adele, here is a wonderful question that is just perfect for you, and I really do not expect an answer, because I believe I already know the answer:

Why has there been no vaccine for HIV in 25 years, when it only took 2 short years, for those involved in creating vaccines, to create a vaccine for SHIV?

Think about it!

Lincoln wrote:

"Why has there been no vaccine for HIV in 25 years, when it only took 2 short years, for those involved in creating vaccines, to create a vaccine for SHIV?"

There are as many vaccines for HIV-1 M group viruses as there are for SIVs and SHIVs. The big questions are: 1: Are they safe? and 2: Are they effective at preventing new infections, and/or treating existing infections?

It is one thing to make a vaccine, using SIV-MAC infectious molecular clone 239, and have it protect against virions produced from SIV-MAC infectious molecular clone 239. It is quite another to have a vaccine that protects against clones that are less than 95% identical to the vaccine clone.

There are reports of a vaccine for Feline Immunodeficiency Virus, that is supposed to protect housecats from both the A and B subtypes of domestic cat FIV. But so far, the vaccine trial sizes are small, like 8 to 15 cats.

Matteucci D, Poli A, Mazzetti P, Sozzi S, Bonci F, Isola P, Zaccaro L, Giannecchini S, Calandrella M, Pistello M, Specter S, Bendinelli M.
Immunogenicity of an anti-clade B feline immunodeficiency fixed-cell virus vaccine in field cats.
J Virol. 2000 Dec;74(23):10911-9.
PMID: 11069985

Thank you oh great defender of the faith, Bishop Brian Foley! Got a half witted answer for everything there Mr. Foley sure to confuse and baffle the issues, but no real answers? Is that how you got promoted to running the program at Los Alamos? Was it because they needed a half-wit with silly nonsensical circular logic answers for everything?

Just how much do us taxpayers have to pay you for your wonderful job of baffling the public with bullshit and helping to protecting the faith of unproven retroviral diseases for Tony Fauci and Company?

There is no workable vaccines for FIV or SIV because they, like HIV, are figments of many peoples over active imagination. They, just like HIV, have not been isolated and have not been proven to cause disease. What exactly is isolated is unknown. They are a label stuck on sick animals, usually sick from malnutrition or other diseases, that are again having protein reactions most likely from decomposing cellular materials.

They are another little researchers gold mine, to produce study after study of nonsensical unsupported, and unverified data and correlations considered to be causations!

Bishop Brian said: "There are reports of a vaccine for Feline Immunodeficiency Virus, that is supposed to protect housecats from both the A and B subtypes of domestic cat FIV".

Well that should be a big moneymaker for some taxpayer paid retrovirologists and pharma company. It will definitely be a big seller among the cat lovers that have been freaked out by the virologists bull about cats getting dying of supposedly contagious FIV.

But at this point I think we could better use a vaccine to protect our pets from pet food manufacturers than from more pretend diseases:

recall of pet food after pets die

Bishop Brian said: "There are as many vaccines for HIV-1 M group viruses as there are for SIVs and SHIVs. The big questions are: 1: Are they safe? and 2: Are they effective at preventing new infections, and/or treating existing infections?"

Well, Bright boy, if they are not effective and are not safe, then they are not workable vaccines and can not be pretended to be workable vaccines can they?

How about if I rephrase the question just for you Dr. Foley?

Why, Dr. Bishop Foley, has there been no WORKABLE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE vaccine for HIV in 25 years, when it only took 2 short years, for those involved in creating vaccines, to create a WORKABLE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE vaccine for SHIV?

Try to give us something understandable, and try not to baffle us too much with smoke and mirrors and pulling rabbits out of your arse with the answer Dr. Foley.

Dr. Foley. I fully realize you do not have an answer for my question as there are none.

HIV is said to have right about 9600 base pairs.

Perhaps Dr. Foley will be so kind as to tell us the number of base pairs for SHIV, so that we will all quite perfectly and absolutely and very clearly understand why SHIV is NOT, and CAN NOT BE THE ANIMAL MODEL for HIV!

Well, it has been a few hours now, and considering it only takes minutes to find the base genome length of various viruses and retroviruses, I don't suppose Foley is quite up to making an ass out of himself again.

Foley, I've noticed, is very wary of discussions that are accessible to anyone but the technicians. In fact, as far as I can see, his whole strategy is to techno-babble backed up by long lists of largely irrelevant references to make himself look knowledgeable and important.

Poor ego-centric fool that he seems to be, he is not fooling everyone, only others as foolish, or more foolish than he himself is.

I've been looking over the last Foley confrontations. I think Foley made himself look like a complete ass. He didn't answer one question and had to have ERV and Adele come to his rescue with their diversions from questions asked of him.

Quit your squirming Pseudo-Doctor Foley, oh keeper of the holy genomes, and tell us the number of bases for SHIV and SIV so that we can compare it to the less than 9600 base genomes of HIV, and so everyone will all quite perfectly and absolutely and very clearly understand why SHIV or SIV ARE NOT, and CANNOT be the ANIMAL MODELS for HIV that such are CLAIMED TO BE!

And it will also go a long way to explaining why HIV science, based upon using Simian Immundeficiency Virus as proof that HIV causes damage is a complete scientific fraud!

However, as Dr. Foley will NOT answer this question, I will answer it for all myself.

The proviral genome of SIVMAC 239, is 10,279 base pairs in length. A completely different length of retrovirus than the less than 9600 bases of HIV!

It is NOT possible or conscienable to use this as a substitute for HIV because it is unknown what the extra base pairs and obvious differences in structure and sequencing will do or cause in relationship to a retrovirus of lesser or even greater size and completely different structure! SIVMAC and HIV are NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING THE SAME!

They MAY NOT be substituted and then held up as reliable proof that the other causes disease!

Except of course, by phoneys and fools!

And I may even be over-exagerating that HIV is 9500 to 9600 base pairs!

ln extensive search of the HIV literature I could not find even one reference, (although it is possible I may have missed some), in which the HIV genome was reported to of 9150 nucleotides. The closest length was reported by Montagnier's group who, in 1984, reported it to be 9.1 to 9.2 kbases and, in 1985, as 9193 bases. (3,4) lf the 9150 base DNA is the genome of a virus then an absolutely necessary but not sufficient condition is that the virus in all infected individuals will have a length of 9150 bases. Yet, two HIV genomes of the same length have yet to be reported. More importantly, the length of an RNA (DNA) fragment, no matter how often such a fragment is detected, provides no information regarding its origin. The only way to prove it belongs to a unique virus is to isolate a viral particle and demonstrate it has a genome of 9150 bases. This has not been done and the "available isolation efforts" do not contain even suggestive evidence let alone proof that a 9150 base long RNA is a constituent of a particle, any particle much less a viral particle.

Either way, 9150 or 9500 or even 9600, what is claimed as infectious HIV is most definitely completely different than the Simian model that is held up and claimed as proof that HIV causes AIDS!

" (unless pat presents some more evidence)"-adele

Funny how things get flipped around. The "evidence" is found in your daily paper; they are definitely not based on science. It is what reporters do; it is where the average joe gets his info. I was asking for you to confirm it but seeing you can't and that you disagree with it I am reassured and re-energized that destroying that myth is not impossible. Can you point me to the literature that you do have on africa and aids...It would greatly help in my efforts to quash the racists of this world. thanx

Pat,
I encourage you again to give specific examples of "African Uebersexuality." You have not given a single example of a scientist who says this. Instead you say it's found "in your daily paper."
But I've never read it in the NYT or the LATimes or the Washington Post or even my local county newspaper. I've never seen it anywhere. I can imagine that some freakish neo-Nazis somewhere might say this, but I haven't heard or seen it anywhere.
Please, just a few specific examples to add to this debate!
I suspect you won't produce these examples because they don't exist.
Instead you ask me to "point to the literature" on this. Pat, this "oversexuality" thing is the classic straw man. Scientists to my knowledge have never espoused this view and they have never even considered it because it's absurd, baseless, racist, and offensive. So why would a scientist even consider it in a paper? You may as well ask me what the HIV/AIDS lit has to say about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Lincoln, as gently as I can say it your comments on pediatric AIDS are inaccurate.

You attribute the decline in pediatric AIDS deaths to lower antiretroviral doses. Not the case. The 95% decline I mentioned is from the time when no antiretrovirals were approved for pediatric use until the present, when numerous approved drugs are around. Untreated, x number of children got AIDS. Today, treated, .05x children get AIDS.

You are right that many seropositive babies (about 75% or so) do not actually have HIV infection; they test positive because they have anti-HIV antibodies from their HIV positive mothers. But this is not "almost completely ignored." It is well-known to scientists, doctors and anyone in the lay public who reads about this subject. As a result in the US seropositive newborn babies are not considered truly HIV positive unless they have tested positive twice by a non-circulating-antibody-based method like antigen, PCR, or culture.

But in the reverse, HIV seropositive babies of positive mothers shouldn't immediately be considered negative even if they at first test negative by these other methods. That's why there's prophylactic treatment for children of HIV positive mothers. And that's why there's such a decline in transmission and AIDS cases.

Lincoln you acknowledged that not all scientists are doom-and-gloomers, but then you say Many of these scientists just like yourself, have spread (Gallo's) message of HIV=DEATH.
Which is it?

I think your confused on something. HIV leads to AIDS which leads to death in most infected people if it's untreated. This doesn't mean HIV equals death. It means most people need to be treated for the best chance at life.

What about cancer, Lincoln? Don't you know people sometimes have to be carried out of doctor's offices when they find out they have cancer? Isn't this an unacceptable terrorism of these poor people? Shouldn't we stop testing for cancer completely, in fact outlaw all cancer tests?

And what about cancer treatments? They practically kill some people in the process of attacking their cancer. Many patients are willing to take this risk in the hope of getting back to their lives. Why? Because they know like their doctors know, their cancer will kill them if it's not treated. No, their doctors don't say, oh who cares, no, cancer's nothing, you don't have to worry about that! don't worry, be happy! don't let it get you down, all that worrying might damage your immune system.

I'll go on record saying that metastatic cancer can kill like a mac truck if it's not treated. Hepatitis can kill like a mac truck if it's not teated. TB will kill like a mac truck if it's not treated. And AIDS can kill like a mac truck if it's not treated.

People are given the facts and the options and they decide on treatment for themselves. HIV and AIDS are no different from other potentially fatal diseases or syndromes in this way.

Dont go there, Adele.

He made it clear in another thread that magic herbs of some foreign culture, sunshine, and lollipops cure cancer, not chemo/radiation/etc.

No one stops with just one woo.

ERV said:

"He made it clear in another thread that magic herbs of some foreign culture, sunshine, and lollipops cure cancer, not chemo/radiation/etc".

I never said any such thing ERV. Either back up your accusation with proof, or you go down in this record as the libeling liar that you obviously are, whose words lack all integrity and lack all honesty.

I never said any such thing ERV. Either back up your accusation with proof, or you go down in this record as the libeling liar that you obviously are, whose words lack all integrity and lack all honesty.

That's something coming from lincoln who regularly distorts research results, if (s)he doesn't outright lie about them (hard to tell the difference between lies and complete lack of understanding)

*bored*
If you never said such thing, then answer Adele.

Adele said:

"I'll go on record saying that metastatic cancer can kill like a mac truck if it's not treated. Hepatitis can kill like a mac truck if it's not teated. TB will kill like a mac truck if it's not treated. And AIDS can kill like a mac truck if it's not treated".

Adele, you are to be commended for saying that metastatic cancer, hepatitis, and AIDS "can" kill, as your use of the qualifying word CAN is more accurate than WILL KILL. There are untold thousands of cases of people who have recovered from all of these diseases that you mentioned without medications.

You did slip up and claim that "TB will kill like a mac truck if it's not treated". Are you saying that TB always kills everyone exposed to or everyone that has acquired it?

There are many people who have had TB and recovered without any treatment. The fact is that most people in the world who have traces of TB exposure never even came down with it Adele, or had milder and sometimes even virulent cases that they recovered from without any medications!

And the hundreds of people that I personally know, and thousands of people in the world who have not had HIV medications and were diagnosed as HIV positive even as much as 20 and more years ago, also proves you to be quite wrong in your blanket statement that untreated HIV positives with die if they are not treated Adele!

And this is not to say that I believe in withholding medical treatments from those who want or from those who believe in them, because I believe no such thing. I think that withholding treatments from people who believe in these treatments would contribute to the very stress and negative beliefs that would therefore cause them to worsen. The placebo effect is proven to work in both ways.

However, I think all should be free to make such choices without or with as little as possible of the fear factor that many project of "if you don't do what I say or what I believe, then you will die"!

I also think it is criminal for a doctor to diagnose a patient to tell them how long they have to live. Most HIV positives in the 80's to the mid 90's were told they had a year or less, but may live a bit longer if they take AZT. Then a few hundred thousand ended up dying of the side effects of AZT. Were the majority of these people simply scared into believing in an inevitable death or did HIV cause their deaths? I know what I witnessed which was those who believed in inevitable death and disease ended up with it. Those who did not believe it and stayed away from the meds survived and continue to thrive!

What the hell is that kind of thinking is it to tell someone that they are going to get sick and die Adele? Is there any difference between this and some kind of spell weaving witch doctor? Laying curses on people and often telling them they are doomed to the incurable, and also holding the life extending medications for ransom to those who have been cursed with a death diagnosis?

To tell patients something like this, which many doctors did and even yet do, with HIV, TB, cancer, hepatitis, and other dis-eases, is to me to be a practicer of "witch craft" and VooDoo medicine, and for those that treat patients or their fellow man in this way, then it would be nice if they would please wave their magic bones up where the sun don't shine and cast their spells up their own arses instead of aiming such beliefs at fellow human beings!

By the way, why do some people heal from deadly diseases with absolutely no assistance from medical doctors and drugs and others do not Adele?

Perhaps they did not surround themselves with people such as those that constantly and unwittingly aimed such negative thoughts of impending death and disease at them would be the most likely factor?

Or perhaps all of these many thousands of people just need to get in line with beliefs such as the apologists proclamations that all HIV positives will get AIDS if they are not medicated and the diagnosed but thriving should drop over dead so that the little eggshell world of the apologist's beliefs in "deadly" HIV will be back in balance?

Life is not a one size fits all process! Life does not operate according to the beliefs and thoughts of anyone's "my way or the highway" type of thinking.

Most apologists seem to be rather egotistical in this way. Seems to go with the turf!

Many seem to behave as a know it all as well. And therefore completely unable to learn anything new, because their heads are ready to explode from all of the garbage and untruths that they already have allowed into their minds!

Why some people die from something and other people recover, is a mystery. Why a cut on your arm heals itself is a mystery. Why people recover from colds and flu and other diseases without medication is a mystery. Why the world is just the right distance from the sun for this planet to support life is a mystery. How a peice of DNA in a sperm and another piece from an egg in an ovary come together and become you is another mystery. How all the DNA in all of the cells in your body can be stretched end to end and circle the earth to the moon many times, and yet all of the DNA in all of the humans that have so far inhabited this planet could all fit into a tablespoon is another mystery.

Have you apologists simply lost touch with the mystery of life? Have their fear filled know-it-all egos completely taken them over?

The apologists do not have all of the answers for everyone regarding HIV and AIDS, or any other disease, Adele. But usually they seem to think, and seem to behave as if they do!

All are welcome to believe anything they like, but that does not make their beliefs all true. They are merely everyones own beliefs that they shout out as being truths. And a lot of humans seem to think that just because they believe certain things, that the rest of the world must believe exactly what they do, or that others who disagree with them must be all wrong so they must be right.

Is that not being completely egotistical Adele? By the way Adele, when did God die and put these egotistical apologists in charge of the universe and in charge of what reality is and in charge of what will or will not happen to people diagnosed as HIV positive?

And what is up with aiming the belief of impending death at newborns, children, and their mothers? How does this benefit the parents or the children. No room in this kind of thinking for miracles or lifes mysteries or to allow or expect people to be well or healthy. Just keep on projecting at the kid that the child will die, the child will die, the child will die, but might live to be 12 if we give them these toxic meds! And then wonder why the child eventually dies!

More witch doctor voo doo Adele. Let those see it who have eyes to see it!

You can also find studies, though few have been done, that showed that untreated HIV positive children survived as well as untreated. You can find studies that show untreated hiv positive mothers had hiv positive children with the same and even less frequency as did mothers who were treated with AZT and Nevirapine.

Scientists often find not what is, but what they expect or even simply what they want to see. Few and rare are the unbiased scientists in todays money and corporate product driven world of science and medicine. This is why placebo trials of medicine are required, as placebos, another of lifes little mysteries, often perform as well or better than the tested medications. Placebo studies are used in all mainstream drug trials before marketing new drugs, and in every field of medicine but one: FastTracked studies of mostly HIV fantasy land where there are no rules of science or medicine that are abided by. Because HIV/AIDS is driven by fear and paranoia, all of the fears look very real when seen only from or through that fearfilled perspective!

And I do not think that you or any others are helping matters one bit if people continue with their own fear filled and fear driven beliefs and projections of such doom and gloom of incurable sickness and disease.

Talk about having no faith and talk about pure negative thinking!

But if that is the best you or the world can all do at the moment, then so be it! But if it is, then don't wonder why the problems continue or worsen!

Hey ERV and Kristjan.

You seem to be upset with me. Is it because I have pointed out that:

Scientists who are claiming that Simian Immunodeficiency Virus is somehow proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS,

is exactly like:

Holding up a Maserati as a race car to prove that a Soap Box with no wheels or motor is a race car as well.

Because if this upsets you, I cannot tell you how thrilled I am!

Maybe now you will begin to engage your god given brains on the subject of HIV and AIDS, though I am not holding my breath!

Lincoln, you don't quite get it - I'm not upset with you. You are insignificant, and have no real-world impact. If your nonsense was left unchallengged you might have some kind of impact by convincing someone to not use the medicine they ought to use, but since people like ERV, Chris Noble et al actually challenges your nonsense, it's not the case.

There are other denialists, including high-ranking politicans in Africa, that I am upset about. Their denial costs human lives.

It's similar to the Intelligent Design crowd - I am not upset by DaveScot, who is trully a moron of epic porportions. Rather I'm upset with the people in position to change the teaching of science in school. Some of these people are officially aligned with the ID movement (the Discovery Institute), while others are outside it, but help it (many school board members across the US).

And the hundreds of people that I personally know, and thousands of people in the world who have not had HIV medications and were diagnosed as HIV positive even as much as 20 and more years ago, also proves you to be quite wrong in your blanket statement that untreated HIV positives with die if they are not treated

It has never been the position of medical science that ALL HIV positives will die of AIDS if they are not treated although the message may have been twisted into that by media hysteria. What the studies that have been done show is that the vast majority of HIV positive individuals will become immunosuppressed over time and that treatment slows this progression. You seem to feel that people should have the choice whether to take their chances that they will be lucky or go with treatment. And I would agree with you (assuming that the people making the choice were provided with all the information that would enable them to make informed choices) were it not for HIV being infectious.

Also, I very much doubt that anyone is upset by your SIV analogy because, again, science has never claimed that animal models, by themselves, are 'proof' that HIV causes AIDS.

Dale, You said:

"science has never claimed that animal models, by themselves, are 'proof' that HIV causes AIDS".

How nice of you, Dale, to qualify your statement as "by themselves".

But the fact is, animal models, by themselves or not, ARE CLAIMED TO BE PROOF THAT HIV CAUSES AIDS! Did you just fall deep into denial again or what?

Perhaps you will explain to me, Dale, why the NIH has, on its own public info website,

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/evidhiv.htm

in the piece titled "THE EVIDENCE THAT HIV CAUSES AIDS", the following:

EVIDENCE THAT HIV CAUSES AIDS:
HIV fulfills Koch's postulates as the cause of AIDS.
Koch's postulates also have been fulfilled in animal models of human AIDS.
More than a dozen strains of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), a close cousin of HIV, cause AIDS in Asian macaques. In addition, chimeric viruses known as SHIVs, which contain an SIV backbone with various HIV genes in place of the corresponding SIV genes, cause AIDS in macaques. Further strengthening the association of these viruses with AIDS, researchers have shown that SIV/SHIVs isolated from animals with AIDS cause AIDS when transmitted to uninfected animals (O'Neil et al. J Infect Dis 2000;182:1051; Aldrovandi et al. Nature 1993;363:732; Liska et al. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 1999;15:445; Locher et al. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998;22:523; Hirsch et al. Virus Res 1994;32:183; Joag et al. J Virol 1996;70:3189).

Seems you are mistaken again Dale, if you think phoney animal models are not held up as proof of HIV causation for AIDS.

And speaking of mistaken, you also said "were it not for HIV being infectious".

However, you fail to realize that EVERYBODY TESTS HIV POSITIVE on antibody tests, unless the blood serum is diluted 400 times. Lesser dilution, more positive tests. Undiluted human blood ALL SHOWS as HIV positive!

Furthermore, you are already well aware that the longest running study by Padian, shows that HIV may very well not be contagious at all as there were ZERO transmissions between sero opposite couples.

So for every evidence that you claim about what HIV is or what it does, there is also ample evidence that the opposite may be truth.

Lincoln, you don't quite get it - I'm not upset with you. You are insignificant, and have no real-world impact.

Funny, Kristjian, I was just thinking the same thing about you...you know, how insignificant your menial posts are.

It's similar to the Intelligent Design crowd...

No, it's not...just keep telling yourself that. You seem to mistakenly value the belief that one does not have the right to question HIV=AIDS, Kristjan, and that makes you a simple-minded sycophant just like Chris Noble, Adele, Dale, DT, ERV, and last but not least, that goofy-analogy lovin' Dr. Brian Foley. The proverbial cat's out of the bag, Kristjan, and HIV science can no longer be morphed and manipulated without scrutiny. People have finally begun to take notice and are finding that the science supporting HIV is of very low quality.

And AIDS can kill like a mac truck if it's not treated.

Oh, Adele, you're so poetic and wise. You must have taken an analogy lesson from Dr. Foley, unless of course, you are actually contending that a mac truck kills by prescribing toxic drugs and by shaking a bone at you every time it sees your "abnormal" bloodwork. Of course, you don't know what you actually mean and that's why you choose to post primarily in cliche. That must be why Kristjan likes you and your posse better than the denialists. She doesn't have to think.

It's so dissappointing how all of the impotent apologists on this site are unfailingly rude to their denialist brethren.

Where's all the sciency discussions that were promised? If that's the best that you can muster, you really should consider being nicer to the denialists, for this blog is obviously a very boring place without a few denialist hanging around to offer nuggets of common sense and to demonstrate the results of critical thinking.

Kevin

Lincoln, lets deal with just a couple of issues at a time, shall we?

You stated "...a few hundred thousand ended up dying of the side effects of AZT."

What is your source for this information, and if your source is merely another imaginary statistic spouted by another denialist, can we have his or her source please? Since anyone can claim anything on the internet, can we have a peer-reviewed/scientific reference to verify this statement? (And if you cannot provide one, will you consider not repeating this false statement in future?)

You stated you were a whizz kid at HIV serology, having received personal tuition from the master serology denialist, Rodney Richards. You then go on to state: "EVERYBODY TESTS HIV POSITIVE on antibody tests, unless the blood serum is diluted 400 times"

Can you provide an explanation for the use of HIV assays that use undiluted blood (or blood less diluted than you claim, ie 1:400x)? Can you explain or do you understand why the majority of antibody detection assays have dilution steps (eg for syphilis, rubella, CMV, Toxoplasma, EBV etc)? Do you think these diseases are imaginary also?

As someone supposedly interested in the truth, hopefully you can respond to these questions directly and without any dissembly or prevarication.

I will say something further about one of your other posts though, Lincoln. You said: "Scientists who are claiming that Simian Immunodeficiency Virus is somehow proof that HIV is the cause of AIDS, is exactly like: Holding up a Maserati as a race car to prove that a Soap Box with no wheels or motor is a race car as well."

Not even close. I know you are not very hot on analogies, considering your opinion on Brian Foley's country defence. But to clarify and expand on your racing scenario, let us say Ferrari chiefs claim the F2007-1 (HIV) can do 200mph plus down the straight at Silverstone.

A disbeliever says this is impossible, because "A solid chunk of metal cannot possibly move." He is then shown a film of the F2007-1 doing 208mph in trials, but claims "That is just a video - they can be faked." He is then physically sat in the Ferrari F2007-2 (SIV) and driven down the track at a speed of 200mph to demonstrate the reality of chunks of metal travelling at these speeds. Unconvinced, he concludes: "I still think this chunk of metal cannot possibly move. You see, in that test run I might have been dreaming, or you might have given me a hallucinogen, or you may have rigged the speedometer so it looked like the car was moving when it was stationary, or you cleverly hid it inside a wind tunnel to make me think I was moving, and anyway I think you are lying about which race circuit we are on and it is Indiannapolis and not Silverstone even though I know we are not in the USA, and anyway who on earth would possibly believe that the performance of an F2007-2 could be used as a valid comparator to an F2007-1 even though they can have the same end result?

"And furthermore, the Ferrari constructor originally had a dispute with McLaren about their fuel injection technology (Gallo/Montagnier), and one of the engineers for Ferrari is on record as saying that during a test drive to check the car's safety features they only drove at 185mph (Padian), and I heard that someone once died driving a Ferrari even though the F2007 car was said to be safer than the F2003 (toxicity), and I read somewhere that although the fuel indicators are crucial to race planning, they could give innacurate predictions of how far an individual car might travel (Rodriguez), and I also once saw a Ford escort doing 60mph (other causes of immune deficiency), and I know that $20 million was spent by Mercedes last season and this is completely wasted because they didn't win a single F1 race (money spent on vaccine research) so I conclude this is all incontrovertible proof that IT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THIS CHUNK OF METAL TO MOVE!"

You know, denial is so refreshing that sometimes I wish I had the moral bankrupcy to enjoy doing it full time.

"A disbeliever says this is impossible, because "A solid chunk of metal cannot possibly move."

The problem with this analogy is that it has been demonstrated that huge chunks of metal (cars) can move forward at great speeds. It has been DONE, PHOTOGRAPHED, WITNESSED and EXPERIENCED by BILLIONS of drivers through the years. If HIV were a "huge chunk o' metal", then you'd first have to determine if it had an engine at all, which 1000's of scientists are still looking for to this day. Team HIV has a huge problem on its hands if it wants to race, let alone move forward.

"I encourage you again to give specific examples of "African Uebersexuality." You have not given a single example of a scientist who says this. Instead you say it's found "in your daily paper."

-Hiv is sexualy transmitted
-it is Heterosexualy transmitted in Africa (Padian: "it transmitts more in Africa")
-Male circumscision is hailed as the most promissing development in the fight against AIDS (in Africa of course, no one is suggesting snipping gay men here)
-ditto corrosive vaginal creams.

If scientists didn't buy into the racist non-sense about "Uebersex" why are they so obsessed with genital areas? Why aren't they demamding that most of the aber-billions in AIDS monies be diverted into building hospitals, providing clean water and better medical training? I guess I know why: Moore et al. wouldn't be able to play with genitals. They might not say it out loud but their actions do.
For a really well researched opinion about African, perhaps you would want to read some of the work of C. Geschekter. You will, by all accounts, agree with what he has to say but beware, he's been labeled a denialist.

lincoln wrote Seems you are mistaken again Dale, if you think phoney animal models are not held up as proof of HIV causation for AIDS.
And speaking of mistaken, you also said "were it not for HIV being infectious".
However, you fail to realize that EVERYBODY TESTS HIV POSITIVE on antibody tests, unless the blood serum is diluted 400 times. Lesser dilution, more positive tests. Undiluted human blood ALL SHOWS as HIV positive!

Animal models contribute to the evidence that HIV causes AIDS but they don't prove anything by themselves.

And everybody does NOT test positive on an HIV test if the test is performed correctly. Perform the test incorrectly and everybody will test positive on a pregnancy test as well lincoln. Does that negate the value of pregnancy testing?

This 400x dilution crap is very annoying. It's like saying, oh, yeah, well if you pour gasoline directly into your engine block and flood all the pistons your car won't work. So obviously your car doesn't run on gasoline, it's just a big conspiracy of O'Reilly and the oil companies.

The only person dumber than the people who repeat this junk is the guy who did the "experiment." His name is Roberto Giraldo and he's a lab tech in New York. He probably never took an immunology course or he would realize why his experiment was useless. Still at least he did an experiment such as it was, which is more than you can say for Duesberg.

Pat, let's be consistent.
All you've proven is your own obsessession with illogic.
Why don't you go to some prostate cancer website and tell the people there, oh, you know those doctors who saved your lives? They're just bigots and anti-male and also obsessed with your anal region. Don't let them touch you again, those perverted racist ueber anti-males!
How about you don't bring up that Uebersexuality thing again? There's obviously no basis for it and the more you repeat it the more I wonder about your own subconscious feelings on race.

My feeling is that the Ubersexual thing regarding African HIV was part of the dysfunctional reaction from many of those in positions of political power in Southern Africa. The suggestion that HIV was prevalent in Africa recieved a number of vitriolic and illogical responses from places like Zimbabwe and S. Africa.

The West was accused of lying about the scale of the problem and of being racist - the inference being that blacks must be highly promiscuous in order to spread HIV around whereas nice white Western heterosexuals behaved themselves.

As was mentioned by others, I have never ever seen anything published by any researcher in the West to say this or to link it with HIV. People like Mugabe and Mbeki manufactured this as an excuse to pursue their own anti-Western agendas - Mugabe mainly for political reasons, and Mbeki for reasons of stupidity re HIV. The denialists have lapped this up - after all, if Mbeki says the West accuses S Africans of being promiscuous, they would be the last to disagree with him.

There is still a great stigma about HIV being a sexually-transmitted disease. This I think is one of the reasons it has been easier for Mbeki to pretend that what he was seeing was not due to HIV but due to poverty, which made it somehow easier to live with.

Thank you for your answer DT. I find it rather peculiar that early on in the epidemic, I remember S.African being right up on the barricades fighting FOR access to affordable medication. I also rmember the fruitless battle it turned out to be. Nations like S.Africa (lets leave out Mugabe here seeing he's lost touch) have very limited resouces and as access to medication stands today, they are still ridiculously out of reach of those we proclaim to want to save. With these things in combination (on top of a sour aftertaste of apartheid, no doubt) it is little wonder that Mbeki had some questions seeing he wasn't getting far with the AIDS crusaders. Mbeki, FYI, never said that HIV doesn't cause AIDS nor did he ever say that he even believed so. He merely took his responsability as head of state and started asking question to which there seems to be very reasonable answers. Unfortunatly for him, he had no idea what kind of a vain and contrarian bunch scientists can be and instead of offering him these simple answers he had the carpet pulled out from under his feet and was made the world's ass. What a great educational move, I must say. One side gives him hell and the other gives him answers; who do you think has his ear? If you blame the dire state of HIV in SA on him then a fair share of blame rests squarely on the hands of scientists and their HIV crusading goon squads for missing a grand opportunity for HIV clarification.

"All you've proven is your own obsessession with illogic.
Why don't you go to some prostate cancer website and tell the people there, oh, you know those doctors who saved your lives? They're just bigots and anti-male and also obsessed with your anal region. Don't let them touch you again, those perverted racist ueber anti-males!
How about you don't bring up that Uebersexuality thing again? There's obviously no basis for it and the more you repeat it the more I wonder about your own subconscious feelings on race."-Adele

Yawn, ok. No, I won't go to a prostate clinic and blablabla. Why are you always mixing up topics? Maybe you and I should just talk about the weather. There is no basis for "African Ubersex" eh? I'll rephrase, when we should be spending billions building hospitals, we instead research vaginal creams and male circumscision and would hail them as breakthroughs in AIDS prevenion. Someone please tell your esteemed collegue JP Moore that to really takle the AIDS epidemic in Africa he should start drawing floor-plans instead.

DT, you said:

"You know, denial is so refreshing that sometimes I wish I had the moral bankrupcy to enjoy doing it full time".

As most all that you write is denial of one sort or another, it is quite obvious to us how much you enjoy it.

Perhaps you will tell us the number of deaths admited by the manufacturer of the drug to be caused by AZT?

Come on DT, here is another chance to show us your expertise in denialism. Please tell us how many AZT deaths are admitted to and recorded!

Dale, Adele, and DT. Adele said: "This 400x dilution crap is very annoying".

I know what you mean. It annoys all of us rethinkers as well. Perhaps you will show us any other test for any other disease that needs such a ridiculous degree of dilution to give accurate results?

You can't do it, because no other testing process is as bizarre and ridiculous as HIV testing!

Want more HIV positives, use lesser dilution. Want lesser HIV positives, use more dilution. Who the hell made up this game and set the bar and declared them accurate? What verifying process was used to determine the accuracy?

The answer to this is NO-ONE determined any verifiable accuracy of ANY of the HIV tests, and the tests say so right on the disclaimers on the package, such as: "A Positive test result is NOT EVIDENCE OF HIV INFECTION"!

None of the tests have ever been verified, and none are approved for DIAGNOSTIC USE!

Maybe DT would like to launch into another denialism crusade on this as well and feed us the standard party line that the tests are all 99% accurate!

Accurate at what? What does the claim of accuracy refer to?

It refers to being Accurate at NOT FINDING HIV!

Here DT:
http://www.avert.org/usastaty.htm

is an easy way to tally an approximating number of AZT deaths, as AZT was the monotherapy given to patients for these years:
Year.Cases..Deaths
1987 29,105 16,488
1988 36,126 21,244
1989 43,499 28,054
1990 49,546 31,836
1991 60,573 37,106
1992 79,657 41,849
1993 79,879 45,733
1994 73,086 50,657
1995 69,984 51,414
1996 61,124 38,074
--------------------
Total AIDS deaths during AZT Monotherapy: 362,455
Of Course, not all of these were directly due to AZT, so lets round it down to 300K.

But then lets round it back up a bit for all of those who still died from even the lessened dosing of AZT including those that still are up to the present day!

As of now, 500K plus deaths are attributed to AIDS. At least 362K of these were on high dose AZT!

The deaths jumped up to astronomical numbers of 50K plus per year once AZT was fully employed and in full use, and steadily dropped as AZT dosage was lessened or abandoned, culminating in todays average yearly deaths of 17K per year, the majority still being of side effects of the newer drugs.

Whats the matter DT? Got a guilty conscience from having sold these meds for many years? I would go into denial too if I were you!

But I don't blame you, DT, for what has happened in the past. You did what you thought was right and best at the time. And all of these people had taken this crap of their own volition.

Therefore, it is no-ones fault, but we can get beyond it, providing that people like you who promote these treatments, and providing the mainstream orthodoxy of AIDS are willing to admit to the errors made in the past. We cannot go beyond it until this happens, and the needless poisoning of patients will continue. So therefore, DT, it all depends on you! Your choice DT!

And as you are now well aware of this situation of how toxic these drugs are, anything you do to promote this method of poisoning the frightened and uneducated patients into taking them, without fully informing them of the evidence that refutes the need for this, YOU TOO DT, ARE DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR!

You are accountable to the patients that die from side effects, and you are Accountable to us who have informed you of the problems, and most of all, as you have been sufficiently warned, you are also now directly accountable to GOD!

I knew Lincoln would be unable to put his money where his mouth is. I'll ask again, in words of more or less one syllable....

Lincoln, give us a proper cite for your claim that "...a few hundred thousand ended up dying of the side effects of AZT."

How do you explain the use of licensed HIV assays that use undiluted blood, or blood that is not diluted anything like as much as 400 times?

Seriously Lincoln, do you think EVERYONE who has died from AIDS has died from AZT toxicity? How does this equate with the notified cases of PCP, toxo, CMV, MAC etc that people actually died from? Despite what your Virusmyth sources tell you, none of these conditions is caused by AZT.

Why on earth would you think AZT is the cause of death for these cases? The primary toxicity of AZT is anaemia which affects 5-10% of recipients, is treatable by transfusion and reversible on drug withdrawl. Perhaps 1% get neutropenia, which can increase susceptibility to infection. Other toxicities such as nausea, myopathy, neuropathy etc occur, but are hardly life-threatening.

Again, I ask for any evidence from published data to show significant numbers of patients dying from AZT. I grant you that AZT may have caused or contributed to deaths, but the numbers must be tiny compared to overall deaths.

If AZT was as lethal as you say it is, then why did the initial Fischl placebo controlled trials of AZT show MORE deaths in the placebo arm? According to your/denialist cant, there should have been fewer. Even in Concorde, the deferred AZT arm should have had fewer deaths than the immediate arm - it did not. These studies show the impact of AZT on deaths are minimal in reality. You can quote SPCs till they come out your ass, but long lists of uncommon and non-lifethreatening side effects do not equate to death-dealing toxicity.

Even the ridiculous scenario you try and paint from the AVERT site on USA deaths does not support your claim.
http://www.avert.org/usastaty.htm
What do you think people died from BEFORE AZT was licensed in 1987 (....Oh yes, I forgot - stress! And then suddenly after 1987 it was all AZT and not stress at all I suppose).

The data you quote show the proportion of deaths to AIDS cases as being more or less constant between 55%-65% of the total from 1984 through to 1994. If this drug was such a toxic killer drug, why did its introduction in 1987/8 have absolutely NO EFFECT on death rates? There can only be 3 reasons - either it was hardly used and therefore had little impact, or it helped as many people as it harmed, or it was not nearly as toxic as you say it was.

(Oh, and if you want to know what happened after 1994, I'll gladly tell you. Using your own figures, you can see that with the introduction of the even more "lethal" protease inhibitors as HAART came in in 1995, the death rate FELL and currently stands at currently 35% of all incident AIDS cases).

Perhaps you should study some of the data more closely. The CDC have a good site on AIDS deaths.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/reports/2002supp_v…

In the first chart you will see that the percentage of patients surviving at least one year after AIDS diagnosis rose from 60% pre AZT to 65% post AZT introduction. With HAART, it rose futher to 85%. The other charts corroborate this. Whichever way you look at it, there is no evidence (direct or indirect)that AZT killed hudreds of thousands of people. Stop spreading lies and disinformation.

DT, are you talking to me or yourself when you said: "Stop spreading lies and disinformation".

You asked:

"Seriously Lincoln, do you think EVERYONE who has died from AIDS has died from AZT toxicity"?

No I don't think that everyone who has died from AIDS has died from AZT toxicity. As you have been told countless times by rethinkers, the underlying causes of death in all of the cases of AIDS are multiple. Just like lining up 10 dominoes on edge. You can line up 10 dominoes and knock over the first one and one by one the tenth one will fall soon after. To say it is just the dominoe called AZT is to say it is only one of these dominoes that caused the rest to fall flat.

However, the more dominoes removed from play the less chance the next dominoe will fall.

What part of multiple causes do you not understand at this point. What part of the physical impact of patients given a diagnosis of certain death, of depressed immune systems due to fear, panic, and terror and hopelessness, of turning to heavy drug abuse that emotionally troubled people often turn to, of toxic side effects from AZT and other treatments, of internalized homophobia and death wishes, of destruction of necessary gut flora from antibiotics overuse resulting in overwhelming fungal infections such as PCP and Candida, and of other factors do you not understand?

Oh, I forgot you seem to suffer from a myopic perception disorder that only allows you to see from a perspective of an invisible virus that has never been proven to cause T-Cell deaths in a human body, or even proven to have any cellular effects in a human, as the sole cause of every illness in everyone testing as HIV positive in what you call legally "licensed" but non approved for diagnostic use and non specific HIV tests.

And you choose to see it only in this myopic way without any willingness to look at all of the other multiple factors, physical, mental, emotional, and known toxins and carcinogenics.

Why would you fail to look at the obvious effects of AZT on the well known hundreds of thousands who took it? Is it because you make your living from selling it and other toxic drugs and could not face the guilt without quitting your job?

No sir, gee, that would not affect or bias your own thinking at all, now would it?

It matters not to you that AZT itself suppresses the immune system or attacks bone marrow where the blood based aspects of the immune system are created. Whatever illness happens must be because of HIV, and certainly not exacerbated by the drugs you peddle, as that would make you culpable and part of the problem.

Thank you for bringing up the Fischl study! Why don't you share with us that the study was only helf for a few months before they simply decided to give everybody AZT! What kind of drug trial runs for only a few months? Please show us any other drug that was approved after only a few months human trial! Considering even the patients admitted that the trial was unblinded and that the patients taking AZT shared it with the ones who did not, I don't believe this simple minded and obviously unblinded study to hold any value whatsoever. Particularly as Fischl herself, who had absolutely no prior experience in drug studies, was paid by Burroughs Welcome to run the study, and to run it THEIR WAY!

Ellen Cooper was the FDA medical investigator who had analyzed the AZT drug study.

Cooper opened the meeting for its approval. She didn't like what she had seen in the research data. She worried about approving a drug on the basis of a single trial that was stopped halfway before its completion. She worried about approving a drug on the basis of a trial with fewer than 300 people, most of whom had taken AZT for fewer than six months. She worried about approving a drug without knowing anything about its long-term effects.

Cooper worried especially about judging the effectiveness of the drug when so many of the subjects were being treated with a host of other drugs in combination. That kind of contamination would have certainly discredited almost any other drug trial. Approval, she said, would be a "significant and dangerous departure from our normal toxicology requirements."

Fischl's New England Journal article was specific: This had been a double-blinded study. Except, FDA scientists openly acknowledged it was not double blinded. The side effects of high doses of AZT are so extreme that researchers knew who was on AZT simply by how frequently the participants needed blood transfusions. It is impossible to draw strong conclusions from this study because even the authors admitted that at any time, only about half of the people in the study were actually even taking the AZT that was given to them, significantly blurring the results.

The 1986 Phase II trial that preceded the FDA's unprecedented rapid approval of AZT was presented as being a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, though it was anything but that. As became clear afterward through the efforts of a few journalists, as well as the testimony of participants, the trial was "unblinded" almost immediately because of the severe toxicity of the drug. Members of the control group began to acquire AZT independently or from other study participants, people given AZT were not taking it, and eventually the study was aborted and everyone was told to be put on the drug. As in the case of HIVNET, documents obtained by journalist John Lauritsen under the Freedom of Information Act subsequently showed major evidence that data-tampering was widespread. Documents were altered, causes of death were unverified, and the researchers tended to assume what they wished to prove, i.e., that placebo group diseases were AIDS-related but that those same diseases in the AZT group were not. So serious were the deviations from experimental protocol at one Boston hospital that an FDA inspector attempted to exclude data from that center. In the end, however, all the data were included in the results, and the FDA approved the drug in 1987.
The impact of this published successful launch of AZT has been that no placebo-controlled trials of AIDS drugs have been conducted since in the US. Even in foreign studies most compare an older drug (often AZT) or combination of older drugs alone or used with a newer drug. Consequently, it is very important that the results of this first AZT trial are valid, though obviously they were not!

The trial has been seriously criticized by some, including John Lauritsen in his book AZT: Poison by Prescription, Dr. Peter Duesberg in Inventing the AIDS Virus, and Lynn Gannett whose eyewitness account of the trial is posted at http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/lgazt.htm. These authors claim that the trial was fraudulent and consequently the results are meaningless.

John Lauritsen obtained papers on the trial under the Freedom of Information Act. Even though many parts were blacked out, he found evidence of tampering with documents reporting adverse effects and evidence that sicker patients were purposely put in the placebo arm. The trial may have been quickly unblinded by the toxicity of AZT, which was admitted even by its proponents. AZT also causes some blood cells to grow larger, making the use of the drug obvious to medical staff. Some participants pooled their pills because of the widespread belief that this was a miracle drug, to try to ensure that everyone benefited. Others had their pills tested. Patients with severe toxicity would be taken off the drug, effectively putting them on placebo, but their results would be included in the AZT arm of the trial.

Lauritsen's charges are supported by papers retained by Gannett who was data manager for the Syracuse, New York trial center. When she reported the incredible array of protocol violations in the trial to the NIH in 1990 she was brushed off.

The FDA was aware of some of the problems with the trial, and considered eliminating the information from some data centers, such as Boston. However, this might have eliminated the statistical significance of the results, so they agreed to allow all information to be included, despite its flaws.

If there were any benefits to AZT, they may have been due to the blood transfusions that were necessary to keep people taking AZT alive. 21% of people taking AZT but only 4% of those taking placebo (some of whom most likely had been taking AZT secretly) were given multiple red blood cell transfusions. A deficiency of neutrophils (a kind of white blood cell) occurred in 16% of AZT recipients, but only 2% of placebo recipients.

A longer follow up report on the original AZT trial tried hard to put a positive spin on the results, but admitted that its benefits quickly vanished with nothing left but toxic reactions. If the extraordinary benefits of the obviously falsely claimed 'blinded' portion of the trial are omitted, 60% of people randomized to AZT who survived to 6 months survived another 15 months to the end of the monitoring period, but 66% of people randomized to placebo survived 15 months on 'open label' AZT. The rate of opportunistic infections that had been significantly higher in the placebo arm until 24 weeks (including the randomized portion of the study) suddenly flipped and became significantly lower at most time points in the group originally given placebo and, over the entire period of observation, the rate of opportunistic infections was lower in this group compared to the group originally randomized to AZT. The adverse effects of AZT were still quite clear, even to the researchers, 10% of all subjects receiving AZT required more than 10 blood transfusions during the study. Other serious adverse affects that were associated with AZT by the researchers were muscle wasting and liver damage.

Yet even with this, Doctors, who had been prodded by the pharmaceutical detail boys and girls like DT, continued to dispense high dosage AZT until 1995/96. Once this practice ended, death rates dropped like a rock to current levels. If those deaths currently caused by the toxic side effects were removed from AIDS death categories, and were properly attributed to iatrogenic deaths, the AIDS death rate fall thousands further, and the death rate of HIV positives would be below what it was in the early 1980's before AIDS drugs were even administered.

Thank you DT. We gays really do need more do-gooders just like you to help us out when we are totally freaked out and terrorized by phoney HIV tests showing positive, and/or are disowned by our families for being gay, and we just feel like dying!

I am sure your contributions to doctor assisted suicide in the gay community are greatly appreciated by some who really hate their lives who feel their lives are most miserable!

The reason DT has refused to tell us how many AZT deaths are recorded, both by the manufacturer as well as by the government, is that ABSOLUTELY ZERO HIV deaths are attributed to the toxic and poisonous AZT. Every death due to AZT is listed as due to HIV!

Scammers and liars. The original AZT study showed that a high percentage of those taking this poison needed continued blood tranfusions just to stay alive at all! And eventually the constant blood transfusions also become deadly.

But according to DDT the pharma rep to doctors, and according to government statistics and the manufacturer of AZT, all of the death is due to HIV! No AZT deaths at all admitted to according to the manufacturer. None at all listed or tallied or added up anywhere in government databases!

DDT admits the AZT crap is deadly toxic but still attributes all AZT deaths to HIV to appease his own guilty conscience and to blow smoke up the publics ass! Fake, phoney, holocaust denialists is what the apologists seem to be. I am referring to the AZT holocaust of hundreds of thousands of terrorized and poisoned gay men and blacks that is all blamed on HIV, that DDT and the US government NIH Dept of NIAIDS that originally sponsored AZT and sold the rights to Burroughs Welcome for it, as well as the manufacturer, ALL deny the AZT holocaust due to all of their combined complicity in having created the panic and terror and exacerbated the death and disaster themselves! No wonder the DDT and government AIDS officials and researchers and pharma companies try to play this down. Were the government or the manufacturer held to be liable, they would be bankrupted by the magnitude of now worldwide effect of their bad science and death creating drugs.

They are all guilty of terrorizing and misleading the yet terrorized and panic stricken group of often despised and equality and dignity denied homosexual citizens, as well as primarily blacks and poverty stricken and uneducated people worldwide.

All who played this holocaust down, or blocked the dissidents from presenting it until the statute of limitations was exceeded, as well as all still involved, like DDT, government sponsored AIDS researchers, and pharma companies and their employees, who obstruct or downplay the this gay and black holocaust information from being presented by the dissidents should honestly all be taken to Nuremburg and tried for crimes against humanity.

Lucky for you, DDT, I think forgiveness of your psychopathic behaviors, as well as forgiveness for your ignorance and selfishness is a healthier route for mankind to travel. Certainly healthier than stooping down to your own level of becoming another uncaring co-sponsor or willing accomplice as a co-killer of other humans. Certainly healthier than to become another selfish, uncaring person who puts my own profits and job security above integrity and common sense, just like yourself and many of the other co-supporters who continue to choose to turn a blind eye to the obvious falibilities of the trash science called HIV/AIDS.

Now you've vented your spleen, perhaps you will calm down and explain why you attribute half a million deaths to AZT when you yourself admit patients died from many different causes.

I have never denied AZT toxicity as a factor affecting health, but it is a very minor part of the overall picture. As I said, if AZT was so lethal, then all the clinical trials that used AZT arms should have had massively higher mortality than the other (placebo or comparator drug) arms. This DID NOT happen, and however you want to distort data from studies, you cannot demonstrate otherwise.

I would also like a response from you as to why the introduction of AZT did not increase overall mortality as shown by the USA data that you yourself tried to use to show AZT killed half a million people.

Although the proportion of AIDS cases who died within two or three years of diagnosis prior to the introduction of AZT was 80-90%, the absolute number of AIDS cases in the USA was increasing but still relatively low (from a few hundred in 81 to ~9000 in 85). AIDS diagnoses continued to increase through to 92 or 93 as one might expect with a disease caused by the spread of an infectious agent. But since lincoln refuses to believe the infectious part, I think he wants to argue that the introduction of AZT itself somehow increased the number of AIDS diagnoses and since most of those AIDS cases have since died, it must have been the AZT that killed them. Celia Farber makes this argument too. She and lincoln have apparently convinced themselves that all AIDS patients are the picture of health up to the point they are diagnosed and/or start taking ARVs.

Lincoln says
Perhaps you will show us any other test for any other disease that needs such a ridiculous degree of dilution to give accurate results?
You can't do it, because no other testing process is as bizarre and ridiculous as HIV testing!

I can and will do it. There are HIV tests that use a 1:10 dilution. But check out these ELISAs: Newcastle disease virus ELISA 1:10,000; Helicobacter pylori ELISA 1:200; look at the ELISAs on mpbio's website, most are 1:100, from Varicella to RSV to Mycoplasma to Mycobacterium to HCV to Herpes 1 and 2; there's an ELISA for Abs associated with lupus that dilutes 1:30,000. Autoantibody ELISA for anti alpha myosin, 1:320.

Every ELISA must be tested at multiple dilutions to determine where in the dilution range it is most accurate. That is at what dilution will positive results be best distinguished from negative results? Note that "every ELISA" part, not just HIV ELISAs. This is necessary because every ELISA is different. Different antibodies, antigens, epitopes, diseases.

Saying all HIV ELISAs are done at 1:400 dilution or that HIV ELISAs are different in this respect from other ELISAs is a lie, yes, a bald-faced lie, spread by activists like Lincoln or Farber or Culshaw or Giraldo who are woefully ignorant or else trying to deceive people.

Lincoln, tell us again: are all HIV ELISAs done at 1:400 dilution?
And are they abnormal from other ELISAs in their dilution factors?
And do you ever look at any information outside of Farber or Duesberg or the RA website?

Ueberpat says
Why are you always mixing up topics? Maybe you and I should just talk about the weather. There is no basis for "African Ubersex" eh? I'll rephrase, when we should be spending billions building hospitals, we instead research vaginal creams and male circumscision and would hail them as breakthroughs in AIDS prevenion.

You Ueberpat mix up topics by applying different standards to AIDS and everything else. If researching different methods to prevent HIV transmission makes one racist and obsessed with Africans' genitals, then it's only logical to say breast cancer specialists are obsessed with groping women's breasts, prostate specialists with sticking their fingers in a person's anus. Of course none of this is true and there's no logic in much of what you say.

Ueberpat, you still haven't told us why you're in Switzerland instead of Lesotho, where you should be building hospitals with your "aber-billions" if you want to be consistent.

And please, will you condemn Lincoln's racist characterization of all Africans as too stupid and apathetic to be able to help themselves?

Adele, you twit,

It's a simple question: To what extent does sexuality play a role in African Aids? If HIV is mainly a sexualy transmitted disease in the west and is confined to specific risk groups then I suggest that, since African Aids is heterosexual in distribution, sexuality plays a much smaller role. It appears reasonable to think that poor clinical hygene plays the greater part in any infection so why are we studying vaginal creams and male circumscision when real prevention is elsewhere? Why are we talking about ARV's for Africa when 1) they are not "life saving" (no cure) 2) unaffordable even to some whealthy nations and we won't provide them at reasonable costs until dragged screaming from board rooms. etc etc.

The more we communicate the more I get the feeling that this is all just a rhetorical exercise for you. "Ueberpat, you still haven't told us why you're in Switzerland instead of Lesotho, where you should be building hospitals with your "aber-billions" if you want to be consistent."

Well, the answer is in two steps. Firstly, when one seeks answers one usually opens with questions; I did not tell you because you never asked. Secondly: Pull your ass outta highscholl! I donate but I don't have aber-billions! sexually transmitted HIV and monkey poop got them. 25 years of studying this retro-virus has yielded no cure and no clear prevention strategies; it is time we applied some logic and started behaving in a cost effective way; divert YOUR monies to hospital and general infrastucture construction and maybe then we'll see some real reduction in disease for that continent. The downside of this, of course, is that there is no real financial reward for the west.

"And please, will you condemn Lincoln's racist characterization of all Africans as too stupid and apathetic to be able to help themselves?"

Perhaps you could copy paste that passage where he says they are stupid because I cannot recall reading that and I can't locate on this interminable thread where he may have said it. I believe I have already tried to explain to you what I believe he meant. I'll repeat: Lincoln makes the point about the despair of poverty and the HOPELESSNESS it engenders and certainly doesn't assign racial blame for it, quite the contrary. So no, I can't condemn it as racist. Here's an idea: ask him yourself what he meant. Poverty is an economic side-effect of capitalist models, and no, I won't get into an argument about which model is better or worse; it's besides the point. Fact remains, poverty is a necessary component to the accumulation of whealth. Interestingly, the capitalist system itself requires no racial profiling as it is a purely financial system. But because the system was and still is administered by humans with biases, some racial; less powerful minorities have been shouldered with the burden of poverty and will be for the forseeable future. The racial profile of poverty is strickly a human imposed fabrication and only the wealthy can undo it...alas, for that, they first need to care.

Pat,
I can see why you defend Margulis so aggressively. You've been cut from the same ultra-activist cloth. Of course, you're also preaching to the choir, since many or most of us scientists share your opinions on capitalism, if not your strange extension of postcolonialist postmodernist socialist criticism to HIV and AIDS.

But this blog is supposed to be about science, not politics, so kindly reserve your anti-capitalist rants for other sites. I could give you some suggestions if you would like. Concentrate on science here.

Of course, that would seriously restrict your input, wouldn't it, since as you admit you know nothing about science.

"But this blog is supposed to be about science, not politics, so kindly reserve your anti-capitalist rants for other sites. I could give you some suggestions if you would like. Concentrate on science here.
Of course, that would seriously restrict your input, wouldn't it, since as you admit you know nothing about science".

Seeing science got into the business of writing policy and research by press conference, I have every right to weigh in on your little frat party. You work because others pay for it and you are accountable to them, so put up or move over. Also, since when is science not interested in the reality of the field? You can't (won't) explain to me how your microscope/monkey poop explains the field; is that now my problem or yours? Maybe it is not a scientific/intelligence problem but one of character and lacking social skills.
To the question: "To what extent is sexuality responsable for the spread of Aids in Africa?" there is only interference on your end. Why do you not take the time to discuss this in detail? If denialism is so deadly in your eyes, why are you battling ignorance with pestillence and not knowledge? Which sociopath told you that this startegy works? If denialism kills then you are unwittingly promoting it. I know little about science and you seem to know and care about little else and know absolutely nothing about passing it on; God forbid you ever choose to teach!

Adele, are you going to quote the passage where Lincoln calls Africans stupid? I still can't find it.

Pat, my impression of Lincoln's racist characterization of Africans was that he implied stupidity. Perhaps he didn't explicitly say this but it's in the subtext in my reading. You can deconstruct and do your postcolonial analyses until you're out of air. But to say that someone has no control over themselves and their fate is demeaning and in this case racist, in my opinion. You are welcome to your own.

If you have specific questions about sexual transmission of HIV, please formulate them clearly and preferably without name-calling. I don't have the time to write a book for you, nor the inclination. I have been very tolerant to even respond to anything you say considering the sexism you've thrown at me in the past and the rudeness of most of your comments now.

On second thought, Pat, it's a waste of time arguing with you and Lincoln and any other denialist.

You remind scientists they are accountable to the tax-paying public. You're right. We do report to the public. Through the peer-reviewed literature. You can educate yourself and read that literature, or you can continue to wallow in your self-indulgent ignorance while nurturing your political infantilism.

I can't make the choice for you.

DT, You asked:

"I would also like a response from you as to why the introduction of AZT did not increase overall mortality as shown by the USA data that you yourself tried to use to show AZT killed half a million people".

The intro of AZT obviously did increase mortality as shown by the USA data. The years of highest death were the years of AZT monotherapy. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand this.

Who survived? Those who did not take high dose AZT monotherapy are currently the long term nonprogressors.

What does this evidence? AZT was the primary cause of death from 87 to 96.

Did the newer medicines save lives? No, they just did not kill as AZT did.

But on another hand, again we can see the power of the mind at work. When patients were told they had a death diagnosis and when doctors believed such, the patients lived down to the doctors expectations of death.

When patients were told they could live longer, they did and currently do.

Guess what happens when a patient is told, and believes that HIV is a bunch of crap science?

They live a long and healthy life without medications DT! How do you account for that???

HIV testing should be banned.

The sentences of impending illness unless toxic medications are taken should be banned.

The guesstimating of how healthy a patient is or whether or not they are going to get ill via CD4 tests, and viral load testing should be banned.

All HIV drugs that have not been placebo tested or tested for less than 5 years should be banned.

Only the illnesses presented by the patients should be treated.

Telling people that HIV is sexually transitted and that it is the cause of AIDS should be discouraged and removed from all textbooks.

Not that I want to put you out of work DT, I am sure there are some healthy medications and medical products that you can still sell and still make your living.

The following is an exact quote by Dr. Luc Montagnier, the original discoverer of what is believed to be HIV:

"AIDS does not inevitably lead to death, especially if you suppress the co-factors that support the disease". (I am sure he would also include Duesberg's lifestyle argument of malnutrition and drug abuse and toxic drugs as co-factors) Dr. Montagnier goes on: "It is very important to tell this to people who are infected. I think we should put the same weight now on the co-factors as we have on HIV. Psychological factors are critical in supporting immune function. If you suppress this pschological support by telling someone he's condemned to die, your words alone will have condemned him".

How many people have Dale and DT and Adele and most of the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy condemned to die by telling people that HIV is a death sentence? How many deaths have the words that come out of their toxic mouths contributed to?

It must be hard for the DT's, and Dale's, and Adeles of the world to argue that HIV causes death and illness, especially when Dr. Montagnier, the man whose lab discovered it and studied it for the last 24 years is seemingly himself a "denialist" HIV?AIDS dissenter at heart who believes that CO-FACTORS ARE NECESSARY FOR HIV TO CAUSE ILLNESS, and who believes that TELLING PEOPLE THEY WILL DIE WILL CAUSE THEM TO!

As so many of us dissidents have observed, the psychological terror that is willfully imposed upon people who test HIV-positive is alone a significant threat to one's health - both emotional and physical.

But then, I suppose someone would have to have at least a bit of common sense and a bit of integrity to understand this, unlike most of the HIV/AIDS believing orthodoxy, who are either too brainwashed by dogma or too fearful to be able to think straight, or far too busy cashing in on it all to give a damn or even momentarily consider the real life impacts of testing HIV positive on the actual people who are diagnosed!

You are far removed from reality to think that there is any comparison between the effects and emotional impacts of HIV testing to the joy of a pregnancy test or minor inconvenience of non lethal, non stigma inducing, non terror causing, minor diseases.

Michael, shouldn't you be in the TB thread explaining how TB meets Koch's postulates?

Note: the following includes parody and is not meant to trivialize AIDS or cancer.

Yes, Lincoln, and if you're consistent, you should call for cancer tests to be banned, too.

After all, look at all the cancer patients who died after taking cytotoxic cancer drugs! "Clearly," they must have died from drugs not cancer. The recent reductions in cancer deaths must be from reductions in chemotherapy doses, right?

And all that psychological terror! I mean, "sorry, maam, you have cancer." That's enough to kill someone on the spot!

Lincoln, by not speaking out against the cancer machine with its terrorist tests, you are responsible for millions of deaths!

A fascist thought structure underlies Pat's and Lincoln's recent comments on Africa and colonialism. Although Pat's words imply ultra-leftist political leanings, his and Lincoln's implications about Africa are fascist in origin and share much with German National Socialism (although the category definitions are different).

Nazis thought there were Uebermenschen (Aryans), Untermenschen (like Slavs, Asians, Africans who were all useful to the Uebers only as slaves), and then Jews. The latter in the Nazi mind had characteristics of both Ueber and Unter. They were supposedly ultra-smart even smarter than the good stout "common-sense" Germans but also conniving and evil, worse than the Untermenschen morally. (Reminds me of the denialist idea of scientists and doctors.) So they had to be eradicated to save the world and its supposed natural balance of Ueber- and Untermenschen.

Today it's shocking to realize this same sort of thinking passes as acceptable in some academic circles. It's just that the category definitions have changed slightly. Today, some wacked-out liberal arts academics and coffee-house "intellectuals" say without using the actual words there are Uebermenschen (bleeding heart Westerners like pat without whom dark-skinned people could not survive), Untermenschen (impoverished "Africans" and others who supposedly can't or won't think for themselves), and "Jews" (capitalists, colonialists, scientists, Democrats, Republicans, neocons, Jews, anyone who is part of the Conspiracy or Establishment).

See in this thought vein the "neo-Jews" have so much power that they've disrupted the natural balance of Ueber- and Untermenschen, where the Untermenschen are in their view supposed to do quaint jungly multicultural things while wearing colorful costumes or nothing at all for TV specials that the Uebermenschen, who of course keep these innocent and happy pet-like "natives" alive through their pat-like largesse, watch with pleasure the better to enhance their Ueber cultural knowledge.

But the evil neo-Jews who long-ago introduced capitalism and colonialism have sapped the poor "natives" of their will to live and are keeping the Uebermenschen from saving them.

Of course what I'm saying is a slight caricature of Pat and Lincoln. But there's some truth here, too.

Saying "scientists" or "big pharmas" or "capitalists" or "neocons" or "colonialists" have so much power that they can debase human beings to where they have no control over themselves demeans those human beings (here, "Africans"). It also gives the "neo-Jews" a mythical status that can be stopped only if the good, earthy, Prometheus-like neo-Uebermenschen slap it down maybe with violence like the Nazis tried. Pat and Lincoln "objectify" the Other, to use long-outdated pomo terminology.

This wedding of ultra-leftist politics with ultra-rightist philosophy is disturbing to me, but so far fortunately can't make policy in many places.

So Adele-twit
You admit that Lincolns "stupid" comment is you reading between the lines. Reading between lines is a royal waste of everybody's time. The only person who can clarify his remarks to you is Lincoln himself but you refuse to ask him. Your loss not mine.

You find it demeaning to say people are not in control of their destiny. What a great politically correct sound byte you offer. Would you say that American slaves had control over themselves and their destiny? If you say "yes they did", then your head is up your ass sideways; if you say "no they didn't", then you are being demeaning??? What a catch-22 you've created for yourself there. How do you explain to the African farmer, who's land was taken from him to make room for a foreign owned mine under IMF directive, that he is actually in control of his life and destiny? It looks to me that the IMF is. With your PC attitude that they are in control, you are in fact arguing that the situation in Africa is somehow of their making and not vice versa. The unfortunate but very real truth is that Africa is not in full control of its destiny but not because they are "black and stupid" as you are so desperately trying to spin Lincoln's words into, but because the "haves" keep it so. You can call that "postcolonialist postmodernist socialist criticism" or "political infantilism" all you like, it doesn't change the fact that despicable creatures are keeping Africa poor, divided and defenseless by design and/or apathy and your brushing-off of this as anti-capitalist ravings is...is...is... empty*sigh.

Someone wanted evidence of Uebersex "in the news", an early example:

"In AIDS-Stricken Uganda Area, The Orphans Struggle to Survive", New York Times, June 10th 1990.

"Now They Know the Cause.
Many now say they know it is caused by heterosexual transmission but seem unprepared to accept it. Elizabeth Nakabago, whose 52-year-old husband died of AIDS last year, appeared very thin. She felt well, she insisted. But a visitor from Kampala, the capital, said he had watched her deteriorate. Scientists are studying why heterosexual transmission of the virus is such an important factor in Africa but have not yet reached any conclusions."

"The figures compiled for 1988 showed that, discounting children, about 1 in 8 Ugandans was infected."
"In Kampala, the Health Ministry reported that 1 in 4 was infected. And in Rakai, new figures from a survey by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta show that half the women at the trading posts are HIV positive."
"Rakai County's medical services consist of a derelict dispensary and an overworked medical center on the most northern edge and thus inaccessible to most. The only two doctors in the county are posted there.
During an inspection of the dispensary one night, Mr. Pinto found the place in darkness because there were not even candles. Patients, women with young babies, sat on the veranda and three unattended babies slept inside. The senior officer, known as a medical assistant, who is trained in hygiene and no more, had left for home three days earlier."

Talk about sex and Aids in the media is pervasive and I could go on and on with rotten hysterical examples; I know this and you know this.

Note how the article describes the state of the local hospital. "derelict" sums it up. Now fast forward to 1993 where the very same hospital in the Rakai is visited by a news team from channel 4. What do they find? A derelict "biquoque". Le plus ca change, le plus c'est la meme chose

aymu.org; present day:
"...however research reveals that 80% of all HIV infection are a result of Sexual intercourse".

Pepfar.gov
"Transmission occurs mainly through heterosexual contact (75 to 80 percent), while mother-to-child HIV transmission accounts for 15-25 percent of new infections."

Aidstruth.org:
"heterosexual intercourse is now responsible for 70-80% of all HIV transmissions worldwide"

I make no endorsement of these sites. I merely "fished" them out of the pond to illustrate how pervasive the heterosexual transmission explanation for African Aids in fact is. The mantra is repeated everywhere.

To what extent do YOU believe heterosexuality explains the African Aids epidemic? 75%? 80%?

At the risk of misquoting the Padian study, and acknowledging that it studied prevention methods, it also speculated about an unprotected rate of transmission. It is based on this that it is now widely accepted that HIV, compared to other STD's, is rather difficult to catch and may explain the slow progression of the epidemic; at least in the west. Africa is simply accepted as special in regards to sexual transmission. And this is standard Aids fact sheet: 5 million+ S. Africans have HIV, up to 1000 AIDS related deaths a day

In the meantime we still delude ourselves with heterosexual transmission, a recent example:

"Declines in HIV prevalence in Uganda: Not as simple as ABC"
by MJ Wawer, R Gray, D Serwadda, and others.

Here they correlate the drop in HIV incidence with increased condom use and a rate of death outpacing the rate of infection.
"We observed no increase in abstinence or monogamy"
in other words: no change in sexual behavior aside the use of condoms

And during all this no one stopped for a second and wondered about the amount of sex that would be needed to sustain such a rate of infection. There is only one answer to the nonsense and that is the HIV/AIDS "estimates" are hysterically way off the charts. Conclusion: there is no sexually transmitted HIV disease ravaging Africa, only pill promoting HIV scientists and activists misdiagnosing a host of old diseases.
"I have been very tolerant to even respond to anything you say considering the sexism you've thrown at me in the past and the rudeness of most of your comments now."

Bullshit, Adele. I bothered to apologized in the hopes of leveling the field a bit, you thanked me for it yet continued on your own rude tone. Advice, never say thank you unless you mean it.

Talking about cytotoxic cancer drugs. Why would no oncologist even consider life-long chemotheraphy but and Aids doc would?

Thank you for bringing up the Fischl study! Why don't you share with us that the study was only helf for a few months before they simply decided to give everybody AZT! What kind of drug trial runs for only a few months?

Oooh, ooh, I know the answer to this one! A drug trial in which one treatment group is doing so dramatically and obviously better than the other that the investigators consider it unethical to continue the study, and choose to break the blinding so that they can determine whether the group that is doing better is the active drug group or the placebo group.

It was only a matter of time until you had to bring up the Nazis, eh? You're a fraud and it is in plain site. You are assuming Africa is in control of it destiny because you can't bear the reality that it is being kept their by actions of despicable creatures and the apathy and disbelief of creatures like you. You are in fact arguing that the sitation in Africa is of their own making since you believe they have control. Proof is here:

"Saying "scientists" or "big pharmas" or "capitalists" or "neocons" or "colonialists" have so much power that they can debase human beings to where they have no control over themselves demeans those human beings (here, "Africans")."

You are in effect calling us racist Nazi Uebermenschen because we dared point out the fact that Africa is still oppressed. You are a work of bullshit art, Adele. It looks like shit, it smells like shit, it taste like shit yet you still step into the shit.

pat wrote And during all this no one stopped for a second and wondered about the amount of sex that would be needed to sustain such a rate of infection.

And how much sex would that be, pat?

"And how much sex would that be, pat?"

That was my question to the specialists.

No, Pat, I didn't call you a Nazi Uebermensch. Go back and read my words. In fact I think the whole Ueber/Unter thing is a full toilet-load invented by weak-minded idiots like the Nazis and repeated by you, and I'm not sure why you insist on using words like this with such obvious historical connotations even if you do live in the "German-speaking space."

I think you and Lincoln and a lot of other no doubt well-meaning leftists are playing with fire when you dance with this kind of ultra-rightist philosophy, even if you don't realize what you're doing, as I'll guess from your words you don't.

You ask about how much sex is needed for an epidemic. Not much. HIV is quite transmissible especially in the acute phase or the late phase of infection. Probably the majority of all HIV infections are passed along by people in the acute phase. If you're living with someone who recently got HIV and you're having unprotected sex a few times a week especially if you already have an STI or two, chances are better than not you'll be infected in a month. This scenario is not a stretch for a lot of people in the world. If you don't have other health issues, the chances are lower but you still wouldn't want to expose yourself.

If you want the references for this, please ask and I'll dig them out. But please don't waste my time if you're not really interested.

All that is required for an epidemic to be sustained is for the reproductive number for that infection to be >1.

This applies to HIV, indicating that on average, an individual who is infected will go on to infect more than one other person.

For diseases like gonorrhea, the R0 is very high, but the period of possible transmissibility is brief. For HIV, the R0 is low, but transmission can occur throughout the sexually-active lifetime of someone with the infection.

Africa has very high rates of some STIs such as gonnorrhea , whereas the West has high rates of others such as HPV and chlamydia.

HIV does not behave like traditional STIs because of its prolonged period of infectivity.

Why are you Ubersexuals making such a fuss of the fact that HIV is transmitted sexually?

"and I'm not sure why you insist on using words like this with such obvious historical connotations even if you do live in the "German-speaking space."

This is explained by the fact that I am German speaking and that these words over here don't have the historical context you try to assign to them. I had that same thing pop up on another thread recently with "Schubladendenken". Someone said it sounded like a Nazi word. It's normal and very common for many non-Germans to associate the German language with Nazi ideology. I find the same logic in African Aids statistics: "This is german, Nazis spoke german therefore this is Nazi"-"This is fever and weightloss, AIDS has fever and weightloss therefore this is AIDS"

"Probably the majority of all HIV infections are passed along by people in the acute phase"

probably, good guess. one more nail in the coffin of skeptisism.

"For diseases like gonorrhea, the R0 is very high, but the period of possible transmissibility is brief. For HIV, the R0 is low, but transmission can occur throughout the sexually-active lifetime of someone with the infection."

Adele says that is probably mostly not so.

Africa has very high rates of some STIs such as gonnorrhea , whereas the West has high rates of others such as HPV and chlamydia."

Can you explain why you say that the transmission period for gonorrhea is brief. My doc explained to me that if untreated it not only causes permanent damage but remains infectuous. I need clarification. Are you saying that gomorrhea makes HIV infection more likely than clamydia? Both these STD's are said to promote HIV infection. Are these facts or guesses? Let's see... NIAID says: "some health researchers think it adds to the risk of getting HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) infection." Ah, its a guess job again and another nail in the skeptics coffin. How can anyone argue with hard facts such as these.

"Why are you Ubersexuals making such a fuss of the fact that HIV is transmitted sexually?"

Because of all the band-aids holding it together.

Pat says,
"For diseases like gonorrhea, the R0 is very high, but the period of possible transmissibility is brief. For HIV, the R0 is low, but transmission can occur throughout the sexually-active lifetime of someone with the infection."

Adele says that is probably mostly not so.

No, Pat, perhaps you should read what we write, not just what you want us to be saying. Untreated HIV can be transmitted at any time. On average, it's much more likely to get transmitted in acute infection. So likely that most infections (but not all) come from acutely infected people.

Pat, I am finished with the topic of your latent fascist philosophy, but please allow me just one gentle suggestion since you incredibly aren't aware: words like "ueber" (not necessarily all German words) have a bad connotation all over the world...except maybe in the minds of young German speakers who deny their parents' or grandparents' active or passive roles in the Holocaust and find the whole "Holocaust thing" to be an "industry" and just "another grab at money" by (who else?) the Jews. I happen to know Germans and Austrians who have said things like this to me in unguarded moments, so please don't say I make this up. And since it seems disclaimers are so necessary for you, NO, I'm not saying all German-speakers are like this, or that the attitude is necessarily prevalent in Switzerland, or even that you necessarily think this way.

So why don't you try being culturally sensitive and condescend to the stupid Amis who don't speak German and don't understand that words like Ubermensch and Wehrmacht and Endlosung are just normal German words that everybody uses all the time? Here are some words you could use instead of "Ueber": hyper, extra, ultra, totally, especially. That would be, like, totally hyper-extra-cool of you.

"No, Pat, perhaps you should read what we write, not just what you want us to be saying. Untreated HIV can be transmitted at any time. On average, it's much more likely to get transmitted in acute infection. So likely that most infections (but not all) come from acutely infected people."

That is EXACTLY what I meant by "Adele says that is probably mostly not so."

"Pat, I am finished with the topic of your latent fascist philosophy"

And I am done with your attempts at making it my philosophy. Your expose on "young Germans who deny their parents' or grandparents' active or passive roles in the Holocaust" is interesting but unfortunately completely off topic and ultimately as laughable as your attempt at making me into a fascist. I don't deny my grand parents helpless passive role in the Holocaust but I don't dwell on the foreign symbolics of certain german words either.

"And since it seems disclaimers are so necessary for you, NO, I'm not saying all German-speakers are like this, or that the attitude is necessarily prevalent in Switzerland, or even that you necessarily think this way."

You can say this with a straight face inspite of your lenghthy post in which you make EXACTLY that point.

"Although Pat's words imply ultra-leftist political leanings, his and Lincoln's implications about Africa are fascist in origin and share much with German National Socialism (although the category definitions are different)."

Admit that you have no clue what your point is.

" I happen to know Germans and Austrians who have said things like this to me in unguarded moments, so please don't say I make this up"

I know you're not making this up; I can find Americans and Canadians like that.

"Ubermensch and Wehrmacht and Endlosung are just normal German words"

Wehrmacht is not common and found only in reference to the WW2 german army. Endloesung is common, I'd say in mathematics. "Uebermensch" is a german noun. see: Superman. "Uebermenschlich" is often used in reference sport or sex to describe extrem human physical exploits. I have used none of these words.

"So why don't you try being culturally sensitive and condescend to the stupid Amis who don't speak German and don't understand that words like Ubermensch and Wehrmacht and Endlosung are just normal German words that everybody uses all the time?"

Is it my fault that stupid amis see the words "Wehrmacht", "Endloesubg" and "Uebermensch" everytime they are exposed to german? You are educated enough to know the real meaning of Ueber.

"Here are some words you could use instead of "Ueber": hyper, extra, ultra, totally, especially"

they all mean the same thing without your blinders on.

"That would be, like, totally hyper-extra-cool of you."

Now that would be condescending to stupid amis. "Surf's up!" cya laterz.

This is explained by the fact that I am German speaking and that these words over here don't have the historical context you try to assign to them

So pat, when you said the following you were mistaken?

I am asking for enlightenment because the idea that African ueber-libido rests solely on racist assumptions about their sexuality is driving me into dispair.

pat | March 16, 2007 02:03 PM

Or what about this?

If scientists didn't buy into the racist non-sense about "Uebersex" why are they so obsessed with genital areas?

Posted by: pat | March 26, 2007 08:55 AM

There are not negative historical contexts at all?

Of course this is nonsense. The kind of historical stereotypes that you try to invoke with your chocie of words, are exactly the same kind of steroetypes that the Nazis based their ideology on, so you are trying to use guilt-by-association.

This is great, Pat. Thank you.

Wehrmacht is not common and found only in reference to the WW2 german army

You might remind Peter Duesberg of that. If you read Harvey Bialy's boring book on Peter Duesberg, you'll find the star saying something about being a "foot-soldier in Huebner's Wehrmacht." Of course, this interesting German speaker who once said homosexual activity by itself causes AIDS and implied it should still be outlawed like it was "20 years ago" also published his big AIDS book with far-right Regnery. Hmmm.

It's pathetic that you can't see the connotations of Uebermensch. Yeah, I know, Nietzsche and all, but you may as well say the 'n'-word is harmless because it just refers to the Niger river. That's ridiculous and so is your refusal to see anything wrong with throwing around other weighted words.

Did you have a chance to review the comments on sexual transmission?

Can you quote the passage, Adele, because some how I don't really trust your re-interpretations.

"Did you have a chance to review the comments on sexual transmission?"

Yes I did and I asked what was meant by clamydia and gonorrhea; it wasn't clear. I also asked why that too is nothing more than a guess. You appear to have no comments.

"So pat, when you said the following you were mistaken?

I am asking for enlightenment because the idea that African ueber-libido rests solely on racist assumptions about their sexuality is driving me into dispair."

Where is the mistake. Either Africans are having more sex than westerners or something else is driving the "estimated" epidemic. Someone brought up gonorrhea and clamydia but didn't elaborate on how these might propel it. It also turns out to be nothing more than a guess, again. Do you believe the estimates on African HIV/Aids are anywhere near accurate? How does co-infection with gonorrhea differ from co-infection with clamydia?

"It's pathetic that you can't see the connotations of Uebermensch"

I can see the connotations of "Uebermensch", if I squint and dumb myself down sufficiently. Of course, I used "Uebersex". When you refer to me as Ueberpat, are you trying to say I am a Nazi? According to your logic I am be calling Africans Nazis because they are the ones with "Uebermenschliche" (superhuman) qualities.

I'm terribly sorry the word "Ueber" fried your collective capacity to reason. I'll call it "oversex".

Adele said:

"And all that psychological terror! I mean, "sorry, maam, you have cancer." That's enough to kill someone on the spot! Lincoln, by not speaking out against the cancer machine with its terrorist tests, you are responsible for millions of deaths!"

Adele, what makes you think I don't rail against diagnoses of impending death given by doctors about how long or if a patient will live with cancer, because the fact is that I do! I am well aware of the negative effects of such on patients. I am also well aware that many patients are unable to rise above such self destructive beliefs themselves. I am also well aware of how many people focus on things such as "my grandma died of cancer, so I am sure that I will too". Unfortunately these people can not even see the damage they do to their own selves by falling into terror and hopelessness, nor can anyone pull them out of it unless that is what they themselves want to do! The problem is not just the doctors. It is the ignorance of the patients as well, and often the ignorance of do-gooders including often the friends and family members, with all of their own negativity and negative projections, that the unaware patient is often surrounded by!

My own brother was given such a diagnosis of cancer and given by his do-gooder doctor to have 3 months to live and died exactly 90 days later. Of course, my own parents and other family members were also quite sure he would die, and let him know it! Perhaps this is one of the reasons that I so despise the irrational behavior of people such as would tell someone that they are doomed to die, even when they are my own family members!

The only one offering him hope and telling him he could survive and recover from it as others have done was me! I was out voted by about 20 to 1, including being out voted by my brother himself who was also not willing to believe he could survive it and was completely resigned to his own death at a young age!

This entire episode happened several months after my sisters had admitted they had been sexually molested by my father. My brother, who loved and respected my father greatly, was devastated by this, as well as devastated by his own emotional shortcomings. Two weeks before he was diagnosed, he called me in a drunken stupor to tell me what a good for nothing a**hole he was, and spent several minutes putting himself down before I told him that if he was going to continue to be so self loathing (shame and guilt) at the moment, I would not stay to talk to him.

So I promise you Adele, that I am well aware of the effects of stress, guilt, shame, and fear, as I have seen it so many times over and over when it comes to disease and illness in family, as well as friends and acquaintances.

Perhaps some of you have had much more sheltered and protected lives than dealing with being gay, or extremely dysfunctional families, or surrounded by others in traumatic life experiences, and if so, I can completely understand thay you are completely incapable of understanding some of the realities of life, due to the fortuitous lack of such life experiences within your very own lives.

I can also clearly see that as society focuses more on cancer, the incidents of cancer also rise seemingly causing more negative focus and more cancer.

Do-gooderism seems to me to more engender negative focus on negative health, than to be of any help in replacing negative focus with positive focus. Such is where most of mankind is currently at, as we usually seem to be more focused on our fears than on positive emotion toward creating in our lives what it is we would rather have instead.

For some strange reason, are you unaware of the effects of thinking and belief and negative expectations on your own health and well being?

Unfortunately, I am unable to stop people from their own such negative focus in regards to their own health, nor am I capable of stopping other people from spreading such toxic beliefs to others or from inflicting such negative beliefs and focus on others. It would be nice if such as yourself and DT and Dale were willing to acknowledge the impact of negative thinking and expectations of illness, and perhaps were willing to assist the world in moving from negative to positive focus, but you all are who and how you are. Perhaps you are all unaware of the impact of your own words at putting other people into a state of hopelessness. If so, you are most certainly aware of it at this point, but even at that, deeply engrained habit is most difficult to break and replace with a new habit. It is always a slow process for most of us in human growth.

I do think it most unfortunate that many if not most people, even with the best of intentions, simply escalate problems by feeding even more negativity at the individuals who are presently or who will end up being affected by internalizing all of that negativity.

Most people do not even realize that the projections of fear and hopelessness at others are actually coming from their own subconscious beliefs in such fears and hopelessness, and therefore, unwittingly and unknowingly spread it to others, and often spread it to their own children.

None are to be faulted for this, as that is who and how most people are, and they are doing the best they can with what they have.

As you well know from your own life experience, emotions and beliefs are crucial to maintaining your own good health and strong immune system and body so that you can recover from most illness instead of having a common cold or flu turn into pneumonia or death. Surely you are aware that you would suffer physical consequences from being a drug addict. Surely you are aware that you need to be cautious and judicial in taking even prescribed medications, particularly if they are known to have toxic side effects. Certainly you yourself would think twice before taking lifelong chemotherapy treatments if you were told you have a lowered immune system. And surely it would be no surprise to you if you had a lowered immune system and were aware you have been stressed, panicked, and emotionally a basket case. This would not surprise you Adele, and you yourself would sit back and realize that you can not continue to beat yourself up emotionally and expect to be well. And I am sure that DT is just as bright when it comes to such common sense. Why would you and DT pretend that these things make no difference? Why would you align yourself with such?

Well, I am not stupid. Surely you both feel upset that what I am saying puts doubt on the work you both have done and are currently doing. And I do not fault you for this sensitivity and insecurity. Perhaps I should be more sensitive to understanding that you both are and have done your best, and have done what you believed is good and best. And I do apologise for not being more sensitive! And believe it or not, I do feel for the predicament that my own beliefs must leave you in, but that has to do with you, not me, and there is nothing I can do or say to ease your discomforts about these things, other than to tell you again, that if you do not want to know, then stop reading and stop responding. Otherwise, I must assume you really want to know more! And if you do, know well that I love to share my understanding. This is my own gift of understanding that I believe is from God that I share with the world as what good is a gift such as this unless I share it! I see it as the primary information that we need to understand to all move forward to a better and healthier future for my own self, as well as for you, your loved ones, and your children, and their children.

It feels unfortunate to me, though perfectly understandable, that you and DT and Dale and Tara and so many others seem to feel the need to endlessly defend all HIV science and medicine, simply because you are employed by the fields of science and medicine. Such fields should be expanding and looking into all aspects, including the aspects that I am sharing! Particularly, as there has been no progress made whatsoever with more than 100 billion US dollars in 25 years that could be honestly attributed to HIV/AIDS science and not just as easily honestly attributed to other factors such as the reduced toxicity, though still quite toxic use of prescribed drugs, or attributed to the lessening of toxic emotions due to the greater acceptance of gays in society today. And the very same goes for yet more billions spent on CANCER and many other chronic illnesses. But leave it to mankind to bounce again and again against every concrete wall before going through the obviously open doorways! It just seems to be our nature.

There is, I am sure you would agree, more societal acceptance of gays than 25 years ago, and gays today are far less likely to allow others opinions or rejections to affect them, and less likely to allow their families rejection of them to cause as much major emotional devastation.

Although, from my own experience in the gay community, there are still many who intensely suffer self and family rejection, addiction, and other self destructive behaviors and attitudes. I think that as long as gays continue to have such problems, their health will also suffer. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand this. Many will be too emotionally weakened from such internal battles to fight off illnesses, and many will also continue to unwittingly abuse their bodies medicinally and through sex addiction. It is no longer as much of a problem as it was 20 years ago, but it is still a major problem in gay communities.

I do what I can when I can to uplift my fellow gays as well as everyone else I cross paths with, to let them know they are also divine children of an all loving God, as many have the strange belief that if God exists, such an entity hates them. And I extend that to you and all of the defenders of HIV and AIDS as well. I know in my heart that you are all doing the best you can with the beliefs and awareness that you have.

For gays, many are of atheistic beliefs as they have been rejected by the faiths of their parents and as such many gay people have often rejected any sense of spiritual connection which, as I am sure you know, many who have such deep seated spiritual beliefs are able to draw upon to bring themselves to emotional alignment with more positive feelings when they are ill.

I find those in the gay community who seem to be devoid of, or have negative beliefs about spiritual connection to be often times hopelessly negative about themselves and about their lives, and they continue to have the most physical problems, and not just AIDS related but the entire realm of physical ailments from back problems to cancer and heart problems. The individuals dealing with the most negative inner consciousness are almost always the ones who deal with the most physical illness.

Fully 90 percent of the entire American population believes in a spiritual connection, and they are often the percentage doing the best in life, health, and other aspects of their own lives. This is not to put down atheists, as atheists can also often have some of the most life affirming beliefs that are far more life affirming than a lot of the supposed "believers in God".

A lot of gays, however, have the belief that if there is a god, it is a god of the old testament, and god hates them. (I wonder where they got such ideas) Or they believe that AIDS is proof that there is no such thing as a divine presence of god. Either way, I find such beliefs to be most unhelpful to good health and healing when one is emotionally or physically ill and in need of uplifting as many people through out the ages have found value and benefit in such beliefs as an all loving and healing sense of spiritual connectedness.

As much of gay social life is centered on the seeming shallowness and selfishness of youthfullness and looks and sex, there are many who do not live up to their own ideals of perfection of looks, etc, and who feel quite lonely and not good enough and unwanted and unloved. This too is negative and destructive to their well being.

A dispraportionate number of gays also have childhood sexual and emotional abuse as well. Sad, but true. The twelve step programs have helped many along the path to recover spiritually, emotionally, and physically, but not nearly enough of the most needful will ever choose such a route. Such is life, and there is not much anyone can really do for many of these people, but to accept them as they are.

So as long as the basic problems of negative self image and self destructive beliefs and their inherent sense of disconnection and hopelessness continues, the AIDS problem and other epidemics will also most likely continue. There are no easy answers or magic pills to cure what goes on in the minds of man, or can cure what the minds of man unwittingly create. Given that at least 85% of the population has no inner awareness of the effect of what goes through their minds in a day, nor as to its effect not just on their individual, but also on global realities, we will undoubtedly have epidemics of illness and dis-ease for a long time, if not even for all of the future of all of mankind. As long as society continues to see all of the effects as totally external instead of seeing and understanding the internalized creating externally, they will continue to seek an external remedy for every illness. It is far easier to pop a pill than to know ones own self and ones own mind. None are to be faulted for seeing life this way, nor is there any right or wrong or good or bad to it. It is just the way we humans are, and each of us can only see life as we can see it.

All of us, including the defenders of HIV/AIDS, I am sure, are doing the best we all can, until we individually gain a greater sense of awareness or understanding of knowledge of other routes that are more beneficial to all, as well as gain the courage and willingness to make different choices.

Lincoln, I am sorry to hear of your family problems and your brother's experience. As someone closely embroiled in the situation, do you really think you can be completely objective about these matters?

Your brother was given a 3 month cancer survival estimate by his doctors, and they were correct. Somehow you wish to twist this around and blame those who were honest enough to tell your brother what would happen to him. We all like to have hope, but not to be lied to. I suppose you think if the doctors had said "You'll be fine, there's nothing wrong with you" that he would have survived his cancer? Just thinking positively cannot affect the eventual outcome, but it may make things easier to come to terms with and give patients a sense of control over events.

You still have so many multiple trains of thought that it is hard to define what you think about a topic at any point in time and for you to argue with any consistency.

By your criteria for "Stress (of being diagnosed with HIV) is the cause of AIDS", I would like to know why the stress your brother was experiencing did not cause him to die of AIDS? By all accounts he should have, since you obviously feel that the inevitable sequence of events with a doom-laden diagnosis is:
a) Stress,
b) Immunodeficiency
c) Opportunistic infection/AIDS-defining illness,
d) Death.

Your own brother's experience is an example of what we are saying - people can have massive stress from other facts in their lives - like being given a terrible medical diagnosis, having a child die, living in Iraq or Palestine, ....you name it....

But there are NOT epidemics of AIDS-defining illnesses in breast cancer sufferers, bereaved parents, orphans, Palestinian children. Two groups of patients who should be absolute sitting ducks for "AIDS" by your criteria are those with leukaemia, and those with cancer. Both have diagnoses with a bleak prognosis, they suffer considerable stress, and both can get pumped full of toxic chemotherapy. Yet hardly any of these groups succumb to typical "AIDS-defining illnesses". You also have no explanation for the numerous AIDS patients who first present with advanced illnesses and AIDS-defining infections, even BEFORE they have ever been tested for HIV.

You persist in clinging to the concept that an HIV diagnosis is the most devastating thing that could ever affect someone psychologically. This is quite untrue. Doctors do not say HIV = death (they used to say AIDS=Death in the 1980s, but not recently). They are usually very supportive and HIV is becoming a chronic manageable condition thanks to them. Few patients undergo the Uberstress you describe - I have seen plenty who take things in their stride. I have even seen some who have deliberately become infected with HIV such as drug users who were desperate to get on methadone programmes that were restricted to only HIV postitives. Your stress hypothesis is readily disprovable, only you are too biased to accept the fact.

" Two groups of patients who should be absolute sitting ducks for "AIDS" by your criteria are those with leukaemia, and those with cancer. Both have diagnoses with a bleak prognosis, they suffer considerable stress, and both can get pumped full of toxic chemotherapy. Yet hardly any of these groups succumb to typical "AIDS-defining illnesses"."

Although not directed at me. PCP is rather common in people suffering cancer and undergoing chemotherapy. It is even reported that PCP progresses more rapidly in cancer patients than in AIDS patients.

Pat, you are right about PCP and some forms of cancer. PCP also afflicts those whose immune systems are suppressed by immunosuppressive drugs. But this is not AIDS. AIDS diagnosis, where possible like in resource-rich countries, requires presence of HIV. Many denialists argue that HIV does not exist and that HIV positivity is the result of too many antibodies or the effects of different stressors on the body. If this is correct, previously HIV negative cancer patients who've got the "death sentence" from their doctors and are on highly toxic chemotherapies, often much more toxic than antiretrovirals, and displaying opportunistic infections should also test positive for HIV and so have AIDS.

They don't.

Now your STD/HIV question. The presence of lesions, including those associated with various sexually-transmitted diseases, in the anogenital area is associated with greater transmission rates of other STIs, including HIV.

Such lesions are found more commonly when STDs are undiagnosed and untreated. This happens disproportionately in areas where access to standard medical care is lacking. This is one of several reasons none having to do with "oversex" for the spread of HIV in some non-Western countries.

You are the one who adopted this digustingly racist idea and shoved its origins off on your opponents without considering the much more logically and medically plausible explanations.

Now Pat any comments on Peter Duesberg, his past comments about "illegal" homosexuality and his mention of the Wehrmacht? Should he have used that word? Is it funny? What do you think it says about his politics and motives in the Denial movement?

there has been no progress made whatsoever with more than 100 billion US dollars in 25 years that could be honestly attributed to HIV/AIDS science and not just as easily honestly attributed to other factors such as the reduced toxicity

Since the start of combination therapy, deaths from AIDS have been well more than halved. Childhood AIDS deaths have dropped to zero or single digits per year in the individual US states. They've been cut by 95% since pre-therapy days (so you can't say it's "reduced toxicity"). Mother to child transmission approaches zero when intervention occurs.

How is this "no progress whatsoever"?

Lincoln, did you see my examples of ELISAs with dilution factors equal to or greater than for HIV ELISAs?

Thank you Adele,
Finally something that makes a little sense. So perhaps you even agree that building health care centers is far more important than ARVs. I wonder what that Rakai hospital looks like today? I did not adopt anything racist about Africa, I am merely trying to show you the pervasive opinions of the general public about African Aids. Its no strawman; people out there believe it is African's lack of responsability and sex control that fuel this epidemic and they didn't hear it from any "denialist"; most are unaware if them. Science unwittingly is fueling a massive racist bias against this continent by not stepping up to the plate an explaining what truely is wreaking havoc there and also by letting itself publish wildly speculative rates of infection. I agree that HIV tests are expensive and not available everywhere but explain to me how it is medically responsable to use clinical symptoms that are common with most african diseases to diagnose AIDS? Do you not think that this could cause MASSIVE overestimates? Do you think there are really 5 millions HIV infections in SA? Why? Have so many actually been tested? JP Moore is now toying with the idea that it may be as high as 20%. Uganda turned out to be complete hysteria it seems. BTW, If HIV tests are required for an AIDS diagnosis in the rich part of the world, where is EJ's required HIV test? She lived in THE richest country and got diagnosed without one.

"Now Pat any comments on Peter Duesberg"

I have already told you that if you want me to comment on those passages you should give me the references; I have the books at hand, all you need to do is give me a page number...

Just to clarify - PCP can certainly accompany chemotherapy, and is also a risk when high dose steroids make up part of the regimens. These patients don't get the typical pattern of multiple AIDS-related illnesses. The other AIDS-defining diseases are quite unusual in this setting (even when you have the combo of a "deadly" stressful diagnosis PLUS toxic chemo).

Linoln's point is that the simple stress of having a deadly diagnosis given to you will flatten your immune system sufficiently to cause the spectrum of AIDS-related conditions. This is patently untrue.

For example, PCP was initially the AIDS-defining diagnosis in about 60% of patients (but is less common now that prophylaxis is in place). There have been literally hundreds of thousands of cases in the USA linked with HIV. Yet leukaemia patients and cancer chemo patients get these problems so rarely that when they do they are written up in the journals, as seen below. Millions of patients undego chemo for cancer every year, but I don't see reports of hundreds of thousands of cancer-PCP cases.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&do… (PCP and KS)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&do… (2 cases of PCP)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&do… (6 cases)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&do… (one case)
And so on. And in these chemo patients I can hardly find any reported cases of PML, or CMV retinopathy, or disseminated MAC, or cerebral Toxo, or....etc

Yet in the year 2000, New York City saw 665 cases of PCP in AIDS. Without widespread PCP prophylaxis in HIV patients, the total could easily have been 5-10 times this level (PCP prophylaxis reduces the incidence of PCP around 10-fold).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&do…

Moore has something to say on ELISAs and dilutions.
http://www.aidstruth.org/howimmunoassayswork.php
I guess Linoln already knows all of this, since he received personally instruction in ELISA denialism from an ELISA denialist, but I would still like to hear what he has to say about Adele's post on dilutions.

Ok, Adele I found it.

What he means by "being a good foot-soldier in Huebner's Wehrmacht" is actually quite simple but, agreed, it needs some german-cultural insights that non-germans perhaps might not be aware of.

Let me explain. First the Wehrmacht was not a Nazi organization. It was stricktly a military one within which few had any respect or even care for Hitler's policies. The SS was not part of the Wehrmacht. The SS was the military wing of the NSDAP. (Think IRA and SinnFein). What made the Wehrmacht guilty of war crimes in the second world war was its rigid military maxim that a soldier fights for his country till the bloody end, wheather right or wrong. This is the reason the allies refused german offers of surrender because the allies aim was to demolish the Prussian military culture and they succeeded in their plan across the board; militarism in Germany is practically dead. This military maxim, unfortunately is still around and alive in most other countries. Take America; soldiers do as they are told and do not ask questions, thus the Iraq mess. If soldiers were allowed to second guess their leaders there might not be an Iraq mess and perhaps no war in general. This perhaps also explains Moore's AIDS war, he is allergic to questions about it.

This is what Duesberg is alluding to when he says he was a "good foot soldier in Hubner's Wehrmacht": he was doing what he was told to do inspite of his own misgivings. Does this make better sense to you now? Duesbergs reference to Huebner's "Wehrmacht" in no way implies that Huebner was a nazi but simply that Hubner expected obedience from his foot soldiers.

Now I just need to find his quote about making homosexuality illegal

Pat, yes, building health care centers is important. Educating more doctors and maintaining and improving the existing local systems is even more important. But this is not JP Moore's job (and why do denialists single out Moore so much?) Moore is a biologist and he works to stop the spread of a virus. He is not a foreign aid specialist or a politician. I'm not, either. Scientists best spend their time with science and education. That's what they were trained to do and what they're paid to do.

You say that "people out there" believe something about Africans, but you still haven't given any quotes. Have you taken polls? Can you connect these feelings, if they exist, to "Science"?

Uganda's epidemic was not merely hyteria. It is real. Fortunately, Uganda is exemplary in how it handled the epidemic and the country is doing relatively well.

South Africa is a different story. Prominent politicians took a decent idea--self reliance--and turned it into an antimedicine perversion that kept a lot of people from proper treatment. Thousands have died or been newly infected needlessly. Mbeki and his cronies ironically propped up their foolishness by relying on the medical ignorance of a bunch of non-expert white men Duesberg, Bialy, Rasnick et al. who should in my opinion be charged by the Hague for the genocide they helped create.

Finally, I don't know enough about EJ to really comment beyond what's already known. She had one test, p24 staining, and it was positive. I hear also she had giant cells in the brain, PCP, otitis media, failure to thrive, recurrent upper-respiratory infection, herpetic lesions, all characteristic of AIDS. But I don't know if she had any tests beyond p24, just that her mother wouldn't allow it while she was alive. It's really sad that EJ became one of the last few pediatric AIDS victims in the US because of Denial, and that her parents even joked around about it before she died.

Pat, the homosexuality quote is not in Bialy's book. I will try to find it again.

Your Wehrmacht explanation is good. You are right that non-Germans do not appreciate the fine distinctions between the Wehrmacht who killed their relatives and the SS who killed their relatives or between Nazi party members who killed Jews with glee and "ordinary Germans" who killed Jews with glee. This is why most Germans I have known but espcially the ones between about 40 and 80 years old today are very careful with their language especially when they're abroad. You just don't make jokes about being in the Wehrmacht.

It's especially disturbing that Duesberg does this. His former friend Ellison was a right-winger and they published together in a far-right publication. Duesberg published his main book with an ultra-conservative publishing company. I'm not the first person to question his attitudes to homosexuals; gay rights activitists have done it before. Against this background, a German who's been living in the US for decades should know not to mention the Wehrmacht even if he's partying with his dawg Harvey.

"Scientists best spend their time with science and education. That's what they were trained to do and what they're paid to do."

Moore took it upon himself to educate the world about AIDS but unfortunately he turned it into a war and there is no education where there is yelling, period. He singlehandedly promotes skeptisism with his immature tactics. My opinion.

"You say that "people out there" believe something about Africans, but you still haven't given any quotes. Have you taken polls? Can you connect these feelings, if they exist, to "Science"?"

Do you ever venture outside the lab?

"Uganda's epidemic was not merely hyteria. It is real. Fortunately, Uganda is exemplary in how it handled the epidemic and the country is doing relatively well."

You believe that 25-30% of the sexually active pouplation of Uganda simply died off while simultanuously driving the fastest population growth in the world? It sound far more plausible to think most of the previous estimates were simply wrong, especially considering the fact that back then no one is really tested.

S. Africa, back in the early days of AIDS, was on the forefront for making ARVs more accessible. They were the one's threatening to bust up the patent system in order to get these drugs at affordable prices. After years of wrangling with politics and industry to get this done and without any results, is it any wonder that they had to find their own ways? I would be suspicious of the AIDS industry too had I been made to jump so high for nothing. Even the best foot soldiers eventually ask questions when you yank their chain too hard.

" It's really sad that EJ became one of the last few pediatric AIDS victims in the US"

Eventhough you admit to knowing little about EJ you still manage to convince yourself that she died of AIDS. The US requires an HIV test for diagnosis. Without HIV tests everything is speculation.

It is obvious that you didn't understand the fine distinction between the two. Nazis killed out of IDEOLOGY, the Wehrmacht killed because they were TOLD TO. One does it with glee and the other with a blank stare. Soldiers aren't trained to think. None of this excuses the crimes committed but should help explain how it all got off the ground. If you think these differences are petty then I am afraid history shall repeat itself, which it usually does. I know the world over thinks all germans are guilty if only for their apathy and cowardice. Are all Iraqis guilty for Saddams crimes too? Even those too scared for their lives? How about N. Korea? According to you those guys should self-immolate with guilt. Do you think my grand-father killed with glee? Do you think he even killed at all? Your tone seems to indicate you have some proof.

Of course you understand the machanism at work in dictatorships, you just need to disagree with me just like you need Duesberg to be a fascist.

I agree that HIV tests are expensive and not available everywhere but explain to me how it is medically responsable to use clinical symptoms that are common with most african diseases to diagnose AIDS? Do you not think that this could cause MASSIVE overestimates?

In fact, pat, the one published study that I could find indicated that using clinical symptoms alone (the Bangui definition) UNDERESTIMATED AIDS diagnoses rather than overestimating them.

you mind sharing that with me Dale?

Pat, I don't need or want Duesberg or you to be fascists or influenced by fascist or absolutist ideology. I just happen to think you are, even if it's just subconsciously. I worry this might be true when I see a German who thinks its OK to say Wehrmacht as a joke in another country and has made it his life's work to interfere with life-saving treatment for anyone with HIV infection, especially gay people and those with a skin color different from his own.

And why do denialists keep coming back to EJ? Her death is one of the most powerful and tragic indictments of your movement's destructive ignorance. I said I don't know enough about her to add to the discussion. But I know what's out there. EJ was exposed to HIV perinatally and there weren't any attempts to stop transmission, not even bottle-feeding. Post-mortem there was one HIV test at least, a very specific one that found viral proteins in her brain tissue. Then there's the list of conditions she had from categories B and C of the CDC definition for pediatric AIDS. If there's another test, a negative result out there, don't you think EJ's mom would have taken out a page in the New York Times to advertise it? She wasn't shy about using her kids as evidence HIV doesn't exist beforehand.

Finally, Pat, where are you getting your Uganda information? You say there wasn't any testing "back then" whenever that was. Uganda was one of the first countries to test. They did it as soon as tests were around anywhere in the world in the middle 1980's.

If you want to give us some numbers to work with for Uganda, we can crunch them. I don't carry in my head every estimate made for the epidemic in every country in Africa. There have certainly been overestimates as well as underestimates for HIV and that's what happens if less than everyone is tested for any disease. An argument for universal testing, not for assuming HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

certainly Pat.

Greenberg AIDS11, 1867 (1967)

Sorry to hear you think I am a fascist.
Did Duesberg joke about the wehrmacht? In public? Is it his fault people don't want to understand the meaning of his sentence? I made it perfectly clear to you what was meant but you chose to reject it with a load of sarcasm. It was explained to you, how you choose to understand it is all up to you. I find this about Duesberg's rejected theory.

"Virtually the entire scientific community considers Duesberg's AIDS theory to be unsupportable, although he was a respected researcher before he proposed it. There is no suggestion that his theories are the result of a political agenda or homophobia."

No one in science, except you and some Ueber-activists, apparently thinks Duesberg has any anti gay/minority agenda. Still waiting for your proof of it.

Why do denialabalaabalaablaists keep bringing up EJ? As a skeptic, I wonder firstly about the mothers HIV status. She is in fact HIV+/-/+/inconclusive. Is that an HIV patient to you? Secondly, her daughter was never confirmed to be + either. Sure the mother refused the test but so did the coroners office. I never heard her say HIV doesn't exist, I never heard her tell people not to wear condoms (she's not denying gonnorrhea, syphillis etc you know, nor is Duesberg) All she does is open her personal experience up to the public so people can start to think for themselves. A +/-/+/indeterminate is probably a few degrees more maddening than a simple +, don't you think? Her tests combined with her good health should make any doctor assume that she is in fact, most likely, HIV negative. You are breaking your own rules by assuming EJ died of AIDS; status of the mother is at best indeterminate and there was no HIV test performed by any party to properly diagnose AIDS. EJ comes up alot because she is used as a political tool to against Maggiore and that simple fact should make any decent human being, especially those with kids, shiver in rage and disgust. You state that the parents "joked" about the EJ as the next pediatric AIDS case. Please back that up, its too much to simply believe, especially considering your poor habit of reading between the lines and re-interpretion.

There you go again with "life-saving" drugs. Apparently you think there is a cure out there for AIDS. By using qualifiers such as these, I fear you are promoting HIV apathy by making people think it is curable.

You think Duesberg should go to the Hague? Personally I think the charges of genocide against Achmat are the joke of the century. You seem too share Mr. Brinks' extraordinary legal shot in the face. Also, be careful what you wish for, someone might want to send you there one day. Genocide requires consciously wanting and promoting it for the purpose of ethnic murder. Do you in all honesty think he wants blacks to die? If yes than you are hysterical and need immediate attention.

My Uganda information comes from all over and I have never heard of widespread HIV testing in any parts of Africa. Earlier on you said HIV test were expensive and found mainly in whealthy nations. Todays low HIV incidence, incidentally, is also arrived at by extrapolation and not nation-wide testing.

"One of the impediments to the anti-HIV/Aids campaign in the country is the defective data collection methodology. To date, the only reliable information about the HIV/Aids incidence in the country is based on data on pregnant mothers attending antenatal clinics at selected centres, and those who have voluntarily tested for HIV." allafrica.com

What made you think these people were actually being tested? Faith in the system?

PS: I'm a skeptic, I am my own team. My "camp" is my house. What I DO deny is this kind of thinking: (maybe+perhaps) x ('looks like it+why not?) - probably not = 100% certainty

thanks Dale!

ooops, I get 343 hits with this much info. Is there a title to the paper?

Pat, I believe this is the paper.

Pat here's Dale's title:
Impact of the 1994 expanded World Health Organization AIDS case definition on AIDS surveillance in university hospitals and tuberculosis centers in Cote d'Ivoire.

If you insist on misreading me, be my guest, like when you say I've called you a fascist. But please do read what I say. For example,
there was no HIV test performed by any party to properly diagnose AIDS
If you read my words, all parties agree there was an HIV test performed. The HIV-1 capsid protein was found in EJ's brain but not in control slides. I don't know if serological tests were done or if not why not. Finding HIV by specific test like capsid in patient tissue is part of the CDC diagnostic criteria.
EJ comes up alot because she is used as a political tool to against Maggiore
No, I asked why you bring her up because you were the one who mentioned her.
You state that the parents "joked" about the EJ as the next pediatric AIDS case.
Ok, I read my sentence and it was poorly constructed. The "it" was supposed to mean AIDS, not EJ specifically being the next pediatric AIDS case. In an interview, the parents are feeding their son carrots or something and joking about how he'd better eat up since carrots suppress viral load and they have a fine laugh about how silly the whole idea of HIV and AIDS is.

I like this one:
My Uganda information comes from all over
Yes and my Duesberg information comes from all over too. No pat, I didn't say Duesberg specifically wanted to kill Africans; it's just alot of weird and disturbing coincidences for me that all seem to come together for Duesberg in some kind of affinity for the far right wing. Maybe Duesberg is just politically and culturally illiterate and socially daft.

But his right-wing ties are not what piss me off the most. Instead, going with Bialy and Rasnick and all of the other crazies to South Africa and advising the President, when none of them has a lick of experience with HIV in the lab or the clinic, just some crappy review-writing that got in a few journals because Duesberg was NAS, THAT's what pisses me off. And people died because of it, and many more will.

No, retrovirals don't "cure" anyone as in eradication. Why is it always either/or for you? Either retrovirals kill or they cure completely. But retrovirals extend life. They reduce morbidity. Quality and quantity of life are both increased for the patient. Yes, there are patients who don't do well on them. Sometimes treatment fails. Some have bad side effects and they stop taking their meds. But I'm talking about population level or cohort level: lives are longer and better with antiretrovirals. How many hundred references would you like for this?

Pat, I'll take your word you're a skeptic, although I'm skeptical!

What do you think about HIV ELISAs? Lincoln told us the HIV ELISA is in a class of its own. It's diluted more than any other ELISA he says so it's unreliable. He asks why HIV assays are the only ones that require 1:400 dilution.

So I said that some HIV ELISAs go 1:10, others higher. That means to me Lincoln's wrong first that HIV is always done at 1:400.
Then I gave a list of I don't know about 8 or 10 tests for various agents that are run at dilutions in the same range or even higher than HIV. One was 1:30,000. I know there are some tests that dilute even into the 10(5) range. That means to me Lincoln's wrong about HIV being unique in its dilution, whatever that is, 1:10 or 1:400.

As a skeptic, do you think Lincoln is right, HIV is done only at 1:400 or the HIV assay dilution is unique? Or do my examples prove he's wrong, at least about this one assay's dilution?

Thanks Tara!

"Finding HIV by specific test like capsid in patient tissue is part of the CDC diagnostic criteria."

I admit that I've never heard of that one, why no standard test?

" In an interview, the parents are feeding their son carrots or something and joking about how he'd better eat up since carrots suppress viral load and they have a fine laugh about how silly the whole idea of HIV and AIDS is."

Now that is a lot different, thank you for the clarification. It all sounds quite benign. BTW, beets have antiviral properties too, but that is besides the point and woo-isch.

You like the fact that my "Uganda information comes from all over" but have nothing to add about Uganda. I take it you agree that no real testing has taken place there.

"Yes and my Duesberg information comes from all over too. No pat, I didn't say Duesberg specifically wanted to kill Africans; it's just alot of weird and disturbing coincidences for me that all seem to come together for Duesberg in some kind of affinity for the far right wing. Maybe Duesberg is just politically and culturally illiterate and socially daft."

Then why do you think he should go te the Hague? Were you speaking in haste? Duesberg found only Regnery to publish his book; doesn't mean he shares their political views, simple enough.

"Maybe Duesberg is just politically and culturally illiterate and socially daft."

Maybe he is simply and systematically misunderstood because he's german. You misunderstaood him. In my view you are grossly misjudging the man... on the personal level at least.

"But his right-wing ties are not what piss me off the most. Instead, going with Bialy and Rasnick and all of the other crazies to South Africa and advising the President, when none of them has a lick of experience with HIV in the lab or the clinic, just some crappy review-writing that got in a few journals because Duesberg was NAS, THAT's what pisses me off. And people died because of it, and many more will."

He was invited to speak in S. African and he did just that; a man with his own mind. Surely an asset for the scientific community, no? Margulis' attaention-winning hypothesis was done by reviewing the literature and Duesberg was rejected by a review of the literature; sonds like everyday science to me. Duesberg has a definite lick at retroviruses; he's been studying them for donkey-years.

"And people died because of it, and many more will"

We don't know that for sure yet and besides, Ideas have never killed anyone. Science thrives best when people can ask the most preposterous questions and it is usually there where we find the most enlightning answers. Don't be a roadblock.

"No, retrovirals don't "cure" anyone as in eradication. Why is it always either/or for you?"

It is not either or for me, it is: either you are precise with your language or you are vague. If ARV's extend life then call them "life-extending". Life-saving is a completely different ball game. You can go on about quantity all you want but to qualify "quality" you just can't allow yourself to speak from the cohort level.

"Pat, I'll take your word you're a skeptic, although I'm skeptical!"

Great, now we are making real progress; be skeptical!!!

Now onto the HIV test (ooompf, outta my league but here's my shot at it)

Why do HIV test require different dilutions from one another? When do you know what dilution to use? Would the same sample test differently at different dillutions?
Its your court, its your time to shine.

Adele. Thank you for sharing with me the info on other test dilutions. I was not aware that dilution is done even at much higher frequencies than the HIV tests.

But what I do not know, is if the tests you referred to have the same problem of all of them testing as positive if they are undiluted.

Is this a common problem with all of the Elisas you had mentioned; that all show as positive to every disease they are testing for if they are not diluted to varying extremes? Or is this unique to HIV elisas? Who and how is the bar set at which dilution means one is positive and which dilution means one is not?

Either way, whether or not all elisa tests behave this way, to me, the issues that I have with the HIV tests go quite far beyond the dilution issues.

DT, You tell me how you know that gay men think it is no big deal to be HIV positive. I don't know what planet you are on, but this is not my own experience with the gay community that I live in. Most of those diagnosed can not get it out of their minds for a day. I will grant you that some may see it as no big deal, and others are completely consumed by it. Some will say it is no big deal, and mean it, but some are privately wrecked and terrorized by it. Various people deal with it a lot of different ways. As for those you mentioned that intentionally try to get HIV, I can clearly see the inner death wish and self loathing that drives such self destructive behaviors? Come on DT, you are not that blind! Or are you?

For a lot of people, I think that taking the meds does relieve feelings of hopelessness and impending doom, and therefore lessens disease. I can see benefit for those who believe this to take them. This does not mean I think that this is the healthiest route to take, because I do not. I do think that many people need to have this method available as they simply can not see from any other perspective, and would be bigger emotional wrecks, and therefore less physically well at this point, without them.

I think most people today, gay or straight, do not take much personal responsibility for their own health. Most people simply inherently trust the entirety of their health to their doctors advices or prescriptions. Considering that in todays health care assembly line system, where the average doctor only spends a few minutes with a patient, one size fits all medicine is the unfortunate standard of care.

I consider blindly trusting in this to be unthinkable. In particular as iatrogenic death is still currently the third leading cause of death in the US.

Some HIVers have much more intense feelings of anxiety and stress than others. Most people also do not wear their emotions on their forehead DT, but that does not mean they do not spend a lot of their life tormented nonetheless.

Unless you know someone very well and they trust you greatly, most people will not even give you a brief glimpse of their true thoughts or emotions or beliefs.

So, I understand that you do not choose to understand.

Another big problem that I am seeing with the HIV meds, is that as many of these guys taking them age, their bodies often times are not able to handle the drugs toxicities as they could when they were younger. Hence, the people taking them for the longest are dealing with more liver, kidney, heart problems, etc, exacerbated by the harshness of the drugs.

DT, you brought up a comparison, about breast cancer sufferers, bereaved parents, orphans, and Palestinian children that seems very strange to me in equating other peoples situations and the various stress they deal with as being equivalent to many of the American AIDS cases.

By the way, since when are breast cancer sufferers, bereaved parents, orphans, Palestinian children even tested for HIV? I did not know that any of these people ever in their lives, even once, took HIV tests, like many in the gay community who will take them regularly.

Your suggestion that these other people deal with the same issues as gay American AIDS cases or even the poverty stricken of Africa, let alone share the same issues or lifestyles as the worst affected Africans or affected western gays is to me ridiculous. Since when are most breast cancer sufferers, bereaved parents, orphans, or Palestinian children dealing with sex and drug addiction, like the majority of American gay AIDS cases? Since when do these groups deal with destitution, starvation, or contaminated drinking water like the AIDS affected in Africa? I am sure you are quite able to see that these groups are not dealing with any of the same issues or emotions as some gay men do.

By the way, DT, can you show me any sizeable cohort of American Gay AIDS patients that are not also drug abusers? Please show me just one cohort study of American Gay AIDS where they were not almost all drug abusers! Doesn't exist there DT!

David Ho, as he jumped on the SuperVirus bandwagon a year or so ago, held up as his example of his supposedly untreatable and medication non-responsive supervirus patient, someone who was an extreme crystal meth addict and had admitted to having hundreds of sexual partners and major daily drug abuse in the two months before, with all of the various sharing of various common and uncommon germs, bacterias, amoebas, fungus, etc. This guy obviously also had extreme emotional problems or he would not have been a sex/drug addict. What is amazing is that his body was able to take as much abuse as he had given it without dropping over long ago. He certainly was not evidence of HIV. He was evidence of drug abuse and emotional problems and someone that was very self destructive.

Now I just need to find his quote about making homosexuality illegal

http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft1s20045x&chunk.id=0&doc

Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge
Steven Epstein

...the February 2 Village Voice quoted Duesberg as saying that the epidemic was "caused by a lifestyle that was criminal twenty years ago."(49)

49. Ann Giudici Fettner, "Dealing with Duesberg: Bad Science Makes Strange Bedfellows," Village Voice, 2 February 1988, 25.

John Lauritsen's take on Fettners article can be found here:

http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/Document:Non-responses

My last post did not appear.

I am gay, and I know Peter Duesberg, and he is certainly not homophobic. I do not find the quotation attributed to Duesberg to be in any way homophobic. It is simply the truth that homosexuality was illegal 20 years before. As a matter of fact, the Texas and Georgia laws against sodomy, which was used against gays, were removed by the Supreme Court just in the last year or two! As a matter of fact, I think the drug abuse that was and still is dominant in the gay "party boy" lifestyle is still quite illegal, as I don't think crystal meth is yet legal in any of the 50 United States.

However Adele, how do YOU explain Dr. Robert Gallo, according to Pulitzer Prize winner John Crewdson's book: "Science Fictions", when pressed as to where his HTLV-III sample came from, when Gallo was under pressure by those accusing him of stealing Montagniers work, said "I got it from American Faggqots!"??? (mispelled to get by the autorejection software)

How does this statement by Dr. Gallo fit into the magical mysterious world of Adele-land?

What's John Laritsen's take on this direct quote:

"Did you know Hugh Christie? Also a gay friend of mine from London, filmmaker and editor of the very popular British gay-interested journal, Continuum. Christie campaigned actively against the health and AIDS hazards of poppers in Continuum. Like me, he was invited by Mbeki, to discuss the causes of AIDS in Africa in 2000. And a year or two later he passed away with Kaposi's, from long-term over-use/addiction to poppers!"

Yes, rather strange isn't it. So many denialists who have been HIV positive went on to die of illnesses like Kaposi or cryptococcal meningitis or other AIDS defining illnesses, yet mysteriously seem to have not died as a result of having HIV infection, but from "stress," or use of poppers, or antibiotic allergy (anything other excuse will do, but HIV/AIDS- never!).

Here are some facts about HIV & AIDS in Uganda.

You can plot life expectancy vs per capita income, for countries such as Uganda and South Africa, here:
http://tools.google.com/gapminder/

Thanks, JD, the Village Voice article was exactly what I was talking about. The Epstein book is good. It's good to be reminded by this book there are activists and then there are activists. HIV/AIDS activists particularly but not only gay people, have been very important in pushing treatment and funding forward and the denialist activists who oppose this are a tiny minority. Epstein shows how Duesberg's ideas developed over time. A constant is how Duesberg blames AIDS on the 'gay lifestyle,' although he's toned down some. Epstein also says the Village Voice was featured in Gay Community News within a week.

So Duesberg said AIDS is caused by sexual behavior that was criminal twenty years ago. I.e. it's bad or at least unhealthy, society "knew" it was bad or unhealthy, and society outlawed it. Since it was no longer criminal or at least prosecuted for "twenty years" in 1988 when Duesberg said this, the implication is that AIDS wouldn't have happened if society had the sense to keep the gays in the closet or behind bars. Really a reprehensible thing to say.

Maybe this isn't what Duesberg was saying. Maybe he is just such an idiot politically that he didn't understand what he was saying. Maybe he doesn't speak English well enough to express himself. But it doesn't sound good. When you combine this with all of the other things I've mentioned including his outright lies in his papers, I really have questions about this guy's motives and ideology, and I'm probably not the only one.

Lincoln,
the ELISA assay needs to be standardized for every disease and every antigen. There are numerous kinds of ELISA but the one I think we're talking about here is one where you put an antigen, usually a protein or mix of proteins from the disease-causing microbe, in the wells of a plastic plate and then put patient serum on top of it to see if anything binds.

I'm not good with analogies as I've been told but I'll try. Have you ever seen those dartboards that use the darts with flimsy plastic tips? The board just has small plastic funnels in it that sort of guide the flying dart into the holes. If you take five of those plastic-tipped darts and throw them at the board, you might have all 5 stick because the board and the darts are designed for each other. If you then throw the same five darts at your bookcase, probably all of them will bounce off and fall to the floor. But if instead you throw 5000 darts at the bookcase, it's likely at least five of them will stick into something.

The ELISA is like this. Antibodies are proteins and proteins can be sticky, and if you have enough of them they might even stick to some nonspecific antigen or the plastic of your plate. But antibodies will also stick specifically to their antigens and that interaction is much, much stronger than nonspecific stickiness.

If you don't dilute enough, the nonspecific signal can overwhelm the real signal. But if you dilute the serum enough, you can reduce the non-specific binding readings close to zero so only the positive sample will give a reading. But if you dilute too much, even the positive signal will go down too far.

Where the optimal dilution is, depends on how strong the interaction is between the antibodies and the antigen, how much antigen you have, how much antibody is in the serum, the secondary reagents that glow or do a color reaction for the readout, even the kind of plate you use. All of this needs to be optimized and standardized for every single ELISA out there. Often dilution is somewhere between 10 and 1000 but there are ELISAs that do best at lower or higher dilution than this. So yes it can be difficult to distinguish pos and neg for any ELISA that's not done at its determined dilution. Especially since the "cutoff" is for a specific dilution.

...Maybe he is just such an idiot politically that he didn't understand what he was saying. Maybe he doesn't speak English well enough to express himself... When you combine this with all of the other things I've mentioned including his outright lies in his papers, I really have questions about this guy's motives and ideology, and I'm probably not the only one.

This blog is decidedly unscientific and one can only hope that its readers are courageous enough to see the constant peurile attacks on dissenting as the propaganda that they are. Adele is particularly vile.

Kevin

Maybe others will find reasons for questioning your motives and your idealogy, Adeld for you've, once again, delivered a colossal load of propaganda and in the same breath, have chosen to expose yourself by questioning the someone else's character. Unbelievable. I think I've shownpreviously in this thread who is the bigger idiot between you and Duesberg. Of course, his very real contributions to real science speak for themselves, but as our previous discussion has proven, you lack sufficient integrity to refrain from posting propaganda and personal attacks.

Incidentally, I've had trouble posting to this blog over the past couple weeks, and it hasn't been the usual spam-related error messages. It appears that perhaps Tara has taken the advice of Adele and Roy and chosen to block my IP. If so, I hardly find it surprising for anyone reading the earlier discussions in this thread can clearly see how Adele, DT, Dale, and the rest of the posse here, were thoroughly exposed as the charlatans that they are. Adele even admitted that see thinks dissenting voices in Science, including Noble-worthy scientists, should lose funding as long as a "committee" of peers collectively say so.

...the implication is that AIDS wouldn't have happened if society had the sense to keep the gays in the closet or behind bars.

That implication may work for someone with your intellectual limitations, Adele, but for other, more discerning, individuals, Duesberg's comments on the contributions of the "gay lifestyle" to this illness is, as usual, spot on. As Lincoln has pointed out, idiots like David Ho want dearly to find a superbug so that they can salvage HIV's "killer" reputation, yet they refuse to see what is in front of the face, namely a crystal-meth addict. Meth is endemic in the gay community and when you couple that fact with other lifestyle considerations, it doesn't take a genius to see that significant health problems can result. Gay men are incredibly self-destructive and a large part of the blame can be laid at the feet of fear-mongerers, such as yourself, Adele. If treatments were focused on nurturing, perhaps gay men wouldn't be so self-destructive, but HIV positives are condemned to ill-health first by the diagnosis itself, and secondly, by the horrible side effects of the medications that they are told they must,/i> take. Duesberg is just being honest, which you, being the hypocrite that you are, have no means of discerning; therefore, you pathetically attempt to attack his integrity and even attack his status as a non-native speaker of English. Unbelievable.

Kevin

Yes, rather strange isn't it. So many denialists who have been HIV positive went on to die of illnesses like Kaposi or cryptococcal meningitis or other AIDS defining illnesses...

You have frequently denied being a fear-mongerer, DT, yet you post tripe such as this, knowing full well that it adds nothing of value to the discussion. As my health history and that of countless others demonstrates, this illness is very complicated with or without belief in HIV. Thus, your irrational analysis of the facts is very telling. Because I am HIV-negative, you choose not to admit that my own struggles with the OIs that you list are related to AIDS, yet you try to argue that other dissidents have died of the same OIs proves HIV's causal role. That's a double standard, DT, and as I've pointed out before, it's a thoroughly unscientific treatment of the complete data set.

Anyone with an ounce of acumen can see who the real denialist is, DT.

Kevin

On EJ being irresponsably breastfed

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/03/29/breastfeed-hiv.html

the conundrum continues. more money needed.

Kevin, I mentioned Duesberg's English as a potential defense against what really sounds like some reprehensible homophobia he's got going on. As in, maybe Duesberg's not a raging anti-gay, it just sounds like it because his English is not native-level or wasn't in 1988. I don't ridicule him or anyone else for their language abilities. My Spanish sucks, you know and my French is worse!

Do you have anything to say about ELISAs, Kevin, or do you just chose to ignore that inconvenient bit of science?

I had questions about the test.

Pat says,
On EJ being irresponsably breastfed
and links to an article about a Lancet article. Did you even read the headline, Pat? It's "Breastfeeding may lower the risk of HIV for African babies." EJ was not an African baby, but the child of wealthy USAmerican parents, really no risk of malnutrition or parasites. And EJ didn't get the standard of care the babies in this SA study got like antiretroviral treatment and HIV testing.

Maybe Pat will eventually read the Lancet article and the accompanying editorial. But I'll summarize. Breastfeeding is a major risk factor for mother to child transmission (MTCT) of HIV. In "Western" countries, where health care is good and MTCT is kept very low by intervention, it is the greatest MTCT risk after birth. So mothers in these countries are discouraged from breastfeeding.

At the same time, in resource-poor areas especially where other health problems are rampant, breastfeeding can provide health benefits that outweight the risk of MTCT. Breastfeeding can confer protective aspects that solids or formula will not in addition to overall nutrition balance. In Sweden, this isn't so important, but please don't try arguing with a leche league person about it! In some areas of say South Africa, it's vital.

This is another difference between rich and poor. In rich countries, the risks of breastfeeding probably outweigh the benefits when HIV transmission is a danger. In poor countries, especially where nutrition and other health risks are involved, breastfeeding may be net positive even for HIV positive mothers and their babies.

The new Lancet study provides good supporting evidence for this last sentence. It's also important to notice these authors administered zidovudine to mother and child. The study is another example of how science and medicine constantly question their own theories and look for alternative explanations that can improve people's lives. It wasn't Harvey Bialy or Peter Duesberg who did this work. It was mainstream scientists.

I also want to say the lead author of the Lancet study is Hoosen Coovadia. There's another Coovadia study that just came out (Reddi A,...BMC Pediatr 2007 7(1) 13) that treats children with HAART in KwaZulu Natal SA and gets very good results. I'm wondering if you like to say anything about that one, Pat.

Pat, I responded to yours and Lincoln's test questions together since they were similar but I don't think I put your name on it. If you have follow-ups please ask away.

Not "zidovudine" above, it was "nevirapine" in the Lancet study of course.

Exclusive breast feeding + nevirapine= reduced infection, correct?

In this South African study, exclusive breast feeding + nevirapine appears to lead to reduced mortality as compared with feeding regimens including early solid foods or animal milk.

Do you have anything to say about ELISAs, Kevin, or do you just chose to ignore that inconvenient bit of science?

I agree that most of the science supporting HIV is inconvenient and not because it is so overwhelmingly convincing, Adele, but because it interferes with the advancement of real scientific inquiry. I think all of the "tests" associated with HIV fit this definition of "inconvenient", i.e. they suck. Regardless, I would certainly not label anything I've read in this thread regarding ELISAs as groundbreaking. The dilution factor for ELISAs is not a particularly damning factor, in and of itself, for reasons given regarding the use of dilution in other assays. However, the difference is that ELISAs cross reacts so severely with so many things and since we do not have a proper isolate of HIV, such cross reactions are indeed very damning.

Unlike you Adele, I'm not comfortable with the idea of using a test to determine HIV infection when that test includes a packet insert disclaiming such test's ability to function as such. Hell, it's so convoluted that it's even difficult to write out without sounding confused. Then again, all one has to do is let the package insert speak for itself:

"At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood."

Perhaps, you'd like to explain to the gallery here, Adele, why such a disclaimer is necessary for such a rock solid assay?

Kevin

Kevin, these disclaimers are found in most product inserts for most drugs and assays. Cross-reactivity is not a bigger problem for HIV than for other disease ELISAs. The burden of proof is on you to prove that HIV assays are unique. Or to say you find all assays useless for all diseases.

I'm under the impression that they speak about infection, not just mortality.

Adele you are correct with your breast feeding info. As usual, the rethinkers are cherry-picking data and studies that appear to support their point of view without looking at the whole picture.

Other SA studies have previously shown that the best way to prevent post partum HIV transmission is to exclusively abstain from breast feeding. In one study (I'll look up the info when i have time) there were 3 groups - exclusive breast fed, mixed feeding, and exclusive bottle feeding. There were most transmissions in the mixed feeding group, the reasons being that in places like Africa, the constraints for sterile and proper formula feeding, the lack of sterile water to use for mixing feeds and so on led to greater incidence of GI tract infections, which if the mother also sometimes breast fed, enabled higher transmission of HIV through damaged mucosa. Only 100% avoidance of breast feeding stopped HIV transmission.

It is no mystery that in poor resource situations, bottle feeding will carry its own risks, and sending out a message to mums to try and do this will only result in practice in children receiving occasional breast feeding on top of inadequately administered bottle feeding, increasing the risks of HIV transmission. In countries in the West it is possible to exclusively and safely abstain from breast feeding. So the advice in different countries is different.

Yet again, we see distortion of data by the rethinkers who are incapable of properly viewing all the evidence and reasoning behind different strategies.

"At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood."

(1) Exactly how long ago was this information put on a package insert?

(2) Do you have a link to the original manufacturer's source so we can see exactly what was said and in what context? (Please no links to denialist web sites spouting the same information)

"the reasons being that in places like Africa, the constraints for sterile and proper formula feeding, the lack of sterile water to use for mixing feeds and so on led to greater incidence of GI tract infections, which if the mother also sometimes breast fed, enabled higher transmission of HIV through damaged mucosa."

This is not what they observed; this is what they speculate. Some cherry pick, others band-aid.

"As for why breast milk may be protective, the researchers speculated that the mucous membrane within the intestines may act as a barrier to HIV infection, and that breast milk may reinforce this lining."

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the study say babies that were bottlefed had _twice_ the rate of HIV seroconversion as babies exclusively breastfed?!?!?

How the fuck is that possible?!?!?!

"Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the study say babies that were bottlefed had _twice_ the rate of HIV seroconversion as babies exclusively breastfed?!?!?"

I will correct you, because you are wrong.

The study said:
"Infants who received formula milk or animal milk in addition to breast milk were nearly twice as likely to be infected"

Do you see now? Bottle feeding predisposes to gut infections, and these make it easier to catch HIV - as long as there is still some breast feeding as well to serve as the source of HIV.

Infants who never breast feed will not catch HIV from breast milk, obviously.

If a woman tries to bottle feed in Africa, it is a tacit admission that she has HIV, so most mothers do not even attempt to try.

It is probably safer for infants to be exclusively bottle fed, as the risk of catching HIV are less than the riskd of dying from gastrointestinal infections contracted through inadequate preparation and sterilisation of formula.

In case anyone out there thinks this is a revolutionary new finding which throws conventional/orthodox HIV medicine into utter confusion, I should point out that this has all been looked at before and calmly and carefully assessed, and the relative merits of breast feeding or not breast feeding have been considered.
http://www.aidsmap.com/cms1177384.asp
http://www.aidsmap.com/cms1177438.asp

The current study is merely an extension of earlier work on the subject.

I found a reference to the study I quoted earlier - it is from 1999 and also the Lancet, and by the same group.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&do…

"Exclusive breastfeeding carried a significantly lower risk of HIV-1 transmission than mixed feeding (hazard ratio 0.52 [0.28-0.98]) and a similar risk to no breastfeeding (0.85 [0.51-1.42]).

....If our findings are confirmed, exclusive breastfeeding may offer HIV-1-infected women in developing countries an affordable, culturally acceptable, and effective means of reducing mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1 while maintaining the overwhelming benefits of breastfeeding."

HIV transmission rates for the three groups at 15 months were 15 months were:
19.4% in formula-fed infants
24.7% in infants exclusively breast-fed
35.0% in mixed-fed infants

"At present there is no recognized standard for establishing the presence or absence of HIV-1 antibody in human blood."

Perhaps, you'd like to explain to the gallery here, Adele, why such a disclaimer is necessary for such a rock solid assay?

All that this means is that there was no standard set by any external scientific body, so the company had to carry out their own independent validation of their assay and submit the evidence to the FDA in order to get their assay approved. It says nothing whatsoever about the reliability of the assay.

Hey trrll,

You were asked about 10 times on NAR, why you as a pharmacologist at BUSM, said: "There is ample evidence that it is possible for psychoactive drugs - and stimulants in particular - to harm the brain,", yet you attribute all immune dysfunction in HIV positive patients to HIV?????????

One more time, you said, and it is on the internet in black and white:

"There is ample evidence that it is possible for psychoactive drugs - and stimulants in particular - to harm the brain,", said Dr (trrll's real name) of the Boston University School of Medicine, whose research has shown that high doses of amphetamines can cause brain damage in animals.

For at least the twelth time:

Would you please explain, why trrll, after finding evidence of bodily harm from drugs in the brain, why why why you fail to pursue or even consider drug abuse as a causative agent of harm in American and European drug abusing AIDS patients immune systems.

Fascinating that Adele tried to make Peter Duesberg look homophobic but she failed to answer for Robert Gallo's obvious homophobia when I asked:

Adele, how do YOU explain Dr. Robert Gallo's homophobia, who, according to Pulitzer Prize winner John Crewdson's book: "Science Fictions", when Gallo was pressed as to where his HTLV-III sample came from, by those who found the evidence of Gallo's having stolen Montagniers purported virus, Gallo said, and I quote: "I got it from American Faggqots!"??? (mispelled to get by the autorejection software)

How does this homophobe statement by Dr. Gallo fit into the magical mysterious world of Adele-land?

The anonymous poster, waitwaitwait, said above:

"Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the study say babies that were bottlefed had _twice_ the rate of HIV seroconversion as babies exclusively breastfed?!?!? How the fuck is that possible?!?!?!"

All is possible in HIVAIDS fantasy land. Every other study the HIV researchers do contradicts the last study by someone else, yet none want to believe that they are all floating on a hundred billion dollar sinking ship of fools.

After more than 100 billion US tax dollars spent on HIV/AIDS with ZERO CURED, the best modern medical science appears to be able to do to solve the perpetual public health problems of Africa [now called HIV/AIDS] is to "strongly" recommend circumcising men and breastfeeding babies.

What is even funnier, is that the motto for the last AIDS conference in Toronto in August was: TIME TO DELIVER!

The only thing they have delivered so far is an abomination of really bad science that should have been aborted long ago. Science that lacks all common sense and all logic, and that should have also resulted in an abortion of the virologists that were are still calling the shots at the NIH, so as to spare all of mankind from the neverending insanity of these "brilliant" and all wise HIV researchers and virologists, and their brainless and brainwashed minions.

One year and 10 billion dollars worth of studies say "Don't breastfeed, you will give the newborn HIV"!

A couple years and 30 billion dollars more in studies says "Breastfeed, or you will give the newborn HIV"!

But yet, all of this is right and proper and perfectly understandable, and quite normal, according to the brilliant virologists and according to all of the minions of HIV/AIDS believers. No red flags here. Nothing to see. Nothing out of the ordinary! Another 10 billion and another year and they will no for sure! No more messing around!

Meanwhile, all of the nonbelievers should just go read some of the other 200,000 plus studies where all of the answers are hidden away in the Gospels according to Saint Anthony of Fauci, Saint Robert of Gallo, Saint John of Moore, and Saint David of HO and all the other Saints of HIV. They are the Word and the Gospels and the Truth and Testaments of HIV/AIDS, and, as you read them, you must believe them, or you will go to eternal hell to be consumed by viruses for eternity.

So be afraid, be very afraid. Continue to give and give and give some more to the Church of HIV/AIDS. Give unto the saintly virologists another 200 billion and in 20 more years they will tell us whatever "truth" they happen to want us to hear at that time! And always remember to pass the hat after every reading of these gospel studies of HIV/AIDS, as Without more money, there will be no cure, and mankind will all be doomed to die of these monstrous villainous germs and viruses that daily threaten our very existence and are hiding everywhere, especially in our own minds. And all who do not believe every word of these HIV/AIDS Gospels as well as the books of SARS and AVIAN FLU, but especially all of the dissidents and rethinkers and sceptics of the Gospels of HIV/AIDS shall burn in the lakes of viral hell for all of eternity! Vengeance is mine saith the virus! This is the True Word of the Lord of Virology!

On Skepchick.org, Lynn Margulis says more of her position on HIV/AIDS pseudoscience!

Too bad Tara is not able to be a skepchick on this issue.

At: http://www.skepchick.org/blog/?p=462#comment-6080

Lynn Margulis said,

March 19, 2007 at 9:03 pm

nowoo
What evidence would prove or disprove a causal relationship between HIV and AIDS? Has such evidence been discovered?
The criteria for evidence are well-established (Koch's postulates).. The" disease agent" 1. must have identity (detectable presence of the agent itself. 2. It must correlated entirely with the symptom(s) of the disease. (3) the disease agent should be cultivable (growable, reproduce) under conditions where nothing else is present in the growth medium (so called "pure culture".). 4. After a certain number of these identified agents are in the culture tube when added to the animal the symptoms reappear (i.e., correlation of the symptoms with an identifiable so-called disease agent).
These postulates were shown by Pasteur for anthrax, by Salk and Sabin for polio virus, for measiles, rubella, chicken pox. mumps, Rocky Mt Spoted fever and other tick and flea borne illnesses, for malaria, yellow fever....the list goes on. The scientific community is in general good agreement. For AIDS (a syndrome, by definition, a set of symptoms that not everyone shows and not all of the time) there is no identity of the HIV virus, the tests differ in the USA, UK, and Australia, etc. We have requested from the CDC and other one or a few SCIENTIFIC PAPERS that show as much as possible that this virus behaves like other known viruses. We have never seen any remotely adequate answers. We have been called names for simply asking proper scientific questions. We find Peter Duesberg is the only researcher who behaves like a scientist as he has published all of his work that is relevant and discussed it comprehensibly.
See Rebecca Culshaw "Why I quit AIDS", Harvey Bialy's book about the scientific life of Duesberg, George Miklos' (the only one of these people I know, he is an exemplary colleague) review of Bialy's book, Andrew Maniotis (Chicago) various statements of what they do to him when he attempts to tell the t ruth clearly..but the best writing, and the scariest and most coherent is Celia Farber's article in Harper's magazine (Mar 06?) about the AIDs tests. See for yourself. Gallo's office called me. Mario Stephenson of the Worcester Med school "wants to straighten me out". I am happy to talk to them if we can record their conversation and if they submit what it is they want to talk to me about first.

I realized how unscientific the entire morass is when I heard Lettvin (?) talk about how mutable (changeable) the virus is..as the reason for the inability to make vaccine. At that moment I realized, and then verified, that there are no consisten criteria for identity: What does the virus look like? How many particles per cell are there. What is the correlation between those with symptoms and those who test poistive with no symptoms? Etc. No correlation, no evidence. The term "HIV-AIDS" is a sham and should never be used. "ID" stands for not Intelligent Design but for Immunodeficiency. But incessant use of antibiotics, including in milk and other foods lead to immunodeficiency. ETC. In fact I'm sick of this discussion as I have no special knowledge just a need to have scientific data, not propaganda. LM

Lincoln, your inability to read a single word of what everyone has been saying about breast feeding and to comprehend what the published studies show is utterly exposed by your stupid statements. Your continued wilfull ignorance and distortions are becoming extremely tiresome.

However, I do thank you for highlighting Margulis' contribution to the Skepchick blog. That thread is the one which also catches out Margulis continuing her lie that "Most pregnant women test HIV positive", and instead of admitting her error she fumbles around and tries to cite Celia Farber of all people as a reference for this information. What next? can we anticipate her citing you as a scientific reference that AZT killed half a million people? We wait with baited breath. (And BTW, Tara is a Skepchick contributor).

And while you are resurrecting Koch's postulates, do you mind commenting on the fact that Tuberculosis clearly does not exist (after all, Koch's bacillus fails 2 of his own 4 postulates)? Surely the billions of dollars wasted in a fruitless attempt to eradicate this non-disease could have been better spent in studying something more useful, such as investigating why people who get upset immediately die from cryptococcal meningitis and cerebral toxoplasmosis?

The criteria for evidence are well-established (Koch's postulates)

You might want to look up the word "postulate." Basically, it means "an assumption made without evidence." The notion that Koch's postulates represent some sort of necessary standard for identifying a disease as a causative agent is scientifically illiterate. Koch himself identified an exception to his original postulates back in the 19th century, and other exceptions have been identified since then.

I realized how unscientific the entire morass is when I heard Lettvin (?) talk about how mutable (changeable) the virus is..as the reason for the inability to make vaccine. At that moment I realized, and then verified, that there are no consisten criteria for identity:

This is kind of nonsensical if you understand anything at all about genes and mutations. The fact that something is mutable does not mean that it cannot be identified. All organisms are mutable to some extent. Every human being has some mutations--that's why we don't all look the same--but that don't prevent us from recognizing human beings and distinguishing them from other animals.

Microorganisms are more highly mutable, with HIV being particularly extreme in this respect, but the mutations still constitute a minuscule fraction of the total genome, so they do not constitute an obstacle to identifying the virus.

Hey trrll,

You were asked about 10 times on NAR, why you as a pharmacologist at BUSM, said: "There is ample evidence that it is possible for psychoactive drugs - and stimulants in particular - to harm the brain,", yet you attribute all immune dysfunction in HIV positive patients to HIV?????????

One more time, you said, and it is on the internet in black and white:

"There is ample evidence that it is possible for psychoactive drugs - and stimulants in particular - to harm the brain,", said Dr (trrll's real name) of the Boston University School of Medicine, whose research has shown that high doses of amphetamines can cause brain damage in animals.

For at least the twelth, ooops, I mean 13th time:

Would you please explain, why trrll, after finding evidence of bodily harm from drugs in the brain, why why why you fail to pursue or even consider drug abuse as a causative agent of harm in American and European drug abusing AIDS patients immune systems.

Would you please explain, why trrll, after finding evidence of bodily harm from drugs in the brain, why why why you fail to pursue or even consider drug abuse as a causative agent of harm in American and European drug abusing AIDS patients immune systems.

I haven't bothered answering this question, since it is so obviously nonsensical, but as you seem to be obsessed with the issue, I will do so. I'm not quite sure where you got the incorrect notion that I have found evidence of "bodily harm" from drugs in the brain. I have not personally done research in this field, but I have colleagues who have, so I do have some knowledge in this area.

It is of course well known that many types of chemicals can damage the brain. There is not a single type of "bodily harm" produced by drugs or other chemical agents. Toxic effects on the brain are highly specific and characteristic of the precise chemical details of how a particular compound interacts with brain cells. For example, the toxic effects of commonly abused drugs on the brain are quite different from AIDS dementia, so to anybody familiar with the field, the "drug hypothesis" of AIDS would be implausible even if there were not a great deal of epidemiological evidence indicating that the drug hypothesis is wrong. Neither is there any particular correlation between the ability of a drug to damage the brain and its ability to damage the immune system. They are very different cell types, so there is no reason to expect such an association.

There have been a few studies reporting that the toxic effects of methampetamine on the rat brain can be exacerbated in the presence of the HIV Tat protein. It's unclear whether this applies to the human population, but it wouldn't be too surprising if the combination of these two neurotoxic insults turned out to be particularly harmful.

trrll, you said: "I have not personally done research in this field".

So this means that when you told the interviewer that you had indeed done such research on brain cell effects of meth, you were actually falsely claiming the research of other "colleagues" as being your own research!

http://groups.google.nl/group/misc.health.alternative/browse_thread/thr…

Does lying to make yourself seem important seem to be a habit of yours Terrell?

As you obviously have a history of such, in trying to make yourself look knowledgeable and important, I see no point in believing anything you have to say on any issue, particularly one which is not even in your field and that you know absolutely nothing about.

You also said: "There have been a few studies reporting that the toxic effects of methampetamine on the rat brain can be exacerbated in the presence of the HIV Tat protein. It's unclear whether this applies to the human population"

So you must be trying to tell us that meth only causes toxic effects in rats exposed to HIV, when rats do not even get AIDS from HIV? This is definitely a new twist in the AIDS saga! Rats brains on meth get AIDS!

Boy, you really are one amazing pharmacologist Mr. T! Quite the expert virologist too!

Googling your name on the net does show you to be somewhat expert in playing video games. Perhaps your brilliant mind would be better put to use sticking with games instead of sticking your own unknowing self-important nose into a realm of science that you know absolutely nothing about.

As you seem to, or at least pretend to have some knowledge of what ritalin does to a brain, perhaps you would share with us what the HIV drugs such as AZT, ddl, ddi, dd3c, and DNA chain terminators, and even protease inhibitors do to the brain. And what about mixing those with all of the drugs they add for all of the toxic side effects of the ARV's?

Oh, I forgot, they have not yet really studied what any of this stuff does to brain cells. Now I understand better Dr. T.

Doesn't matter, does it? Any brain deterioration and so-called dementia will just be attributed solely to a virus instead of anything toxic like meth or the AIDS drugs.

Makes it much easier on pharmacologists such as yourself, trrll. You have a lot more time to devote to playing all of your video games!

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:pDSo87mc5YMJ:www.gamerankings.com/i…

I don't know how you get any time to actually study anything anyway, when you seem to be obsessed by all of those video games. Absolutely amazing. You must be a very busy guy!

Oh well, its just 97% a bunch of gays and blacks that take the stuff anyway!

So this means that when you told the interviewer that you had indeed done such research on brain cell effects of meth, you were actually falsely claiming the research of other "colleagues" as being your own research!

I have never at any time made any claim to have personally done research in this area. I challenge you to provide any example of anything posted by me in which I have made any such claim.

You seem to be among those who are in the habit of trying to suppress views that you disagree with by making ad hominem attacks based upon google searches. I am not embarrassed about anything that I have posted anywhere, so feel free to search to your heart's content. I will not, however, indulge such off-topic comments with replies. The same goes for attempts to ferret out my professional name. I choose to post under the webname "trrll" because I wish my statements to stand on the basis of their content, and not my professional qualifications (and as it happens, I have no particular experience in the field of HIV/AIDS research). My identity is not particularly secret or difficult to figure out, but I will not indulge such ill-mannered attempts at privacy invasion by commenting upon whether your guesses are correct or incorrect.

So you must be trying to tell us that meth only causes toxic effects in rats exposed to HIV, when rats do not even get AIDS from HIV?

It is highly likely that the damaging effects of HIV on the nervous system occur by a different mechanism than its damaging effects on the immune system, so whether rats develop immune deficiency is fairly irrelevant. I agree (and indeed, said previously) that the relevance of results in rats to humans is open to question. I mention it only in the spirit of completeness because this is the strongest evidence that there is any relationship whatsoever between meth neurotoxicity and AIDS dementia.

As you seem to, or at least pretend to have some knowledge of what ritalin does to a brain, perhaps you would share with us what the HIV drugs such as AZT, ddl, ddi, dd3c, and DNA chain terminators, and even protease inhibitors do to the brain.

There is no evidence that anti-HIV drugs produce neurological damage, and clinical trials have shown improvement in measures of mental function after patients begin drug therapy. The big problem with these drugs has actually been getting them into the brain--many antiretroviral agents have difficulty even crossing the blood-brain barrier to reach the brain. Some newer agents that do cross the blood-brain barrier are being tested in HIV associated dementia.

Chris Noble said way above in the stratosphere of this thread, "You can look back and find countless posts where I have patiently presented the evidence in detail with supporting references that refutes the claims made by Wilhelm Godschalk and Gene Semon.

"When they come back under different pseudonyms it pisses me off. Am I supposed to go through the whole thing again? No. They have demonstrated that they are trolls. If you claim otherwise then attempt to support their claims with scientific evidence."

Chris, after all we've been through. A troll? I'm actually hurt by this. Really, love, I'm not trying to piss you off, but for a lot of complicated and "artistic" reasons I wound up name-shifting.

Have you forgotten how much fun we had playing whack-a-mole?

Oh yeah, you want more evidence to make mince-meat out of. Somewhere, in one of the "skyscrapers" at one of the sites, there's a paper by Paul Ewald - still a recognized authority in virology - that supports the Bialy/Duesberg flat-curve model.

Sorry about this vagueness, buddy, but we too have a list that you've never answered.

"Likewise Semon produces a post-modern gobbledygook of scientific terms thrown together like Dada poetry. He demonstrates zero understanding of the terms he uses and yet has the arrogance to argue that thousands of scientists are wrong and he has the truth. He has previously used a number of pseudonyms and in at least one instance outright fraud."

Really Chris? Fraud? And what specific instance may that be? What is your evidence for this libelous charge?

Dear dear dearest Chris ... you really don't get it ... as I keep climbing higher and backward in time ... so much fun ...

They're all "helpers" ...it's the defining feature of the phenomena at hand ... yes ERV, the next handy RNA template ... postmodern retrovirology ... not bad ... I owe you guys ...

Please, someone direct me to a paper, any paper that shows 70S RNA, the complete "theoretical" retroviral dimeric genome, isolated directly from patients. Wouldn't this be evidence that the entire DNA genome is reproducing itself in vivo? And no "spiking" allowed, Adele.

And what's this about germ cells Chris? Speaking of baffle-gab; you've gone above and beyond the call of duty with this one! Lymphocytes don't have endogenous retroviruses?! What!? What can the point possibly be bringing up germ cells?

But surely, ERV who "owned me" (or something that starts with "p") - whew, let's not even go there - and being expert on this subject knows that "HT aneuploid cells" used by the good Dr Bob are capable of "hypomethylation" in the endogenous LTR regions ... and then ...

Oh yeah, Chris DID make a specific "charge", unfortunately, missing the entire point of the Simone/Dr ED exchange, which is typical of his religious-dogmatic approach to this debate. But hey, what's wrong with religion anyway, now that it is defanged and can no longer control the minds of young sharpies like Adele.

But I wonder about things like ... can a creationist who believes god has provided a way out of the carbon disaster engineer a novel energy source ... something like cold fusion, because he doesn't accept what thousands of scientists - who know better, of course - have said on the matter?

But Chris, who doesn't seem to have enough of a sense of humour to get Godschaulk's magnet joke and besides, knows the full spectrum of the possible, wouldn't have it. We can solve global warming, but it would be such an embarassment to thousands of scientists ...

And, of course, good creationists definitely believe in bulldada time control as the way to escape materialism's black iron prison.

"People die, thousands of people die, every day from AIDS. And it is rather critical that people understand the facts vs the fictions of this."

Oy vey, here's Brian picking on Adele. Can he even prove this statement? Thou shalt not channel denialists, Adele. Your humorless wardens are watching.

BTW, in the US of A, AIDS deaths are conservatively one tenth those from medical iatrogenesis. So let's dump on "Scrubs", eh Brian, while we're at it?

Finally, (gasp) back to March 17; and yes, Brian, thanks for pointing out that endemic retroviruses or lymphocytic-somatic infections are not necessarily passed on to descendents (yawn) ...

You're definitely less fun than Adele and ERV.

ERV: "But if youre really interested in ERVs, make sure you *really* know what ERVs are ;)"

Well alright! I'm certainly interested in this:

Aris Katzourakis*, Michael Tristem , Oliver G. Pybus*, and Robert J. Gifford , Discovery and analysis of the first endogenous lentivirus. PNAS | April 10, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 15 | 6261-6265

Edited by John M. Coffin, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, and approved February 13, 2007 (received for review January 17, 2007)

*Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, United Kingdom; Division of Biology, Imperial College London, Silwood Park, Ascot, Berkshire SL5 7PY, United Kingdom; and Division of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

The lentiviruses are associated with a wide range of chronic diseases in mammals. These include immunodeficiencies (such as HIV/AIDS in humans), malignancies, and lymphatic and neurological disorders in primates, felids, and a variety of wild and domesticated ungulates. Evolutionary analyses of the genomic sequences of modern-day lentiviruses have suggested a relatively recent date for their emergence, but the failure to identify any endogenous, vertically transmitted examples has meant that their longer term evolutionary history and origin remain unknown. Here we report the discovery and characterization of retroviral sequences belonging to a new lentiviral subgroup from the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). These viruses, the first endogenous examples described, are >7 million years old and thus provide the first evidence for an ancient origin of the lentiviruses. Despite being ancient, this subgroup contains many of the features found in present-day lentiviruses, such as the presence of tat and rev genes, thus also indicating an ancient origin for the complex regulation of lentivirus gene expression. Although the virus we describe is defective, reconstruction of an infectious progenitor could provide novel insights into lentivirus biology and host interactions.

END ABSTRACT

But since I don't understand this I wonder if Chris can explain why it doesn't support the flat curve model.

In response to your query nick ... why it doesn't support the flat curve model. Apples and oranges, nick. The retroviral sequence described in this paper you cite is an ENDOGEONOUS, DEFECTIVE lentiviral sequence found in a RABBIT. HIV is neither endogenous, defective nor found in bunnies.

FYI "Nick Naylor" is a total fraud, best ignored. So out there! Does he really think he's got something with this template switching? He must not know what template switching is. It happens between the two copies of the HIV genome guess why? because there in the same virion and preintegration complex. Not cell RNA. Most people when they don't know a subject kind of keep their mouth shut but Semon just rushes in like the fool. I think Chris N two months ago by the way was talking about this fraudulent "exchange" between Nick Naylor aka Eugene Semon and a naiev scientist who didnt know about the alternreality denialists live in. Semon's pretext for the thing was he was a student in Peter Duesbergs lab. Complete lie. I remember reading some people thought Semon was Bialy but I don't think Bialy could stay lucid long enough to write as much crap as Semon.
People, don't feed the troll. Semon is a little creative I'll give him that unlike most denialists who copy Duesberg or Elena "any time!" P-E and pretend they thought it up. Still a troll, carpet-posting blog after blog and nothing makes sense in the real world.

Dale, I don't know if HIV is found in bunnies, but it must be found in dogs because mine tests positive for it. It must be defective too because in spite of regular attempts ol' Barker hasn't managed to transmit it to the neighbor's bitch, and he doesn't seem to be suffering from (C)AIDS either.

Pope, if you think your dog tests positive for HIV, you are don't understand how to interprete an HIV test.

Pope, if you think your dog tests positive for HIV, you are don't understand how to interprete an HIV test.

I doubt that "Pope" even has a dog let alone one that has tested positive on an HIV test.

"Pope" at another time claimed that he had access to research facilities at Leiden university. I called his bluff and emailed the person that "Pope" claimed knew him and would let him use their lab.

If HIV "dissidents" want to support the myth that dogs test positive on HIV tests then why not get their dogs tested.

ERV: "But if youre really interested in ERVs, make sure you *really* know what ERVs are ;)"

Well alright! I'm certainly interested in this:

Aris Katzourakis*, Michael Tristem , Oliver G. Pybus*, and Robert J. Gifford , Discovery and analysis of the first endogenous lentivirus. PNAS | April 10, 2007 | vol. 104 | no. 15 | 6261-6265

I went over that, like, 2 and a half months ago, Nick.

And why the hell did you Zombie post on a thread instead of just asking me?

wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarıÅması

http://www.blogcublogu.com/60-farkli-ucretsiz-css-menu/

ok

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the study say babies that were bottlefed had _twice_ the rate of HIV seroconversion as babies exclusively breastfed?!?!?

How the fuck is that possible?!?!?!
http://www.tahminciyiz.com

Super ;)

Thank you for doing this great web site.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the study say babies that were bottlefed had _twice_ the rate of HIV seroconversion as babies exclusively breastfed?!?!?

It seems counterintuitive, but the important word here is "exclusively".
The "bottle fed" babies were not exclusively bottle-fed, but had supplementary breast feeding top-ups. Bottle fed babies get more gastrointestinal infections in the developing world, because the source of water to make up formula feeds is not always sterile. Gut infections make the likelihood of catching HIV (when the mother gives an occasional breast feed) greater than if the mother stuck to breast feeding exclusively.

thank you

thank you thank you thank you

thx

sütliman
fasıl meyhane

thankssss

thanks

Yes, I did mean Noreen. Sorry about that.

It is just unfortunate that Adele is a "Do as I say, not as I do" person. You fail to recognize that this makes you the denier.

Pat, I'll stack up my denialist reading list against yours any day. I wonder how much actual science you've read?

Know what? I always wanted the denialists to be right. It's kind of cool to think about a rag-tag bunch of eccentrics like Duesberg and Rasnick taking on a multi-billion dollar worldwide conspiracy and being right. It would be even better if the vitamin peddlers were right, too, and all we had to do to end AIDS was take garlic pills or wear goat's teeth around our necks.

What sucked for me and the rest of the world is that they weren't right and they never will be. Denialists are deluded fools or worse. Just my educated opinion. I looked at the denialist stuff and I looked at the scientific literature and I looked at my monkeys. I didn't see any support for denialism anywhere.

"Pat, I'll stack up my denialist reading list against yours any day. I wonder how much actual science you've read?"

I am sorry, what are you refering too?

Thanks A lot for msj

thanks

Well, that was fun...not. Would the anti-HIV crazies kindly FOAD? Thanks.

Meanwhile, regarding Dr. Margulis...it just gets better, which is to say, worse. Not only is she an HIV 'skeptic', she's hopped on the 9/11 'controversy' bandwagon.

http://www.dailyhampshiregazette.com/storytmp_v6.cfm?id_no=57821

Shame on her.

Know what? I always wanted the denialists to be right. It's kind of cool to think about a rag-tag bunch of eccentrics like Duesberg and Rasnick taking on a multi-billion dollar worldwide conspiracy and being right. It would be even better if the vitamin peddlers were right, too, and all we had to do to end AIDS was take garlic pills or wear goat's teeth around our necks.

kurye, kuryeler, hızlı kurye, yaya kurye, acıl kurye, kadikoy kurye, istanbul kurye, motor kurye, arac kurye

thank u for information

thanks for this useful knowledge

thank u for this wonderful infos.
www.sonlimit.com/forum

John Lauritsen's take on Fettners article can be found here:

http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/Document:Non-responses

thanks for all things...

thanks you very much for add me...

thanks for all things...

In this South African study, exclusive breast feeding + nevirapine appears to lead to reduced mortality as compared with feeding regimens including early solid foods or animal milk.