I was in a bit of a crappy mood last night.
There were a number of reasons for this, including frustration at work trying to put together two grants, trying to revise a manuscript to resubmit it, dealing with collaborators and various other headaches. Indeed I had a splitting headache by the end of the day when I finally hit the road for the commute home. Things were so bad that I seriously considered actually going to bed and not bothering at all with the blog. I know, I know, such a thing has seldom happened in the nearly four years I've been doing this blog. It must be my obsessive personality. Or something.
I thought I might be able to lighten my dark mood by wandering over to the loonier reaches of the Internet, to websites and blogs that at the same time appall and amuse me. They appall me because all too often they promote dangerous quackery or otherwise endanger public health. Age of Autism and NaturalNews.com are among the most prominent in this category. They're also among the most amusing, AoA for its self-righteous and hypocritical rants that embrace any wacky hypothesis that comes along, as long as that hypothesis can somehow be twisted to somehow blame vaccines for autism and all manner of other ills, as its "journalists" (and I use the term very, very loosely) intone piously that they are really and truly "not antivaccine," and NaturalNews.com for its truly wacky fits of paranoid hyperbole.
I couldn't believe how I missed this gem from NaturalNews.com. Did you know There Is No Such Thing As The West Nile Virus? In fact, it's not just the West Nile Virus, but all viruses. A man named Rami Nagel seriously argues this:
Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause? Are they real people flying around performing magical deeds? Hopefully you don't believe this. Yes, they are fun stories, "something to believe in," when you are a child; or possibly they are spirits or energy forms. But they do not exist in flesh and blood. This article explains how in same way, West Nile Virus is also a fairy tale that "authorities" want you to believe in. It is not more real than the Easter Bunny. Feel into this truth:There is no such thing as the West Nile Virus!
I normally deplore spelling flames, but it's really, really hard not to wonder if Mr. Nagel, who describes himself as an "alternative medicine author and health pioneer," has been watching too many Tim Allen movies. Of course, in his world West Nile virus is a lie told by the authorities and big pharma for...well, it's not entirely clear, but apparently everyone's in on the conspiracy:
Pesticide manufacturers, pharmaceutical giants, the U.S. government, industry scientists, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), State and County government agencies believe in their own fairy tales. But they find those children's stories too boring and too happy. They wanted something dark and sinister. So they rewrote the fairytale and thought of some scary name that evokes fear of the unknown: "West Nile Virus". Then, rather than good people who give children presents and good feelings, this West Nile Virus is a mean and ugly monster. It kills people, it's contagious, and they want you to think that you should be very afraid of it. They want you to be so afraid of it that you will vote for your local governmental agency to go ahead and spray chemicals on you (and some mosquitoes) to stop it. But you know what? Just like the Easter Bunny and all the others, it just doesn't exist. Let me explain.
Of course! How silly of me! I should have known. It's all a massive plot to scare people into accepting spraying to kill the mosquito that carries West Nile virus. Damn, those pharmaceutical and chemical companies are clever! Since West Nile is a virus for which there is no specific treatment other than supportive care, they couldn't use it to sell expensive drugs to treat it, but they sure could use it to sell pesticides, right? Why sell pills when you can sell massive quantities of pesticide? Why just "poison" a relatively small number of sick people when you can poison millions of healthy people instead? Damn those nefarious pharmaceutical executives and their government lackeys! Is nothing beyond them? Fortunately there are men like Mr. Nagel who can see through their evil schemes to protect you--yes, you!--the innocent consumer!
Mr. Nagel then discusses Koch's postulates. One thing that struck me reading that description is just how schizophrenic it is. He first characterizes Robert Koch as not being part of the "pharmaceutical mafia." (Never mind that the pharmaceutical industry in the late 1800s was much, much smaller than it is now and presumably nowhere near as powerful politically, and that Robert Koch was very much part of the mainstream science of his time.) He then praises Koch's postulates, specifically the ones that state that if a microorganism causes a disease it should be isolable from patients with the disease and introducing it into a healthy human will result in the disease. Of course, germ theory denialist cranks love Koch's postulates because they were based on the same sort of science they like to use to argue against germs causing disease: 19th century science, with its massively incomplete understanding of infectious disease pathogenesis. Still, even back in Koch's day, it didn't take long for physicians and scientists to figure out that there were microorganisms that don't fulfill all of Koch's postulates but still clearly caused disease. Indeed, Koch's postulates caused no end of headaches in the investigation of viral diseases before it was possible to isolate and culture viruses. Moreover, his postulates as originally written didn't envision the possibility of asymptomatic carriers of various microorganisms, such as typhoid fever, and Koch was ultimately forced to reword them later. Finally, Koch didn't initially consider the possibility that not everyone exposed to a pathogenic organism necessarily becomes ill, something we now know to be true.
Of course, cranks like Mr. Nagel love Koch's original postulates, because they think they can somehow twist them into demonstrating that germ theory is not valid, as Nagel does here:
The existence of microorganisms in the body of a sick person does not indicate that the bacteria are the cause of disease. The idea that germs invade the body and cause disease was coined by Louis Pasteur. Even during Pasteur's time there was strong scientific evidence against this "germ theory" of disease because germs can evolve and mutate based on their environment, this is called pleomorphism (www.rawpaleodiet.org/pleomorphism-1.html)
That the existence of microorganisms in the body of a sick person might not indicate that the microorganism caused the disease is, of course, true. After all, every nook and crevice of our bodies accessible to the outside world are packed with bacteria that live there normally. However, the whole concept of "pleomorphism," although seeming plausible for a while in the late 19th century based on the limited knowledge of microbiology then, was long ago discredited, as Dr. Mark Crislip describes. In essence, Mr. Nagel is recycling Antoine Bechamp, who was for a time a rival of Louis Pasteur. Bechamp was famous for claiming that bacteria do not cause disease unless the condition of the patient deteriorates, at which point they "become pathogenic" and may even change their form (hence the term "pleomorphism"). His famous saying was that it was the "terrain," not the "invaders," that determined disease, which is but one reason why antivaccine loons like Bill Maher are very fond of Bechamps and even parrot a myth that Pasteur "recanted" on his deathbed and "admitted" that it was the "swamp, not the invading mosquitos."
Which brings us back to West Nile Virus, indeed all viruses. Mr. Nagel goes on from this to conclude something most amazing:
Dr. Koch's common sense postulates, which set up the criteria to prove the existence of a virus, used to be a part of science. As technology improved science should have been able to conclusively prove the existence of viruses under Koch's postulates and at least isolate and locate a virus under a microscope. But scientists never have been able to do this. Nobody could isolate any viruses to prove that they exist. Rather than admit that perhaps infectious viruses do not exist, dubious scientists now thought of a better plan. They decided to pretend viruses exist. To do that they had to claim the virus find fits into Koch's accepted postulates. So they write and use the term "isolated" for a virus even when they have done no such thing.
The idea of a virus causing disease was purposely spread as a disinformation strategy and now everybody believes in it.
I'm tellin' ya, you just can't make stuff like this up--unless, I guess, you were chosen to write for Mike Adams' NaturalNews.com or perhaps Whale.to. Nagel even goes so far as to say that the West Nile virus has "never" been isolated. I don't normally like to use Wikipedia for medical information, but in this case I use it as an example of just how easy it is to find information on the West Nile virus, which is actually described fairly well in its Wikipedia entry, which points out that the virus was first isolated in 1937. There's lots more information about the virus, if Mr. Nagel had bothered to look.
So how does he explain away everything scientists know about the virus, its RNA sequence, its protein coat, and how it is transmitted? Easy:
To "isolate" West Nile Virus (WNV), scientists begin by pulverizing believed-to-be "infected" mosquitoes and "infected" crows' brains. Then this material is run through a high speed centrifuge, and filtered through a filter whose pores are six times larger than what the size of the virus could be -- so anything could, in addition to the purported virus, be left in this mixture. If this mixture of all kinds of stuff is placed in a petri dish and kills cells -- which it did -- then it is assumed that the cell death was caused by the dreaded West Nile Virus. Don't mind that there's a bunch of other stuff in the mixture and no virus, the virus is still blamed for causing the cell death. "Scientists" then take this same material and look for RNA sequences. When they find a sequence, they claim to have mapped out the virus (davidcrowe.ca/SciHealthEnv/alive-wnv.html) .
In fact, they have mapped something, but it's not likely a virus. They probably mapped part of a mosquito brain. You might think that this article is a joke, especially with my bit of sarcasm; this is not a joke. The only joke, if you will, is to call these crude experiments proof of a virus. But it is also very serious, because it is this bogus science that the health mafia wants you to believe in. And when you believe it then they create false emergencies in order to spray poison on you, your spouse, your pets, or your children. In other cases, they try to coerce people into getting injected with poisonous substances laced with heavy metals to stop some supposed virus. You know this one well; they call it vaccination.
Of course, Mr. Nagel is an antivaccinationist. Did anyone have any doubt? And, of course, I wish his article were a joke, but it is not. He actually appears to believe this nonsense.
Unfortunately, I'm at a loss for how to describe just how stupid his argument is. Somehow my usual metaphors for such unbelievably dumb arguments, such as "the stupid, it burns," "the stupid, it burns thermonuclear," or even "the stupid, it burns supernova" (or even hypernova), seem pathetically inadequate to describe the idiocy and scientific ignorance encompassed in just those two brief paragraphs I quoted above. I suppose the closest thing his stupidity could be likened to is a black hole from whose event horizon no sign of intelligence can escape. Indeed, it tries to suck the intelligence from anyone who reads Mr. Nagel's article and make them as stupid as his argument. Does she really think that this is all scientists do to isolate a virus? Does he really think that scientists haven't developed techniques to be able to differentiate between cellular structures and actual virus particles? Does he really think that virus RNA sequence is the only bit of evidence other than "crude experiments" that lead scientists to be able to identify West Nile Virus?
But it's not just West Nile virus that "doesn't exist." Oh, no, that would be far, far too reasonable. Instead, Mr. Nagel argues that there's no such thing as pathogenic viruses, period:
Now, there is such a thing as a virus, but true viruses are far different creatures than the ones we have been taught to fear; they are found in very simple organisms like algae. In more evolved life forms, like animals and humans, cells contain bacteria called Mitochondria; but these things cannot leave the cell. Viruses can leave cells. In any case where viruses have been proven to exist like in algae, they don't cause disease; they always turn out to be a helpful and supportive part of the ecosystem of the organism. Dr. Lanka states: "Actually in diseases, neither in the diseased organism nor in a body fluid, one has never seen or isolated a structure which one could characterize as a virus. The allegation of the existence of any disease-inducing virus is a transparent fraud, a deadly lie with dramatic consequences". In other words, there cannot be such a thing as a West Nile Virus. It is a deadly lie (www.klein-klein-aktion.de/contents/Bird...) .
This Dr. Stefan Lanka, it turns out, appears to be an adherent of the quackery known as German New Medicine, which I've discussed before.
I apologize. I realize that by now your neurons are probably crying out in pain, frantically trying to activate their cell survival intracellular molecular signaling pathways in order to fight off a wave of apoptosis caused by Mr. Nagel's concentrated waves of idiocy. Sadly, though, there's more. First, he rants about how "more mosquitoes= less West Nile virus" (why does he even care, if West Nile virus is, as he claims, either nonexistent or harmless?), how pesticide spraying campaigns are in fact covert population control programs designed to render its victims infertile (much like vaccination, I guess, if you believe some antivaccinationists), and a Hitler Zombie-worthy mention of how some of the pesticides used for such campaigns are made by I. G. Farben:
Pyrenone 25-5 is made by the now infamous Bayer Pharmaceutical Giant, which was originally part of I.G. Farben. I.G. Farben made chemicals for the Holocaust and used slave labor. Dr. Otto Bayer was I.G. Farben's research director and worked with Americans to develop chemical weapons (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben) . Bayer, in the mid 1980's, had a hemophiliac medication, mostly given to children, pulled from the U.S. market because patients were dying from it. The medication turned up positive for AIDS virus tests and must have been tainted with something, since like WNV there is no such thing as the AIDS virus. Bayer then knowingly took those tainted doses and, while the FDA turned a blind eye, sent millions of dollars worth to Europe, Latin American, and Asian Countries (www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS3mhjt7TrY).
The stupid waves must be affecting even Mr. Nagel, as he's becoming increasingly incoherent with his "it was tainted with AIDS, but AIDS doesn't exist so it must have been tainted with something" nonsense. But that's not the pièce de résistance. Oh, no. As much as my aching neurons wish that it were, it's not.
This is:
Researchers Jim West and David Crowe have been working tirelessly to expose the WNV fraud. Mr. West has researched other so-called viruses, and documented the true cause of polio. Polio also is not caused by a virus but by industrial pollution, most famously by DDT poisoning. DDT mainly came from cows eating pesticide-laden foods, which then showed up in high concentrations in milk and ice cream products. Mr. West believes WNV is not a virus but a "cellular response to environmental poisoning." Mr. West bases his research upon West Nile virus case recordings. When one is poisoned, certain things in the body change; for example, there are changes to blood serum and genes. And the test for WNV is not testing for a virus, but is actually measuring indications of bodily responses to environmental stress.
Forgive me. I had to show you this because I didn't believe it myself. I hope you didn't lose too many more neurons. Personally, I have faith that my regular readers have built up a resistance to the intelligence-sapping power of such hyper-silly woo, but I do sometimes fear for new readers who may come across such material upon reading this blog for the first time. Diving right into the deep end of the woo pool can be dangerous, you know.
Germ theory denialists like Rami Nagel puzzle me to no end. I ask myself: How on earth can one look at the overwhelming evidence from many different disciplines that confirm germ theory and deny its validity? How can someone like Mr. Nagel look at that evidence and then conclude that in reality it is environmental pollution that causes infectious disease, not bacteria or viruses? (I guess I might as well ask how people can believe in creationism or that 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the Bush Administration and the Mossad.) Yes, people are more susceptible to infection by chronic illness, and perhaps environmental insults can increase our susceptibility to disease. However, to claim that there is no such thing as viruses, that all the scientific evidence for the existence of pathogenic viruses is sloppy and that all the electron micrographs of them are misidentified goes far, far beyond acknowledging that environment can affect our health. To claim that there is a massive conspiracy by the medical profession, chemical and pharmaceutical companies, in concert with the government, to create the "myth" that West Nile Virus and other viruses exist and cause disease is to head right into the Twilight Zone, except that I doubt even Rod Serling could have come up with an idea so bizarre as the ones Mr. Nagel has encompassed in his masterpiece of woo.
- Log in to post comments
Since he's all-knowing on these matters, perhaps Mr. Nagel would have no fear of being shot full of, say, ebola or Marburg virus?
We're sliding into the Dark Ages. It's a good time to invest in cowls.
Polio was caused by DDT? Who knew? Gosh.
From Wikipedia:
"First synthesized in 1874, DDT's insecticidal properties were not discovered until 1939."
So all those people who got polio before it was used as an insecticide got polio from what? I mean, FDR supposedly had polio in 1921. How did he get exposed to DDT if it wasn't being used as an insecticide at that time? WOW. The conspiracy is really deep.
It does seem that the autism topic can engender the most emotional of opinions. I used to be a head nurse on a unit with autistic patients. It was a fascinating year of my life. I remember we had quite a thing going once when a group of parents got caught up in the whole vitamin supplement thing---wow, those were some treatment team meetings....
I thought I heard that God is a virus and that evolution is driven by viral infections which means God causes evolution. No, that doesn't sound right. I'm so confused.
I thought I heard that God is a virus ...
No, language is a virus
I wonder if these people blame the enormous numbers of bird deaths (as high as 45 percent in some species and areas) on environmental stresses as well. Seven of our most common backyard species were doing very well, in fact thriving, in contact with human beings until West Nile came along, then they were devastated.
I'm home sick with a virus right now, so this post is oddly timely. For added irony, I just saw an ad on the Travel Channel for Airborne which featured it's "creator" making a public service announcement about how alternative remedies are under attack from the pharmaceutical companies. I was seething enough to not notice my full-body ache for a while, so I suppose one could argue that Airborne sorta helped me forget about my cold for a while. Grrrrr......
Phew! Good thing - now I don't have to teach my virology lecture today.
In my last project I used an HIV-based virus as a vector to transduce cells with a transgene. At least I thought I did. I must've hallucinated. Probably someone'd sprayed pesticides on me (after my parents poisened me by having me vaccinated) and this prolonged hallucination was a consequence. Who knew.
You'll hear a lot of paranormal investigators (the real ones, that is, like say Joe Nickell) use the term Fantasy-Prone Personality to describe many of the kooky people they encounter. You know, the sorts who walk through a "haunted" house and swear that they saw objects move and felt cold spots and hear ghosts, despite all the recording devices seeing absolutely nothing. These people walk around, but either their direct experiences or their memories are quite literally altered by their overactive imaginations.
That's basically the story with many of the the antivaxxers and virus deniers and CAM proponents, right? They're looking at reality, but they're seeing fantasies. Grand conspiracies, elaborate correlations, made-up evidence ... these things aren't there, but these people swear they are. They're just like the ghost hunters, albeit much more dangerous. Evil cousins, perhaps.
Those pesticide companies -- you never know what they'll get into next. Who knew that they were raising all those mosquito-nymph predators that County Health around here is chucking into green swimming pools?
And I still haven't figured out the qui bono for the whole bit with eliminating standing water and things like old tires that trap it. That one's been going on since before WWII when $HERSELF's father was a pharmacist's mate with the Navy in the Philippines.
Did Nagel somehow fail to mention Peter Duesberg and Kary Mullis, sorry make that Nobel prize winner Kary Mullis, or did you leave them out to protect us?
There was no polio before DDT?
It's sort of like, "there was no autism until 1943."
The 1916 polio epidemic was technically after the discovery of DDT, but Heine's description of the disease was in 1840 so they need to wave their hands a bit to make the case that it was really something else for a while.
Archaeologists have found bone deformities characteristic of polio in ancient Egyptian tombs, but the denialists have a pretty easy time with that -- they just tell us that the people analyzing the bones are all brainwashed.
You'd have to at least consider if some of the people are just in it for the money, but simply don't care if other people put themselves at risk as a result of their lying. Its pretty hard to imagine someone genuinely getting enough related to, say, Koch's postulates and not learn that they haven't got things right. On the other hand, if they genuinely believe this sort of thing, they much have some interesting psychological or neurological issues.
There's plenty of physical evidence for viruses, of course. Photos (micrographs), DNA sequence data, etc.
I do have to make a comment that West Nile does something that I would not have thought a virus capable of doing: getting from a mosquito gut to its saliva. Supposedly it can propagate in gut lining cells, hemolymph, and salivary gland cells, as well as vertebrate cells, which is a pretty odd thing for a virus to be able to do.
I'm not way saying that it doesn't exist, but of all the viruses out there, this has one of the most compelling reasons to think maybe something else is at work here...
You know how Aristotle wrote about what consists of a perfect tragedy how Oedipus Rex was the perfect tragedy? Someone should write a book about what consists of the perfect woo,this one being the perfect one, and all the other woos should be held to this standard.
Ow. My brain.
"Feel into this truth"?
There are people that actually, really, non-snarkily use English like that?
WHAT The ... This is absurdly stupid. I thought humanity had gotten over this theory of disease in the 1870s.
I don't like mosquito spraying either, but that's because it seems a poor risk/benefit tradeoff, not because I don't believe in viruses!
There ARE no such THINGS as Viruses.
Darby,
West Nile Virus is not unique. There are other mosquito-borne viruses, such as La Crosse Encephalitis and Yellow Fever. The virus doesn't exactly propagate from the gut to the saliva. Rather, it contaminates the mosquito's proboscis. It's not like a mosquito is going to go sterilize her snout before visiting her next host, after all. ;-) It's very similar to the way that dirty hypodermic needles and tattoo needles can transmit viruses.
We are very fortunate that HIV is such a fragile virus, and cannot survive long outside of the human body.
Heh. I just got my FLU* vaccine shot today. As a member of the portion of the public health ELITE that works to hide the TRUTH that cancer is caused by additives in asphalt to keep the medical orthodoxy in LEXUSES and BEEMERS, I know that the REAL purpose of the flu vaccine is to upgrade the drivers in the microchips THEY implanted in me at birth to stop me from THINKING about the superhuman cloning program ON THE MOON, but I don't care. It's EASIER than re-installing my OPERATING system from SCRATCH.
* Random all-caps indicates I know what I'm talking about and am passionate about it.
If I ever need an editor, I'll find one.No one likes a grammar Nazi--especially not on blogs.
khan: "There was no polio before DDT?"
No, you're not reading the lunacy closely enough - polio was caused "most famously by DDT poisoning" but presumably before that it was due to uncharacterized "industrial pollution", which you could postulate existing back thousands of years, depending on how you define "industry".
Remember, this is from the same website that recently announced in triumphant tones that the FDA had conceded that human papilloma virus does _not_ cause cervical cancer (lending credence to the theory that the Gardasil vaccine is completely useless and part of a sinister pharma plot).
You fools! Don't you know the REAL purpose of the flu shot is mind control to compel us to shop more during the holidays?
That was one of the best episodes of that season of the Simpsons.
What about stealth viruses?
Orac: "If I ever need an editor, I'll find one.No one likes a grammar Nazi--especially not on blogs."
If editing suggestions are forbidden, who'll point out the lack of a space between "one" and "No" in the above sentence?
running a competition for the scientific community. $400 to the charity of your choice, will be awarded for the winning entry in the 2008 Christmas Card design contest, plus the opportunity to promote your work on www.andor.com - Check out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k85yzCSdhrc
Goodness. What is it with these guys? I just wonder at the mindset of people who apparently believe all world events and knowledge since 1890 have been puppet-string-pulled by some Ãber-conspiracy of Shadowy Forces. You have to be a truly tenaciously paranoid conspiracy obsessive to get that wacky - someone like the Whale.to Loon-meister.
My personal theory, if the people are more than about 45 years old, is that they probably read Gravity's Rainbow some time in the 70s whilst in the grip of an acid trip, and thought it was a history book.
Quick! Someone tell the hordes at Pharyngula!
I'm sure PZ would love to design a card!
Damn, I hope the university doesn't read this article.... apparently my thesis on retrovirus assembly was completely bogus!!!
Of course, Lanka and Crowe are on the forefront of HIV denial as well. Classy people they keep company with.
Teh stupid, it burns cold fusion?
But it makes sense ... I mean, there's no profit in manufacturing and selling cures for stuff, so why would Big Pharma even try, right?
Far easier to gather all the sciency people in the world together, including all the enthusiastic amateurs, and tell them "This is the way it's gonna be, see? Any youse steps outta line and tells somebody, you're gonna regret it."
Maybe the denialists are just sore because they never get invited to the Big Global Worldwide Conspiracy Christmas party?
All these topics do seem to be woven into one grand tapestry of woo, don't they? First I heard of the DDT-causes-polio theory was in one commenter's goofy non-sequitur to a post on DDT regulation. I guess relevance is where you find it.
The theory is total codswallop, of course. Polio has been known throughout recorded history. DDT, not so much.
Maybe the denialists are just sore because they never get invited to the Big Global Worldwide Conspiracy Christmas party?
Would there be Big Global Worldwide Conspiracy punch, or Big Global Worldwide Conspiracy eggnog?
Yes. He really, honestly believes that everyone else in the world (except maybe -- maybe -- his fellow kooks) is just as stupid as he is, if not even more so.
After all, he cannot imagine anyone being less stupid than he.
That's a scarily common phenomenon. It's for example very widespread among cdesign proponentsists...
How about his quote>> For example, how many mosquitoes have you noticed in densely packed urban areas close to freeways? About none.<<< Maybe he hasn't stood long enough on freeway to notice mosquitoes or perhaps when you are close to a freeway you have other things to pay attention to. Maybe he needs to stand along a freeway, the air is supposed to be tasty. Didn't West Nile arrive in NYC via JFK? Why did people get sick in Queens this year from it? Or maybe Queens isn't densely packed enough.
Annie
Someone needs to get cracking on convincing these people that computers cause brain tumors, maybe they'd resort to communicating via semaphore and stop clogging up the infosphere.
After reading that, I get the impression that the entire cause of his hysteria is a dogmatic insistence of the naturalistic fallacy: that which is natural must also be good.
Metro, there is no "Big Global Worldwide Conspiracy Christmas party". Everyone knows the Jews run all conspiracies. It is a Big Global Worldwide Conspiracy Channuka party. Sheesh.
A great example of crank contagion. Watching him trying to simultaneously hold the opinion that viruses don't exist and that Bayer's Factor VIII was contaminated with HIV was definitely worth the price of admission. But like most cranks, he never met a conspiracy theory that he doesn't like, even when they contradict one another.
Has anybody ever done a study of whether guys like this respond to antipsychotics?
Wow, what an incredible strawman argument you have here, Orac.
First, viruses were not known to exist until at least 1931 (advent of electron microscope).
Second, since 1931, of course, viruses were found to exist, because they were isolated, purified and cultured and seen by electron microscope. No sane person denies this.
The issue is CLINICAL RELEVANCE. Every disease and his mother is blamed on unseen viruses. West Nile Virus is not CLINICALLY RELEVANT in the USA. We die of heart attack, cancer, stroke, not effing viruses.
So, the proper question is, What do viruses do in an otherwise healthy and wealthy society like ours?
Final point: Many diseases (scurvy, pellagra, beri-beri) are caused by vitamin deficiencies. However, initially, all of these diseases were blamed on infectious agents. Does this still happen or not?
Barry, your comment makes little sense. It isn't Orac's fault if Nagel is presenting a very weak argument.
Moreover, the next claim makes little sense; yes the specific case of West Nile does not have much clinical relevance in so far as few people die from it. That doesn't change the fact that it is caused by a virus and we have isolated that virus successfully. Moreover, people in the United States do die of viruses. HIV and influenza would be the obvious examples.
Your last point makes about as little sense. Because a handful of diseases turned out to be caused by deficiencies means that we should assume that all are or that West Nile is when we have massive evidence to the contrary? Incidentally, I'm not even sure your claim is correct about any of the diseases you name. Scurvy in particular was known to be do to an apparent dietary deficiency as early as at least the 1600s. I'd be fascinated to see a citation that scurvy was ever believed to be caused by an infectious agent.
Well, viruses in otherwise healthy and wealthy societies like ours still kill people. I've lost healthy family members to viruses, one cousin dying of West Nile in Colorado.
While many diseases may be caused by vitamin deficiencies does not negate the many others caused by viruses. To say that some of these diseases may ultimately be shown to caused by something other than viruses doesn't prove anything. West Nile has been investigated, and shown to cause disease. How we find these things out are far easier now than it was decades ago thanks to rapidly advancing technology.
No such thing as viruses?
This is great news. I can close my HIV and hepatitis clinics - and while I'm at it, my diagnostic virology lab as well.
Anyone for a round of golf?
Since the wannabe high preistess of science Tara Smith et al have thrown out Kochs postulates, What replacement should be used?
According to you people any partial correlation is sufficent to cause disease now.
A microbe that is in 1/1000 cells, is found in a majority of people with no symptoms(just extend the window period to 10-30 years with HIV and Hepatitis C to get around that), Is not visible in a patients blood or tissues with the Electron Microscope and is harmless when injected into animals can be said to cause disease, as in the case with HIV etc.
What it boils down to is you guys are telling us that correlation should equal causality. Not even a 100% correlation proves causality(All people that die of old age have wrinkles, so wrinkles cause death in old people!) Nevertheless you correlations are much weaker than that, since the vast majority of people with HIV hepatitis C have no symptoms whatsoever (You guys get around that by constantly extending the latent period to decades.)
It's funny when Reading Orac's posts about Autism and vaccines, he always states correlations don't prove causality, even when the cause and effect are seperated by days, ie Moms/doctors/Poling case testifying that right after vaccines they became autistic. Yet with HIV and Hepatitis C Correlations prove causality when they cause and effect are seperated by 10-30 years!
Anecdotal cases of 3 lab workers who got Low t cells etc after years of HIV exposure, but Kids who got autistic right after vaccines don't! Not saying that either is correct, but surely if you rely on anecdotal cases to finally prove HIV folfilled Kochs postultes as Stephen Obrien did in his NIH fact sheet based on cause an effect seperated by years, than a cause and effect seperated by days would be even better evidence (Vaccines/Autism.)
Funny, once I was reading a blog post by Orac on Cell Phones and cancer, he said, rightly so, it's difficult to prove causality when the cause and effect are seperated by years/decades, well guess what, all the "evidence" that your favorite microbes HIV and HEP C are soleley based on these types of Long term studies, and unlike the Cell phone studies, they never attempted to control for confounding factors, for they already assumed HIV to be the cause, and weren't even testing the premise.
Nobody is saying Kochs Postulates are perfect but partial poor corrleations with microbes that are only detectable with the most sensitive PCR's and are found in people with no disease or symptoms don't prove causality, or else any harmless microbe can be said to cause disease.
Anecdotal cases of 3 lab workers who got Low t cells etc after years of HIV exposure prove causality I meant to say.
cooler, you're going to need to rewrite that to make it more intelligible. I can't tell when or if you're being sarcastic, or really just what the hell you're talking about. I'm worried that you're claiming the HIV-AIDS link is simply "weak correlation not causation," but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume you're an imbecile.
Barry, on the other hand, does fit that definition. And before he googles "logical fallacies," finds a site, misinterprets it, and accuses me of an ad hominem, here's why. He went to the trouble of looking up logic to defend a position he didn't arrive at logically. That not only makes him a moron, it makes him an inconsistent liar.
"Wow, what an incredible strawman argument you have here, Orac." It cannot be a strawman if it's the person's actual argument, you putz!
"We die of heart attack, cancer, stroke, not effing viruses." What? Are you insane? Look up the copious evidence and stop drinking the conspiracy koolaid.
"Many diseases (scurvy, pellagra, beri-beri) are caused by vitamin deficiencies. However, initially, all of these diseases were blamed on infectious agents. Does this still happen or not?" No, because we have DEMONSTRATED the CAUSALITY of these diseases, in spite of what cooler might be bull$hitting about. Surely you're not faulting science because scientists were wrong a century ago? Do you deny relativity, because physicists in 1900 thought aether currents caused the consistency of light's speed?
Looks like the kooks are coming to you, Orac! Hope you're in a better mood for it ...
Barry,
Viruses were known well before 1931, they just weren't photographed before then. (e.g. http://www.virtualsciencefair.org/2004/lija4j0/public_html/history.htm)
Viruses have been shown to be behind some cancers and heart disease ;-) People certainly die of viral infections. The low rate of deaths from the better-known viruses in modern time is largely a testament to the success of vaccines.
I'd second Joshua's point that scurvy was known to be a vitamin-based illness long ago, in fact before bacterial diseases were well-known or even known at all. I've seen some accounts claim scurvy has been known for about 2000 years. Certainly the basis of scurvy was known by the early 1600s, whereas bacteria were only described in the late 1600s. Given that, its a little difficult to see how scurvy could have ever been attributed to a bacterial infection (unless by an early pioneer of the present-day "medical" crank!)
So I grew up in this city called Miami...
bob, cooler is just going through withdrawal because Tara is on hiatus with her blog until January. No point in giving him the benefit of the doubt; he really is a wackaloon.
I could always do a post about 9/11 Truthers to rile him up until Tara gets back to blogging. :-)
Idli,
Stop acting like the white trash 90 year old Kookball you are.
Funny how none of you could rebut my posts. You guys dismiss the mercury/autism connection because people getting autistic right after vaccination doesnt prove causation, even when the time lapse between cause and effect is days, yet correlation does prove causation when the cause and effect are seperated by 10-30 years as in the case with HIV and HEP C!
And you heard me, the only evidence in support of HIV and HEP C is correlation. Chimpanzees injected don't get sick, these deadly viruses are only in 1/1000 cells and are not visible by the EM in patients tissues, and sorry there hasn't been a single wild animal thats died of SIV.
You're just left with correlation to prove your bogus microbes! And a very weak one at that since most people who have these viruses have no clinical disease at all, but you can always extend the window period from 10 months to 10 years to get around that, like you guys did with HIV, or extend the window period to 30 years as in the case with hepatitis C!
I love the phony corrleation you guys have with these microbes. Kaposis Sarcoma with hiv antibody is AIDS, Kaposis Sarcoma w/o hiv antibody is Kaposis sarcoma! What a barrel of laughs!
Don't forget global warming!
And, cooler, please do a favor for those of us keeping score, and list all the other conspiracies you've uncovered.
Was the moon landing faked?
Do the Illuminati secretly rule the earth?
Do reptile people walk unrecognized among us?
I know I'm missing a few. Please feel free to fill in the blanks.
Cooler always makes me want to load a killfile. He's tedious, repetitive and ignores evidence he doesn't like. Unfortunately, can't load a killfile to my work computer. :(
OMFG, people actually came out to denounce the existence of viruses. Honestly, I thought even the WNV-denialist article would be so completely preposterous, that no one could possibly rush to its defense. But boy was I wrong.
I note all the ad hominem attacks, and no one denying that the HIV/ Hepatitis C hypothesis is pretty much based solely on correlation!
For people claiming to be "skeptical" you people are sure filled with fallacies and illogic. Correlation doesn't prove causation with Autism and Cell phones, but it does with HIV and Hepatitic C!
Nobody's explicitly denying it because it's ground that has been covered hundreds of times. Basically, it's not even vaguely based "solely on correlation." Most notably, the efficacy of ARVs. aidstruth.org has a great deal of information on the subject.
Another point of particular relevance to your argument is that there is, in fact, NO time correlation between vaccination and autism. It is as likely to manifest before vaccination as after.
Actually, we dismiss mercury/autism in part because of lack of correlation. Removal of mercury from vaccines in multiple countries has had zero impact on autism incidence. And also because the effects of confirmed mercury toxicity don't resemble autism. And also because (as recently confirmed by Generation Rescue's telephone survey) unvaccinated kids get autism at at least as great a rate as vaccinated kids.
And HIV is accepted as the cause of HIV not just from correlation but on the basis upon detailed molecular biological knowledge of how HIV enters cells, replicates, and causes the damage that results in AIDS.
As for Koch's postulates (a "postulate," by the way is a tentative assumption, not something known to be true), they were a good starting point when disease-causing agents were poorly understood black boxes. With the tools available in Koch's time, they offer a good historical illustration of what sort of evidence was adequate back then to conclude that a disease was caused by an infectious agent--but as is so often the case in science, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Failure to satisfy Koch's postulates (which were already being modified even during Koch's life) is not (and never was) evidence against a disease being infectious in nature.
Fortunately, today we have far more sensitive powerful tools than available to Koch--tools like PCR, for example, which can definitively detect the DNA of an infectious agent, as well improved immunological methods of detecting proteins, so there are many other types of evidence that can be brought to bear on the question of disease etiology.
We also know far, far more about how viruses and bacteria work. Today, they are no longer somewhat mysterious disease-causing agents, but standard scientific tools routinely used for such purposes as introducing specific DNA into cells or synthesizing proteins to order.
Ok, take the Hannah Poling case, where according to her parents she was fine until she developed Autism when recieving 9 vaccines at once, after a investigation by the Federal government they conceded that vaccines played a role, this is a correlation.
Take the many other cases where Moms and Doctors noticed their kids getting autistic right after the shots, this is correlation.
Now read the NIH facts sheet on HIV, they talk about three anecdotal cases of people developing AIDS years after being infected. This was mentioned by these facts sheets as finally proving Koch's postulates for HIV.
"Postulate #3 has been fulfilled in tragic incidents involving three laboratory workers with no other risk factors who have developed AIDS or severe immunosuppression after accidental exposure to concentrated, cloned HIV in the laboratory"
NIH fact sheet
"Difficult, but not impossible. For while we cannot deliberately infect anyone with HIV merely to satisfy Koch's postulates and Duesberg's curiosity, we can examine the evidence that has been gathered on healthcare workers who were accidentally infected with HIV in the course of their professional work. Take, for example, the cases of three laboratory technicians who were inadvertently exposed to the HTLV-IIIb strain of HIV-1 while working with that strain in their laboratories (35). All three of these technicians developed antibodies to HIV, and within five years all three showed marked CD4 lymphocyte depletion. Two had their CD4 counts fall to less than 200 cells/mm3, and one of those developed PCP."
Stephen O'brien
Now why do you people dismiss anecdotal correlations with Autism and embrace them for HIV?
Oh nice try Ttrl, there is no biological evidence for HIV, there has never been one Electron microscopic picture of HIV from a patients gut, blood etc. Infact even mainstream HIV researchers claim you can barely find this microbe!
"All that has changed. As Warner C. Greene, a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, explained in the September 1993 Scientific American, researchers are increasingly abandoning the direct cell-killing theory because HIV does not infect enough cells: "Even in patients in the late stages of HIV infection with very low blood T4 cell counts, the proportion of those cells that are producing HIV is tiny-about one in 40. In the early stages of chronic infection, fewer than one in 10,000 T4 cells in blood are doing so. If the virus were killing the cells just by directly infecting them, it would almost certainly have to infect a much larger fraction at any one time."
What Causes AIDS? an Open Question Reason Magazine. Mullis et al.
Now some could argue there is a correlation between the increase in Autism and the increase in thimerosal intake, others could say its just a coincidence, or some other confounding factors (increased autism awareness) played a role. Of course you could say these same types of confounding factors skew the correlation in HIV reasearch.(AZT, severe drug abuse, mycoplasmas etc)
And remember, all you basically have is Correlation! Sorry if you can only see your microbe with PCR, a technology meant to find a needle in a haystack and multiply it, and not with the EM, can rarely induce disease in a labrarory animal, it's probably not that clinically relevant!
People have a lot more than "just" correlation, cooler. I find a common element in poor "arguments" of all shades are what they leave out, presumeably because the people putting them forward are ignorant of the larger story or can't be bothered to, or are unable to, checking from the original sources. (Perhaps because they lack the training to do so, which, in turn, to me raises a question of their not knowing when to, or not being willing to, say "I don't know enough to judge").
Modern molecular cell biology is able to use in vitro techniques to examine the progression of an infection in fine detail. One can then compare the "markers" of the process as observed in vitro with those in patients or in model organisms. Its quite a different approach to that possible in Koch's day and quite powerful.
Here's cooler at 12:07:
and at 3:40:
You really, really can't make this stuff up.
Speaking of which, cooler, I am genuinely curious: we already know where you stand on climate, germs and troof. But are you down with Illuminati reptiles on the moon?
'check' for 'checking', sorry.
"he really is a wackaloon."
said idli
You give me ad hominem, you'll get ad hominem in return. Jre, why don't get your hand out of your pants, stop scaring Girls away with your stunning looks, and say something relevent instead of asking me questions that make no sense?
"Take the Hannah Poling case." Oh, a case of a girl with a mitochondrial disorder that looks a little bit like autism? The girl whose condition even her (wildly biased and woo-ful) neurologist father says only MIGHT overlap with a SMALL percentage of regular autism cases? (A few percent of autistic people might have a mitochondrial problem, but cases of problems arising from it are spectacularly rare (like Hannah's).) Yes, that's a fine example.
You have no clue what you're talking about, and you are clearly just parroting denialist talking points.
As such, jre's comments are not irrelevant. S/he is pointing out that your standard of evidence is laughably low and your reasoning is shockingly poor. If these are the arguments that are truly behind your beliefs about vaccines/HIV/etc, then you ought to believe in every conspiracy out there. The arguments, obfuscation, and evidence you have utilized here can be applied just as easily to the moon landing, the Holocaust, one-world gov'ts, 9/11, and any other stupid conspiracy.
Do you deny the holocaust? Think the moon landing is a hoax? Think Bush was behind 9/11? Think a secret cabal controls the world? Think reptiles live in the hollow earth? Most importantly, have you sought medication for your apparent paranoid schizophrenia?
You are killing people. Here, read that again: you are killing people. If one person reads your (or your ilk's) delusional rantings about HIV not causing AIDS and chooses not to treat his/her infection, the blood will be on your hands. I hope you rest uneasy knowing that.
You are killing people by poisoning them with AZT, mycoplasma incognitus, mercury, fluoride, I hope you realize that if somebody beleives the nonsense that you're regurgitating from Drug companies and crooked politicians that control your minds, they'll die. I hope you realize this.
Yes, and I contend that we are all getting poisoned by dihydrogen oxide because breathing a whole bunch of it is bad.
You know, the sorts who walk through a "haunted" house and swear that they saw objects move and felt cold spots and hear ghosts, despite all the recording devices seeing absolutely nothing. These people walk around, but either their direct experiences or their memories are quite literally altered by their overactive imaginations.
I'm actually going to call this one out.
"Hauntings", that is, the experiences associated with them, can have a very real physical cause.. one that can be detected and measured with the right equipment. So it isn't really fair to call them "fantasies". Some are, but a fair number aren't.
However, the "sypmtoms" aren't directly related to the cause, that is, the "chills" are not caused by a drop in temperature, so an investigator looking for a cold spot won't find one, even though the subject *really* does feel chills. "Ghost" sightings are actually occuring in the eyeball itself, so it is neither a visible effect (hence immune to photographic investigation), nor hallucination/imagination.
It's hard to give any skeptical kudos to an "investigator" that doesn't know what they are looking for, given how long this information has been out there.
Google "Infrasound" + "ghosts"
Having encountered "cooler" once over at Tara Smith's blog, I find myself wondering - is cooler a real person? Or is he a performance art stunt by a bunch of students? Or possibly a computer programmed to auto-write reams of "genuine 200-proof conspiracy nut" blather?
And if he IS one person - is he the craziest conspiracy wackaloon of them all? I guess John "Mercury Rising" Best would run him close. How about a (Non)-Celebrity ConspiracyVerse Cage DeathMatch to decide the title?
I love the way all you guys do is name call. It just makes you guys look like self serving infantile idiots, reducing everything, including yourselves, into caricatures. It gives me a total BONER that you guys have to whip out every ad hominem attack possible, instead of debating the issues!
Do you realize most people think some of you guys are crazy? If you get out in the real world you'll probably figure that out, sadly I think many of you already have, which explains the insecurity many of you display that explains your childish behavior.
Oh fun. Virus denial loons.
what next, someone going to come and insist that people live by breathing in air and expelling carbon dioxide is just a theory ? That gravity is "only a theory" ?
"I love the way all you guys do is name call."
Followed by a little trollish diatribe that isn't worth answering to. But I'll give you this ;-) --
I love the way you totally ignore anything of substance when its presented to you.
(Seems a fair response to this remark.)
My previous post is for cooler (not DLC!), as I hope is clear from the quote.
Graculus, I wasn't claiming to be a skeptical investigator, nor was I claiming that EVERY aspect of ALL "hauntings" are caused by an overactive imagination. I'm sure many "symptoms" are ultimately caused by actual physical events. But, I have no doubt that many are created (or exaggerated well beyond reality) entirely within the confines of people's heads.
Speaking of things existing only in people's imaginations, holy cow, cooler, have you ever turned out to be a piece of work. Fluoride? Seriously? Are you that worried about your precious bodily fluids?
I'm wondering if this guy isn't an alt-med example of Poe's Law. He claims we just sexually excited him? He dislikes our ad hominems so he counters with an ad populi? Some subtle anti-intellectualism? But, I guess he's the real deal, since some of you have dealt with his antics before. Sad.
Oh, and DLC, gravity IS just a theory! Mercury's orbit doesn't follow Kepler's laws! But, I guess High Priest Orac will just throw them out and replace them with some pack of general relativity lies to keep poisoning students' minds!
As if most people have any idea who any of us are. What you really mean is that you think "some of you guys are crazy". But, frankly, a better question is who cares what an encephalitic tinfoil-hat-wearer like you thinks? Thinking is clearly not your long suit.
Joseph, stop acting like a deranged trailer park hillbilly, get laid, go to college and get a life. I know somebody as repulsive, ugly and uneducated as you are will find this difficult, but you can try anyways!
Let's see.
1. Ignores any sensible posts. Tick.
2. Spouts complete nonsense. Tick.
3. Issues insults left, right and centre, including juvenile "humour". Tick.
Troll. Tick ;-)
(State-side people can read 'center' for 'centre' and 'humor' for 'humour'.)
cooler -
You obviously are bereft of a basic scientific education.
Drink an Ebola cocktail, you paranoid, pig-ignorant needledick. Bet you think Ebola doesn't exist either.
You don't think Ebola exists? Tell that to USAMRIID, motherfucker. Tell that to virologists, microbiologists, proteomists, genomicists, geneticists, molecular biologists, and anyone else who has more knowledge about this than you do. Bet you think all of us are in the hands of Big Pharma.
Go rot, shitbag. Die of the viruses you disavow.
Electron microscope picture? Which one of Koch's postulates was that? When I hear HIV denialists going on about EM pictures as if they are some kind of standard for virus identification, I can't help but wonder if they've ever actually seen an EM picture. Those fuzzy pictures were state of the art a long, long time ago (but not quite so long ago as Koch and his postulates). EM is still a useful tool, but the study of HIV has left EM far behind. When it comes to identifying organisms, any biologist will take DNA or a good antibody assay over the electron microscope any day of the week. We now have the very DNA sequence of HIV--the fundamental source code of the virus. We even have the crystal structure of HIV proteins, so we can see where the very atoms are.
I give this one a D-. It looks like a copy/paste job.
Just to avoid confusing anybody: HIV is an RNA virus, but it copies itself into DNA, or it can be copied to DNA in vitro in order to do PCR on it.
I have a theory for the psychological basis of some of this virus and germ-theory denialism. The fact that technology has given us micrographs of bacteria and even scanning tunneling micrographs of viruses makes them so much more concrete than they were in the 19th and early 20th centuries. People are still afraid of them, all right, but they don't evoke the mindless, superstitious fear that they did when they were totally invisible and unknowable.
A certain type of woo merchant needs something that inspires unknowing superstitious panic in the uninformed. For many years it was radiation, but the end of the Cold War has spawned a new generation whose neck hairs don't rise at the word "fallout" any more.
They tried to extend the panic to cell phones and microwave ovens, never mind that the electromagnetic radiation from them was of much too low an energy to have any of the effects they postulate--"It's RADIATION! Wooooh! Scary, huh, Kids?" It didn't really take with the general public.
But now, if they can deny that the microrganisms and viruses that we see don't cause the diseases people fear, then it must be something invisible again, something only they know about: witchcraft maybe, or toxic chemicals, or "secular humanism," who knows. People just need a new priesthood to tell them what invisible threats to be scared of.
Please disregard don't in last paragraph. I never claimed to have an attention span!
I think you're onto something there, Lurkbot.
Just as a personal note, though, your theory still needs a bit of explanation of the origins of the deniers' obsessions, obviously rooted in repressed immature sexual desire.
No, this is most definitely NOT correlation, as any basic statistical knowledge would tell you. There would be correlation if kids were more likely to manifest symptoms of autism after vaccination than before. They are, in fact, equally likely before and after. There is therefore no correlation.
Lurkbot, that's not a bad idea. Science has pushed the "unknown" into increasingly smaller spaces, so maybe people manufacture unknowns (conspiracies, "energies," toxins, etc) to fill the void. Er, non-void, I mean. :)
And, Scott, nice catch. I'd only add that those parents' observations are anecdotes, and you don't get to do statistics on those. You need to actually observe your data points objectively, you can't just rely on people's stories. Well, you CAN, and alt-med kooks certainly DO, but that's why they're WRONG.
"They are, in fact, equally likely before and after."
Reference? Do you have a study that looks at children that recieved multiple thimerosal containing vaccines examining the rates of Autism vs those that did not in the few days/weeks after?
Is there a study that examined the children who recieved thimerosal and whether or not they immediately developed autism? If there are 3 cases at least of this, this would help prove the thimerosal/autism hypothesis, since the NIH made a huge deal about 3 cases of people developing AIDS years after HIV infection. These are both correlations.
Tttrl,
Koch's postulates say that the microbe should be found in abundance in the affected areas, I believe the EM would be more accurate than the PCR in seeing a microbe do its damage, since the PCR is designed to turn a needle into a haystack.
This virus denialism is really fun and all, but you lot seem to have missed the best part of that woo text!
Citing:
Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause? (...)
or possibly they are spirits or energy forms. But they do not exist in flesh and blood.
What on Earth is this? Does this guy believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa? Or is he so afraid to shun (misspelled? English is not my first language, sorry) away other woos?
This sentence beats all the "there's-no-virus" crap on the article. :D
My belly aches, gotta stop laughing!
Cooler, why don't you go over to Prometheus's blog and read on why it's impossible to design a study currently to disprove the autism-mercury-vaccine story with any kind of statistical certainty (spoiler: it's the extremely low number of completely unvaccinated kids that makes it impossible).
http://photoninthedarkness.com/?p=154
And the difference between the 3 HIV cases and the thimerosal nonsense is - after the first 3 suggested a correlation, they found millions more, something that seems to lacking in the later case.
Orac's posted about such studies a few times. Of course, since you're the one making the assertion, the burden of proof is on you. I also note that you completely ducked the fact that the claim you made regarding what it takes to prove correlation is completely wrong.
@jre "I know I'm missing a few. Please feel free to fill in the blanks."
Yeah, don't forget the underwear gnome conspiracy and the crab people "LOOK LIKE CRAB, TALK LIKE PEOPLE".
This is not accurate. You could design a study that would give children the old thimerosal containing vaccines, and compare them to the vaccines that don't contain thimerosal.
Then Scientists. blinded to both groups, see if one group had a higher rate of neurological problems. Just get a large enough sample size, and this would be the ultimate test.
Thousands more? I've never read an HIV study designed to actually test the HIV hypothesis. And it's very difficult to prove causality when the cause and effect are seperated by 10-12 years, it much easier to find a cause and effect if it seperated by days.
For example, the autism/Thimerosal hypothesis would be quickly faslified if people got autism 10 years after vaccinations, and were healthy and normal in the interim.
Apparently your definition of "quickly" is different than mine.
In any case, such an experiment would be unethical. According to the Helsinki Declaration, clinical trials must be based on a good scientific rationale derived from in vitro, in vivo, and clinical observations. Given that all the current epidemiological evidence points to no correlation between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, there is no good scientific rationale to set up such a study.
@Scott
Thanks for finding every excuse to not provide references.
Sir Orac I read with interest your debunking:
Does he really think that scientists haven't developed techniques to be able to differentiate between cellular structures and actual virus particles? Does he really think that virus RNA sequence is the only bit of evidence other than "crude experiments" that lead scientists to be able to identify West Nile Virus?
Sir Orac, maybe he does believe that, but what's constructive or informative about hurling invective. Shouldn't you rather guide the poor Philistine to the evidence he has overlooked in, for example, the initial 1937 isolation paper? Perhaps you can post the relevant passages to make up for your wikipedia reference earlier
Lurkbot:
You're working too hard.
The #1 reason that wooists get into germ theory denialism is much simpler: it's that "this germ causes that disease" makes it too easy to prove that their woo doesn't get rid of the disease.
Vampires can't stand the light.
I guess my point was that it is our duty, as skeptics, to be as aware of fake skeptics as we are of the loons.
And the I give the "no such thing as viruses" guy a 0.7 Time Cube. Needs to be more incoherent.
Generation Rescue did a survey. They found out that unvaccinated kids were at least as likely to have ASD as vaccinated kids. Unvaccinated girls were significantly more likely to have ASD that vaccinated girls. So that's a correlation--just in the opposite direction from what you claim.
Aas I pointed out before, Koch's postulates are an historical illustration of what was considered sufficient to demonstrate an infection by bacteria (Koch's postulates predated the discovery of viruses), using the techniques available in the 19th century (which did not include the electron microscope, or PCR, or immunological labeling). Today, we have far more powerful tools. The EM is one, but hardly the best for this purpose.
You are behind the times again. Early PCR techniques just provided a yes/no answer as to whether a particular DNA sequence was there at all. But modern scientists use quantitative PCR, which measures how much of an organism's RNA/DNA is present. And people with AIDS turn out to have lots of HIV DNA in them.
I've provided more of a reference than you have.
Now, cooler, there's no need to get snippy.
I'm just trying to gauge your worldview.
You are on record as saying that:
1) Global warming is a hoax.
2) 9/11 was an inside job.
3) HIV does not cause AIDS.
Given all this, it seemed reasonable to ask what other insights may have occurred to you. Perhaps the fault is mine, for running my questions all together as I did. Let's take them one at a time.
Do you believe that the moon landing was faked?
Actually cooler does not really exist. S/he/it is a troll bot which posts computer generated conspiracy ridden posts, and should be soundly ignored.
Do not bother asking it about moon landing, 9/11, Illuminati or anything else. Ignore it.
"Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause? (...)
or possibly they are spirits or energy forms. But they do not exist in flesh and blood."
So...Saint Nicholas is a Sufficently Advanced Alien? (TV Tropers will know what I'm talking about.)
You know, as tempting as it is to believe that "cooler" is nothing more than a rogue program rat-chasing about the Internet making absurd claims, I'm afraid that (s)he's a real person. I've actually had the misfortune to meet people like "cooler", so I know that a mere mortal can encompass that much irrationality in their brain.
"Cooler" - and others of his/her ilk - are dissatisfied with the current state of the world (or, at least, their part of it) and wish to find someone to blame for it.
It may be that "cooler" feels alienated by science and technology because (s)he doesn't have the education (or intellect) to understand it. It could be that "cooler" is simply unhappy about being alone and friendless.
Whatever the reason, "cooler" - and people like her/him - derives a sense of power and satisfaction from "tweaking" people who understand science. (S)he does this by asserting some clearly nonsensical position (9/11 "troof", HIV doesn't cause AIDS, etc.) and mindlessly (and factlessly) "rebutting" all attempts to set her/him straight.
I don't know if "cooler" even believes the things (s)he writes; it seems to be more about stirring the anthill than about any sort of belief or attempt to convince others.
The bottom line - as I see it - is that there is no point in trying to debate with "cooler" because (s)he isn't open to data. For "cooler", it's all about generating an argument and getting noticed. If you're lonely enough, even negative attention can be a positive thing.
Prometheus
Promethus,
You make no sense and are not a psychologist, so stop acting like one, you are just another failed nerd from college that thinks blogging will make up for all your nerdy past.
Anyways, back to the topic. My understanding of "denialism" is someone who denies overwhelming evidence. I've been called a nut for saying there is not overwhelming evidence for HIV and 9/11. To prove me wrong can someone provide me with overwhelming evidence.
1. Please provide me with the overwhelming evidence that 19 hijackers boarded the planes. I would like to see witnesses, ticket stubs, and of course video camera pictures (14 of the hijackers never were shown on camera, and the remaining 5 were shown 3 years later!)
Do you want to know how the 19 hijackers were placed at the scene of the crimes? They found a duffel bag from Atta that just happened not to make the connection from Portland to Boston. It had a flight training manual, a note to the other hijackers and a will. What a coincidence! Even the FBI felt the evidence was planted. Please provide me with the overwhelming evidence that 19 muslims boarded the planes. Waiting.
On HIV, I am called a loon for denying overwhelming evidence. In the Mid eighties every medical school taught as a fact that HIV was the cause of AIDS, The IOM reccomended billions for a cure and Tara Smith et al claim the Debate was settled at this time. Can you please provide me with the overwhelming evidence from this time period that proved HIV's causality? Waiting.
Cooler, you have *BEEN* provided with the overwhelming evidence. Repeatedly. Sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH" doesn't change that.
"You are just another failed nerd from college that thinks blogging will make up for all your nerdy past."
Your anti-intellectualism makes me sad. Why would anyone need to make up for their "nerdy past"? If anything, I think people ought to feel the need to make up for their having picked on nerds in the past. (You know, since it was juvenile and mean and all.) Or, if not, they can continue to torment nerds by doing a bad job at vacuuming their offices.
I think your anti-intellectualism also demonstrates the worthlessness of engaging you in conversation. If you hate and disparage educated people, why would you read textbooks and research articles or listen to lectures by the people at the top of the academic world? Much easier (and consistent) to hate these people, ignore their opinions, claim that they are part of a secret cabal, anonymously rail against them on the internet, refuse to take the medication they suggest you take, etc etc etc.
(I thought about apologizing for the last line in that list, because I'm not a psychologist and more importantly I shouldn't make fun of mental illness. However, you're clearly a kook and you deserve scorn ("Ridicule is the only weapon that should be used against unintelligible propositions," Thomas Jefferson), and moreover I really think you might have serious paranoia issues.)
Thanks for providing the overwhelming evidence that you claim won you the debate on HIV 20 years ago, and for the overwhelming evidence 19 hijackers boarded the planes. The Silence is noted.
Oh btw, I don't hate "intellectual" people. I just happen to think nerds are not that intelligent, real intellectuals are people who are smart AND have personalities. Nerds are people who overachieve, lack personality, senses of humor and are not well liked by peers/patients. They only attain advanced degrees due to the tremendous effort they put forth (what else can you do when no one wants to be around you besides study), not because of their intellectual capabilities.
Also I feel the people who are really the most talented major in other fields. I remember many of the people who majored in biosciences were just plain creepy, total rejects on campus. It's this influx of weirdos in science that's created such low standards in research and logic. Obviously there are many exceptions, and hopefully more normal people that actually have senses of humor and personality and are people that you'd actually want to be around, Like Duesberg, will get involved in science.
I also feel there is a direct correlation between having no personality, and being a repulsive person to be around, and obedience to authority. People that have all of these personality shortcomings and are not well liked tend to cling to authority. After all, they feel so weird and rejected anyways, have no personalities, why would they dissent from authority, it will only make them feel more insecure. So they embrace authority.
I think that "cooler" has just made my point.
(S)he is not interested in anything other than getting attention. There is no amount of data or "overwhelming evidence" that will change his/her mind, since (s)he hasn't come by these opinions rationally in the first place - if, indeed, "cooler" even believes what (s)he writes.
If (s)he gets attention for name-calling and willful ignorance of facts, it will just lead to more outrageous flights of fantasy and conspiracy-mongering. The best thing to do - in my opinion - is to ignore him/her.
I'm sure that cooler's response will be to taunt - playground style - "Are you afraid to debate me?", but the reality is that "cooler" isn't interested in debate because "cooler" doesn't have any data to support his/her position in the first place.
"Debate" - at least, rational scientific debate - requires that both sides be interested in discussing the "facts" or "data". "Cooler" has no data and isn't interested in hearing about anyone else's data. No debate is possible.
Prometheus
Cooler, that comment was ridiculous. You clearly know nothing about science, or scientists. I'm not even going to call your caricature of scientists or the methods of science a strawman, because to credit you with a logical fallacy would imply that you're doing something that at least feigns logic. You are, quite simply, not even wrong.
Your "argument" (again, a term your last post doesn't even warrant) about these "nerds" sticking to authority is insane and self-contradictory, even within the scope of your kooky little world. You are incapable of rational thought. Congratulations, you win. I won't be responding to your comments anymore.
You'll notice that cooler post on November 21, 2008 1:28 PM "demands from others" instead of providing any of his/her own. Another trait of a troll.
As are the silly put-down stereotypes in his/her November 21, 2008 3:27 PM post. Ironically for our little troll, the last paragraph is almost the exact opposite to how scientists behave: they're typically a pain in the neck to anyone wanting to rule by authority. Ask any senior university administrator!
Prometheus, I agree: just a simple troll seeking attention. Anyway, what is it with these people using Greek philosophers for aliases? :-)
Hilarious.
No one gets an advanced degree solely, or even primarily, because of their intellectual capabilities. The smartest grad student will not be awarded that PhD until they put forth tremendous effort.
Wow! I love it! So much effort to evade 2 simple questions. All I asked is for the overwhelming evidence that proved HIV's causality 20 years ago (there must be overwhelming evidence for AZT was approved in 1987, every medical school taught it as fact at this time and the IOM recommended billions in funds in 1985.)
And a simple question regarding the overwhelming evidence that the Hijackers were at the airports and boarded the planes. Hell if a local 7-11 was robbed you'd have videotapes, sworn witness statements, fingerprints, etc. And 9/11 was the crime of the century and you can't provide any evidence at all?
Any evidence at all that the hijackers were at the airports? All you guys have is a Duffel bag with a note to the 19 hijackers that just happened not to make the connecting flight? What a barrell of laughs!
Prometheus said "(S)he is not interested in anything other than getting attention."
Do not engage cooler the troll-bot. S/he/it only has certain things s/he/it will respond with, only slightly rearranged. Ignore s/he/it.
Still living in the past, cooler? While you are at it, perhaps you can refight the battle of Waterloo and try to convince everybody that Napoleon should have won. Perhaps you can find a historian somewhere who is actually interested in debating whether scientists of 30 years ago somehow managed to reach what is clearly (from a modern perspective) the right conclusion--that HIV causes AIDS, and that antiretroviral drugs are protective--for the wrong reasons.
"Ignore s/he/it." Have to admit I read this "aloud", with the second "word" run-together! :-)
Cooler, I do admire your tenacity at standing up to these obviously unthinking thugs that refuse to answer your legitamate questions or present any legitamate response or evidence to you whatsoever. Their tirades and ad homs against you speak volumes as to the weakness of their positions and also to their ignorance.
They seem to be more of a herd of unthinking cattle who simply snort as they note the inherent danger to their egos and livelihoods and belief systems that your posts present.
But do forgive them, Cooler. They are doing the best they can, considering what little they obviously have to work with and considering their overly inflated egos. They are indeed unfortunately and simply cowards who lack integrity. Though they think themselves brilliant and brave as they type ad homs toward you, they are unable to see that it is they who are overwhelmed by the great fear of the viral boogeymen and they are unable to see the difference between the multitudes of correlations versus obvious causalities. But fear not the mediocrity of intellect they so proudly display, for their impact on the world when all is said and done shall surely be nil.
Thanks! finally some sense and support in a sea of lunacy and personal attacks!
Ttrl, thanks for admitting every prestigious medical school, the IOM, the CDC and FDA treated the HIV hypothesis as fact, approved very potent dangerous drugs like AZT in the mid to late eighties with barely any evidence.
Gallo and Jay Levy found HIV in less that half of AIDS patients and these pathetic papers were used to justify a massive terror campaign on the American people. When this microbe was turning up in thousands of people with no symptoms/disease at all, the CDC could have leveled with the American people, instead of extending the window period from 10 months to 10 years.
All Duesberg did was point out, what Gallo did in his book as well in 1990, that HIV was only in 1/10000 cells, Didn't cause disease in Chimpanzees while the other possible causes of death were not being investigated properly. The Cell killing chemotherapy AZT, Mycoplasma Incognitus(which is visible in the damaged tissues of AIDS patients/Non AIDS patients dying of ARDS in 1-7 weeks with the EM and does kill injected monkeys, severe Drug abuse/Nitrite inhalants etc.
What a disaster this could be. But such blunders are built into the system. The scientific establishment is set up like the military. If you don't have support from crooked politicians like Heckler and Fauci, or drug companies, you have little chance influencing scientific policy, even if you're right. Simultaneously, if you have no evidence, but are supported by crooks and liars like Heckler, Fauci and Big pharma, you don't need any evidence, as was seen in the case with Gallo's HIV and Chiron's Hepatitis C.
You are hallucinating again, cooler. I challenge you to quote any statement in which I "admitted" to any such thing. Only crackpots and cranks are interested in refighting the debates of 30 years ago. I live in the present day, and based upon present evidence it is definitively established that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Perhaps the scientists of that time were clever enough to reach what we now know to be a correct conclusion based upon what seems to you, with your limited scientific knowledge, to be "barely any" evidence. Or perhaps it was simply a brilliant guess. Why should anybody today care?
Ok trrll,
So millions of people took AZT based on a "brilliant guess." Millions of people were given a diagnoses of death in 1985-86 based on a guess. A drug that could theoretically disable or kill somebody was dispensed in very high doses based on scientists ability to see in the future. I'm glad scientists back then had crystal balls and could see although there was not overwhelming evidence in the mid-eighties, it would come soon!
So tell me, what year was the debate settled in the Peer reviewed literature, and when you cite the year, please cite the scientific papers that overwhelmingly proved HIV's causality. Was it 1985? 1990? 1995? 2000? 2005? Please cite the year when overwhelming evidence that proved HIV's causality was published and cite the peer reviewed experiments that proved HIV's causality for that corresponding year. Waiting.
Anybody who knows anything about science knows that this is an incredibly stupid question. There is no scientific authority that announces that a question is "settled." So the answer to when the question was settled is an individual one that will differ from scientist to scientist, and scientists base their individual judgment upon the totality of scientific evidence that they have studied. The scientific evidence about HIV and AIDS is enormous, and while probably no scientist has read all of it (a PubMed search for "HIV" yields 192,148 hits), a scientist working in the field will almost certainly have read hundreds if not thousands of peer-reviewed publications on the subject--which will differ from scientist to scientist, so so it is ridiculous to ask for "the" papers.
If you are seriously looking for a basic introduction to why virtually all people working in the field regard it as a settled question, there are many web sites that will provide you with a summary of a few papers that illustrate key points (AIDSTruth.org provides links to several). But know that these papers are just examples, and a tiny, tiny fraction of the totality of information that has convinced virtually the entire biomedical scientific community that HIV is the cause of AIDS and that antiretroviral medications extend life and health.
This is getting hilarious. For most any other disease/hypothesis you can easily find the original papers that prove causality. Koch had original experiments that proved TB and Anthrax's causality, with polio there were original experiments that prove causality, you can easily find many placebo control original trials that prove nearly every drug's effectiveness. But with HIV there are different rules, it's "there are so many hits on Pub med."
Well I'm sure if pub med was around in Russia and Germany 60 years you'd find a whole lot of hits about certain races being better than others and how great the economic policies of Stalin were.
How did these vast majority of scientists come to these conclusions? Did they read Montagnier's paper in 1990 that showed retroviruses in in a petri dish when treated with antibiotics don't kill cells? Did they read the Padian study where HIV was shown to be the least contagious microbe ever? Did they read the article in Scientific American that stated HIV infects around 1/1000 cells? Did they demand a scientific justification from the CDC for extending the window period from 10 months to 10 years, or did they just follow orders? Did they question why even when Chimpanzees were directly infected through the brain they didn't die, and if they were so sure HIV was species specific why inoculate them in the first place? Did the question why HIV is evenly spread between the sexes, but AIDS is mostly male?
When I go to AIDS truth all I read are studies about correlation. So these studies where the cause and effect are seperated by 10-12 years and that failed to control for confounders like AZT because they never questioned the premise are what convinced scientists? When so many people tested positive and had no symptoms or disease shouldn't that have raised some red flags?
What you fail to understand is that scientists are human. And when there is a massive propaganda campaign by the government, they are just as likely to be indoctrinated as anyone else. That's why many never questioned the premise, they just assumed somewhere somebody else proved causation, and did their experiment that never even questioned HIV's causal role.
When the many honorable scientists did question the role of HIV they were silenced, ostrasized and had their funding cut off.
"This is getting hilarious." Yes, the more you (cooler) write the sillier and more entertaining your posts become :-)
You write as if there "must" be a small number of papers that shows causality. Usually there are many dozens of papers that contribute different parts of the story. My reading of your post is that you're intentionally abusing this. (Setting someone up to reply offering a single paper or two, which will naturally only be part of the story, which is then easy for you to abuse further: sorry, but I've seen this pattern before...)
You can easily find the key papers: that you (cooler) can't suggests you don't know how to use the scientific literature or have no sincere interest in this. Putting the story together from the original papers is another matter: that's fairly hard both for the knowledge needed and for the sheer amount of literature needed to be covered. (That's what trrll was referring to.)
(Off topic, or perhaps not. I'm not sure what it is that makes some people like this, but it reminds me of how many creationists want evidence to work in a single step, and if it doesn't "it can't be right", as if they are not capable of thinking in more than one step. Its quite bizarre to me.)
Its particularly pathetic to try tell others "how scientists are" and "how science" works in a false way, presumably because you think that others who (like you) don't know science will fall for your twisted version. But high-handed remarks like "What you fail to understand..." tend to be obvious to everyone for what they are. (Incidentally, you've already been pulled up for presenting the particular characterisation following this remark earlier in this thread: its generally not true.)
For those whose brains aren't quite as refrigerated as cooler's (!) but would like some information on AIDS, this article and the links within it is useful: http://www.aidstruth.org/new/denialism/myths
I have to say that persisting you are proving to everyone you are more trollish than most :-) And, yes, I think you are hilarious... :-)
Prometheus has written about the "arrogance of ignorance"--the apparent conviction of denialists that they can walk into a scientific field, read a dozen or so "key" papers and identify fundamental errors in the work of hundreds or thousands of brilliant, highly trained people that will invalidate the entire field of study.
Often, this leads them to attack the early papers in the field, under the apparent belief that scientific knowledge is structured like a tree, with all of the branches dependent upon a few key papers that constitute the trunk. Creationists attack Darwin, HIV denialists attack Gallo In the apparent conviction that if they can find "flaws" in those papers, the entire field will come tumbling down. Cooler believes in polio, so he is willing to believe that there must be a few key papers that conclusively established the role of polio virus in polio causality--apparently forgetting that this entire thread is actually about germ theory denialists who don't even believe that viruses exist.
To a scientist, this obsession with the early papers seems literally insane, because if scientific knowledge is structured like a tree, it is more like a banyan tree. When scientists talk about "key papers," they are speaking historically, not in terms of modern understanding. Virtually every experiment in a field tests the basic hypothesis and assumptions of that field in some manner. This is almost never mentioned in the paper, because additional confirmation of something that has already confirmed hundreds or thousands of times is not of great interest. It is only of interest when the results do not match expectations. But as scientists, we note it, and it becomes part of the evidence base that underpins our modern understanding. I can almost always look at the early papers in a field and find "flaws" -- hypotheses not adequately tested, controls not done. But those hypotheses have been tested and retested by dozens, sometimes thousands of other studies. The early, "key" studies are important not because they absolutely and conclusively established the conclusion, but because they got people pointed in the right direction to do the thousands of other experiments that ultimately resulted in the modern consensus.
The more I see of cranks like cooler, the more convinced that there is some real neuropathology here. Mark Hoofnagle has written about crank magetism--how people who have one crank belief often have others, and cooler is certainly an example of this. It is clearly not mere ignorance. Witness the amount of time and energy that cooler devotes to attacking vaccination or HIV. If he'd devoted a small fraction of that time to studying the scientific literature and reading the basic texts necessary to understand it (much of which can be accessed online) he would at least not make the frequent scientific blunders that pepper his posts. People have all but taken him by the hand and shown him the information, to no avail. He is not just ignorant but aggressively ignorant.
I can't help wondering how common this kind of psychopathology is in the population. I imagine that people like this rarely seek treatment, because denial that something is wrong with them is clearly part of the syndrome. Although the fixed beliefs seem to be a kind of delusion and there are clearly elements that resemble paranoia, it doesn't really seem to quite fit schizophrenia, or even schizotypal personality disorder. In particular, the fixed beliefs do not seem to be as personally directed as in schizophrenia. I'd love to know how somebody like cooler would respond to a course of antipsychotic medication, but I'm sure that they would not consent to it, and since they in general do not pose a direct risk to themselves or others (although indirect is another matter), there is no ethical basis for imposing it.
What a barrell of laughs, now I'm being given a psychiatric evaluation over the internet, every excuse to not provide any evidence that settled any debate at any time, nor rebut the Paradoxes in the HIV hypothesis I mentioned above. This is all carefully calculated to avoid the massive delusions you guys suffer from.
When Peter Duesberg finally confronted Robert Gallo in Science magazine, virtually every defense of the HIV theory he presented was based on correlation. All he could give is studies where people who were HIV positive sometime in the past developed some symptom more frequently than the HIV negative people.
Of course since the time between cause and effect was over a decade and nothing was done to control for drug use, AZT, mycoplasmas since the studies were never designed to test the premise, not anyone with any knowledge of science could make much of these weak correlations.
And that's all you have is a weak correlation. Virtually everyone with HIV has no disease, so extend the window to over a decade, never test the premise or control for confounders, find a few more people in the HIV positive group that get some abnormal blood tests or symptoms over 10 years, and that's the basis of your hypothesis.
Further reinforce your delusions by making the correlation an artifact of the definition. HIV with TB is AIDS, w/o is TB. Ignore all those who have HIV and no disease for decades.
If all I had was this weak correlation, I would be making excuses as well to not provide any evidence. You guys have failed to mention any details of any study/studies that prove causality, because if you did all you would do was really on the correlation, Like Robert Gallo did in Science magazine. A correlation where the cause and effect are seperated by more than a decade!
Rely on correlation.
Ttrrl,
Are you stupid? All antipsychotics do is reduce dopamine. So now you are reccomending those that disagree with the fact that a toxic drug AZT was prescribed in 1987 to people that were totally healthy when there was nothing in the scientific literature that proved HIV's causality be turned into braindead morons like you are?
Note these people have failed to cite or even summarize in their own one words one single scientific paper. Ok, lets try again. In 1987 a very dangerous chemotherapy AZT was approved for long term use for HIV infection, every Doctor was taught in medical school HIV was the cause of AIDS, The IOM dedicated billions in funding for a cure in 1985. Tara Smith and John Moore say the debate was ended during this time period.
Can you please cite or even just summarize the scientific papers that proved, what must have been a fact, Since AZT was approved etc., the overwhelming evidence that proved HIV's causality from this time period. Waiting. You are conceding there was no evidence to launch this plague on Americans if you don't respond with studies from this time period.
Note that cooler has failed to cite one single scientific paper, but asks others to :-) Oh, s/he/it does wave a few names around, but name-dropping never did anything for me. Nor does cooler look at the links provided which do include references... There's little point in wasting time when there are excellent sites with the information already laid out, as I linked to earlier.
I am not a scientist, and most of the information pretty much goes over my head. I am a 33 year old college student/artist who got bit by a little mosquito in August of 2006, and 2 weeks later was in bed for several months. I have been ill since. I lost my job, my life was put on hold for two years and now nothing works the same. I am in a financial mess thanks to medical expenses and lab work.
I have developed some sort of dyslexia, my memory is shot, I now have asthma, and my body is thrashed. I can't do the work I used to be able to do. The virus has killed my adrenal glands and now I have hypothyroidism. I was a healthy person before this.
I am not a fan of spraying, but I am also not a fan of never being the same as I was before becoming ill with West Nile.
What makes this illness more difficult for others to understand is that the CDC states that this illness is pretty much specific to the elderly. (like it makes it ok, because it's only the elderly!) I am part of a West Nile Survivors group and let me tell you, a majority of us on the group (200+and counting) are between the ages of 20-50.
All of us have been misdiagnosed, if not once, but many times. We have been told, "It's not West Nile you have...(enter any serious illness here)" by our doctors. The CDC claims that the illness is (usually) nothing more than "flu-like symptoms". I wish my symptoms would have been flu-like. Flu-like is tolerable. Having spinal pain shoot up to my head causing me to wake up screaming at 3 AM isn't flu-like. The 18 year old basketball player who was paralyzed for months... not flu-like.
I have been turned away from a doctor, who didn't know what to do for my ongoing symptoms. My life hasn't been the same since.
So, for the record, whatever this supposed "not a virus" virus is, it's deadly, it's scary, and it's not going away.
Interested in hearing more, from people who actually have experience?
Go here and check out our stories:
http://westnilevirussurvivorsfoundation.yuku.com/
I'd like Mr. Nagel to be in our shoes for a day... or a year. And I'd like to ask him, if I don't have West Nile, then what is it?
Anyhow, I just wanted to share my two cents after bumping on to this blog.
Oh simple, do a search on "mycoplasma incognitus" and another search for "Project day lily" and you'll find a microbe thats actually visible in the damaged tissues of several people that died of undiagnosed infections/AIDS pateints with the EM, actuallly kills monkeys inoculated, this is being found in Gulf war illness and in AIDS.
Luckily the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology was able to cure people near death with antibiotics like doxycyclinne and published their results.
This is how you prove a microbe is pathogenic in humans. Details of the 6 previously healthy adults tha died of mycoplasma incognitus infection in 1-7 weeks. No wonder those gulf war vets were so sick, they had this in their blood! This is an example of an original reference to prove a microbe is pathogenic. You guys are the true germ deniers!
EXAMPLE 21
M. fermentans incognitus Identified In Non-AIDS Patients
Six patients from six different geographic areas who presented with acute
flu-like ilnesses were studied. The patients developed persistent fevers,
lymphadenopathy or diarrhea, pneumonia, and/or heart, liver, or adrenal
failure. They all died in 1-7 weeks.
These patients had no serological evidence of HIV infection and could not
be classified as AIDS patients according to CDC criteria. The clinical
signs as well as laboratory and pathological studies of these patients
suggested an active infectious process, although no etiological agent was
found despite extensive infectious disease work-ups during their
hospitalization.
Post-mortem examinations showed histopathological lesions of fulminant
necrosis involving the lymph nodes, spleen, lungs, liver, adrenal glands,
heart, and/or brain. No viral inclusion cells, bacteria, fungi, or
parasites could be identified in these tissues using special tissue stains.
However, the use of rabbit antiserum and the monoclonal antibodies raised
against M. fermentans incognitus (Example 8), the pathogen shown to cause
fatal systemic infection in primates (Example 10), revealed M. fermentans
incognitus antigens in these necrotizing lesions. In situ hybridization
using a .sup.35 S labeled M. fermentans incognitus-specific DNA probe
(Example 18) also detected M. fermentans incognitus genetic material in the
areas of necrosis.
Furthermore, M. fermentans incognitus particles were identified
ultrastructurally in these histopathological lesions. M. fermentans
incognitus was associated with the systemic necrotizing lesions in these
previously healthly non-AIDS patients with an acute fatal disease.
Typical areas of necrosis due to the M. fermentans incognitus infection of
these patients are shown in FIG. 21. Most of the tissues which had massive
necrosis showed only minimal lymphocytic or histiocytic response and few
neutrophils (FIGS. 21A, B and C). FIG. 21A is a photomicrograph of splenic
tissue (x 30.5). FIG. 21B shows the peripheral margin of necrosis of 21A (x
153). FIG. 21C is a photomicrograph of lymph node tissue (x 15.25).
Occasionally, a chronic or acute inflammatory reaction could be identified
in the areas of necrosis (FIG. 21D). FIG. 21D is a photomicrograph of
adrenal gland tissue (x 153).
Representative samples of the immunostained tissues of these patients are
shown in FIGS. 22A-D. FIG. 22A is a photomicrograph of spleen tissue (x
80). FIG. 22B is a higher magnification of the margin of necrosis of 22A (x
353). FIG. 22C is a photomicrograph of lymph node tissue (x 257). FIG. 22D
is a higher magnification of cells with positive cytoplasmic staining of
22C (x 706). FIG. 22E is a photomicrograph of hemorrhagic necrosis in
adrenal gland tissue (x 706). The areas which displayed the highest
concentration of M. fermentans incognitus related antigens were often at
the margin of necrosis.
However, the necrotic center and peripheral unaffected areas had relatively
low reactivity. Most of the positively stained cells were identified as
lymphocytes or histiocytes in the lymph nodes and spleen, or reactive
mononuclear cells in the liver, lungs, adrenal glands and heart.
Immunostaining of control tissues with necrotizing lesions from patients
with cat scratch disease, Hodgkin's disease, malignant lymphoma,
cryptococcal fungal infections and hemorrhagic splenic tissues of Hairy
cell leukemia did not display a positive reaction. Serum obtained from the
same rabbit before immunizaiton with M. fermentans incognitus antigens also
failed to display a positive immunoreaction in the necrotizing lesions of
the six patients.
Using a .sup.35 S radiolabeled psb-2.2 M. fermentans incognitus DNA probe
(Example 18), strong labeling of clusters of cells at the margins of
necrosis of the affected tissues was observed. The affected tissues tested
were formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded spleen, lung, lymph node, adrenal
gland liver and bone marrow. The intensity of the labeling, or the number
of grains localized in the cells at the margin of necrosis was well above
the level present at either the necrosis (FIGS. 23A and B). However, there
were also clusters of apparently viable cells in the necrosis which were
also strongly labeled (FIG. 23C). FIG. 23A shows strong labeling of cells
at the peripheral zone of necrosis (x 76.5). FIG. 23B is a higher
magnification of 23A (x 422). FIG. 23C shows the occasional positive
labeling in an area of diffuse necrosis in the spleen (x 150). The inset of
23C is a higher magnification (x 422).
Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded liver and spleen tissues from a patient
with pancreatic carcinoma were used as negative controls, and showed no
labeling above background levels. A control probe of .sup.35 S labeled
cloning vector DNA, not containing psb-2.2 M. fermentans incognitus DNA did
not label any of the tested tissues (FIG. 23D). FIG. 23D is the same area
of FIG. 23C in the consecutive tissue section, hybridized with .sup.35 S
labeled cloning vector DNA not containing psb-2.2 M. fermentans incognitus
DNA (x 150) (i.e., control for 23C).
Areas of the necrotizing lesions which immunostained most positively for M.
fermentans incognitus specific antigens were examined by electromicroscopy.
Particles with characteristic ultrastructural features of M. fermentans
incognitus were directly identified in all the lesions. These particles in
the areas of necrosis, morphologically resembled M. fermentans incognitus
previously identified in Sb51 cells (Example 4) and in the tissues of
experimentally inoculated monkeys (Example 10). The particles were
heterogeneous in size and shape, with most particles being spherical and
about 140 to 280 nm in diameter. At the margin of necrosis, the M.
fermentans incognitus particles were located in the cytoplasm of cells with
apparently no cytopathic changes, or in fragments of cytoplasm from
completely disrupted cells (FIG. 24). FIG. 24 shows electron mircographs of
tissues derived from areas highly positive for M. fermentans
incognitus-specific antigens. FIG. 24A is an electron micrograph at a
margin of necrosis in adrenal gland tissues (Bar=1,000 nm). FIG. 24A.sub.2
is a higher magnification of 24A (Bar=100 nm). FIGS. 24B.sub.1, and B.sub.2
are electron micrographs of the peripheral zone of necrosis in lymph node
tissue (Bar=1,000 nm). FIG. 24B.sub.3 is a higher magnification of
24B.sub.2 (Bar=100 nm).
Table 5, below, summarizes the profiles and histopathological findings for
each of the six patients.
TABLE 5
__________________________________________________________________________
Summary of Patient's Profiles and Histopathological Findings
Tissue with necrotic
Duration
lesions identified
Personal
Salient clinical of illness by biopsy or at Patient
Profiles presentation (weeks) autopsy
__________________________________________________________________________
1 29-year old
arthralgia, myalgia, conjunc-
4.5 spleen, lung
black man
tivitis, persistent fever,
hypercalcemia, liver failure
(late), ARDs* (late)
2 33-year old
persistent fever, diarrhea,
7 lymph nodes, liver,
white woman
generalized lymphadenopathy,
spleen, kidneys
abnormal liver functions,
seizure (late)
3 40-year old
arthralgia, myalgia, sore
3.5 adrenal glands
white man
throat, chest pain, persis-
(bilateral), heart,
tent fever, malaise, diarrhea,
brain
finger numbness, comatose
(late)
4 31-year old
vomiting and diarrhea, tremor,
1.5 liver, spleen
black woman
fever, epigastric and chest
pain, abnormal liver functions,
headache
5 23-year old
Watery diarrhea, vomiting,
3 liver, heart
white man
jaundice, arthralgia, myalgia
6 33-year old
fever, malaise, nausea and
1 spleen, liver
black man
vomiting, myalgia and weakness,
liver failure and jaundice,
confusion and hallucinations
(late)
__________________________________________________________________________
*ARDS Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Lo SC; Shih JW; Newton PB 3d; Wong DM; Hayes MM; Benish JR; Wear DJ; Wang RY. Virus-like infectious agent (VLIA) is a novel pathogenic mycoplasma: Mycoplasma incognitus. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE, November 1989, volume 41, number 5, pages 586-600.
Lo SC; Dawson MS; Newton PB 3rd; Sonoda MA; Shih JW; Engler WF; Wang RY; Wear DJ. Association of the virus-like infectious agent originally reported in patients with AIDS with acute fatal disease in previously healthy non-AIDS patients. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL MEDICINE AND HYGIENE, September 1989, volume 41, number 3, pages 364-376
refrigerated head (aka cooler) says "and in AIDS"
but the extensive cut'n'paste s/he/it gives (why not just give a link, eh?) says:
could not be classified as AIDS
Moreover, the presence of a bacterium in itself doesn't establish that it caused an illness (bacterial infections can be secondary). Ironically if you did infer causality by mere presence, that would be 'by correlation', the very thing you keep objecting to.
First of all Lo et al. injected monkeys and got them die.
Fatal systemic infections of nonhuman primates by Mycoplasma fermentans (incognitus strain).
S C Lo, D J Wear, J W Shih, R Y Wang, P B Newton 3rd, J F Rodriguez
American Registry of Pathology, Department of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, D.C. 20306-6000.
Second if Was causing lesions in the affected organs, it's not just present. Also if these 6 people had extensive workups, normal immune systems and every other cause of death was ruled out, then it does prove causality. This is not a correlation, this is an extensive pathology report from capable scientists from the Armed forces institute of pathology, much more capable then boneheads like yourself and your pals.
Do you have any EM pics of HIV doing anything anywhere in an AIDS patient? An animal model? Just rely on correlation?
Here's where it was found in AIDS patients.
http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/1990/ATN09501.html
Has it ever occured to you that your "evidence" is going to need the style of evidence you object to? You're stuck in a self-contradictory loop of your own making ;-)
"Do you have any EM pics of HIV doing anything anywhere in an AIDS patient? An animal model? Just rely on correlation?"
EM pictures wouldn't prove anything by themselves: the presence of the organism in samples but itself is just a correlation (or association).
It doesn't matter what method you use to show presence (as long as its reliable), they are limited to showing presence, which is not the same as cause. (You write as if presence were shown by EM, as opposed to PCR, etc., it would somehow "mean more" and imply cause. Weird.)
There is also the practical point that getting an EM picture of a virus "in action" in vivo is difficult: it'd be rather more practical to use PCR or antibodies as pointed out to you earlier. (To put it politely, the suggestion is bit silly given better techniques exist. You're also travelling around in a loop here, as this has already been pointed out to you.)
Besides I'd like to see you do an EM of an integrated retrovirus :-) (Hint: make sure you know why I wrote this, before you jump on this.)
"Here's where it was found in AIDS patients." So? A lot of things are associated (correlated) with AIDS. Again, on its own it'd only be an association, a correlation.
More meaningfully, that's its present in patients doesn't mean it causes AIDS, just that its present. Your article also reports it as present in non-AIDS cases. A more obvious conclusion might be that its unrelated to AIDS but appears as a complication that a subset of AIDS patients acquire in addition to the primary infection, perhaps as an opportunistic infection, just as the title of the article you link indicates ;-) (hint, hint)
Anyways, back to the original topic, HIV. I've asked for the original evidence that HIV causes death in nearly every person from the mid eighties when AZT was approved etc. No one has been able to cite summarize a single paper, let alone several papers from this time period that justified this massive propaganda campaign of terror and AZT consumption.
Ok, Here is another question. What papers did all you people who call me "nuts" read that convinced you HIV caused death/"AIDS" in nearly every untreated person infected, and can you please briefly summarize them to make sure you even read the abstracts at least. Waiting.
Sidenote on mycoplasma
The pathologists at the AFIP cited 3 possibilities for M. incognitus. 1. It was an OI. 2. It was a co factor that helped HIV all along. 3. It was pathogenic in it's own right. They said the final consideration , that M incognitus, is pathogenic in its own right because they ruled it to be the cause of death in several previously healthy Non AIDS patients after an extensive autopsy an examination of damaged tissues with EM etc, and because when the microbe was isolated and grown in culture and injected into monkeys, they died with similar symptoms.
"They said the final consideration , that M incognitus, is pathogenic in its own right because they ruled it to be the cause of death in several previously healthy Non AIDS patients"
In other words, that its not related to AIDS as you earlier claimed. Thanks for correcting yourself.
I should have written, not the cause of AIDS (not, not related). Sorry, posting in a hurry; just clarifying my intended meaning here.
I never claimed mycoplasmas cause AIDS(Thirty previously known diseases?). Anyways, the silence is noted by all of you who have all the energy to name call can't answer a simple question. Here it is again.
What papers did all you people who call me "nuts" read that convinced you HIV caused death/"AIDS" in nearly every untreated person infected? Can you please briefly summarize them to make sure people know you even read the abstracts at least. Waiting.
Although it seems to be an article of crank faith that all of the evidence on any scientific topic, no matter how complex, can be comprehended--and even critiqued--on the basis of a few key papers by anybody who has taken a college science course or two, this is rarely, if ever, the case. Scientists do not base their opinions from reading a handful of papers, but upon the entirety of the evidence that they are familiar with; even somebody with only a nodding acquaintance of the field is likely to have read dozens of papers, while scientists actually working in the field will have read hundreds if not thousands. Not to mention the years of training required to properly comprehend and evaluate those papers.
Nevertheless, if you were seriously interested, and not simply issuing a foolish "name the papers" rhetorical challenge, a good place to begin would be the references listed here, as well as the references cited by those papers. This is by no means the totality of the evidence that has convinced virtually every biomedical scientist in the world that HIV is the cause of AIDS or that antiretroviral drugs extend life and health, but it is a starting point. Based upon your obvious lack of the basic knowledge needed to comprehend this work, I'd also advise you to read some basic graduate-level texts on molecular genetics, biochemistry, and virology. Even then, you probably won't be able to follow, much less evaluate, all of the reasoning. For reasons of space, original papers are written in a very compact form, and a fairly complex line of reasoning may be covered in a sentence or two, with the expectation that other scientists in the field will be able to fill in the gaps.
Why is it so hard to summarize the papers that you read that made you think as a fact HIV causes death in nearly every patient? Why do you make every excuse and spam the same site? Have you even read the studies on the site you spam, I doubt it since you can't even summarize anything from those studies that prove causality.
The first 10 studies or so on AIDS truth are all based on correlation, just tell us in your own words how these studies prove HIV kills almost every human infected. The rest of the studies deal with sexual transmission and then for the most part non placebo drug studies.
It's not that difficult. When Dr. Lo and his colleagues stated that M. Incognitus was pathogenic in its own right, in a few sentences they could explain why, it was found to be the cause of death after an extensive autopsy report in 6 previously healthy people that died in 1-7 weeks and it was seen damaging tissues with EM of these Non AIDS and also many AIDS patients, isolated it, grew it in culture and then caused a similar fatal disease when inoculated into primates. They didn't tell that pub med has "thousands" of hits for mycoplasma as their best evidence.
Scientists that believe Prozac is effective can easily summarize the few key pertinent papers. The IOM even cited and summarized the few key papers that they felt debunked the Thimerosal/Autism connection in 2004.
You're failure to summarize any evidence and hide behind some nebulous delusion of "mountains of evidence" attests to the bankruptcy of your position. You have nothing, which is why you convolute and evade the citing specific evidence to the utmost degree.
citing of
There is no way to provide a decent review of the massive evidence related to HIV and AIDS in a short comment. AIDSTruth.org provides links to multiple sites that link to the original literature, so it is a good place to start, but there are plenty more sites (many of them linked from the AIDSTruth site. Here's a NIH site for example. Like many other sites, it provides a basic explanation at a layman's level of understanding, but a basic explanation will not equip you to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence. If you want to be a skeptic rather than just a denier, then you have to do it the hard way, just as real scientists do: Study the basic texts to understand the methods and the reasoning, and spend hours reading the details of the original literature. Not everything can be explained in detail in a website comment.
Let me ask you, why do you keep demanding that somebody else explain this material to you? Why can't you look at it yourself? Yes, given that your knowledge of science is obviously very limited, you would have to do some background reading to understand, never mind critique, the original papers. But there are no short cuts to understanding--if somebody actually acceded to your demand to explain it all to you, it would still amount to many hours of reading. It is a big, complicated subject.
Once again, there are no shortcuts. A rational person would of course conclude, "This just seems like correlation to me, but I'm not a scientist. How likely is it that thousands of intelligent, highly educated, people all over the globe have spent years studying this subject and have reached different conclusions? Maybe I'm not really understanding the science as well as I think I am. Ten papers is a tiny fraction of the publications on the study. Maybe I should do additional reading to educate myself."
Of course, we know what an irrational person does: Post message after message insisting that if nobody will summarize the evidence to him convincingly in a blog comment, then the evidence must not exist.
Cooler, if the basis for performing those hundreds of thousands of experiments was faulty, they wouldn't work, and it would be back to the drawing board.
You are asking for the wrong thing.
Ttrl, You're a barrel of laughs. When it comes to rebut the orthodoxy you need to have read "hundereds" of papers, but to go along with it, you don't have to read that many at all, look at this excerpt from how they solicited signatures for the Durban Declaration!
"Many of you will say that HIV/AIDS is not your area. However over the years you have heard enough of the arguments to understand the association. Furthermore many of you know well infectious diseases and understand Koch's postulates."
LOL. To reinforce the orthodoxy you don't need much speciality in HIV, but to rebut it, you must be scientist of Robert Gallo's stature!
Sadly, the group of nameless HIV researchers that ttrl claims to be the only ones capable of deciding the issue have names, They are Gallo, Wainberg, Moore etc.
And when these brilliant minds defended the HIV hypothesis In Science magazine and in the Durban Declaration all they do is harp about a correlation where the cause and effect are seperated by 10 years where nothing was done to control for confounders, and babble about SIV which has never killed in a wild animal. News flash, even a 100% correlation doesn't prove causality, or else I should get the Nobel for discovering wrinkles cause death in old people!
Anyways, it brings me great enjoyment that none of you, many with advanced degrees in medicine, can not cite and breifly summarize the papers that led you to beleive HIV kills nearly every person infected, or cite the overwhelming evidence that Proved HIV's causal role in the mid eighties when AZT was approved, when every doctor was taught in medical school this was a fact etc.
For people who claim to be skeptical, you guys sure take things on faith without reading scientfic papers!
It's not that hard, just cite and breifly summarize ( so we can make sure you even read them) the scientific papers you read that convinced you HIV killed nearly every person infected. Waiting.
The Great Aids Hoax by TC Fry explains why there is no such thing as a virus.
One excerpt, paraphrased, "Believing the virus theory, is like believing that an ant, injects itself into an elephant, and causes the elephant to reproduce the ant,so many times, that the multiplied ants make the elephant explode!"
Come on.
Another site: http://www.virusmyth.com/
There's a big difference between an ant and a virus. For one thing, viruses do not truly "live" as ants do.
@ Brian Root: Doing a little necromancing and spamming, eh?
Why don't you get an education in the basic sciences and then look up virology on the Google U Wikipedia website?
Wow, this has got to be a Necromancing record. It took Mr. Root almost three years to come up with that fact-free comment!
He must have had his hand a car during that entire time. Though I would suggest that he would have earned more by actually going to a job for the past three years. Though we can't really expect rational choices from someone who is a "germ denier."
What's really sad is that Mr. Root and Mr. Fry think that analogy is clever. Apparently neither of them heard of tapeworms.
It's amazing that not only have scientists figured out the entire gene sequence of several imaginary viruses, but in some cases they have actually built viruses from their component parts, using those gene sequences.
@ Root/Fry